{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1120","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Budget","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1994/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Budget"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1120"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n7- 9-92 THU 10 14 Magnet Revieiv Committee 1900\n\\\north 1\\fain Street Suite 101 North Littk Rock, Arbnsn:\n72114 Donna Grady Crear E~8Clltivq oir~f::'jr Dec~mber 18, 1990 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, United States Distric~ Court F.astern District of Arkansas C. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. o. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: In September of 1990, the Little Rock School District presented the Magnet Review Committee with the proposed budget for the interdistrict magnet schools for the 1990-91 school year. This budgeted amount of $12,735,230 represents a $270.00 per student increase which results in bringing the per pupil expenditure from $3,100 to $3,370. During its December 4, 1990 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee adopted the 1990-91 budget proposed for the interdistrict magnet school program and changed the per pupil operational charge to $3,370 by a vote of 3 to 2, with one representative being absent. (This vote reflects a reversal of an earlier vote in which four votes were cast against the budget increase and two votes were cast for it.) In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the Magnet Review Committee is now submitting this proposed budget to the Court for its review. The programs are operating currently under the budget . adopted by the MRC, Your review and response regarding this action will be appreciated. We will await notification of your response regarding this action. Please contact our office should you need additional information. Sincerely,\n:t7:att\n=. ' Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Pulaski County Special School District [) . . /} \u0026lt;.l('~ ~., r(_ Dana Chadwick North Little Rock School District ~ J/4/24~rr- Marcia Harding L-Arkansas Department of Education P.02 7- 9-92 THU 10 15 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Page 2 4.-. -d._-\n,J Q. '~ I') Evelyn Ja son Joshua Intervenors !~/iL~ 1 Estelle Matthis Little Rock School District MRC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Magnet Review Committee C,\u0026amp;-4,,'to-t,\u0026lt;\u0026amp;!, c(~ Clearence Lovell Arkansas Department of Education ~yf~M~ ---------- 2,281,009 2,755,142 1,687,077 3,333 2,450 4,275 !:- ,,,. lSu 56,000 29,000 27,000 r.,,~ ~\nrpur 186,028 233,039 88,821 ~ ..... ,..,. tt~ate 81,972 106,455 60,889 ~  ,t.---f--\nCapita 29,195 31,436 24,071 t ~\n,),, ... ~\n.s.- 1,100 5,500 1.0112~(' trndire' ~~,i.~.\n:~~. lV !\n.:-n~M .. ,f,~. .t ,.h.,,l,,_\nGifte ( '\u0026lt;!\u0026lt;. ,Plan }~\u0026gt;,A\n~~ iRea 1~-X'Yo'.,)\u0026lt;,, tSde i'f~g-1 .. .~ .-- --------- 357,628 407,880 :ws,oss ----------- ----------- 2,638,637 3,163,022 1,892,133  :  . ' ~ 1,~ . ' ~l~:r\nr,1,,--fu'J! : :}t\ni\nf ----------- 1,427,244 12,509 15,000 85,873 75,042 12,675 700 201,799 ----------- 1,629,044 1,060,744 5,170 30:soo 42,025 34,718 21,306 ----------- 133,719 _______ \\ __ 1,194,463 1,075,181 172,389 137,433 ------- 1,385,003 2,000 27,500 61,210 48,500 19,753 --------- 158,963 --------- 1,543,966 8,441,022 1,160,699 994,497 --------- 10,596,219 29,737 185,000 696,998 407,576 138,436 7,300 369,322 47,300 38,487 2,000 40,000 6,880 972 2,558 26,957 --------- 1,999,522 ----------- 12,595,741 --=======:. ==========-= --------- 235,789 107,518 11,218 -J -j I C f--' rn 1) MAY-29-91 WED 17:46 U, S, DI ST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO, 7406096 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, vs. LR C 82 866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. l, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., MRS. KATHERINE KNIGH'l', ET AL,, ORDER P. 04 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRJCT ARKANSAS MAY 2 9 1991 ~~R~.,~ y DEP, CLERK PLAINTIFF, DEFD-.\"DANTS I INTERVENORS, INTERVENOR$, Without opposition, the proposed budget submitted by the Magnet Review Committee increasing -che per pupil operational charge to $3,370.00 is approved. DATED this 29th day of May, 1991, (JS/US\nAN~ WEBhBER ~IHT4 ' UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE '-.. .... Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 2, 1991 Ms. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: This letter is in response to your correspondence regarding the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet school budgets for the six stipulation magnets. As you may recall, the Magnet Review Committee, in its annual Report to the Court (Section IX, Interdistrict Magnet School Budgets, page 99, attached, dated May 27, 1991), called attention to the Magnet Review Committee's difficulty of cost containment due to the lack of input on hiring and personnel contract negotiations. The $312.00 per pupil increase requested on September 24, 1991, for this school year's proposed budget is largely due to increases in teacher salaries and Act 10 requirements. In some instances, expenditures other than teacher salaries were actually lower than the 1990-91 school year. The legend on the lower portion of the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet schools budget presented to the Court via your office on September 24, 1991 clearly delineates the areas of increase. The cover letter accompanying the budget also notes the reasons for the proposed increases. An item by. item review is best comprehended in a dialogue/reporting session. Such a session will be arranged upon request if needed. As usual, the Magnet Review Committee worked closely with the host district and the principals to assure the accurate and efficient expenditure of tax dollars. We are confident that every effort was, and is, being made to keep costs within reason. Ms. Ann Brown -2- December 2, 1991 The programs are operating and dollars are being expended. Therefore, a careful review and timely response to this request is appreciated. Sincerely yours, Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl I ' I : I I I i SECTION IX INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETS The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) adopted budget for operation of the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for the 1989-90 school year was $12,781,300.00. This figure was computed on a per pupil cost of $3,100 times a total seating capacity figure of 4,123 for the Interdistrict Magnet School Program for that school year. The fiscal year for expenditure of this budget was July 1, 1989, through June 30, 1990. Initially, each of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools was allotted a proportional share of funds to budget based upon its seating capacity. However, following close budgetary review, monies were shifted among the programs where necessary to accommodate program and services needs. The adopted budget was submitted by the MRC to the Court for approval. The Interdistrict Magnet School Program operated in accordance with the adopted budget during the 1989-90 school year. Final expenditures for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools during the 1989-90 school year were as follows: Mann Parkview Booker Carver Gibbs Williams TOTAL * Average Interdistrict Magnet Schools Cost Per Pupil 1989-90 (provided by Little Rock School District) 89-90 EXP ADM* PER PUPIL $2,598,149.00 880 2,952.44 $3,044,434.00 798 3,815.08 $1,849,132.00 633 2,921.22 $1,599,842.00 600 2,666.40 $1,130,522.00 337 3,354.66 $1,423,412.00 509 2,796.49 $11,645,491.00 3,757 3,099.68 Daily Membership The operating expenditures and per pupil cost rates varied across the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools. This variance is the same experienced within any school district, reflecting the general differences found in operating elementary versus secondary schools (junior and senior high schools) and special programs. In the magnet schools, the variance was also attributable to ongoing start-up costs of programs involving unique program design and the associated personnel, equipment and staff development needs. In summary, the total expenditure for the operation of the six (6) interdistrict magnet schools for the 1989-90 school year was $11,645,491.00 at an average per pupil expenditure of $3,100. The allocated budget ($12,781,300.00) was based on magnet school seating capacity (4,123) while the expended budget was based on the ADM of 3,757.00 (actual adjusted enrollment). The total expenditure is in keeping with the guidelines set forth by the Court for operation of the interdistrict magnet schools. While the Magnet Review Committee does not hire or evaluate interdistrict magnet school personnel, the effect of personnel contract negotiations on salary directly impacts the budget. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work with the host district in configuring the budget for the next year. However, it should be noted that cost  containment is difficult when teacher contract negotiations cause budget fluctuations beyond the Magnet Review Committee's control. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. 0 R D E R FILED US. DISTRICT COUA'T EASTERN OISTRl9f ARKANSAS MAR 161992 cARL / el:s, ~ By: Ir (l II 1 OEP. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) for approval of the 1991-92 magnet school budget proposal. The proposal was communicated to the Court in a letter dated September 24, 1991 and forwarded by the MRC to the court on October 9, 1991. submitted. The court has reviewed the budget and approves it as The Court notes that the 1991-92 budget for the six original magnet schools is $13,775,416.00, bringing the magnet school per pupil expenditure for the current school year to $3,682.00, This amount represents an increase of approximately $312.00 per pupil above the amount spent for each magnet school student in 1990-91. An increase in the magnet school budget has been requested by the MRC and granted by the Court for at least the past three budget cycles. The Court expects the MRC to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet school budget that will ensure efficient management of resources and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. The MRC has also asked the Court to approve a modification in the M-to-M transfer policy adopted by the school districts' Student Assignment Officers Committee in February, 1991. The M-to-M transfer policy had been included in a lengthy status report on interdistrict magnet school development and progress which was published in May 1991 and forwarded by the MRC to the court on June 19, 1991. There was no indication that the transfer policy contained in the report was a departure from previous policy or that the MRC was seeking Court approval of a policy modification. The change in M-to-M transfer policy is approved. In the future, the Court will consider Magnet Review Committee requests for approval of budget adjustments or changes regarding any other matter only if such requests {1) are made in a timely fashion, well in advance of the anticipated need for the change\n( 2) are presented in a communication written for the express purpose of presenting such proposal to the Court\n{3) are set in context, including a clear rationale for the request that contains an explanation of the circumstances or events which have prompted the request, the expected impact of the requested change, identification of those individuals, groups, programs or operations which will be affected by the change, and the anticipated date by which the change is needed. Any change requested by the MRC should not be implemented by that Committee nor the parties represented on that Committee prior to the court's approval. DATED this /~-1:--day of March, 1992. Tl-llS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN )MPLIANCE Wfn~LE 58 ANDtm~!?:a) FRCP J JN ,3- t1-'+). BY ___ J/5\n----~ ~2r~2r~ TED STATES DISTRICT UDGE I I I j LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR June 1, 1992 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Littl~ Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: 72201 ECEIVED JUN 1 1992 omce ot Desegregation Monitoring Attached are budget projections for the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as specified in the January 21, 1992 Court Order. The Order's requirement for a revised 1991-92 budget is met by Exhibit A showing the projected cost of certain desegregation programs in this year through agreement with Mr. Bob Morgan of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. A list of notes and assumptions is included and is an integral part of the document. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. Also attached is a procedure that the LRSD will use in future desegregation budgeting so that these costs can be more accurately known. The formats and procedures shown have been reviewed with Mr. Morgan, and we believe he understands and approves. We have stated to Mr. Morgan, however, that we view this as only a step in the process of working with his office on the definition and tracking of desegregation costs, and we will continue to work with him to perfect this process to our mutual benefit. Sincerely, ~~~r( -.Manager of SuppoJt Services JI/ch Attachment cc: R. R. Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring w/attachment c:\\project.wpd LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). Al though the LRSD implemented the TriDistrict Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. 2. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. 3. The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be done with accuracy, and for the District administration to do so precludes good faith negotiation. The ODM understands this problem but feels that projecting no increases presents an unrealistic picture. Consequently, they have asked us to use a 3% annual increase in these costs. We agree to do that but wish to publicly state that this represents no commitment or intent on the part of the LRSD. If the Court desires, we can present updated projections when these figures are known. We have also used a factor of 1% for inflationary increases in non-salary costs. 4. The LRSD is currently working to produce a balanced budget for 1992-93. Al though this cannot be completed until union negotiations are settled, programs must be reviewed and some must be cut in order to meet the legal requirement of a balanced budget. The projections herein assume that sufficient reductions will be made to balance the 1992-93 budget. These reductions will not result in violation of the Desegregation Plan nor of State law. These reductions are shown as a line item entitled 11 1992-93 Budget Reductions\". If the Court desires, we will define these reductions for the Court when they are known. 5. As stated in the previous paragraph, it is assumed that $7.7 million in expense reductions will be implemented in 1992-93 and carried forward. Additional shortfalls will occur if further reductions or increased revenues are not found. We are assuming a millage increase of five mills in September, 1993. This will not be required if sufficient reduction can be found. Note that the projections do not show use of the Desegregation loan in the revenues. It is our intent to use that as a reserve in the event that we cannot get millage rates increased at the time desired. The $1. 5 million available in 1992-93 may, however, have to be used to balance the budget. LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 6. Program #51-75, Incentive School Programs, requires discussion. In the years through the 1991-92 school year, the cost of programs in the Incentive Schools exceeded the mandatory level of two times the area school instructional cost per student. Since the programs are now functioning and the mandatory level is increasing, the mandatory funding level will exceed program costs in 1992-93 and beyond. Therefore, we have shown the cost of Incentive School programs in 1991-92 and have shown the mandatory funding level differential in 1992-93 and beyond. 7. The projections show the cost of programs that are funded by the revenue sources shown. Federal funds are utilized in some programs but are not shown in the expense. We don't show federal funds in our operating budgets and to do so here, we believe, would create confusion for the Court and for the public. We can provide information on federal funds if the Court desires. 8. Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. 9. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. We believe most of this is planned for. Any additional will be covered with second-lien issues. 10. The 1993-94 reduction in program #10, Academic Support Programs, reflects the completion of payments for PAL equipment. Some funding is added for replacement of this equipment. 11. The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not included in the projections because they are funded by federal grants or because their cost is small and the cost of tracking them exceeds the value of the information. The costs are not omitted\nthey are just not broken out. 12. The operating costs of the new King and Stephens Schools are shown as opening at the times requested in motions before the Court. If these motions are not granted, we can submit revised budgets if the Court desires. Operating costs in other schools are reduced somewhat upon the opening of these schools because 400 students will move to each of the new schools from others in the LRSD. 13. The fifth and sixth positions ( from the left) of the LRSD standard account code will be used for coding desegregation expenses. The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. 14. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified. Since most of this has been expended in previous years, the only significant one remaining is the PAL cost discussed above. Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. B. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number, so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. After the normal budget planning process is complete, a memo will be sent to each budget manager telling them what costs or types of cost may be charged to Desegregation and how they are to be coded. This will be agreed to by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager of Support Services. D. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will review Desegregation expenses monthly to assure proper charging. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 38,196,979 39,088,120 40,093,227 45,616,117 47,086,512 48,506,276 40% PULLBACK 21,081,833 21,736,595 25,253,744 25,996,645 26,766,307 27,518,335 DELINQUENT TAXES 3,900,000 3,500,000 3,805,000 3,819,150 3,933,725 4,051,736 EXCESS TREASURERS FEES 140,000 140,000 141,400 142,814 144,242 145,685 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 400,000 365,000 368,650 372,337 376,060 379,820 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 225,000 227,250 229,523 231,818 234,136 MISC. AND RENTS 420,850 461,000 484,050 508,253 533,665 560,348 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 300,000 309,000 318,270 327,818 337,653 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 85,000 85,000 86,700 88,434 90,203 92,007 TOTAL 64,749,329 65,900,715 70,769,021 77,091,542 79,490,349 81,825,996 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 28,118,907 28,118,907 28,759,387 29,419,081 30,102,462 30,862,449 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 SETTLEMENT LOAN 4,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 VOCATIONAL 1,474,485 1,500,000 1,545,000 1,591,350 1,639,091 1,688,263 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 629,752 675,000 742,500 816,750 898,425 988,268 EARLY CHILDHOOD 147,050 147,050 154,403 162,123 170,229 178,740 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 TRANSPORTATION 2,983,190 3,100,000 3,348,000 3,615,840 3,905,107 4,217,516 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 874,311 875,000 918,750 964,688 1,012,922 1,063,568 M TO M TRANSFERS 1,798,665 2,490,900 3,248,910 3,760,540 4,140,580 4,491,150 ADULT EDUCATION 624,119 653,094 672,687 692,867 713,653 735,063 TOTAL 49,864,380 46,562,976 47,560,167 47,142,248 46,488,830 44,984,560 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 44,625 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANT 111,453 112,000 116,480 121,139 125,985 131,024 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 800,000 600,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 TOTAL 956,078 752,000 551,480 451,139 350,985 251,024 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 115,654,206 113,300,110 118,965,087 124,769,348 126,414,583 127,146,000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I 3,370,820 4,474,288 4,563,774 4,655,049 4,748,150 4,843,113 CHAPTER II 224,423 215,020 219,320 223,707 228,181 232,745 TITLE VI B 558,810 569,986 581,386 593,014 604,874 616,971 OTHER 1,735,885 1,770,603 1,806,015 1,842,135 1,878,978 1,916,557 TOTAL 5,889,938 7,029,897 7,170,495 7,313,905 7,460,183 7,609,386 REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 15,332,277 TOTAL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 15,332,277 TOTAL REVENUE 135,431,985 134,494,661 140,583,529 146,820,159 148,906,410 150,087,663 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES \u0026amp; MATERIALS OTHER OBJECTS CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY BUDGET REDUCTION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 07-14-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 67,748,508 71,437,088 73,765,037 75,316,854 76,822,807 7,808,935 9,022,067 9,202,509 9,386,558 9,574,290 16,910,424 19,141,451 18,887,119 22,144,629 24,940,080 6,791,207 6,992,544 7,202,320 7,418,390 7,640,942 3,817,539 3,927,703 4,045,534 4,166,900 4,291,907 887,696 755,079 777,731 801,063 825,095 1,606,543 1,621,715 1,670,366 1,720,477 1,772,092 8,718,196 9,597,115 9,090,123 8,845,248 8,258,921 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 (7,700,000) (7,931,000) (8,168,930) (8,413,998) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 114,289,048 115,294,762 117,309,739 122,331,189 126,512,136 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANT 5,889,938 7,029,897 7,170,495 7,313,905 7,460,183 EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOL 13,887,841 14,164,654 14,447,947 14,736,906 15,031,644 TOTAL EXPENSES 134,066,827 136,489,313 138,928,181 144,382,000 149,003,963 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN 1,365,158 (1,994,652) 1,655,348 2,438,159 (97,553) FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 ENDING FUND BALANCE 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 1996-97 79,373,940 9,765,775 25,864,401 7,870,170 4,420,664 849,848 1,825,255 8,041,468 900,000 (8,666,418) 130,245,103 7,609,386 15,332,277 153,186,767 (3,099,103) 4,001,302 902,199 Exhibit A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRiCT EXPENDITURE PROJECTION BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER OPERATING DESEG FEDERAL MAGNET TOTAL SALARY FUND GRANTS SCHOOLS 1105 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA 52,349.84 44,337.94 204,356.00 301,043.78 1110 KINDERGARTEN 2,795,060.64 325,000.00 425,733.12 3,545,793.76 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 28,811,085.64 7,562,955.21 6,686,389.30 9,069,517.95 52,129,948.10 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 4,037,827.87 1,224,081.75 11,626.28 362,373.04 273,945.79 5,909,854.73 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 4,071,829.27 1,238,599.52 118,050.36 351,162.00 601,212.16 6,380,853.31 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 698,543.12 35,608.75 130,509.54 864,661.41 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 756,490.90 537,715.75 1,649,581.34 3,522,602.96 6,880.00 6,473,27u.95 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 1,156,944.86 214,094.16 67,162.00 187,848.98 1,626,050.00 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2,598,700.99 1,102,812.86 317,475.66 428,580.73 651,786.63 5,099,356.87 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2,684,664.92 2.on,880.91 1,653,162.72 444,781.18 423,530.00 7,284,019.73 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 183,975.48 734,945.29 4,265,335.80 115,554.79 5,299,811.36 2410 PRINCIPAL'$ OFFICE 3,939,101.54 1,861,405.13 107,044.21 1,195,556.85 7,103,107.73 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 16,625,075.77 710,699.21 3,000.00 1,051,829.76 18,390,604.74 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 290,883.38 2,194,315.26 510,528.09 2,995,726.73 3000'S COMMUNITY SERVICES 839,750.00 640,566.28 464,212.24 1,944,528.52 5100 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS 8,718,196.00 8,718,196.00 TOTAL 51,378,915.33 45,999,708.67 16,910,424.00 5,889,938.48 13,887,841.24 134,066,827.72 July 8, 1992 OFRCE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee do Pulaski County Special School District P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Dear Bobby: The court needs additional information so that it may consider the Magnet Review Committee's proposed 1992-93 budget for the six original magnet schools. This information is necessary to comply with the court's March 16, 1992 order requiring that MRC requests be set in context and include a clear rationale. Furthermore, because of the acute financial difficulties currently experienced by all three school districts, it will be necessary to justify the requested budget in some detail. As you know, the court is mandated to scrutinize the parties' fiscal responsibility and accountability in relationship to the desegregation plans which, of course, include the magnet schools. To assist the court, please provide the following information: 1. Explain why the total 1992-93 magnet school budget is projected to be greater than the 1991-92 budget.  The requested 1992-93 budget of $14,164,654 is an increase of $389,238 over the 1991-92 budget of $13,775,416. The MRC proposal states that per-pupil expenditures will remain at the 1991-92 level of $3,682, yet it is not clear how the per-pupil amount can remain constant while the total budget rises, especially since the amount of the increase is not equal to the perpupil expenditure multiplied by the projected increase in student enrollment. 2. Explain step by step the process the MRC used in reaching the proposed 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal, including the method and results of independent MRC fact finding. 3. The committee's May 26, 1992 letter to Judge Wright states that the budget was approved on May 12, 1992 by a unanimous vote of those in attendance. Which MRC members attended the May 12 meeting? July 8, 1992 Page Two 4. What budget cost-cutting measures were considered by the MRC? 5. How will the MRC ensure that the 1992-93 magnet budget recommendation is aligned with the cost-containing budgets of the three school districts, especially that of the LRSD where a new superintendent must construct a significantly reduced 1992-93 district operating budget? 6. Section IX of the May 27, 1991 MRC annual report refers to some cost variations that are attributable to the \"ongoing start-up costs\" of certain magnet programs. Do these \"start-up\" costs remain \"ongoing\" in the 1992~93 budget? If so, provide details of what is considered start-up, the cost of each start-up factor, why the start-up phase has been prolonged, and when the start-up phase will be concluded. 7. Explain why indirect costs, vocational, athletics, gifted programs, plant services, reading, science, English, and special education are listed as separate line items. Even though these items have appeared separately on the magnet school budget for some years, it is not clear why they are separate. Also explain specifically how each of these items is related and apportioned to the operation of each magnet school. 8. What accounts for the increase in the amounts for purchases services and indirect costs? 9. When may the court expect to receive the MRC's 1991-92 annual report so the court can consider the proposed budget in conjunction with the MRC's evaluation of the magnet schools and any changes in their operation the committee may suggest? My associates and I will be glad to discuss any aspect of the magnet schools' budget if you'd like for us to get together. However, a formal response to this letter will be necessary so the court has the benefit of a written record. Thank you very much for your help. Very truly yours, Ck-- Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright Donna Grady Greer OCT 6 19~2 Office of oesegr.zgation t\\ionitormg IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRI CT NO:\"~1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT ~ASTEflN DISTPIW ARKANSAS OCT O 2 1992 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has received and filed of record a letter from the Magnet Review Committee concerning recent budget cuts by the Little Rock School District and the impact of those cuts on the six original magnet schools. The Committee sent a copy of the letter to the attorneys of record in this case. The parties are directed to file any response they might have to the Magnet Review Committee letter of September 28, 1992, within ten (10) days from the date of entry of this Order. ~ DATED this / day of October, 1992. THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE Wl}H RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP 0N I[  2 -C!ce BY ____r_. _ ___ (  Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 28, 1992 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 DEC 2 8 19j2 (50 1) 758-01 56 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Offtee of Desegregation l,fonrto1 9 U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 1, 1992 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the , 1992-93 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,278,796, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,682.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,878 students. Of this amount, $86,469 is designated as contingency. While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. For the 1991-92 school year, the same per pupil expenditure figure was used for budgeting interdistrict magnet school monies. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: 1) In keeping with the Court's March 16, 1992 Order, which required the Magnet Review Committee to submit budgets to the Court for review and approval well in advance of the need for funds, the Magnet Revi ew Committee forwarded a preliminary budget to the Court on May 26, 1992. In that May 26, 1992 budget transmittal letter, the Magnet Review Committee made the Court aware of factors that could impact the budget. Included in that letter was a statement expressing the MRC's reluctance \"to endorse any blanket reduction of costs that would possibly have a deleterious effect on programs.\" Judge Susan Webber Wright -2- December 28, 1992 2) The Court, via the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, asked the MRC to provide a budget which would better reflect the total figure needed to operate the magnets for the 1992-93 school year. 3) The MRC received information on proposed LRSD budget cuts, which would have eliminated 14.9 FTE positions in the interdistrict magnet schools. In a special meeting held in the MRC Office on July 23, 1992, LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE positions rather than 14.9 FTE. As a normal part of the budgeting process, the MRC met with each interdistrict magnet school principal to review their budgets and get input as to how budget cuts would impact their program. As a result of this meeting, the MRC approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE positions, with LRSD being requested to reinstate the same individual staff members who had been impacted by those cuts. The LRSD agreed to reinstate cuts but declined to reinstate the same personnel. 4) The MRC forwarded a letter to the Court on September 28, 1992 seeking the reinstatement of the affected personnel. The Court ordered reinstatement in a November 5, 1992 Order. 5) The MRC reviewed the revised LRSD budget figures at the MRC meeting on December 1, 1992 and, upon determining that the figures had been adjusted t9 reflect the reinstatement of the 3.9 FTE positions, approved the budget which is attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1992-93 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Judge Susan Webber Wright -3- December 28, 1992 The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ~Jlralk- Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Dr. Mac Bernd, Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) Cc  1991.:+9.:i -.ic\\ /' ,,:,._.,,,.,,. c/ci:CC:,c 1992':\"9:3 /- b  F.T:E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $356,933 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $481 ,040 Specialists 37.4 $1 ,274,519 36.2 $1,267,906 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $385,806 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $224,756 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,528 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $255,724 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $168,457 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 178.6 $5,243,059 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $158,428 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $419,788 Fringe Benefits(20) X)Q(XX* $1 ,068,359 xx:xxxxx $1,185,445 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $10,597,663 288.6 $10,636,870 Secretaries 18.0 $301 ,141 17.0 $310,176 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $153,326 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $356,721 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $111,191 Other-Aides 39.S $316,035 39.S $325,514 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $185,965 xxxxxx:l( - $227,463 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $1,406,433 97.4 $1,484,391 Utilities xxxxxxxi $601,780 mxx,\u0026amp; $627,700 Travel xxxxxx:ic Maintenance Agreements xxxxx?6( xx:xxxxx $166,508 xxxxxxx. $195,093 TOT AL (30) ~#XX $768,288 xAA~#. $822,793 Principal's Office xi1006qc Regular Classroom xx:xxxl{XI $379,717 $59,072 Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (40) $399,942 5dix.~~ $438,789 Equipment $120,394 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $120,394 Dues and Fees $5,895 Other TOTAL (60) $8,358 $5,895 TOT AL (30-60) $1,288,412 $1,387,871 TOT AL (1 0-60) 393.4 $13,292,508 386.0 $13,509,132 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) $595,333 $769,664 GRAND TOTAL $13,887,841 $14,278,796 Stipends $0 $46,609 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education Contingency xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx $503,365 $521,176 $30,837 $35,000 $31,231 $35,000 $0 $2,000 $18,271 $25,000 $5,334 $6,880 $0 $972 $2,368 $2,558 $3,927 $8,000 $0 $86,469 * 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3878.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $14,278,796 * While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated.  ~2-93 Budget Proposal' ::nrn\u0026gt;tc :  . '  \". 1991-92   '   1992-93 BookecMagnet School  ..... : I] !\n:..\nf\ni::i:) ...... t F.T.E, ? Salaries yi  F,T.E, Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $48,442 STAFF r.A-s~st-.~P~rin-.--------t---:1~.o::-+-~$5~4~.~52~6=-+--1-.0::-+-----'-$-5~2,~5~93=---l Specialists 6.0 $350,341 6.0 $356,951 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $45 ,325 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,366 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 31.2 $751,321 31.2 $758,861 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,878 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,467 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,649 $23,328 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $112,766 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxx'.*- $172,697 ~~~: $181,564 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,689,129 47.9 $1,699,540 SUPPORT Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $31,661 STAFF rN-u-rs_e_s----------t---:-1-.0t ----:-$-2'4-,9-7-6+ ---+----,--,-- 1.0 $25,725 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Custodians 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $45,502 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $75,045 Fringe Benefits(20) xpc~iac $28,550 xx:xxxxx $34,827 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $201,301 16.0 $212,760 Utilities $81,637 xflb\u0026amp;x:xt $83,ooo Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $27,963 xltj(*-x5( $27,552 TOTAL (30) $109,600 xx:#xxx $110,552 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $54,789 Media $5,672 Other TOTAL (40) $60,461 Equipment $14 ,00Q Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $14,000 Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,718 63.9 $2,097,313 TOTAL LINE m MS- (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL *fxf6Hof $2,152,746 x#6obat $2,19a,8o5 !ii@~~~~1~:\n~\n~iji1~ : ~~\n~:\n1ii::\n  Stipends $8,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $85,830 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $3,016 $4,127 Reading $883 $1,137 Science $159 English $394 $419 Special Education $648 $1,321 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx e.~J106iiP.6$tJ%!:t\nt:Jltd% 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,198,805 ?ef'Ptlpil'Cost'tIIttr: h , t%@$~}4ZZ\\\" {lt\nt$~M~S{ Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1~92-~3 Budget proB9~aC: ... . t 1991-9~  1992-9 Ci!rv~(M~~~e(crh=oo-t\"\u0026lt;: --:----:-~~-~~~\"-t+ F. ......1.. ~\\E-:- \", -St-a~la--r'i-e-s'- A-+- -i-f- -F-.'T--.E+.- \"-=S-a=l-acri.e.=s,- =----j CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,981 STAFF r.A-s~st-.~P~rin-.---------t---:1~.o::-+---'-$~3~1.~3~28.c..+--1~.0.::...+----=$~3~2~.2~6~8 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $224,912 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $46,311 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,748 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $596,866 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $28,744 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,640 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,695 $23,376 Other-Kindergarten' 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $99,303 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx $137,204 xxxxxxx $155,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,320,263 42.6 $1,341,783 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $52,743 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,795 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $42,578 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11 .0 $83,777 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxX $30,621 ~xxx $41 , 156 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $233,430 19.0 $250,049 Utilities Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOTAL {10-60) ~~6{ $68,924 i9\u0026lt;,gxxx $79, 1 oo $22,843 ~  $91,767 ~  $22,128 ~~ $22,128 ~lq{ $2,857 ~  63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 $26,900 $106,000 $64,100 $12,000 $78,100 $16,290 $16,290 $1,020 $1,020 $1,791,242 TOTAL LINE IT! MS - (SECOND PAGE) $100,269 GRAND TOTAL $1,891,510 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $82,855 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,912 $3,984 Reading $852 $1,097 Science $153 English $380 $405 Special Education $625 $1,275 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,891,510 PerRut:\u0026gt;JJ ... cosf f,J@: mwt :trnrt~a\no35@tt tm~s:ns~r Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1@2-93 Budget ProposaF : :\n:{ \n:t: '., ,,,, 't '\n, ,, ...  1991 ... 92/\u0026lt; !Pfa~.Migm~!:#r0:0:1: \"\"\":\"\"\"\"'-:\"\"--'-:~=~r= F'-.T'-.E\".= =S=al'a\"r\"ieis- ---+-----+---+--- C ER TI FIE D Principal 1.0 F.T.E. Salaries $55,462 STAFF ~A-s~st-.~P~rin-.--------+-----=-1~.o:-+---:-=-::-'--:-':-::-+----:--::-+----'-~ 1.0 $57,126 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $164,307 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,766 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $490,762 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $49,414 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,081 $10,384 Other-Kindergarten ' 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $58,274 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx: $109,125 xxxxxxx $122,647 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $1,070,536 31 .3 $1,126,941 SUPPORT Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 1.0 $12,873 f-------------+---+------'--+- S TAFF Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $15,023 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) t--------------+---+-----+- C us to di ans 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $42,275 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $46,903 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXJQl:XX $20,314 XXX)()(X.X $23,254 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $133,977 10.8 $140,327 Utilities x~~xx $35,102 x\u0026gt;QClodat $38,300 Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $13,000 TOTAL (30) $51,300 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $29,668 Media $6,400 Other TOTAL (40) $36,068 Equipment $12,920 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $12,920 Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) $0 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 42.1 $1,367,556 TOTAL LINE IT:MS - (SECOND PAGE) $59,203 GRAND TOTAL $1,426,759 Stipends $7,009 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $47,713 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $1,676 $2,294 Reading $491 $632 Science $88 English $219 $233 Special Education $360 $734 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 353.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,426,759 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - g~~~~:.~~~~~e\n.\n~~~1~:::.:\nJ\n::1\n~:Ji'.::::\nI::\n lji:\n111~: i[j :.: ! ~~~9~ ::\naries  . ~~!~gs Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $64,070 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 .$144,375 3.0 $148,706 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $103,259 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $75,935 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $40,083 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $194,384 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,846 Gifted Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,344,079 Substitutes $45,577 $46,944 Other Fringe Benefits(20) xx\nx)O(xx $245,140 xx:xxxx:x  $275,053 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,440,016 64.3 $2,339,360 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $51,267 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,608 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $69,062 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $31,556 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $50,084 Fringe Benefits(20) XX:X~?CX $30,713 *~\u0026gt;tx( $37,395 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $257,637 14.5 $270,972 Utilities #xxxxx' $164,666 x5.cxxx5t $168,300 Travel Maintenance Agreements Other $60,941 TOTAL (30) $213,554 x~~xx $229,241 Principal's Office Regular Classroom $85,000 Media $11,000 Other TOTAL (40) $96,000 Equipment $28,Q00 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) $28,000 Dues and Fees $1,375 Other TOTAL (60) $1,470 $1,375 TOT AL (30-60) $328,253 $354,616 TOT AL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 $2,964,948 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) $143,218 $162,358 GRAND TOTAL $3,169,124 $3,127,306 Stipends $8,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $117,877 Vocational $13,141 $15,600 Athletics $9,202 $10,440 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $5,668 Reading $1,209 $1,559 Science $220 English $537 $580 Special Education $890 $1,814 xxxxxx xxxxxx \\ xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 890.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,127,306 ae:r@mraost:t:::1,r::1: ::::Jr trnrrn::$$.ip~J :rn:m%J$.ii'$1\\ft Date Submitted - Principal 's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - J99:i\n~j Budget Proposal '' .,, . ..- , .. .,,. ''   1991-92 ...... 1992.:.93  =,=, E~f\u0026amp;'.!iW,=:Mi9D~JSchoot)@  ,,. },'.'',/{ d= ,.....F-T. -_-E-. -s-a~la-ri-es_ ..........- +-F-.T -.-E. --+-S-a-la-ri_e_s ---1 ~:---:-':--\"-=~.c...:.:\n..==\"-'~\"'----'=t---=t-::...:.:...:__:_..:..__-+...:...:...:..::..:...-+=-===-----1 CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $63,212 t----'--------------+----+------'---'...:....:....-+-----'-:..+----=-.::..=.c..::....:..:::...j STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $1.50,132 3.0 $154,636 t-=--:---:---,,-----------+----+------'--+----+-...:____:...:....:....~ Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $283,515 Counselors 3.0 $132,577 3.0 $136,735 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $34,028 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $295,144 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $47,994 Gifted Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,394,697 Substitutes $42,409 $43,682 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxxx $271,685 XX:XXXXX . $302,475 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,762,168 66.6 $2,796,790 SUPPORT Secretaries t--------------+-----+------'---+-----+---- 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $129,665 S TAFF Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $19,117 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $107,724 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $77,316 5.0 $79,635 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $23,821 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxxx' $49,690 xx:xxxxx $57,550 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $399,168 21.6 $417,512 +% , : 'ff 0tAC.ti\u0026lt;\u0026gt;t2on1 tr mt. xxxxxxx tl$s\n1s1\nau: x~~xi( @t-$s:214.\nao1 PURCHASED Utilities xxxxx~: $208,483 xxxx:ib\u0026amp;: $210,000 SERVICES Travel (30) Maintenance Agreements Other $48,700 TOTAL (30) $247,575 xx'.x\u0026gt;..\u0026lt;ldf $258,700 MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom $100,850 (40) Media $17,000 Other TOTAL (40) $117,850 CAPITAL Equipment $37,000 OUTLAY Building Repair, etc. (50) Other TOTAL (50) $37,000 OTHER Dues and Fees $3,496 m~ $3,500 (60) Other TOTAL (60) $3,496 $3,500 TOTAL (30-60) $393,671 $417,050 TOT AL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,631,351 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) $158,509 $172,976 GRAND TOTAL $3,713,516 $3,804,327 UiieltetnCosts~ r  ..... ::::\n: ..  : t  !ttiSli:Filpiii~atii\nHJ 1 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. Total Costs Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - I 1991-92 1992-93 $3,000 $112,135 $116,341 $17,696 $19,400 $22,029 $24,560 $4,071 $5,566 $1,182 $1,530 $221 $520 $577 $876 $1,781 1991-92 1992-93 837.6 870.0 $3,713,516 $3,804,327 LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $66,102 STAFF r.A-s-st~. ~P~ri-n.--------+-~1~.0-+---'-$~35~,~8~40-+--1-.0-+--=$~3~6~,9~15=--l Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $134,962 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,830 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,765 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21 .0 $657,794 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $32,848 Gifted 2.0 $58 ,913 2.0 $60,680 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,402 $10,714 Other-Kindergarten ' 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $108,775 Fringe Benefits(20) XXXXXXX. $132,508 xx.xxxxx $148,072 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,315,549 35.9 $1,332,458 SUPPORT Secretaries f-------------+---+----'--+----+---- S TAFF Nurses f---------- ---+---+-----+-----+---- C us to di ans 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $31,967 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $32,058 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $49,580 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $45,884 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxxxx:x $26,076 xx.xxxx:x $33,281 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $180,920 15.5 $192,771 PURCHASED Utilities xxlbo6\u0026amp; $42,968 xxxxxxx $49,ooo SERVICES Travel xxxxx* xxxxxxx (30) Maintenance Agreements xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x Other $18,000 TOTAL (30) $59,227 xx:xxxxx: $67,000 MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom $44 ,4 n mxxx.t $45,310 (40) Media $7,000 Other TOTAL (40) $51,454 xxx~ $52,310 CAPITAL Equipment $12,184 OUTLAY Building Repair, etc. (50) Other TOTAL (50) $12,184 OTHER Dues and Fees (60) Other TOTAL (60) $535 $0 TOT AL (30-60) $126,200 $131,494 TOT AL (10-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51 .4 $1,656,723 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) $71,665 xxxxxx:i( $86,895 GRAND TOTAL $1,694,335 $1,743,618 t..ihti\"ifuitfcosts'#i:\\ViC  ---.,  .::::: ::\n: :',~0\"::: r \u0026gt;  ..   Arti'p6'~11'hatib(l I I ~~\n:\n~r ' 1992-93 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $70,560 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,455 $3,361 Reading $717 $925 Science $131 English $318 $344 Special Education $528 $1,075 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx RE!tiBilbifcbst%i@@:@%ViMI: 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 517.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,743,618 P~rtf{iJptlC6~f% ,,,/%/ :FL, :$$'\n3~fS{ n:]}$3)Sta Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suit~ 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 JUL 1 7 iS92 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director Oifice of Desegrcga::cn 1.,vnit0ring (501 ) 758-0156 TO: FROM: SUBJ: DATE: Bob Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Altom${t't1ir, Magnet Review Committee Response to Letter from Ann Brown July 17, 1992 Attached herewith is a copy of the MRC response to the subject letter. Per our discussion, this is for your perusal prior to our meeting at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 21, 1992. At this meeting, we can respond to any questions that might arise. If you need additional information prior to our meeting, you may contact me or contact the Magnet Review Committee Office at 758-0156. I look forward to our meeting on Tuesday. BA/DGC:sl Attachment RESPONSE TO ODM REGARDING INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS  BUDGET INFORMATION 1) Explain why the total 1992-93 magnet school budget is projected to be greater than the 1991-92 budget. The interdistrict magnet school per pupil expense of $3,682.00 is the amount for both the 1991-92 and the 1992-93 fiscal years. The ADM used to compute the 1991-92 interdistrict magnet schools budget is 3,741.29. The 1992-93 ADM figure of 3,847 results in a difference of 105.71. 105.71 times 3,682 is exactly $389,238. 2) Explain step by step the process the MRC used in reaching the proposed 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal, including the method and results of independent MRC fact finding. The MRC made every effort to comply with the Court's Order dated March 16, 1992. In this Court Order, we were told to present requests well in advance of the need for approval. A discussion of the interdistrict magnet schools' 1992-93 budget was on the April 21, 1992 MRC agenda. Minutes from that meeting indicate that the MRC directed Estelle Matthis to work with LRSD to bring a draft budget to the MRC on or before May 1, 1992. In our opinion, independent fact finding would mean that an outside individual would be employed or contracted to investigate the interdistrict magnet schools budget-making process. We have not found it necessary to go this route. Jim Ivey, Support Services Manager at LRSD, and Mark Milhollen, Controller for LRSD, presented the rationale for budget changes to the MRC. In the past, the MRC has invited the principals of each interdistrict magnet school to an MRC meeting to explain costs, especially where a significant increase was requested or a substantial decrease was recommended. No substantial changes of any type were predicted at this time. Changes in administrative costs were due to extraneous Central Office/State/ Court-ordered mandates, and not due to changes made by principals. 3) The Committee's May 26, 1992 letter to Judge Wright states that the budget was approved on May 12, 1992 by a unanimous vote of those in attendance. Which MRC members attended the May 12th meeting? Members attending the May 12, 1992 MRC meeting were as follows: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD Marcia Harding, ADE Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Estelle Matthis, LRSD Members absent were: Clearence Lovell, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors A proxy vote for Clearence Lovell was cast by Marcia Harding. 4) What budget cost-cutting measures were considered by the MRC? The MRC talked with the LRSD representative prior to placing a review of a draft budget on the agenda. The district was asked to be conservative since the MRC did not want to raise the per pupil expenditure. Several conversations were held with the host district for the purpose of cost containment. Cost-cutting carries a connotation of cutting services. Our objective was (and is) to retain quality, integrity and attractiveness of programs. The Court has repeatedly stated that the desegregation plan is to be implemented without regard to economic factors. The MRC has always viewed its role as one of maintaining the quality of the interdistrict magnet school program while exercising fiscal restraint. Each MRC party agreed to maintain the current level of per pupil expenditure. The MRC has always been fiscally responsible and empathetic to the financial status of all its parties. 5) How will the MRC ensure that the 1992-93 magnet budget recommendation is aligned with the cost-containing budgets of the three school districts, especially  that of the LRSD where a new superintendent must construct a significantly reduced 1992-93 district operating budget? By design, the MRC is a body that is to \"oversee the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program.\" The funding of the interdistrict magnet schools, by design, comes from the three districts and.the State. 1/2 of the operating costs for the interdistrict magnet schools is borne by the State, with the remaining 1/2 of the costs shared by the three school districts. The MRC also recognizes that personnel costs typically account for about 80% of a school's budget. The MRC will be receptive to any fiscal options that do not hinder program effectiveness. The districts are least likely to make significant reductions in interdistrict magnet schools - key components of the desegregation plan. Even though the districts may be reducing in areas of the overall budget, the districts have to be cautious not to take cuts in any area that will adversely affect desegregation. 6) Section IX of the May 27, 1992 MRC annual report refers to some cost variations that are attributable to the \"ongoing start-up costs\" of certain magnet programs. Do these \"start-up\" costs remain \"ongoing\" in the 1992-93 budget? If so, provide details of what is considered start-up, the cost of each start-up factor, why the start-up phase has been prolonged, and when the start-up phase will be concluded. Not all components of the magnet school theme areas were initiated at the opening of the programs, but were phased in over a period of years. The curriculum guides for each school determine when and if additions or updates of programs initially implemented at that school are needed. At this time, the preliminary budget most likely has few, if any, new start-up costs. The MRC will continue to closely examine each school's needs to determine if, in fact, the variance from school to school is due to ongoing start-up costs or ongoing specialty/magnet program costs. 7) Explain why indirect costs, vocational, athletics, gifted programs, plant services, reading, science, English, and special education are listed as separate line items. Even though these items have appeared separately on the magnet school budget for some years, it is not clear why they are separate. Also, explain specifically how each of these items is related and apportioned to the operation of each magnet school. One of the early Court Orders establishing the interdistrict magnet schools allows indirect costs. A district accounting practice holds each interdistrict magnet school accountable for funds expended from that department. For example, if Parkview spends funds for athletics, it is taken from the athletics line item in the interdistrict magnet school budget. At times, departments buy items in bulk for several schools and give each school its share of that item. The proportional cost of that item is taken from the budget accordingly. 8) What accounts for the increase in the amounts for purchased services and indirect costs? The purchased services increase is due to a projected increase in the costs of utilities. The indirect cost item is an item allowed from the original Court Order which reimburses LRSD for the costs of running the interdistrict magnet school program. This cost is always tied to the indirect cost rate calculated annually by the State. LRSD's rate is 3.65% of the per pupil expenditure. 9) When may the Court expect to receive the MRC's 1991-92 annual report so the Court can consider the proposed budget in conjunction with the MRC's evaluation of the magnet schools and any changes in their operation the Committee may suggest? The MRC is to report to the Court on a yearly basis. The budget is usually forwarded to the Court when the final revisions are made. It has been our practice to deliver the report when the budget for the reporting year can be included. The evaluation report is forwarded upon completion by our independent evaluation team. If it is the Court's desire for these three reports to be presented simultaneously, we can adjust our schedule accordingly. However, the budget cannot be finalized until the LRSD has completed the teacher contract negotiation process.  Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 July 29, 1992 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: 'JUL 3 0 1992 The Magnet Review Committee met yesterday with Dr. Mac Bernd of the Little Rock School District to hear his request for reductions in the original magnet schools' budgets. No formal action was taken, but the following consensual decisions were made: The Little Rock School District has agreed to complete the new budgetary format developed as a resul~ of inquiry into the budgetary process from the Office of besegregation Monitoring as a representative of Judge Wright. Copies of a school budget and the summary budget forms are included with this letter. The Magnet Review Committee will review a preliminary draft of the 1991-92 School Year Evaluation Report during a special meeting to be held on Wednesday, August 26, 1992, at 4:30 p.m. Reviewing the report prior to looking at the budget requests will provide insight for the budgeting process. After the evaluation report review has been conducted, the Little Rock School District will present its budgetary requests. The district will submit, in writing, the impact of the requested budget cuts on its desegregation plan and the interdistrict plan. The principals of the magnet schools will be present to answer questions about their individual budgets. The proposed date of approval for both the magnet school budgets and the evaluation report is September 15, 1992. Ms. Ann Brown -2- July 29, 1992 The Committee accepted the proposed timelines for the budgeting process with one modification. The April and May activities were combined. A copy is included. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling its oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, ,,,-, ~ cI. 4t'ft.  1/1~ Altom~ hairperson Magnet Review Committee BA:sl Enclosures TIMELINE for THE INTERDISTRICT ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETING PROCESS JANUARY FEBRUARY MAY JUNE The LRSD submits previous fiscal year end of year budget information to the Magnet Review Committee on MAC-approved format. The MRC submits next fiscal school year budget forms to LRSD and interdistrict ~agnet schools. Interdistrict magnet school budgets are submitted to the Magnet Review Cammi ttee. The MRC reviews requests with LRSD representatives, including the principals of the magnet schools. The MRC approves the budget and submits it to the court.* *At least two (2) factors, contract negotiations and health insurance rate changes, will cause the budget to be less than a certainty. Date 29-Jul-92 STAFF SUPPORT STAFF Pagel ialists Counselors Media S c. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational S ial Education Gifted Cha ter 1 Substitutes Other 0.0 $0 Nurses Custodians Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 Para rofessionals-Other Other Frin e Benefits(20) ~ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 $0 :mtmmn~~tilit: .. : 1m1v.=  \n:'/t.f.'.I~:s:.. PURCHASED Utilities SERVICES Travel (30) Maintenance A ments Other MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTIIER (60) TOTAL (30) Other TOTAL (40) Equi ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (10-60) $0 $0 $0 0.0 o.o TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL $0    : . .  . filename-booker.wql $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 Page2 er Objects irectCosts ocational x:xxxxx x:xxxxx x:xxxxx xxxxxx filename-booker. wql Date 29-Jul-92 Date Submitted. - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature-filename- booker.wql Page3 Date 29-Jul-92 . Page 4  ,~ ~-'sV::: ::::\n:\n:::::~-:t:::'::: :\n:\n::\n:.}:'.-\n-i~~\n:'.:r-:-::\n:\n:::::::::::: .. . . .. . .. . . . .. .......................... . STAFF Asst. Prin. t------------t-----+-----+---+--------11 Specialists Counselors MediaS ec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational S ial Education Gifted Cha ter 1 Substitutes Other Frin e Benefits(20) :::::.::::::::.%:. TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries 1---------------+-----t----i--------\n1 STAFF Nurses 1---------------+-----t----i--------\n1 PURCHASED SERVICES (30) Custodians Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 Para rofessionals-Other Other Frin e Benefits(20) Travel Maintenance A ments Other TOTAL(30) MATERIALS, Princi al's Office SUPPLIES Re ar Classroom $0 (40) ~M~ed:_!1~a ______ _umlffl __ _J!mL----ll CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTIIER (60) Other TOTAL (40) Equi ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL(60) +tWMPMl'QlWB.\\(Qf~~l)WfaWH:tt TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL filename-booker.wql $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 Pagel NA NA NA NA NA NA Counselors NA NA NA Media S c. NA NA NA Art-Perf./Prod. NA NA NA Music NA NA NA Foreign Lang. NA NA NA Vocational NA NA NA s ial Education NA NA NA Gifted NA NA NA Cha ter 1 NA NA NA Substitutes NA NA NA Other NA NA NA Frin e Benefits(20) _. ...... .::::,,:../ NA :-:-:-::::::::'.y'.\n.  ... TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY NA NA NA SUPPORT Secretaries NA NA NA STAFF Nurses NA NA NA Custodians NA NA NA Para rofessionals-Ch tr 1 NA NA NA Para rofessionals-Other NA NA NA Other NA NA NA,, Frin e Benefits(20) .. .... ......... .-. .-:-:---. NA --,--------:-,-- PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OU1LAY (50) (60) TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY c:\u0026gt; \u0026gt;:::L .'.WM{t\u0026amp;,,Rl@H1%M\n: Utilities Travel Maintenance A reements Other TOTAL(30) Re lar Classroom Media Other TOTAL(40) ui ment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL(S0) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (10-60) OTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL filename-summary.WQl NA NA : SXlU?'/tNAb   NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA AM:3\\:.:mt,:,:NA, ... : NA $0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA . NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Date 29-Jul-92 Page2 NA er Objects NA NA t Costs NA NA ocational NA NA Athletics NA NA Gifted Programs NA NA Plant Services NA NA Reading NA NA Science NA NA English NA NA S ial Education NA NA xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx filename-summary.WQl Date 29-Jul-92 Total Costs Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 NA LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-summary.WQl Page3 NA Magnet Revieiv Comntittee Donna Grady Creer Executive Di,ector February 4, 1993 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansa5 72114 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: (501) 758-0156 When the Magnet Review Committee became aware of the potential of $5.5 million in cuts being made in Little Rock School District's 1993-94 budget, we were concerned as to the impact these proposed cuts might have on interdistrict magnet schools curriculum and personnel. In mid-to-late November, we polled districts across the United States as to their policy(ies) regarding magnet staff during a Reduction in Force (RIF). As a result of the responses we received, we began to act to request a hearing with regard to the development of a policy that, when enforced, would protect magnet staff positions which impact heavily on theme implementation. We have enclosed the guidelines that we plan to follow for your perusal and will keep you apprised of our work. Sincerely, ~~' Chair Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Enclosure , I. THU lE,:10 Rationale The Magnet Review Committee is taking the following steps to support its rationale for the proposal of a staffing policy that protects certain interdistrict magnet positions from the Little Rock School District's Reduction in Force (RIF) policy: A. Solicit letters from those persons already contacted regarding their RIF policy and how it impacts magnet schools staff. B. Review the literature and research on magnet themes and how critical the staffing is to the implementation of themes. c. Review/share/recount related experiences encountered when visiting other school districts as to their comments on how critical staffing is in establishing curriculum, as well as attracting and maintaining students. D. Include local experiences in cause/effect relationships that would encompass course development and staff development. E. Plan for input from other groups. II. Procedures A. Donna Creer will again contact the school districts mentioned in I.A. She will provide background information to the districts as to why we are asking for this information. Questions to be answered are: 1) Do they have a policy? If so, please include a copy. 2) Has the policy/lack of policy in this particular area encountered any difficulties? If so, what are they? 3) Please provide the pros and cons of the current practice. THU 16 :~11 B. The regular meeting of the MRC scheduled for February 16, 1993, will be devoted to developing a document for the Court regarding Little Rock School District's RIF policy. Invitees to this meeting are as follows: 3 Leadership members of the LRCTA 7 Magnet Review Committee representatives 4 LRSD Central Office members (minimum number - possibly more will be in attendance) 6 Magnet school principals ? Special invitees - ODM, other C. A survey will be provided to parents of magnet school children. Parents will be asked to give their perception of which people should be retained in their positions if the district is forced to use its RIF policy. The positions would be those that are deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of the magnet therne(s). The results of the survey will help to determine which positions the MRC may request to be protected from the Little Rock School District RIF policy. P.03 / THU 15:59 P  0 1 .371- 0/00 DATE: TO: FIRH: RE: FROM: PAGES: FAX COVER SHEET FAX MACHINE# (501) 771-2420 d1F~,__~-~ Lv. ~ ~--- .!/ (INCLUDING 'l'HXS COVER SR!::ET) PL:SASE CALL BACK IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN TRA'.'lS:-~rss:::m,s OR IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVED. NOTES: FEB 1 8 \\993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Ofnigng'ition Mon,iori\nig LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER F~LED . ' .C. DISTRICT COURT .::.:Ei\u0026lt;:, DISTRICT ARKANSAS ~B 1 2 1993 PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the request of the Magnet Review Committee for approval of the 1992-93 magnet school budget proposal. The proposed budget was forwarded to the Court on December 28, 1992. (See attached letter and document.) The Court and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring have carefully reviewed the budget and the Court finds that it should be approved as submitted. -r.l, SO ORDERED this /J-__ day of February, 1993. Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director December 28, 1992 1900 North Main Street  suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. s. Post Office and Courthouse P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: At its December 1, 1992 meeting, the Magnet Review (501) 758-0156 Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1992-93 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,278,796, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,682.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,878 students. Of this amount, $86,469 is designated as contingency. While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. For the 1991-92 school year, the same per pupil expenditure figure was used for budgeting interdistrict magnet school monies. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: 1) In keeping with the Court's March 16, 1992 Order, which required the Magnet Review Committee to submit budgets to the Court for review and approval well in advance of the need for funds, the Magnet Review Committee forwarded a preliminary budget to the Court on May 26, 1992. In that May 26, 1992 budget transmittal letter, the Magnet Review Committee made the Court aware of factors that could impact the budget. Included in that letter was a statement expressing the MRC's reluctance \"to endorse any blanket reduction of costs that would possibly have a deleterious effect on programs.\" Judge Susan Webber Wright -2- December 28, 1992 2) The Court, via the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, asked the MRC to provide a budget which would better reflect the total figure needed to operate the magnets for the 1992-93 school year. 3) The MRC received information on proposed LRSD budget cuts, which would have eliminated 14.9 FTE positions in the interdistrict magnet schools. In a special meeting held in the MRC Office on July 23, 1992, LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE positions rather than 14.9 FTE. As a normal part of the budgeting process, the MRC met with each interdistrict magnet schooi principal to review their budgets and get input as to how budget cuts would impact their program. As a result of this meeting, the MRC approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE positions, with LRSD being requested to reinstate the same individual staff members who had been impacted by those cuts. The LRSD agreed to reinstate cuts but declined to reinstate the same personnel. 4) The MRC forwarded a letter to the Court on September 28, 1992 seeking the reinstatement of the affected personnel. The Court ordered reinstatement in a November 5, 1992 Order. 5) The MRC reviewed the revised LRSD budget figures at the MRC meeting on December 1, 1992 and, upon determining that the figures had been adjusted to reflect the reinstatement of the 3.9 FTE positions, approved the budget which is attached herewith. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1992-93 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. Judge Susan Webber Wright -3- December 28, 1992 The Magnet Review Connnittee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, \u0026amp;~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment cc: Attorneys of Record Dr. Mac Bernd, Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dr. Burton Elliott, Arkansas Department of Education Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District lifillllrdlll~~jjJJJliiiii~j:Jlii:ljiJ:l!llil ~~~:-9 Salaries :~~:fl !anes '  CERTIFIED Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $356,933 STAFF Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $481,040 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 36.2 $1,267,906 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $385,806 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $224,756 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,528 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $255,724 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $168,457 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 178.6 $5,243,059 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $158,428 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $419,788 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $1,068,359 ~  $1,185,445 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $10,597,663 288.6 $10,636,870 SUPPORT Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 17.0 $310,176 STAFF Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $153,326 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $356,721 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $111,191 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $325,514 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $185,965 ~  $227,463 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $1 .406,433 97.4 $1.484,391 nm@t}tlJY:OTAb.\\((1042.0, ....................... ,\n............. xx:xxxxi ($1.2\n00'4J~ t ~  #$Ji2~1'21{261@ PURCHASED Utilities ~  $601,780 ~  $627,700 SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL LINE IT Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal' s Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60) TOTAL (10-60) MS-(SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL XXXlOOCX ~ ~ \n:::~::::-:~-::--\n-:-:-:-: )0.l:lQ()OIX XXXXXXJC $166,508 ~ . $195,093 ~ $768,288 ~ . $822,793 XXX\u0026gt;OOOC imxx'x:, XXXJOOO(. $343.433 ~  $379,717 xxxxxx:x $56,509 mxxxx' $59,072 \u0026gt;000000( xmcxxx xx:xxxxx. $399,942 xxxxxxx $438,789 \u0026gt;000000(' $111,824 ~ - $120,394 xxxxxxx ~  XXXX\u0026gt;OOC xxxxxxx. XX:XXXX:X $111 ,824 xx:xxxxx $120,394 xxxxxx:x $8,358 XXX)OO(X. $5,895 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $8,358 XXlOOOO( $5,895 xxxxxxx $1,288,412 xxxxxxx $1 ,387,871 393.4 $13,292,508 386.0 $13,509,132 xxxxxxx  $595,333 xxxxxx:x $769,664 xxxxxxx $13,887,841 xxxxxx:x $14,278,796 Stipends $0 $46,609 Other Objects $0 $0 Indirect Costs $503,365 $521,176 Vocational $30,837 $35,000 Athletics $31,231 $35,000 Gifted Programs $0 $2,000 Plant Services $18,271 $25,000 Reading $5,334 $6,880 Science $0 $972 English $2,368 $2,558 Special Education $3,927 $8,000 Contingency $0 $86,469 * xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3878.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $14,278,796 * While not budgeted, these dollars are set aside for projected increased costs in goods and services (i.e., utilities). If this does not occur, these funds will not be generated. CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $48,442 STAFF Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $52,593 Specialists 6.0 $350,341 6.0 $356,951 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $45,325 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,366 Art-Pert ./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 31.2 $751,321 31.2 $758,861 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,878 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,467 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,649 $23,328 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $112,766 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ r $172,697 ~ : $181,564 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,689,129 47.9 $1,699,540 SUPPORT Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $31,661 1------------+----+--------1-----t--- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 1.0 1------------+----+----..\n...._---1------ $24,976 $25,725 C us to di ans 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $45,502 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 $75,045 Fringe Benefits(20) ~~r $28,550 ~  $34,827 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $201,301 16.0 $212,760 ItMIJ@lt@tarAU:J1042.0'1:  , ,   ~  i?f$1t890!43Qi! ~  #$.tU~1aJPt PURCHASED Utilities ~  $81,637 ~ : $83,000 SERVICES Travel ~  ~ : (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ i. ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) Other \u0026gt;a:XlOCXX. $27,963 xuioax. TOTAL(30) ~ . $109,600 ~  Principal's Office \u0026gt;OOOCXXX xxii\u0026amp;xx: Regular Classroom XXJOCXXX $53,613 ~  Media \u0026gt;dxxxxx $4,698 xxiiixx Other xmcxxx ,oo\u0026amp;xxx TOTAL (40) xx:xxxxx: $58,311 XJXli()QIX Equipment m,oocx\n$6,3TT ~  Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $6,3TT xxxxxxx. OTHER Dues and Fees XXXX:XXX. XXJOOCXX (60) Other xxxxxxx )000000(. TOT AL (60) xx:xxxxx $0 XX:lOOOOf TOTAL {30-60) \"  xxxxxx:x . $174,288 xxxxxxx: TOTAL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,718 63.9 TOTAL LINE IT MS- (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxx:x $88,028 xxxxxxx GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $2,152,746 xxxxxx:x: $27,552 $110,552 $54,789 $5,672 $60,461 $14,000 $14,000 $0 .. $185,0ts.: $2,097,313 $101,493 $2,198,805 1992-93 Stipends $8,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $85,830 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $3,016 $4,127 Reading $883 $1 ,137 Science $159 English $394 $419 Special Education $648 $1,321 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,198,805 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,981 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,268 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $224,912 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $46,311 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,748 Art-Perf ./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $596,866 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $28,744 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,640 Chapter 1 Substitutes $22,695 $23,376 Other-Kindergarten ' 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $99,303 Fringe Benefits(20) XXlCXlOQf $137,204 ~  $155,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,320,263 42.6 $1,341,783 SUPPORT Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $52,743 1--------------t---1-------1------1-- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,795 1------------+----+-----'---l------+-- C us to di ans 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $42,578 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 $83,777 Fringe Benefits(20) x\u0026gt;\u0026amp;ib( $30,621 ~\u0026gt;ob $41,156 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $233,430 19.0 $250,049 Mi@W:J{)fJ'OT.At.rtto\"c\"20}\\.. ., ti l()OOOO(X @i$1\\$$9\n69:3t jppooo\u0026amp; .. ::t$.l\n$9\nt\nssa\nPURCHASED Utilities ~ : $68,924 ~\n$79,100 SERVICES Travel ~ : ~ : (30) Maintenance Agreements lOOl'XX)(X ~\nMATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other lOCXXXXX $22,843 ~ - TOTAL (30) :iobooO\u0026lt;X: $91,767 X\u0026gt;OOOOOl. Principal'sOffice ~  X)(XXX)O( Regular Classroom xxxx:100, $55,638 xxxx:xxx Media xxxx:xxx $11,410 XX)OO()(X Other lOOOOCXX lOOCXXl(X TOTAL (40) XXXXJOOr $67,048 xxxxxxx Equipment $22,128 ~ Building Repair, etc. lOOOOOCX p0000(X Other XXXXJO(X. xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $22, 128 xxxxxxx Dues and Fees lOOOOOO{ $2,857 lOOOOOO( Other XXXXlOOr xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxx:xxx: $2,857 lOOOOCXX XXXXJCXX .:. ..  $1sa,aoo xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-60) 63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 TOTAL LINE ITI MS - (SECOND PAGE) lCXXXXXX $84,978 lOOOOCXX GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,822,471 XXXXXXX $26,900 $106,000 $64,100 $12,000 $76,100 $16,290 $16,290 $1,020 $1,020 $199,410 $1,791,242 $100,269 $1,891,510 ~~~~liilili\\~l~~~:~::~:::\n::~~,,\u0026gt;\u0026lt;= ,\n~92-93 ::::: Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $82,855 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,912 $3,984 Reading $852 $1,097 Science $153 English $380 $405 Special Education $625 $1,275 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ee.r e.upij c.\u0026amp;stI@t@rnrnnwcn 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 613.0 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,891,510 m.m:e.uoo,tst:rn,:wrmmmmm rnmmmis~o.aeJ tmwnis\noser Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $57,126 STAFF Asst.Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $164,307 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,766 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $490,762 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $49,414 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,081 $10,384 Other-Kindergarten \\ 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $58,274 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $109,125 ~ r $122,647 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $1,070,536 31.3 $1,126,941 SUPPORT Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 1.0 $12,873 STAFF Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $15,023 Custodians 3.0 $41,043 3.0 $42,275 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $46,903 Fringe Benefits(20) ~  $20,314 ~ : $23,254 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $133,977 10.8 $140,327 MMMWt@[QT.Allti0420lHMmrnwm ~  I@$1t20#\n$.1$] ~ : l@$1~2$.'tl26'ai PURCHASED Utilities ~ $35,102 ~ $38,300 SERVICES Travel ~  ~  (30) Maintenance Agreements xiioocii\n. ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other ~  $11,464 ~ . $13,000 TOTAL(30) ~  $46,566 ~  $51,300 Principal's Office ~ . ~  Regular Classroom xxixm: $25,426 ~  $29,668 Media ~  $6,241 )000000( $6,400 Other x:xxxxxx xiii\u0026amp;xx: TOTAL (40) xxixxxx $31,667 ~  $36,068 Equipment ~  $3,968 )000000( $12,920 Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx\n$3,968 ~ . $12,920 Dues and Fees Other xxxxxxx TOT AL (60) XlOOOCXX $0 XXlOCXXX $0 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 42.1 $1,367,556 TOTAL LINE IT:MS -(SECOND PAGE) xxxxxx:x $48,935 xxxxxxx. $59,203 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 XXlOO\u0026lt;XX $1,426,759 l1~~~~,[j1i!~lll[lllt\ntt\n~':!\n\\(@% '~~\n~~\n:' .c.= Stipends $7,009 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $47,713 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $1,676 $2,294 Reading $491 $632 Science $88 English $219 $233 Special Education $360 $734 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ' xxxxxx Rif POtm\nsdstwmmrmwnrn@ 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 353.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,426,759 ~ fofffimftl.bitdjfak:ihi+1 ffhiii$3i933.i 6@faiM1H-2.i Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - ~lill!r\u0026amp;:l!:,::r::\n~::~\n.:::::~:::::::i:1~!:::\n.:::!\n::\n:::::::\n:i:::::::i::::::~:::~~: ~~~~~ Salarie:  ~~~:-il\n:\n:\n:~=!MW@f CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $64,070 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $148,706 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $103,259 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $75,935 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $40,083 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $194,384 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,846 Gifted Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,344,079 Substitutes $45,577 $46,944 Other Fringe Benefits(20) ~OOb.j\\t $245,140 ~  $275,053 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,440,016 64.3 $2,339,360 SUPPORT Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $51,267 1-----------+---+-----'----+--- S TAFF Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,608 -----------+---+---------- Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $69,062 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $31,556 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 $50,084 Fringe Benefits(20) xxxiaxx $30,713 ~  $37,395 TOTALSUPPORTSALARY 14.5 $257,637 14.5 $270,972 nm:rn@iMfa1t.OTA.ii tt@1m:m::\ntm\nrnw ~ \n@:$za.az~2\ni ~ t 1m:12.~ec1:t11.a.!1 PURCHASED Utilities ~ i $164,666 ~  $168,300 SERVICES Travel ~  ~  (30) Maintenance Agreements ~  ~  MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Other ~ : $48,887 ~  TOTAL(30) ~\n$213,554 ~ : Principal's Office Regular Classroom $76,512 xixxxx'x. Media $10,301 mxxxx Other TOTAL (40) $86,813 xxxxxxx Equipment $26,417 xxxxxxx Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx Other )OO(XX)(X mxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 xx:xxxxx Dues and Fees $1,470 xxixxxx Other xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) $1,470 mxxxx TOTAL (30-60) $328,253 xxxxxxx TOTAL (10-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 TOTAL LINE IT~MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx. $143,218 mxxxx GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx. $3,169,124 xxxxxxx $60,941 $229,241 $85,000 $11,000 $96,000 $28,000 $28,000 $1,375 $1,375 $354,616 $2,964,948 $162,358 $3,127,306 - ::!:~~t~:\n~i\\~llil~1i:iii\n:\n~\n:::~~::~:  ~99\n~9\n Stipends $8,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $117,8n Vocational $13,141 $15,600 Athletics $9,202 $10,440 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $5,668 Reading $1,209 $1,559 Science $220 English $537 $580 Special Education $890 $1,814 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ee.teu.riBtb.sttm1tninw1rnrn 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 890.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,127,306 a::eu.mt@b.it:tlMi@%NtdJ{ liMi@ff$1lWi mntrn@$$\n$1Ji1 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - _ ll!i-{t~ll~ll\nli:\n:\n!::li\n!i\n1!~::\nil~!~1:!:!l!ii!l~[\n:i!i!\n!!~:~!!:!!Jill~~ ~~~  Jtift#t~- .. ,.,.,, ... ., ..., .. , .. , .,,. .. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $61,371 1.0 $63,212 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $150,132 3.0 $154,636 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Specialists 9.8 $276,600 9.8 $283,515 Counselors 3.0 $132,5TT 3.0 $136,735 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,037 1.0 $34,028 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational 8.0 $309,449 7.0 $295,144 Special Education 1.2 $46,596 1.2 $47,994 Gifted Classroom 41.2 $1,398,826 39.6 $1,394,697 Substitutes $42,409 $43,682 Other-Kindergarten 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 Fringe Benefits(20) ul\u0026amp;xr $271,685 .fix\n$302,475 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 69.2 $2,762,168 66.6 $2,796,790 Secretaries 7.0 $125,888 6.0 $129,665 Nurses 0.6 $18,560 0.6 $19,117 Custodians 8.0 $104,587 8.0 $107,724 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other 4.0 $TT,316 5.0 $79,635 Other-Aides 2.0 $23,127 2.0 $23,821 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ , $49,690 ~  $57,550 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 21.6 $399,168 21.6 $417,512  1\nmnw:rnr\nr.o.1tAt41p\n:201wrnrrn1mw ~ - m1a~~1e1::aasrn ~ : wm:s.s~214~an1@ Utilities ~ : $208,483 ~ : $210,000 Travel ~  ~  Maintenance Agreements ~ t ~\nOther ~ : $39,092 ~  $48,700 TOTAL(30) ~ $247,575 ~ ' $258,700 Principal's Office xixxixx: ~  Regular Classroom mxxxx $87,767 ~  $100,850 Media ~ $16,883 xxii6a:x $17,000 Other ~  mooooc: TOTAL (40) xuxxxx' $104,650 XXlOOdx\n$117,850 Equipment A ' $37,950 \u0026gt;OOQOOIX' $37,000 Building Repair, etc. XlOOOiCXi ~  Other XXX\u0026gt;CXXX )OOO()i(XX TOTAL (50) $37,950 lOOClOOOC $37,000 Dues and Fees XXXJCXXX $3,496 XXJQCXXX'\n$3,500 Other TOTAL (60) $3,496 XX\u0026gt;OOOOC $3,500 TOTAL (30-60) xxxxxx:ir $393,671 lOOOCXXX $417,050 TOT AL (10-60) 90.8 $3,555,007 88.2 $3,631,351 TOTAL LINE 11 EMS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx: $158,509 XX:XXXX:JC\" $172,976 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxx:x $3,713,516 xx:xxxx:x $3,804,327 -~\u0026amp;~2rtr 1991-92 1992-93 Stipends $3,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $112,135 $116,341 Vocational $17,696 $19,400 Athletics $22,029 $24,560 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,071 $5,566 Reading $1,182 $1,530 Science $221 English $520 $577 Special Education $876 $1,781 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx \\ xxxxxx ffli\\\\Pii\u0026amp;tea1ttrnmirn:@tt@ 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 837.6 870.0 Total Costs $3,713,516 $3,804,327 R iPOb.itCostMNfaiJf@@m+@ MWE%$4i4i.iU tMM@Ulat.at Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - lBi+ ,,:::::::::::::::@::::::::::::: Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $66,102 STAFF Asst. Prin. 1. 0 $35,840 1.0 $36,915 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $134,962 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,830 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,765 Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $657,794 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $32,848 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $60,680 Chapter 1 Substitutes $10,402 $10,714 Other-Kindergarten ' 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $108,775 Fringe Benefits(20) ~ : $132,508 ~ : $148,072 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,315,549 35.9 $1,332,458 SUPPORT Secretaries ------------t-----1'------t- ST AF F Nurses ------------t----\"1'------1- Custodians 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $31,967 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $32,058 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $49,580 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 $45,884 Fringe Benefits(20) mxxxx= $26,076 xxixxxxf $33,281 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $180,920 15.5 $192,771 PURCHASED Utilities ~ : $42,968 ~ - $49,000 SERVICES Travel XXXXXXX' iil\u0026amp;xixI (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ ~ : Other ~X\u0026gt;bix $16,259 xxxxxxx= MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Regular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60) TOT AL (10-60) TOTAL LINE IT:MS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL ~ xxxxxxx XXlQOOOO XX:lOOOOC\" $59,227 )OOQC)OO(. umxx\n$44,477 ~ : $6,976 xxxxxxx: $51 ,454 ~ $14,984 xxxxxxx.. $14,984 XXXXXXX' $535 xxxxxx:ic: xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x: $535 xxxxxxx xx:xxxx:x $126,200 xxxxxxx 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 XX:XXXXX $71 t 665 XXXlOOO( XXXXXXX $1,694,335 XXXXXXlC $18,000 $67,000 $45,310 $7,000 $52,310 $12,184 $12,184 $0 $131,494 $1,656,723 $86,895 $1,743,618 =~~~~\n,\n~1:i:t:i::\n::::i:i\ni::\n~\n=~~:::::::::\n: :~9\n~93 Stipends $10,000 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $70,560 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $500 Plant Services $2,455 $3,361 Reading $717 $925 Science $131 English $318 $344 Special Education $528 $1,075 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Pif!tffiffiB)ist:@:fl@JIJllM 1991-92 1992-93 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 517.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,743,618 Peifffibiftfost#Wi@ltt :::\n:::~ ltMJ:\n:::U\n313i f:tJI$ala1ai Date Submitted - Prlncipal's Signature - LRSD's MAC Representative's Signature - Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director August 19, 1993 Ms. Estelle Matthis Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Matthis: RECEIVED AUG 2 3 W93 Q!tice al oesegreg ation Monitoring (501) 758-0156 In an effort to maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the Stipulation magnets, the Magnet Review Committee has within its role and responsibility the approval of funds budgeted for Stipulation magnet programs for each fiscal year. As you may recall, the Magnet Review Committee, at the request of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, worked with the Little Rock School District to establish a timeline for the Magnet Review Committee to review, approve and submit a budget for the interdistrict magnet schools to the Court for final approval. (See enclosure.) While we realize that the unusual events of the year have wreaked havoc with the timelines we mutually agreed upon, we are still in need of information as to: 1) when we can expect information on the previous fiscal year's end-of-year budget information\n2) when the preliminary Fiscal Year 1993-94 budget will be submitted to the Magnet Review Committee\n3) when the principals will be available for review and justification of the budget for their individual building. For your convenience, we have also submitted a sample copy of the form to be used for the submission of budget information. Ms. Estelle Matthis -2- August 19, 1993 Immediate attention to this issue is of vital importance and will be appreciated. Thank you. Sincerely, !l!t~rn, Chair Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Enclosures cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent - LRSD / Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor - Office of Desegregation Monitoring MRC Members TI MELINE for THE INTERDISTRICT ORIGINAL MAGNET SCHOOLS BUDGETING PROCESS JANUARY FEBRUARY The LRSD submits previous fiscal year end of year budget information to the Magnet Review Committee on MRC-approved format. The MRC submits next fiscal school, year budget forms to LRSD and interdistrict magnet schools. Interdistrict magnet school budgets are submitted to the Magnet Review Committee. The MRC reviews requests with LRSD representatives, including the principals of the magnet schools. The MRC approves the budget and submits it to the court.* *At least two (2) factors, contract negotiations and health insurance rate changes, will cause the budget to be less than a certainty. Date 29-Jul-92 Page 1 STAFF Asst. Prin. Specialists Counselors Media Spec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational Special Education Gifted Chapter 1 Substitutes Other Fringe llenefits(20) TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries t-:-:------------+----+-----+--~1------11 STAFF Nurses r:C::::-u-s-:-to-d=-=-ia_n_s--------+----+-----+--~-----II Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 PURCHASED ~~\n~!\ntcl.P.!.'l~Ji1($l~QXThlC3t:'\nl~f }2:KN~HU ~Xffl: SERVICES 1-Tra--ve-I----------\ni\n~,,\n~.,,\n\n\n.\n\n\n\n:\n. t ------f.im\"\"C:\"\"J~\"\"\"'\"\"?'''.ffi,\n-------ll (30) Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom (40) Media CAPITAL OU1LAY (SO) OTIIER (60) Other TOTAL (40)  uipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL(S0) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL(60) ~ ~ i~ ~\n~ ~ :~ ~ ~ $0 $0 $0 ~:li'i.i ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 =?f+1if/WtifflW$1l~i(~,m~o}.JiWW:PJW xffim .~M%%#W$m\n:,::: ::: wrnrn'\n'':\n''F'.'.l.*-f TOTAL (10-60) 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 TOTAL LINE ITEMS (SECOND PAGE) d.,,~~ .... ~,u. , $0 $0 11 GRAND TOTAL ~ $0 ' $0 filename-booker. wq 1 Date 29-Jul-92 Page 2 Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx:xxx filename-booker.wql Date 29-Jul-?2 ~ifntillt@1:k\u0026amp;1MttWi\u0026gt;0Jl 1991-92 Qtr. ADM or Proi. tal Costs $0 Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - 1992-93 LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-booker.wql Page3 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 1111111::4~~~:m\n,,\n. Page 4 '\" iiiti  .. ,iW'.iV ' CERTIFIED Principal STAFF \"A~s:s~t.~P~r~in~.--------f---t-----l---t----____jl Specialists Counselors Media Spec. Art-Perf./Prod. Music Foreign Lang. Vocational Special Education Gifted Chapter 1 Substitutes Other Fringe Ilenefits(20)  :..,,,\\ ,,, TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 SUPPORT Secretaries STAFF r-N7u_r_s-es----------t----t-----+---+-----~I PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OU1LAY (SO) OTHER (60) Custodians Paraprofessionals-Cbptr 1 Paraprofessionals-Other Other Frin2e Benefits(20) ~ TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 0.0 Utilities Travel Maintenance Agreements Other TOTAL (30) Principal's Office Re2ular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair, etc. Other TOTAL (SO) Dues and Fees Other TOTAL (60) ~ ~ ~ -~ -~ ~ -~ $0 0.0 ~ {ffi $0 ,. $0 $0 ~l~Jf4@~tf\\TmWm(3~Wi9)\\1fui%J~!t :~ :~'l~~\\\\\\Wri$0.t TOTAL (10-60) 0.0 $0 0.0 TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) ~ $0 11 GRAND TOTAL '.fixxm $0  filename-booker. wq 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Date 29-Jul-92 . Puge 1 liiM~~t1fi~~c: ey  : :,,,,,,,::::::..  .,.m,,~~,,::,~J\n.fi~=~ii~iii~l~\n.~\n: ~~::::~:,\n:.~:.: ~~~ m ~  m m STAFF Asst Prin. NA NA NA NA Specialists NA NA NA NA Counselors NA NA NA NA Media Spec. NA NA NA NA Art-Perf./Prod. NA NA NA NA Music NA NA NA NA Foreign Lang. NA NA NA NA Vocational NA NA NA NA Special Education NA NA NA NA Gifted NA NA NA NA Chapter 1 NA NA NA NA Substitutes NA NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Fringe Benefits(20) .~ NA NA TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY NA NA NA NA SUPPORT Secretaries NA NA NA NA STAFF Nurses NA NA NA NA Custodians NA NA NA NA Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 NA NA NA NA Paraprofessionals-Other NA NA NA NA Other NA NA NA NA Fringe Benefits(20) !~ NA ,}. . _.. .... ~=:::::. NA TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY NA NA NA NA PURCHASED Utilities ~ NA NA SERVICES Travel .~ NA ' ww'' NA (30) Maintenance Agreements ~ NA  .. w\"\"\" NA Other NA :  :.w:,::,....-. NA TOTAL(30) MATERIALS, Principal's Office SUPPLIES Regular Classroom NA NA NA NA NA NA NA (40) Media NA CAPITAL OUTIAY (50) OTHER (60) Other TOTAL(40) Eouipment Building Repair, etc. Other ~ ~ NA NA\u0026amp;\\~ NA NA : ... c::.:::: ::: NA NA NA NA i~ NA~ NA TOTAL (50) m NA m\u0026amp;~~ NA Dues and Fees :~ NA NA Other ~ NA ~:.:\n,:' ' ... \" NA rnmki:n=:wdt~~=~~(}1f%ikt,\n:y ---~::. :::::::~::::::::::~: .\n:\n.\n:\n:\n:\n~\n:\n2~~I TOTAL (10-60) NA NA NA NA TOTALLINEITEMS-(SECONDPAGE) ~ $0\n...... :  NA 11 GRAND TOTAL ~ NA  ..    NA !Jlename-summary. WQl Date 29-Jul-92 Page 2 1991-92 1992-93 ... NA NA Other Objects Indirect Costs NA NA NA NA Vocational NA NA Athletics NA NA Gifted Programs Plant Services NA NA NA NA Readin NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA x:xxxxx x:xxxxx filename-summary.WQl Date 29-Jul-92 3rd Qtr. ADM or Pro.i. Total Costs NA NA Date Submitted - Principal's Signature - LRSD's MRC Representative's Signature - filename-summary.WQl Page3 Magnet Review Committee Donna Grady Creer Executive Director September 22, 1993 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 (501) 758-01 5G RECEIVED The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Judge, U. S. District Court Eastern District of Arkansas U. S. Post Office and Courthouse P. O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Judge Wright: SEP 2 4 1993 At its September 14, 1993 meeting, the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and unanimous 6-0 vote, approved the interdistrict magnet schools budget for the 1993-94 school year. The total amount budgeted, $14,554,670, is based on a per pupil expenditure of $3,823.00 and a projected third-quarter enrollment of 3,807 students. The process to determine the figures in this budget is as follows: On November 17, 1992, the Little Rock School District, via its representative Estelle Matthis, reported to the Magnet Review Committee that, in accordance with the budgeting process outlined by Little Rock School District Superintendent, Dr. Mac Bernd, the Little Rock School District 1993-94 budget meeting with the Board would not be until the end of April, 1993. (The actual budgeting process was not complete until July, 1993.) The Little Rock School District, represented by Dr. Henry Williams, new Superintendent\nEstelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent\nLeon Adams, Alternate Magnet Review Committee Representative\nand Mark Milhollan, Controller, presented Draft 1 of the 1993-94 interdistrict magnet schools budget to the Magnet Review Committee on September 9, 1993. Each of the six interdistrict magnet school principals made a presentation on their school's budget. The Magnet Review Committee members presented budget information to their parties. The Magnet Review Committee met on September 14, 1993, and approved the budget. The Honorable Susan Webber Wright September 22, 1993 Page 2 The approved budget represents an increase of 3.82%, or $141.00 per student. The increase is largely due to Little Rock School District's negotiated salary agreements and indirect cost factors. The Magnet Review Committee respectfully requests review and approval of the 1993-94 interdistrict magnet schools budget. The Magnet Review Committee is committed to maintaining the existing quality of the interdistrict magnet schools. We will continue to work with the host district to exercise stringent oversight of the magnet schools budget that will ensure efficient management and result in cost containment to the greatest extent possible. The Magnet Review Committee will continue to work cooperatively in fulfilling the oversight responsibility and will make findings and recommendations as may be necessary to effect the efficient operation and administration of the interdistrict magnet school program. Sincerely, !J4aJ:t= Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachment: 1993-94 Interdistrict Magnet Schools Budget (Approved Draft 3) cc: Attorneys of Record Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District James Smith, North Little Rock School District Gene Wilhoit, Arkansas Department of Education Dr. Henry Williams, Little Rock School District Magnet Review Committee PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET (DRAFT 3) ORIGINAL SIX MAGNET SCHOOLS RECE~VEO SEP 2 4 1993 Ot:ica Qf Desegraqaticn ~,1onitorin3 TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 14, 1993 Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Mark D. Milhollen, Controlle~ THROUGH: Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Proposed 1993-94 Budget (Draft 3) Attached for your files is Draft 3 of the proposed 1993-94 magnet budgets which was approved by the Magnet Review Committee on September 14, 1993. I appreciate the cooperation of the Magnet Review Committee and look forward to working with them in the future. cc: Jerry Malone 1 g~3.,..94 Budget Proposal (CJ raft 3) .. --:... .,--:-:-:-\n.:.:..\n::\n:-:\n.,., ' 1991-92 1992-93 .., ../ 1993-94 l,,::C, ...... / . SUMMARY FOR MAGNET SCHOOLS .? \u0026gt;. F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Actual F.T.E. Budget CERTIFIED 01 Principal 6.0 $346,537 6.0 $357,193 6.0 $367,176 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 10.0 $456,057 10.0 $438,462 10.0 $479,729 03 Specialists 37.4 $1,274,519 37.2 $1,078,799 39.2 $1,207,341 04 Counselors 12.4 $444,641 10.4 $356,314 12.5 $431,093 05 Media Spec. 7.0 $218,210 7.0 $222,455 7.0 $233,751 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 07 Music 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 08 Foreign Lang. 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 09 Vocational 14.0 $507,273 12.6 $489,335 12.6 $492,420 10 Special Education 8.8 $248,275 8.8 $245,166 9.7 $276,790 11 Gifted 5.0 $163,550 5.0 $159,822 5.0 $174,623 12 Classroom 181.4 $5,308,868 177.6 $5,354,901 175.2 $5,689,340 13 Substitutes 0.0 $153,813 0.0 $147,417 0.0 $154,925 14 Other-Kindergarten 14.0 $407,561 14.0 $426,571 14.0 $448,634 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 296.0 $9,529,304 288.6 $9,276,435 291.2 $9,955,822 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 18.0 $301,141 18.0 $355,081 18.0 $353,310 STAFF 16 Nurses 5.4 $148,859 5.4 $148,996 5.4 $154,424 17 Custodians 29.5 $346,330 29.5 $335,694 29.0 $372,625 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 0.0 $0 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 5.0 $108,103 6.0 $143,913 6.0 $157,639 20 Other-Aides 39.5 $316,035 39.5 $256,806 38.0 $311,683 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx::xxxx::x $1,254,324 xx::xxxx::x $1,366,607 xx::xxxx::x $1,342,873 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 97.4 $2,474,792 98.4 $2,607,097 96.4 $2,692,554 ) . . TOTAL (10\n:.:20)\u0026lt; f/}\n{t) xx::xxxx::x $12,004\n096 xx::xxxx::x  $11\\883,532 xx::xx:xx::x $12,648\n376 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx::xxxx::x $601,780 xx::xxxx::x $507,373 xx::xxxx::x $598,926 SERVICES 23 Travel xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x $29,326 xx::xxxx::x. $31,215 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x 25 Other xx::xxxx::x $166,508 xx::xx:xx::x $97,426 xx::x xxx::x $99,428 TOTAL (30) xx::xx:xx::x $768,288 xx::xxxx::x $634,125 xx::xxxx::x $729,569 MATERIALS, 26 Principal' s Office xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx::xxxx::x $343,433 xx::xxxx::x. $309,128 xx::xxxx::x. $315 .284 (40) 28 Media xx::xxxx::x $56,509 xx::xxxx::x $53,842 xx::xxxx::x $54,884 29 Other xx::xxxx::x. xx::xxxx::x $11,647 xx::xxxx::x $11,856 TOTAL (40) xx::xxxx::x $399,942 xx::xxxx::x: $374,617 xx::xxxx::x $382,024 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx::xxxx::x $111,824 xx::xxxx::x $106,283 xx::xxxx::x $104,215 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x (50) 32 Other xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x xx::xxxx::x TOTAL (50) xx::xxxx::x $111,824 xx::xxxx::x $106,283 xx:xxxx::x $104,215 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xx:xxxx::x $8,358 xx:xxxx::x $12,416 xx::xxxx::x $12,665 (60) 34 Other xx::xxxx::x xx:xxxx::x xx:xxxx:x TOTAL (60) xx::xxxx:x $8,358 xx:xxxx::x $12,416 xx:xxxx:x $12,665 TOTAL (30-60) xx::xxxx::x $1,288,412 xx::xx:xx::x $1,127,441 xx::xxxx:x $1,228 473 TOT AL (1 0-60) 393.4 $13,292,508 387.0 $13,010,969 387.6 $13,876,849 TOTAL LINE ITE MS - (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxx:x $595,333 xx:xxxx:x $537,465 xx::xxxx::x $677,821 GRAND TOTAL xx::xxxx::x $13,887,841 xx::xxxx::x $13,548,434 xx::xx:xx::x $14 ,554,670 Line item Costs - . Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $19,871 $20,739 Other Objects Indirect Costs $503,365 $458,905 $574,582 Vocational $30,837 $29,864 $32,000 Athletics $31,231 $27,741 $29,000 Gifted Programs $51 $500 Plant Services $18,271 $1,009 $15,000 Reading $5,334 $500 Science English $2,368 ($2,058) $1,500 Special Education $3,927 $2,082 $4,000 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total'Line Items    $595,333 1 $537,465, . I// $677 ,821.:\u0026gt; 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 3771.8 3679.6 3807.0 Total Costs $13,887,841 $13,548,434 $14,554,670 Per Pupil Cost $3\n823\\ 1 ~~~~ Budget Prop?sal (Draft 3) 1991-9~ Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted 36oker Magnet School   y F.T.E Salaries ... F.T.E:. Salaries F.T.E:? Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $47,031 1.0 $52,699 1.0 $54,600 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $54,526 1.0 $51,060 1.0 $52,003 03 Specialists 6.0 $350.341 7.0 $239,870 7.0 $243,791 04 Counselors 2.0 $64,859 1.4 $35,997 2.0 $57,602 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $34,336 1.0 $35,134 1.0 $37,012 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 31.2 $751,321 30.2 $926,604 30.2 $937,841 10 Special Education 1.3 $48,425 1.3 $49,377 1.3 $51,124 11 Gifted 1.0 $33,463 1.0 $34,242 1.0 $36,073 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,649 $17,757 $20,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $109,481 4.0 $110,916 4.0 $120,022 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 48.5 $1,516,432 47.9 $1,553,656 48.5 $1,610,068 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $30,738 2.0 $30,341 2.0 $31,441 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $24,976 1.0 $25,725 1.0 $27,035 17 Custodians 5.0 $44,176 5.0 $42,176 5.0 $47,081 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 8.0 $72,860 8.0 ,$64,657 8.0 $75,718 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xx:xx:x $201,247 xx:xx:xxx $225,867 xxxx:xX::i. $215,438 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 16.0 $373,998 16.0 $388,766 16.0 $396,712 / \\t ... TOTAL(10-20)i \u0026amp;+ xx:xx:xx:x I $1\n890 ,.430 xx:xx:xx:x.:  $1\n942,422 xx:xx:xx:x $2,006,780 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx:xx:xx:x $81,637 xx:xx:xx:x $71,492 xx:xx:xx:x $87,854 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xx:xx:x xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxxx (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x. xx:xx:xx:x. 25 Other xx:xx:xx:x $27,963 xx:xx:xx:x $9,549 xx:xxxx:x $9,800 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $109,600 xx:xxxx:x $81,041 xx:xxxxx $97,654 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xx:xx:x xx:xx:xx:x. xx:xxxxx SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx:xx:xxx $53,613 xx:xxxxx $37,774 xxxxxx:x  $38,500 (40) 28 Media xx:xxxx:x $4,698 xx:xxxxx $4,743 xxxxxxx $4 ,800 29 Other xxxx:xxx xxxxxx:x $1,255 xx:xxxx:x $1,255 TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $58,311 xx:xxxx:x $43,772 xx:xxxx:x $44,555 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $6,377 xx:xxxx:x $10,090 xx:xxxx:x $6,100 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxx:x XX:XXXX:X- xx:xxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxxx xx:xx:xx:x TOTAL (50) xx:xxxx:x $6,377 xx:xx:xxx $10,090 xx:xx:xx:x $6,100  OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxx:xx:x xx:xxxxx xxxx:xxx (60) 34 Other xx:xx:xx:x xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xxxxxx:x $0 xx:xxxx:x xxxxxxx TOTAL (30-60) .,::-:. xxxxxx:x  $174,288 xxxxxx:x $134,903 xxxxxx:x $148,309 TOT AL (10-60) 64.5 $2,064,717 63.9 $2,077,325 64.5 $2,155,089 TOTAL LINE ITE MS- (SECOND PAGE) xx:xxxx:x $88,028 xxxxxx:x $75,446 xxxxxxx $99,618 GRAND TOTAL xxxxxxx $2,152,746 xxxxxx:x $2,152,771 xxxxxxx $2,254,707 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 ' 1993-94 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs $83,087 $75,260 $95,955 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $16 $155 Plant Services $3,016 $166 $2,505 Reading $883 $84 Science English $394 ($337) $251 Special Education $648 $341 $668 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx   Total. Line ltems.tft ) )Cf $88,028:- $75,446 \u0026lt;)$99,618. Per Pupi'I Cost) .\n\\\n, 1991-92 1992-93: . 1993-'-94 . (f 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 629.1 604.4 635.0 Total Costs $2,152,746 $2,152,771 $2,254,707 199~94 Budget Proposal (Draft 3)    \u0026gt; : \u0026gt; 1991-921 Actual 1992-93 t Actual C.if.Y~fMagn~tSchool \u0026lt; ) :\n: t F.T\nE. / lt Salaries F.T.E3 .  Salaries  CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $56,292 1.0 $57,676 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $31,328 1.0 $32,092 SUPPORT STAFF 03 Specialists 7.0 $218,361 7.0 $212,014 04 Counselors 2.0 $55,232 1.6 $50,547 05 Media Spec. 2.0 $42,474 2.0 $43,532 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 24.0 $600,670 23.0 $572,789 1 0 Special Education 2.0 $27,907 2.0 $30,734 11 Gifted 1.0 $31,689 1.0 $32,469 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $22,695 $16,814 14 Other-Kindergarten 4.0 $96,411 4.0 $116,101 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 44.0 $1,183,059 42.6 $1,164,768 1 5 Secretaries 3.0 $51,207 3.0 $65,657 16 Nurses 1.0 $28,927 1.0 $29,857 17 Custodians 4.0 $41,338 4.0 $34,361 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 11.0 $81,337 11.0 F1,921 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xx:xxx $167,825 xx:xxxx:x $190,533 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 19.0 $370,634 19.0 $392,329 1993-94 F.T.E. 1.0 1.0 8.0 2.1 2.0 23.6 2.0 1.0 4.0 44.7 3.0 1.0 3.5 11.0 xxxx:xxx 18.5 Budgeted ..:. Salaries : $59,423 $42,422 $236,265 $60,101 $46,074 $690,189 $32,460 $34,246 $17,150 $117,132 $1,335,462 $67,824 $31,250 $42,645 $76,016 $192,561 $410,297 TOTAL(10-20} xx:xxxx:x . $1,553\n693 xxxxxxx : $1\n557\n097 xxxx:xxx I $1,745.758 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxx:xxx $68,924 xxxxxxx $53,586 xxxxxxx $69,730 ~+-------------!----i~----'----+----+------,----,---.,----,,-+---+------,-----,-'------j SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxxx xxxx:xxx $12,253 xx:xxxxx $12,500 ~+-------------1----1~----+----+------+----+----'------j (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx. xx:xxxx:x 25 Other xx:xx:xxx $22,843 xxxxxx:x $9,911 xxxxxx:x $10,100 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $91,767 xxxx:xxx $75,750 xxxx:xxx $92,330 MATERIALS, 1-2--6+-P_r_in--c-'-ip_a_ls' _O_ff_ic_e ___~ x_ xx_xx_xx-1------+x_xx_xx_xx--+-----+-x_x:x_xx_x:x-+--------j SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxx:xxx $55,638 xxxxxxx $52,759 xxxx:xxx (40) 28 Media xx:xxxx:x $11,41 O xxxxxxx $13,271 xxxxxxx 29 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxx:x $2,593 xxxxxx:x CAPITAL I OUTLAY (50) I OTHER I (60) TOTAL (40) 30 Equipment 31 Building Repair, etc. 32 Other TOTAL (50) 33 Dues and Fees 34 Other TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30-60} TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS - (SECOND PAGE) GRAND TOTAL xx:xxxxx $67,048 xxxxxx:x $68,623 xx:xxxxx . xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 xx:xxxx:x xxxx:xxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx $22,128 xxxxxxx $27,894 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx $2,857 xxxxxxx $3,908 xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx $2,857 xxxxxxx $3,908 xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $183,800 xxxxxxx $176,174 xxxxxxx 63.0 $1,737,493 61.6 $1,733,271 63.2 xxxxxxx $84,978 xxxxxxx $86,058 xxxxxx:x xxxxxxx $1,822,471 xxxxxxx $1,819,329 xxxxxxx $53,814 $13,536 $2,645 $69,995 $28,450 $28,450 $3,985 $3,985 $194,760 $1,940,518 $107,945 $2,048,463 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $12,453 $13,100 Other Objects Indirect Costs $80,209 $73,425 $91,358 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $15 $145 Plant Services $2,912 $162 $2,385 Reading $852 $82 Science English $380 ($329) $239 Special Education $625 $333 $636 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Llne Items.:, ..  { $84,978 I: ..... $86\nosa .  $107\n945 Per Pupil Cost -:,:  1991~92 ./ 1992-93? 1993-94 3rd Qtr. ADM or Proj. 600.4 588.3 605.00 Total Costs $1,822,471 $1,819,329 $2,048,463 PerPupil. Cost ..... .-.. .-. : ..., .. .... , .. $3,036? /\\ .:: $3,092: $3,386 1~~~94 Budget Proposal (Draft 3) , .. 1991-92 Actual 1992-92 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted G.ibbs Magnet school       F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $55,462 1.0 $56,515 1.0 $59,234 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $39,856 1.0 $55,922 1.0 $45,000 03 Specialists 5.8 $160,327 5.8 $160 ,752 5.8 $158,107 04 Counselors 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $40,670 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $35,695 1.0 $36,471 1.0 $38,433 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 17.0 $476,468 17.0 $482,159 15.0 $507,851 10 Special Education 1.5 $47,975 1.5 $53,235 1.5 $52,530 11 Gifted 1.0 $39,485 1.0 $35,493 1.0 $33,443 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,081 $13,666 $14,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 2.0 $56,577 2.0 $52,144 2.0 $57,974 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 31.3 $961,411 31.3 $985 ,841 29.3 $1,007,242 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 1.0 $12,498 2.0 $27,701 1.4 $21,942 STAFF 16 Nurses 0.8 $14,585 0.8 $11,304 0.8 $11,530 17 Custodians 3.0 $41 ,043 3.0 $33,776 3.0 $39 ,012 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 6.0 $45,537 6.0 $26,782 5.6 $37,697 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxx:x,: $129,439 XX:XXXX:X' $141 ,032 xx:xxxx:x $136,618 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 10.8 $243,102 11 .8 $240,594 10.8 $246,798 TOTAL (10-20}:\\ : t xx:xxxx:x:: \u0026lt; $h204i513 , XXXXXXJCc. 1-\u0026lt; $1\\ 226\n435 xxxxxx:x \\ $1,254,041 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xxxxxx:x: $35,102 xxxxxx:x $26,879 xx:xxxx:x $38,531 SERVICES 23 Travel XX'X)O(X:X xxxx:xx:x, $2,066 XXJOO(X:X- $3,407 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxx:xce XX:XXXX:X' xxxx:xxx.. 25 Other xri:xxx:x: $11,464 xx:xxxx:x $7,309 xx:xxxx'x $7,455 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x,. $46,566 XX:XXXX:X, $36,254 xx:xxxx:x $49 ,393 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx:: $25,426 xxxxxx:x: $23,541 xx:xxxx:x $24,012 (40) 28 Media xxxxxx:x. $6,241 xx:xxxx:x $6,489 xx:xxxx:x $6,620 29 Other xx:xxxx:x xx:xxxx:x $1,016 xx:xxxx:x $1 ,036 TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $31 ,667 xxxxxx:x $31 ,046 xx:xxxx:x $31 ,668 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $3,968 xx:xxxx:x $2,594 xxxxxx:x $2,646 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x xxxxxx:x TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx  $3,968 xx:xxxxx $2,594 xxxxxxx $2,646 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx xxxxxxx $1,132 xxxxxxx $1,155 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxx $0 xxxxxxx $1 ,132 xxxxxxx $1 ,155 TOT AL (30-60} XX:X)O(X:X $82,202 xx:xx.xxx $71 ,025 xxxxxxx . $84,862 TOT AL (10-60) 42.1 $1,286,715 43.1 $1 ,297,460 40.1 $1 ,338,903 TOTAL LINE m MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $48,935 xxxx.xxx $41,553 xxxxxxx $51,892 GRANO TOTAL xxxxxxx $1,335,649 xx:xxxxx $1,339 ,013 xxxxxxx $1,390,795 Line Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Stipends $150 Other Objects Indirect Costs $46,189 $41,301 $49,988 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $8 $80 Plant Services $1,676 $91 $1,305 Reading $491 $42 Science English $219 ($185) $129 Special Education $360 $187 $348 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx :\\::::,. . TotaLLine Items : ..... \u0026lt;} $48,935  ft:. $41,553 .-.-\n-\n,:_ $51,892 Per Pupil Cost '\u0026gt; . ,:: ::,\u0026gt; 1991,-92\\ / 1992-93}/\n\\ ... 199S-::94 /.' 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 339.6 329.0 330.0 Total Costs $1,335,649 $1,339,013 $1,390,795 PerPupil Gosr,,:.-\\,:,,,:\n:::t/ :\\ft } $3,933. tt : $4,070  )) $4\n214? ~~\n~1~~~~:~ :~~~~~:: . \u0026lt;~(\nft 3 ) ... ::::: ii :: 1991,-92 Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 Budgeted   F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $64,177 1.0 $64,174 1.0 $65,081 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 1.0 $35,840 1.0 $36,843 1.0 $38,931 03 Specialists 5.0 $164,440 4.0 $141,471 5.0 $176,239 04 Counselors 1.4 $39,485 1.4 $40,611 1.4 $40,088 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $33,752 1.0 $34,592 1.0 $36,477 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Classroom 21.0 $638,535 21.0 $631,616 20.0 $649,229 10 Special Education 1.5 $31,891 1.5 $13,370 1.1 $27,792 11 Gifted 2.0 $58,913 2.0 $57,618 2.0 $70,861 12 Chapter 1 13 Substitutes $10,402 $15,588 $16,000 14 Other-Kindergarten 3.0 $105,607 3.0 $107,925 3.0 $112,836 TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 36.9 $1,183,042 35.9 $1,143,808 35.5 $1,233,533 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 2.0 $31,036 2.0 $42,678 2.6 $38,247 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $31,124 1.0 $31,904 1.0 $33,337 17 Custodians 3.5 $48,136 3.5 $43,163 3.5 $53,653 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 20 Other-Aides 9.0 $44,548 9.0 _$32,748 9.0 $54,985 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx::xx:xx::x $158,584 xx::xx:xx::x $171,101 xx::xx:xx::x $166,399 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 15.5 $313,428 15.5 $321,594 16.1 $346,621 TOTAL (10-20)/   XX::XX:XX::X $1,496,470 xx::xx:xx::x  $1,465,402 xx::xx:xx::x $1,580,155 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx::xx:xx::x. $42,968 xx::xx:xx:x $38,623 xx:xx:xx::x $48,682 SERVICES 23 Travel xx::xx:xx:x  xx::xx:xx::x $3,793 xx::xx:xx::x $3,870 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx::xx:xx:x xx:xxxx:x xx:xx:xx:x 25 Other xx:xxxx:x $16,259 xx:xx:xx::x $16,400 xx::xx:xx::x $16,728 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxx:x $59,227 xx:xxxx:x $58,816 xx::xx:xx:x $69,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx::xx:xx:x xx::xxxxx xx::xx:xx::x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xxxxxxx.: $44,477 xxxxxxx: $38,631 xxxxxxx $39,405 (40) 28 Media xx::xxxxx $6,976 xx:xxxx:x $6,234 xxxxxx:x $6,360 ' 29 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxx:x. $1,475 xxxx:xx:x $1,505 ! TOTAL (40) xx:xxxx:x $51,454 xx:xxxx:x $46,341 xx:xxxxx $47,270 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xx:xxxx:x $14,984 xx:xxxx:x $25,034 xxxxxx:x $25,535 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xx:xxxxx xx:xxxxx xx::xxxx:x (50) 32 Other xx::xxxxx xx:xx:xxx xx::xxxx:x TOTAL (50) xx:xxxxx $14,984 xx:xxxx:x $25,034 xx::xxxx::x $25,535 I  OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xx::xxxxx $535 xx:xx:xx::x $190 xx:xxxx:x S195 (60) 34 Other xx::xxxxx xx:xxxx::x xx:xx:xxx TOTAL (60) xx::xxxxx $535 xx::xx:xx:x $190 xx::xxxx::x $195 .. ,, TOTAL (30-60) xx::xx:xx::x $126,200 xx::xx:xx::x $130,381 xx::xx:xx::x $142,280 TOT AL (1 0-60) 52.4 $1,622,669 51.4 $1,595,783 51.6 $1,722,435 I TOTAL LINE IT! MS - (SECOND PAGE) xx::xxxx:x $71,665 xxxx:xxx $60,881 xx:xxxx:x $78,563 GRAND TOTAL xx::xxxx::x $1,694,335 xxxx:xx::x $1,656,664 xx::xx:xxx $1,800,998 Line Item Costs - ... Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 199\n3-94 Stipends $1,537 $1,614 Other Objects Indirect Costs $67,647 $59,199 $74,121 Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs $12 $120 Plant Services $2,455 $130 $1,935 Reading $717 $63 Science English $318 ($265) $194 Special Education $528 $269 $516 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx / Total Line ltems/\u0026gt;c \u0026lt; {$71,665\\ t ~60,aa1  ................. .$78\n563 Per Pupil Cost\u0026gt; 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 506.8 473.3 492.0 Total Costs $1,694,335 $1,656,664 $1,800,998 11 ~g3'\"\"91: Budget Proposal (Draft 3) )!j:Jill 1 tI\u0026lt; . . 1991-92 1. Actual 1992-93 Actual 1993-94 . Budgeted iA,NN Magnet School  F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries F.T.E. Salaries CERTIFIED 01 Principal 1.0 $62,204 1.0 $63,612 1.0 $64,256 STAFF 02 Asst. Prin. 3.0 $144,375 3.0 $143,289 3.0 $148,979 03 Specialists 3.8 $104,450 3.6 $102,810 3.6 $109,707 04 Counselors 3.0 $113,003 2.0 $71,228 3.0 $109,509 05 Media Spec. 1.0 $38,916 1.0 $39,713 1.0 $41,729 06 Art-Perf./Prod. 07 Music 08 Foreign Lang. 09 Vocational 6.0 $197,824 5.6 $186,730 5.6 $208,475 10 Special Education 1.3 $45,481 1.3 $46,551 1.3 $49,016 11 Gifted 12 Classroom 47.0 $1,443,046 46.8 $1,370,771 46.8 $1,510,430 13 Substitutes $45,577 $34,413 $36,135 14 Other TOTAL CERTIFIED SALARY 66.1 $2,194,876 64.3 $2,059,117 65.3 $2,278,237 SUPPORT 15 Secretaries 3.0 $49,774 3.0 $65,214 3.0 $67,206 STAFF 16 Nurses 1.0 $30,687 1.0 $31,416 1.0 $32,045 17 Custodians 6.0 $67,050 6.0 $68,427 6.0 $71,195 18 Paraprofessionals-Chptr 1 19 Paraprofessionals-Other 1.0 $30,787 1.0 $21,650 1.0 $22,947 20 Other-Aides 3.5 $48,626 3.5 , $46,693 2.4 $37,142 21 Fringe Benefits(20) xx:xxxx:x: $275,853 xx:xxxx:x $292,062 xx:xxxx:x: $296,293 TOTAL SUPPORT SALARY 14.5 $502,777 14.5 $525,462 13.4 $526,829 .:\u0026gt; .. -:- TOTAL(l0-20)) :\n:- xx:xxxx:x: i $2,697,653 xx:xxxx:x ' $2,584\n578 xx:xxxx:x $2,805,067 PURCHASED 22 Utilities xx:xxxx:x: $164,666 xx:xxxx:x: $137,280 xx:xxxx:x S168,667 SERVICES 23 Travel xx:xxxx:x xx:xxxx:x $11,214 xx:xxxx:x $11,438 (30) 24 Maintenance Agreements xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx xx:xxxx:x 25 Other xxxxxxx $48,887 xxxxxxx $35,464 xx:xxxxx. $36,175 TOTAL (30) xx:xxxxx .. $213,554 xx:xxxx:x $183,959 xxxxxxx $216,280 MATERIALS, 26 Principal's Office xx:xxxxx xx:xxxx:x xxxxxx:x SUPPLIES 27 Regular Classroom xx:xxxxx $76,512 xx:xxxx:x $63,984 xxxxxx:x $65,265 (40) 28 Media xx:xxxxx. $10,301 xx:xxxx:x $9,352 xxxxxx:x: $9,540 29 Other xx:xxxxx. xxxxxxx $2,172 xxxxxxx $2,215 TOTAL (40) xxxxxx:x $86,813 xx:xxxxx $75,508 xxxxxx:x $77,020 CAPITAL 30 Equipment xxxxxxx. $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 OUTLAY 31 Building Repair, etc. xxxxxxx: xxxxxxx xxxxxxx (50) 32 Other xx:xxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (50) xxxxxxx $26,417 xxxxxxx $17,579 xxxxxxx $17,930 OTHER 33 Dues and Fees xxxxxxx $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxxxx $1,405 (60) 34 Other xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx TOTAL (60) xx:xxxxx $1,470 xxxxxxx $1,377 xxxxxxx $1,405 TOTAL (30-60) . xx:xxxxx $328,253 xxxxxxx $278,422 xxxxxxx $312,635 TOT AL (1 0-60) 80.6 $3,025,906 78.8 $2,863,000 78.7 $3,117,702 TOTAL LINE IT$MS - (SECOND PAGE) xxxxxxx $143,218 xxxxxxx $137,573 xxxxxxx $172,083 GRAND TOTAL xx:xxxxx $3,169,124 xx:xxxx:x $3,000,573 xxxxxx:x $3,289,785 Une Item Costs - Attach Explanation 1991-92 1992-93 \" 1993-94 Stipends $4,378 $4,600 Other Objects Indirect Costs $114,098 $104,172 $132,153 Vocational $13,141 $14,932 $16,000 Athletics $9,202 $13,857 $14,500 Gifted Programs Plant Services $4,141 $229 $3,450 Reading $1 ,209 $115 Science English $537 ($467) $345 Special Education $890 $473 $920 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx Total Line Items,:\\ . .: \\1 $143,218? t $137,573 \\/ $172\n083.- . 3rd Otr. ADM or Proj. 858.0 836.3 875.0 Total Costs $3,169,124 $3,000,573 $3,289,785 1 ~394\n!udget.proposal. (Draft 3) ) .  ::..-, ::::::\n::::::'.::::::\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1179","title":"Magnet Review Committee: Magnet school principal positions","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"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School principals","School management and organization","Magnet schools","Parents' and teachers' associations"],"dcterms_title":["Magnet Review Committee: Magnet school principal positions"],"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/1179"],"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\n  \n\nCorrespondence from Bobby Altom, chairman of the Magnet Review Committee to Ann S. Brown, federal monitor (July 21, 1994) with supportive material on how the Little Rock School District fills interdistict magnet school principal positions\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nMagnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114  Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156  July 21, 1994 Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: RECE. I~ JUL 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Thank you for requesting information needed to address questions that have arisen regarding the Magnet Review Committee's role in the process Little Rock School District used to fill interdistrict magnet school principal positions for the 1994-95 school year. We have responded to each point to the best of our ability. The necessary documentation is attached and enumerated for easy reference. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, !3drty~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments 1. The date(s) the MRC reviewed the procedures the LRSD used in recommending staffing assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The Magnet Review Committee held a special-called meeting on Thursday, May 12, 1994, for the purpose of discussing Little Rock School District's procedures used to recommend staff assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. 2. A list of the MRC members who participated in each review session. 3. All MRC members were present at the May 12, 1994 meeting: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua lntervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Dana Chadwick, NLRSD, was absent from the June 27, 1994 meeting\nMarcia Harding, ADE, and Oliver Dillingham, ADE, were unavailable for the July 18, 1994 meeting. The minutes of all review sessions. The minutes of the meetings which addressed items mentioned in number 1 . above are attached as a part of this information packet. These meetings took place on May 12, 1 994, June 27, 1994 and July 18, 1994. 4. A copy of the procedures which were \"previously presented to the MRC with reference to original magnet school principal positions\n\" indicate the date the MRC received these procedures\nindicate the date they were disseminated to each Committee member. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The procedures were discussed as a part of the May 12, 1994 and June 27, 1994 meetings. The written copy of these procedures was disseminated at MRC's July 18, 1 994 meeting and are attached as a part of this information packet. 5. 6. 7. The date(s) and names of MRC members who participated in identifying the \"appropriate action\" the MRC has determined it will take to ensure that the LRSD administration fulfills its obligation to follow the Court's Order for future staffing changes in the original magnet schools. Provide minutes of that meeting. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The MRC held a special-called meeting on July 18, 1994 to discuss and formulate language which will guide the Little Rock School District and the Magnet Review Committee discussions regarding consultations on original magnet school vacancies. Members present at the July 18, 1994 meeting were: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Evelyn Jackson, Joshua lntervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD The minutes from all other MRC meetings in which the principal selection process was considered in any way. Indicate those who were present at those meetings. The minutes are included as a part of this packet. The list of members present is a part of the minutes. The date(s) and copies of correspondence through which the MRC learned of each impending principal vacancy in a magnet school for the 1994-95 school year. The Little Rock School District customarily informs the Magnet Review Committee of magnet vacancies via job announcements placed in the MRC school mailbox at LRSD's Central Office. Copies of the job descriptions are attached. 8. For each of the following, a copy of the written information, the date that information was committed to writing, and the date it was disseminated to all Committee members: a. The written procedures that guide the MRC in relation to selection of principals of the magnet schools. copy attached - Interim Order Enforcing Mandate of Court of Appeals Date Committed to Writing: March 4, 1987 Date Disseminated: March 4, 1987 b. The written MRC policy or guidelines about using interview committees in selecting magnet school principals. copy attached - Interview Protocol and Selection of Applicants, School Principals Date Committed to Writing: June, 1994 Date Disseminated: July 18, 1994 c. The written annual timeline the MRC follows in relation to principal selections. No specific written timeline is followed\nhowever, notification of staff vacancies is noted at the annual review sessions for the interdistrict magnet schools budgets, which begin in March before each school year. d. Any written guidelines, suggestions, or criteria the MRC may have established regarding principal qualifications, characteristics, experience, or other criteria, especially as it relates to the individual theme, programmatic emphasis, or other unique aspects of the individual magnet school community at each of the magnet schools. copy attached - Court Order \"Stipulation for Proposed Order Concerning Magnet Review Committee\" Date Committed to Writing: September 3, 1986 Date Disseminated: September, 1986 copy attached - Court Order Regarding the Role of the Magnet Review Committee Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: July 2, 1987 July, 1987 copy attached - Court Order Regarding MRC's Request to Court on Staffing Date Committed to Writing: November 5, 1992 Date Disseminated: November, 1992 9. Copies of any patron or staff letters the MRC has received regarding the most recent principal selection process. Patron/staff letters received by the MRC are attached and separated by school. MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 12, 1994 A spe~ial-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Thursday May 12, 1994. 1 Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Dr. Altom opened the meeting at 8:40 a.m. by th~nking all MRC members for coming to this special-called meeting. He then provided a basis for requesting this meeting. Dr. Altom reminded the Committee that when it became public that LRSD was making a change in principalship, he began to review the Court Order because he was afraid the Court would admonish the MRC regarding the staffing changes. In looking through the Court Order of November 5, 1992, Dr. Altom's understanding was that the MRC had an expanded role from years past. Because of that, Dr. Altom polled each of the MRC members to see if they thought that MRC's role had been expanded and the consensus was \"yes, they did . \" Dr. Altom then contacted Dr. Williams unofficially to share this information with him. They had a very cordial meeting. Dr. Altom noted that about two years ago, with regard to budget cuts, the MRC became concerned about the themes of the magnets . The Court had admonished the MRC for not taking a more active role. It now seemed appropriate that the MRC would come together to make an official statement about the items in the Court Order, page 12. It should be pointed out that the following terms should be reviewed: 1) consult 2) staff (who it includes) 3) staffing changes (what does this mean) The MRC will need to write a letter to the Court saying that \"as a body, this is what we believe and if this is not so , please tell us if you see it differently.\" STAFFING Does it mean to give the MRC the authority to overturn? The language says the Court decides. MRC merely states what the appropriate action should be. STAFF When staffing changes are made, does it mean teachers, administrators, or support staff as well? This needs to be clarified because MRC needs to determine who the critical people are with regard to the theme. Does a magnet principal being assigned to another magnet consist of a staffing change? Estelle Matthis then asked for an executive session to address the personnel issue. Ms. Matthis said the Superintendent has every intention of working by the Court Order and the MRC. Dr. Williams wants to assur_e you that the district will advertise positions, etc. and will follow the procedure as in the past - interview, make recommendation to the MRC, the Board approves, etc. He does plan to abide by the Court Order. Ms . Harding noted that in defining terms, the term \"prior to\" should be clarified. Things should not come as a surprise to this body. Ms . Harding said that some of the Court filings of some time ago were filed with regard to RIF's. Since then, this has come into play, and the MRC had asked the Court to have a hearing with regard to staffing. This was not tied to budget. It does not appear to be tied to only to the budgeting process . Ms . Matthis said LRSD understands that issues are related to budget. Their Program Budget Guide governs daily activities . Dr. Altom said he called Dr. Williams' attention to RIF and that MRC feels very strongly about it. He told him the MRC may ask the Court for a speedy resolution. Ms. Matthis said that Judge Wright understands the agreement . The 8th Circuit says that unless the re-assignment has an impact on desegregation, the assignment will go on. -2- Dr. Altom reminded the Committee that Donna Grady Creer, Marcia Harding and Oliver Dillingham will be meeting with Gene Wilhoit on May 23, 1994 with regard to the State's role in monitoring. CONSULT Ms. Matthis said the critical item will be the timing in terms of when we consult. Does LRSD come to the MRC first, and .when? We have to get the timing down on this. Dr. Altom noted the definition of \"consult\" is \"to ask the advice or opinion of.\" This does not say you have decision-making authority, but your thoughts are considered. A combined definition would be, \"consider by asking the advice or opinion of.\" STAFF Ms. Harding noted that, from earlier on, when staff came up in Judge Woods' court, it encompassed all certificated personnel. MRC was asked to make recommendations on these personnel. The MRC reviewed information that LRSD used prior to that time for hiring purposes. MRC made recommendations and changes with regard to thematic parts. Ms. Matthis said LRSD is basically of the same feeling. She also noted that LRSD says staffing is certificated positions. STAFFING CHANGE 1) The hiring of a person to come into a building and be either a teacher, administrator, or support individual. 2) The oth~r has to do with the possibility of transfers. This would mean thc\nit the term \"prior to\" needs to be defined for both of these. What does \"prior to\" mean with regard to posting a position? With regard to a transfer, what does \"prior to\" mean? Ms. Harding said that under any condition, the MRC notified as soon as possible when LRSD is thinking reassigning or making a transfer of an individual. representation should report any staffing changes, the regularly-scheduled meeting of the MRC. -3- should be of The LRSD etc. at PROCEDURE Ms. Matthis said that she does not believe it would be problem to report at the MRC meeting every two weeks. LRSD representation could give a status report when something is happening. a The Ms. Creer noted that, just as a normal procedure, when a vacancy is posted, a copy could be given to the MRC immediately. Ms. Harding said clarification is needed about looking at non-certificated people also with regard to the budget. It was agreed that the MRC Office would screen job postings and place these postings on the agenda for every MRC meeting with regard to staffing in magnet schools. HIRING VS. TRANSFER Any staffing change means either hiring or transferring. Question: MRC has always been comfortable with the selection process of hiring. That is acceptabl~. \"LRSD will consult with MRC before making change.\" What does \"consult with\" mean? Ms. Matthis said the procedure is: Post the position publicly\nApplicants apply to Human Resources\nThe applications are checked by Assistant superintendents\nSelection Committee reviews\nInterview is scheduled\nTop three candidates go to Superintendent for consideration/possible interview\nsuperintendent makes recommendation to the Board or refers it back to the Selection Committee and the job is re-advertised. With regard to a transfer, the MRC will be looking at the same situation. Does this person meet the qualifications, etc.? Discussions will be held in Executive Session. The MRC should then report to the Court. Ms. Harding has a concern as this relates to transfers. Dr. Williams says change for change sake would not be made. Where transfers are concerned, when they are involuntary, that information needs to be presented to us (particularly if it has disruptive effects). -4- The Committee took a five-minute break. After the break, Estelle Matthis made a motion for the MRC to go into Executive Session to discuss peronnel changes at the original magnet schools. Marcia Harding seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. After Executive Session, Estelle Matthis made a motion to return to Open Session, and Marcia Harding seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom reported that no action was taken that needs to be affirmed in Open Session. In summary, a letter will go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, indicating that the MRC has reached consensus on the language in the sentence on Page 12, of the Court Order dated November 5, 1992. A copy will be sent to all MRC members. The MRC does approve the LRSD selection process for the selection of principals. In order to be more pro-active in the future, MRC will have on its regular agenda .~n item on the staffing of magnet schools to address these issues in a more timely manner. When no more business was brought to the table, Evelyn Jackson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Estelle Matthis seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. The next MRC meeting will be on Tuesday, May 17, 1994 and will encompass discussion of the interdistrict magnet schools budget. -5- MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 27, 1994 A special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Monday, June 27, 1994. Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Guests: Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent - LRSD Horace Smith, Associate Monitor - ODM The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. by Chairperson Dr. Bobby Altom. He explained the meeting was called to examine the process used in the recent selection of magnet school principals and because the MRC had agreed in its May 12, 1994 meeting to send a letter to the Court telling the Court of MRC's opinion regarding its role in staff selection in magnet schools. Dr. Altom noted that two items will be discussed: 1) The unapproved minutes of the May 12, 1994 MRC meeting\n2) The May 18, 1994 letter to the Court outlining what the MRC had delineated in its May 12, 1994 meeting in its interpretation of the language used in Judge Wright's November 5, 1992 Court Order describing MRC's input in original magnet staffings. Dr. Altom called for a reading of the minutes of the May 12, 1994 meeting. After discussion, and a few corrections, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to approve the minutes and Estelle Matthis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Matthis opened the discussion by outlining the process LRSD uses in selection of principals. She noted that LRSD asks PTA presidents for the names of three parents to serve on the principal's interview team, and LRSD looks at these submissions with regard to race and gender. Two teachers are selected for the committee, one black and one white, and one curriculum person. Central Office administrators are represented by two Assistant Superintendents. These people make up the selection committee for elementary schools. Secondary schools follow the same procedure as noted above, but incentive schools have staffing committees, including a representative of the Joshua Intervenors. Once all the people for the selection committee are identified, letters are sent to them notifying them to serve on the committee. Ms. Matthis noted that there was some question as to the number of parents to be included. Gibbs wanted five parents and five teachers. Ms. Matthis explained how the process worked, and she also oted that parents could ask questions if they wanted when they get to the interview process. However, parents were requested to ask the same questions of all applicants. Most applicants had no school preference. If an applicant were an assistant principal, they were automatically given an audience. She noted that three assistant principals, one principal and one specialist applied for the Gibbs job. Once the applicants had been identified, dates and times were given for the interviews. Letters were sent to the participants telling them of the dates and times. The procedure for the interviews went as follows: The interview team is brought in and a folder is given to them. A listing of all the people serving on the team was included in this folder. A list of questions was provided and participants were told that \"if you want to ask applicants a question, that's fine\nhowever, you must ask that same question to all candidates.\" A rating sheet was included in the folder also, and it was explained to committee participants. The rating sheet is process. Committee applicants by their one part of the whole evaluation members were asked to rank first choice, etc., and the -2- committee tries to come to a consensus. After that, there will be questions from the interview team. Ms. Harding asked what happens if there is a situation where the committee cannot reach a consensus. Ms. Matthis said the committee reports back to the Superintendent and notifies him that no consensus has been reached. At that point , the job will be re-advertised. Ms. Matthis noted that State law gives the Superintendent responsibility to re-assign or transfer personnel. Ms . Harding asked Ms. Matthis and Ms. Gremillion why there are such large numbers in movement. They noted that options for staff to take the early retirement incentives have created a lot of the open positions. At this point, Ms. Matthis requested that the Magnet Review Committee go into Executive Session to discuss personnel for the interdistrict magnet schools. Ms. Harding made a motion to go into Executive Session, and Ms. Matthis seconded the motion. The motion car~ied unanimously. When Executive Session was completed, Ms. Harding made a motion to re-convene the MRC meeting and Estelle Matthis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom reported the results of the Executive Session. He said the MRC will go on record in a letter to the Court stating that the MRC does not believe that LRSD has followed the Court Order of Judge Wright when it says that \"in the future, the LRSD must consult the MRC and must seek Court permission prior to making any staffing changes in the magnet schools.\" The MRC does not believe that that consultation was made. Dr. Altom also said that the MRC will go on record that MRC believes that the interview, recommendation and selection process does have integrity. Also, in the letter, the MRC will ask Dr. Henry Williams to work with the MRC to make sure the Court Order is followed for future original magnet staffing changes. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Evelyn Jackson made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. -3- MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES July 18, 1994 A special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Monday, July 18 1994. ' Members Present: Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. He informed the Magnet Review Committee the meeting was being called to discuss Little Rock School District's recommendation for the principalship at Carver Elementary Magnet School. Dr. Altom asked for a motion to go into Executive Session, and Estelle Matthis provided the motion. Dana Chadwick seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. When Executive Session ended, Ms. Matthis made a motion to return to the general meeting, and Evelyn Jackson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously to return to a general session. Dana Chadwick made a motion that, after hearing the Little Rock School District's representative regarding the principal selection process and the protocol, MRC accept the recommendation of the LRSD for the principalship of Carver Elementary Magnet School. Estelle Matthis seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom recapped the events of the Executive Session. He said the Magnet Review Committee will submit, by way of formal letter to the Court through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the action taken during this meeting. As a part of the letter, a statement will be made that the Magnet Review Committee does not believe that the process has been done in as timely a fashion as what the MRC would like. But, the late date, the fact principals are already under contract and the belief that magnet school parents are anxious to meet and support that individual, the Magnet Review Committee does support the selection. The Little Rock School District did provide a more in-depth discussion of rationale for selection of the CarveI principal. By consensus, the Magnet Review Committee agreed to send a letter to Dr. Williams asking him to work with the MRC on procedures or policies affecting staffing of the original magnet schools. The MRC will ask him to work with the MRC regarding the following items: timely notification of vacancies arising\nthe procedures for recruitment of candidates\nscreening procedures for candidates\nmake-up selection of the interview committee\nthe development of the interview itself\nwritten criteria or factors considered for the selection of the final principal selection\nreassignment and/or removal of magnet school principals. The MRC will ask him to help look into any changes that might be appropriate for principal job descriptions in the magnet schools. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Estelle Matthis made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Dana Chadwick seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. -2- 5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams INTER VIEW PROTOCOL Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 1994-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 1994, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or policy, there has been a well-known long-standing past practice of interview protocol. The above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policy and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent\nMr. Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations\nand Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Hu~an Resources.   LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. Persons desiring employment as a School Principal shall file an application in writing (Reswne, letter of intent, or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. District application forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) 2. District administration officials will screen the applicants 3. for acceptability. Taken into consideration are certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. The Deputy Superintendent and/or the Assistant SuperiDtendent(s) will prepare a list of interview questions to be used in the interview process. 4. The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie: E.E.O., Affirmative Action, Americans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be selected/appointed, as follows: Three Two Three (3) Parents/Patrons (2) Teachers (3) Administration Representatives Note:1 Note:2 Note:3 1. The Parent/Patrons representatives will be selected by a process: designated by the PTA president of the of the affected school. 2. The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by the Administration. 3. The Deputy Superintendent (in consultation with appropriate staff - Assistant superintendents, Supervisors, and Principals) may designate the Administration representatives. *NOTE: The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB 6. The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will be provided folders containing the following: 1) An interview schedule 2) The approved interview questions 3) An approved candidate rating form 4) The applicant's application materials 7. The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. ~ (Note: Although the applicants are rated, the ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) 8. The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. 9. Once the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. 10. When approved, the candidate shall receive a contract which details his salary, pay grade, and other pertinent information. ,, . . PLEASE POST PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL OISRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 10, 1994 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following positions for the 1994-95 school year: POSITIONS: Principals - Six (6) Positions - (1) Williams Magnet (1) Gibbs Magnet (1) carver Magnet (1) Mitchell Incentive (1) Franklin Incentive (1) Rightsell Incentive QUALIFICATIONS: At least five (5) years experience as a teacher and/ or administrator. 1. 2. A master ' s degree or higher, with eligibility for Arkansas certification as an elementary principal. __ 3. 4. Evidence of strong organizational skills. Knowledge of curriculum development and successful teach5. 6. 7. 8. ing methods . Demonstrates the conviction that all students can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. Evidence of strong experience in dealing with student problems. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Assumes responsibility for the management and monitoring of his/her school, and serves as a chief advisor to the appropiiate assigned Associate/Assistant superintendent on matters pertaining to administration, budget, and program implementation in his/her school. 2. works with staff and patrons to determine educational program priorities and goals for his/her school . Principals BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Continued) 3. Implements the process whereby school-level educational programs needs are identified. Informs the appropriate Associate/Assistant Superintendent regarding needed logistical and consultative support in order to accomplish this task. 4. Serves on such advisory groups and task forces as assigned by the appropriate Associate/Assistant superintendent. 5. oversees the development of educational programs and the plan for implementing them on the school level. 6. Works with supervisory and building staff to make the necessary program changes. 7. Assumes responsibility for conducting the performance evaluation of all personnel assigned to his/her building. 8. Assumes responsibility for all record keeping and other administrative tasks. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIP: Reports to the Deputy superintendent. SALARY AND TERMS: 37-0003 Salary Schedule - An Eleven (11) Month Contract plus Educational stipend, car Allowance, and Benefits APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 19, 1994, or any time later until satisfactory applicants are recommended and approved. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INOUITY TO: or. Richard E. Hurley Director of ~an Resources Little Rock school District 810 west Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 Principals NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. .P. r LITILE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. Cite u 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) 363 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. Faulkner\nBob Moore\nDon Hindman\nShirley Lowery\nSheryl Dunn\nDavid Sain\nBob Stender\nGrainger Williams Richard A. Giddings\nGeorge A: McCrary\nBuddy Raines\nand Dale Ward, Uefcndants, Katherine Knight, Individually and as President of The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA)\nLRCA\nEd Bullington, Individually nnd us President of The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)\nPACT\nJohn Harrison, Individually and as President of The North Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (NLRCTA)\nNLRCTA\nand Milton Jackson, Individually and as a NonCertified Educational Support Employee of the Little Rock0.School District, Lorene Joshua, as next friend of mi nors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua and Wayne Joshua\nRev. Robert Willing ham\nSara Matthews, as next friend of Khayyam Davis, Alexa Armstrong and Karlos Armstrong\nl\\lrs. Alvin Hudson, as next friend of Talia Hudson\nl\\lrs. Hilton Taylor, as next friend of Parshu Taylor, Hilton Taylor, Jr. and Brian Taylor\nRev. John r,t. Miles, as next friend of Janice Miles and Dcreck Miles\nRev. Robert Willingham on be half of and as President of the Little Rock Branch of the NAACP\nLorene Joshua on behalf of and as President of the North Little Rock Branch of NAACP, Intervenors. No. L~C-82-866. United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, W.D. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1\nNorth Little Rock School District\nArkansas State Board of Education\nWayne Hartsfield\nWalter Turnbow\nHarry A. Haines\nJim Dupree\nDr. Harry P. McDonald\nRobert L. Newton\nAlice L. Preston\nJeff Starling\nEarle Love\nBob Lyon\nJohn Ward\nJudy Wear\nLeon Barnes\nMa rianna Gosser\nSteve Morley\nMac Feb. 27, 1987. Order March 4, 1987. School desegregation plans were sub milted. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 597 F.Supp. 1220, held that countywide inter [1059] , 364 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT district remedy had to be utilized to correct countywide interdistrict violations. Appeals were taken. The Court of Appeals, Heaney, Circuit Jude, 778 F.2d 404, held that violations could be remedied by less intrusive measures and remanded. On remand, the District Court, Henry Woods, J., held that: (1) stipulations between State Iloard of Education and defendant school districts, whereby districts proposed to desegregate schools, inter alia, by allowing black and white students who were in racial majority to transfer to other schools within any participating district, would be approved in its entirety\n(2) plan for desegregation of school district, whereby district agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood program to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickle-down effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, would be approved in all respects\nand (3) that portion of school district's plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation and extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would also be approved. So ordered. See also, 805 F.2d 815. 1. Schools e:\u0026gt;13(14) Magnet review committee report and related stipulations, whereby defendant in school desegregation case agreed to use 50-50 black to white ratio for magnet program enrollment while allowing students presently enrolled at existing magnet schools to continue in those schools as appropriate, would be approved in their entirety. 2. Schools e:\u0026gt;13(14) In school desegregation case, students who were presently enrolled at magnet (1060) schools would be allowed to finish their education at such schools, where evidence was presented that involved parents had contributed greatly to schools' success. 3. Schools e:\u0026gt;!3(1~) Stipulations between Slate Ooard of Education and defendant school districts, whereby districts proposed to desegregate schools, inter alia, by allowing black and white students who were in ratio majority at their respective schools to transfer to other schools within any participating district, would be approved in their entirety. 4. Schools e:\u0026gt;13(6) Plan for desegregation of school district, whereby distn'ct agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood programs to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickledown effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, reflected solid and workable approach to end segregation in district and would be approved in all respects. Order 5. Schools e:\u0026gt;!3(6) That portion of school district's plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education  classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation in extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would be approved. P.A. Hollingsworth, Philip E. Kaplan, Janet L. Pulliam, John M. Bilheimer, Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff. r C I I LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 365 Cite u 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987)  Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings, Little Rock, tion of the magnet school plans of the Ark., Neal, G:rber \u0026amp; Eise~berg, Chicago, other parties and a critique of the plan of Ill., for Pulaski County Special School Dist., the Magnet Review Committee. At the No. 1, Mac _Faulkner, Bob Moore, Don close of the testimony on January 30, r Hindman,_ Shirley Lowery, Sheryl Dunn, suggested that the parties again confer and David Sain and Bob Stender. attempt to reach an agreement on the mag- C.R. McNair, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Shar- net school portion of the Eighth Circuit on Streett, Dept. of Educ., Little Rock, mandate. (R. 568-69). Ark., for Arkansas State Bd. of Educ., Wayne Hartsfield, Walter Turnbow, Harry A. Haines, Jim Dupree, Dr. Harry P. McDonald, Robert L. Newton, Alice L. Preston, Jeff Starling and Earle Love. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, Little Rock, Ark., for North Little Rock School Dist., Bob Lyon, John Ward, Judy Wear, Leon Barnes, Marianna Gosser and Steve Morley. . Stephen L. Curry, Little Rock, Ark., for Graing:er Williams, Richard A. Giddings, George A. McCrary, Buddy Raines and Dale Ward. Theodore Shaw, New York City, John W. Walker, Little Rock, Ark., for intervenors Joshua, et al. Richard Roachell, Cearley, Mitchell \u0026amp; Roachell, Little Rock, Ark., for interven\u0026lt;irs Knight, et al. INTERIM ORDER ENFORCING MANDATE OF COURT OF APPEALS HENRY WOODS, District Judge. In conformity with the opinion of the Court of Appeals dated November 7, 1985, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir.), and the ensuing mandate, a hearing was held on January 29-30, 1987, to consider the recommendation of the Magnet Review Committee concerning the locations, themes, dates, operation, transportation, seat allocations, targeted ratios, and administration of the magnet schools in this county. January 29th and 30th were devoted to testimony adduced by the Magnet Review Committee on behalf of its plan. The hearing was adjourned to continue the week of February 17, 1987-a presenta- [1] On February 17, 1987, the hearing was resumed to take up not only t,l1e magnet school issues but also the student assignment plans submitted by the Pulaski County Special School District (hereafter PCSD), the North Little Rock School District (hereafter NLRSD), and the Little Rock School District (h.ereafter LRSD). The three districts and the State Department of Education then advised the court that they had agreed by stipulation to a magnet school plan for the County which had been submitted to the Magnet Review Committee and approved by the latter. (R. 577). In open court the Joshua intervenors advised that they had no objections to the stipulation and were in general agreement with its terms. Since the Knight intervenors had not been party to the negotiations leading to the stipulation, they declined to approve the plan but interposed no objection thereto. I have examined the stipulation in detail. In my opinion it is an excellent compromise of the many complex issues involved in magnet schools. The stipulated settlement is in all respects approved. A copy of the stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference in this order. All of the parties except the Joshua and Knight intervenors have also stated in open court that the provisions of the Magnet Review Committee Report dated January 22, 1987 (MRC) not superseded by Exhibit A were stipulated as binding on the tl,1ree districts and the State Board of Education. (R. 582-21). The Magnet Review Committee Report is attached her.etc as Exhibit B The stipulation and agreement as aforesaid are approved in all respects. On behalf of all the parties, the attorney for the Little Rock District dictated into the record some minor supplemental under[ 1061] I 366 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT standings in connection with Exhibit A. (R. 577). These understandings have been reduced to letter form and have been marked as Exhibit C to this order and are incorporated herein by reference. These understandings are approved as supplemental to Exhibit A. [2] One issue remains with reference to the magnet schools presently in existence. That is the question of whether the students presently at the three magnet schools should remain and finish at the schools which they have been attending. Based on the evidence presented, I am convinced that the past success of these schools is the best argument for continuing the present student body as much as possible. Involved parents, black and white, of children attending these schools have contributed greatly to their success and have invested a huge amount of time and energy in making these schools outstanding. It would be a mistake in my opinion to dump these students and start anew. There will of course be attrition and new seats available through graduation, but the students presently enrolled in Booker, Mann and Williams shall have a right to continue in these schools. , - The responsibilities of the Magnet Review Committee, as agreed by the three districts and the State Board of Education, appear at pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit B hereto. The Committee shall be financed as agreed by the parties with a budget of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) with Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,- 000) or half to be paid by the State and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) by each of the three districts. The MRC will necessarily work closely with the three districts and the State in order to have the six magnet schools ready for the 1987-88 school year. The MRC should report to the court on May 1, 1987, on July l, 1987 and again on September l, 1987 to inform the court of progress made in implementing the magnet schools. While the reports need not be lengthy, so as to be burdenlome to the MRC, certainly the MRC reports should keep the court abreast of the status of critical aspects of (1062) implementation of the magnets including: renovations, teacher recruitment, staff training and development, community input 1 and involvement, and student recruitmt:~~_i The Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors have both asked for representation on the Magnet Review Committee by a voting membership. I am unable to comply with this request. The Court of Appeals set forth in clear and unequivocal terms the makeup of the Magnet Review Committee. At the request of all the parties, I did give the Joshua intervenors a non-voting member of the Committee. This was a modification agreed upon by all the parties that did not affect the basic structure of the Magnet R!!\"vicw Committee. The request of the Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors for a voting representation on the Magnet Review Committee is hereby denied. The financing of the magnet school plan has been stipulated\nit is approved as covered in the stipulation (Exhibit A) and in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. In addition to the financing relating to magnet schools and to majority-to-minority transfers, there is only one other reference to state financing in the Court of Appeals decision, Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 435 (8th Cir.1985): If the four all- or nearly all-black elementary schools as conditionally allowed by this Court in Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir.1983), are retained in LRSD, compensatory and remedial programs of the type that we required for the nonintegrated schools in St. Louis shall be put into effect for the four schools. See Liddell v. State of Missouri, 731 F.2d [1294) at 1312-18 [8th Cir.1984). The additional cost of these programs shall be paid for by the State of Arkansas. Since there are no all-black schools in the LRSD student assignment plan, the conditions are not present which would trigger state financing of compensatory education, as is obvious from the above language. The Little Rock District has requested other funding from the State. None of the Ll'ITLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. Cltr a.. 659 F.Supp. J6J (E.O.Ark. 1987} funding _is required by the Court of Ap- principalships and coaching positions\n(b) peals ruling. The State's share of the mag- concentrated whites in schools north of and net school funding will be considerable. It blacks in schoo:s south of Interstate 40\n(c) will strain the already meager resources of assigned students to special education clasthe State at a time when the State has sifications on a discriminatory basis and {d) committed itself to new standards for all failed to apportion the burdens of transporArkansas public schools. Although the tation equally on black and white students. blacks in Little Rock have suffered from LitUe Rock School Distn'ct v. Pulaski the ravages of segregation, so have the County, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D.Ark. blacks in every section and every county of 1984). These findings were affirmed by the State. Significantly the new state stan- the Court of Appeals. Little Rock School dards provide for compensatory education District v. Pulaski County Special School for all students whe~e performance is sub- District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (8th Cir.1985). standard. (State Exhibit MX 25). In March, 1986, the NLRSD submitted 367 [3) The parties have agreed upon a sys- an implementation plan designed to remedy tern for handling majority-to-minority the interdistrict effects of its constitutional transfers. The stipulation setting forth violations. (March plan). Subsequently, in this agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit October of 1986, the NLRSD submitted a D, is approved and is incorporated herein supplement to its implementation plan (supby reference. The three districts and the plement plan) which addressed remediation Joshua intervenors have also agreed upon of intradistrict impact of its prior segrea Pulaski County Education Cooperative gative acts. for staff development, distribution of audio The NLRSD student assignment plan, visual resources, \"teacher center\" activi- the \"Storm Plan,\" has been in effect for a ties, purchasing and other cooperative ef- number of years. When properly impleforts of mutual benefit. The stipulation mented, the Storm Plan provides for a conestablishing the cooperative venture, at- stitutional student assignment system and tached hereto as Exhibit E, is approved. for equitable busing burdens between After carefully considering the student assignment plan submitted by the PCSD, I have decided that it must be rejected for the reasons set forth in the record at pages 61\u0026amp;-17. The district was given two weeks to submit an alternative plan. At the time the County's student assignment plan is considered, the court will deal with the other criticisms set forth by the Court of Appeals. The broad outline of the student assignment plan submitted by the LRSD is hereby approved. Detailed assignments have been awaiting the resolution of the magnet school issues. The Little Rock District is hereby .authorized to proceed with its student assignment plan as submitted to the court in March, 1986. [41 The North Littlir Rock School District was found to have purposefully committed a number of segregative acts, including the following which had an interdistrict effect: (a) failed to assign blacks to its central administration or to high school blacks and whites. According to its March plan, all NLRSD schools are currently desegregated and deficiencies found by this court have been corrected. This evidence was uncontradicted at the June, 1986 hearing. The NLRSD plan includes a detailed staff recruitment component which, if implemented, should result in substantial gains in the area of recruitment and promotion of blacks to positions where they are currently underrepresented. Supplementally the NLRSD has agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for increasing the number of blacks to these positions. (Supplement plan 2.1). Remediation of the unconstitutional overrepresentation of blacks in \"special education\" classes consumes most of the NLRSD's March implementation plan. As with the rest of its plan, if put into effect as proposed, the imbalance caused by the categorization of inordinate numbers of black st-udents as \"retarded\" would be eliminated. NLRSD has suggested several .:::::=--- (1063] 368 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT important monitoring procedures to insure compliance. (Supplement plan, 3.1). The NLRSD supplement plan also addresses remedies for intradistrict segregative acts. In the area of compensatory education for black children who continue to suffer the trickle-down effects of past segregation, the NLRSD plan proposes an early childhood program. The program includes a testing process so that educationally disadvantaged children, both black and white, can be identified and targeted for help at an early age. For the early grades, that help will be provided through teacher aides who will provide one-to-one tutoring, through supplementary reading instruction, and through implementation of the State Minimum Performance Tests. Reading remediation will also be provided at the junior high school level, as will computer assisted instruction in basic skills with individualized programs. The NLRSD supplement plan includes a number of programs aimed at the problem of students who leave school prematurely or \"drop out.\" The excessively high dropout rate of blacks in the NLRSD is one of the most pressing problems for the blacks in that district. Proposed programs such as the WIN (We Intervene Now) and SAC (Student Assignment Class-which serves students who are suspended from their regular classes) are sound and should prove beneficial. The violation relating to the disproportionate numbers of black students who are suspended or expelled for disciplinary reasons has largely been eliminated. For example, in the 1985-86 school year, 48o/o of the suspended students were black. While this percentage is somewhat higher than the actual percentage of black students enrolled (40%), the deviation is not so great as to indicate a continuing problem at this time. Expulsions are now infrequent (only 20 over the last three years) and are now made only by the board of education, after a hearing. The NLRSD has made strides in improving the participation of black students in its Gifted and Talented program. The LRSD supplement plan includes a number of safeguards to insure identification of (1064] black children who are gifted/talented but culturally disadvantaged. In addition to the screening tests which recognize cultural differences (i.e. System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment), the NLRSD now uses an identification process which involves nominations and r.?commendations based on multiple criteria from a number of people. The ultimate placement of a child in the program is a group dec1s1on. (Supplement plan 8.1-8.4). In sum, the NLRSD has made great progress in each area where it was found to have been deficient. The NLRSD's March 1986 plan, as supplemented in October 1986, reflects a solid and workable ap proach, if implemented, to end segregation in that school district. The NLRSD plan is hereby approved in all respects.' ORDER (5] The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) was found purposefully to have committed a number of segregative acts with an interdistrict effect: (a) failed to comply with a 1968 desegregation court order (Zinnamon v. Board of Education of the Pulaski County Arkansas Special School District, No. LR-CR-C-154)\n(b) constructed schools in locations which ensured that they would become racially identifiable\n(c) failed to allocate the burden of busing equitably between black and white students\n(d) failed to hire and promote black teachers and staff\n(e) refused to allow deannexation to or consolidation with the N.\u0026gt;rth Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Little Rock School Dis trict (LRSD)\n(0 failed to assign students to schools in such a way as to maximize desegregation\n(g) assigned students to special education classifications and gifted programs on a discriminatory basis\n(h) assigned black principals to schools with high black enrollments\n(i) created and maintained a racial imbalance in almost half its schools\n(j) closed and downgraded schools in black neighborhoods and failed to build new schools there. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Co. Special School District, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D. Ark.1984). These findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Little Rock t-i LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST 369 . . Clle u 659 F.Supp. J6J (E.D.Ark. 1987) 0 School Dis/net v. Pulaski County Special into sites for proposed  Scch ool District, 778 F.2d 404, 418 (8th While no schools have nbeew construction. 198-) . en construred 1r.\n:,  during the pendency of this case, two , w Many of the violations have already been elementary schools are now proposc.:d. The cured-ither by court order or by affirma- sites chosen conform to the board's new tive actions of the PCSSD. The deannexa- policy and are approved. In that same tion/consolidation violation has been cured vein, progress has been made recen' 'v\n, by the redrawing of boundary lines which improving the physical plants in sc , s separate the districts. The failure to com- such as Harris and Scott which were rac::1lply with Zinnamon includes the failure to ly identifiably black. appoint black members to the PCSSD The PCSSD has made continuous board. By order of this court dated De- progress in hiring and promoting black faccember 1, 1986, the PCSSD will now elect ulty. An affirmat1,e action pbn was board members from zones. According to adopted by the PCSSD board in 1984 the plan submitted and approved, one of which has apparently been successful. A~ the zones will be majority black and anoth- of November, 1985, 22.Go/o of the PC 30 er will be 40% black, 58% white and 2% teachers w,.ere black as compared wit ,1 a other. This remedy supercedes that por- 23.6% black student population. PCSSD tion of Zinnamon dealing with black Plan Appendix I. Further, the district has school board members. The ceding of the a goal to have black teachers maln 1\n, Granite Mountain area from LRSD to 20-30% of the faculty in each school  e PCSSD includes the transfer of public district. PCSSD Plan, Appendix I. housing areas to PCSSD. Moreover, there Similarly, the affirmative action plan for are apparently other public housing devel- administrative staff appears to have been opments in the PCSSD. PCSSD Exhibits successful, although there remains under- 18 and 20 in June, 1986 hearing. PCSSD representation in two specific categories: has created a new position in the superin- coordinators and directors. In spite of tendent's office, the Coordinator of Hous- these specific areas which should be careing and Integration. This staff person will, fully monitored, the percentage of l ick among other duties, relate to realtors, de- administrators (24.7%) is good and indicates velopers and planning agencies. PCSSD a positive step toward curing this deficien- Exhibit R-2, p. 4. The PCSSD student cy. assignment plan will soon be submitted and The overrepresentation of blacks s e-at that time the issues of desegregation in cial education classes can perhaps t :ie student assignments and equitable alloca remedied through the use of culturally untion of busing burdens will be addressed. biased screening and subsequent rr.onitor- School site selection involves two sepa- ing. The PCSSD plan includes both of rate violations. First, the construction of these,elements. The result of the plan has new schools where they are likely to be been a marked drop in the percentage of racially identifiable and second, the closing blacks classified as requiring special eduor downgrading of schools closest to cen- cation. PCSSD Plan, Appendix G. While ters of black population. Since this lawsuit the percentage of blacks design:1 te for was filed, the PCSSD board has adopted a special education is 4.2% higher than the policy making desegregation and equal ac- percentage of white children so designated, cess to school primary goals in decisions to that deviation is within an acceptable build, renovate, or discontinue use of a range. school. PCSSD Implementation Plan, The PCSSD plan includes a comr  1nt March 1986 (hereafter PCSSD Plan) Appen- to assure black student participation 111 ex dix B. The Coordinator of Housing and tracurricular activities. Notably, in the Integration obviously should have input 1985-86 school year, black students (1c0o6m5] I 370 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT EXHIBIT A STIPULATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MAGNET SCHOOL.s prised 28% of the membership in extracurricular activities. PCSSD plan, Appendix G. An affirmative recruitment plan will be implemented to remedy underrepresentation in activities where it occurs. PCSSD Plan, Appendix H. The foregoing proposals of the PCSSD desegregation plan represent not only a turn in the right direction, but also significant progress toward achieving a unitary school district. While much remains to be done, much has been accomplished. Accordingly, this portion of the PCSSD deseg regation plan is hereby approved. The undersigned parties have agreed to make the following describi!d recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee for its consideration in formulating its recommendation regarding magnet schools. School \u0026amp; Program Carver-Basic Skills Math-Science Williams-Basic Skills Booker-Arts Gibbs-Foreign Language/ International Studies Mann-Math-Sciences/ Arts Parkview-Arts-Per!orming Arts Total The curriculum at magnet schools will emphasize the magnet theme and all magnet students must fully participate in mag net courses. As well as the magnet theme, all magnet schools will have strong aca demically-oriented curricula. New magnets or expansion of magnets already existing may be provided for in subsequent school years beginning 1988-89 under the provisions of the Order of September 3, 1986. Any party may present applications for a magnet school or pro gram not later than the beginning of each school year preceeding the proposed year of implementation. The Committee's decision and recommendation shall be sub mitted to the parties no later than November 15. The MRC shall make its recom mendation to the Court not later than December 15. IMPLEMENTATION The parties propose that the District Court order the implementation of the six (6) aforementioned magnet schools for the 1987-1988 school year. The host district shall provide to the MRC and to the parties (1066] LOCATIONS AND THEMES The parties have agreed to recommend the following magnet school locations and programs: ~ K-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 7-9 10-12 Target Enrollment  475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 its implementation timetable at the time a magnet proposal is submitted to the Court. FINANCING The parties agree to the financing formulas proposed by the Magnet Review Committee at the hearing held on January 29 and 30, 1987. These formulas require the State to pay one-half(} of the actual costs of the construction or renovation of magnet schools as well as the customary state aid and one-half (} the cost of educating the magnet students attending those schools. It is understood that any district which does not provide a student to fill an allocated seat, and said seat is not occupied by any other student, will be required to pay to the host district as its full liability for said unfilled seat the per child cost of the host district's debt service payment, both principal and interest, for the construction or renovation of the schools in the magnet program. The host district will provide separate accounting and budgeting information regarding the magnet program lo the Magnet Review Committee for review. LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. Cllc u 6,9 F.Supp. J6J (E.D.Ark. 1987) 371 INTERDISTRICT TRANSPORTATION PLAN The State Board of Education remains committed to underwriting the entire actual cost of transporting magnet and M-to-M transfer students, which includes the cost of transporting these students for extracurricular activities. The districts agree that transportation of magnet/M-to-M students should be performed utilizing measures which are most cost efficient. The interdistrict transportation plan shall not be used as a means to seek compensation for additional transportation vehicles unless such vehicles are directly necessary because of the interdistrict transportation plan. New full-sized school buses purchased in order to transport magnet/Mto- M students will be added to the total transportation fleet costs and applied on a pro rata basis to the transportation of magnet/ M-to-M students. The cost of any other vehicles purchased to transport isolated magnet/.M-to-M students will be prorated according to their actual use in transporting magnet/M-to-M students. Each district agrees to separately account for the costs of transporting magnet/M-to-M students and to make those records fully available to representatives of the State Department of Education at any reasonable time. The parties agree that the Interdistrict Transportation Plan for both magnet schools and M-to-M transfers will be administered by an Interdistrict Transportation Authority (ITA). The ITA shall be composed of the Transportation Director or other designee of each district and a representative of the State. The parties agree that any conflict may be determined by a U.S. ~agistrate acting as a Special Master for the District Court. SEAT ALLOCATION All magnet schools shall have a student population which is fifty percent (50%) black and fifty percent (50%) non-black. The parties agree that for the 1987-88 school year the magnet school seats shall be allocated according to the following for-  mula: Twenty-five per centum (25%) of the capacity of a magnet school shall be re-served for the shadow area in the host district. The remaining seventy-five per centum (75%) of the seats shall be allocated to each of the three districts in proportio~ to that district's percentage of county-wide students at each school level (elementay, junior high, or senior high). At the elementary level each district shall allocate its seats in proportion to the racial ratio present in such district at the elementary level. At the secondary level, each district shall allocate all its seats on the basis of 50% black, 50% non-black. However, the total number of seats assigned to the North Little Rock School District shall n'.:t exceed 475 seats with no more than 100 seats being allocated to the North Little Rock School District from Parkview. It is understood that seat allocations will not be made by district to a particular school, but only by elementary, junior high and senior high level. Therefore, a particular district will be permitted to use its allocated seats in accordance with the desires of its students subject to space limitations in particular magnet schools and the maintenance of a 50-50 racial balance. If there is oversubscription among the districts by race, grade or school each district may make a recommendation to the MRC for its approval regarding actual distribution of seats. The three districts agree that each district will establish an open enrollment policy for magnet schools and will be permitted to determine how children will be selected for the magnet seats allocated to each district pursuant to that policy. This provision shall not prohibit the establishment of geographic preference areas where appropriate. In the event there are unused seats by any district then persons on waiting lists to attend from the other districts shall be permitted to attend before any seat is left vacant. No student attending a magnet school will be considered as an M-to-M transfer student for incentive payment purposes. TARGETED RATIOS The parties have previously submitted to the Court a proposed stipulation for M-to-M (1067] 1 372 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT transfers which in part recognizes that if :-!-to-:-f transfers occur, ratios targeted by any of the districts for particular schools might be affected depending upon the locations from which M-to-M transfers occur. The parties in that stipulation agreed that the first priority should be a successful :'11-to-\n\\I transfer program and that if it did affect targeted ratios, such departures wou Id not be regarded or urged as cons titu tional violations or departures from desegregation plans. The parties further recognize that a successful operation of the magnet school program could potentially ha ,e the same or similar effects upon targeted ratios. The parties therefore recommend that any magnet transfers not be counted as a departure from a desegregation plan or urged as a constitutional violation. LITTLE ROCK MAGNET GRANT The parties agree and recommend that, should the Little Rock District now or in the future prove successful in obtaining grants for the operation of magnet schools, any such monies shall be applied off the top to the obligations of all parties. The parties further agree and recommend to the Court that they cooperate in the development of an application for any future magnet grants. ADMINISTRATION The daily administration and operation of the magnet schools shall be the responsibility of the host district. The host district shall designate a person who shall have principal responsibility for overseeing the de,elopment and implementation of its magnet program. STUDENT RECRUITMENT The parties agree that the Magnet Review Committee shall establish a Magnetl M-to-M Educational Team (MET). The major responsibilities of the MET shall include community education and information dissemination of educational opportunities in the magnet programs and recruitment for both magnets and M to M transfers. It shall report to the MRC. The MET shall [1068] be composed of the person from each school district and the State responsible for desegregation !Jlanning, and two additional persons selected by each of the following parties: Joshua Intcrvenors Little Rock School District North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District State of Arkansas These additional representatives of the MET shall not be employees or officials of any of the districts or the State. February 16, 1987 PCSSD Administrative Offices The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) endorses the foregoing stipulations. Pulaski County Special School District Isl _____G _e_n_e_J_o_n_es _____ North Little Rock School District I I James R. Smith s --------------- Little Rock School District Isl ____ J_e_ss_e_L_. R_a_nc_i!_e_r ___ _ Arkansas Department of Education Isl ____M_ a_rc_ia\n__A:..:...:H:..:.a:..:.r:..:.d:..:.in,::g_ ____ Arkansas Department of Education Isl ____r. _i_orr_is_F_._H_o_lm_e_s_ ____ r EXHIBIT B MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE COURT January 22, 1987 The Honorable Henry Woods U.S. Federal District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Woods: The Magnet Review Committee submits for your consideration the attached report including nine separate recommendations concerning magnet schools in Pulaski County. ,I. 5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams I1 TERVIEW PROTOCOL Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 199-t-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 199-t, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or pol.icy, there bas been a well-known long-standing past practice of interview protocol. Toe above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policv and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent\nMr. B~ady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations\nand Dr. Richard Hurley, Direstor of Human Resources. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAE3 SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. Persons desiring employment as a School Principal shall file an application in writing (Resume, letter of intent, or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. District application forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) 2. District administration officials will screen the applicants for acceptability. Taken into consideration are 3 . certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. The Deputy Superintendent and/or the Assistant Superintendent(s) will prepare a list of interview questions to be used in the interview process. 4. The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie: E.E.O., Affirmative Action, Americans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be selected/appointed, as follows: Note:l Note:2 Note:3 Three Two Three ( 3) ( 2) ( 3) Parents/Patrons Teachers Administration Representatives 1. The Parent/Patrons representatives will be selected by a process: designated by the PTA president of the of the affected school. 2. The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by the Administration. 3. The Deputy Superintendent ( in consultation with appropriate staff - Assistant superintendents, Supervisors, and Principals) may designate the Administration representatives. *NOTE: The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender.  LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB 6. The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will be provided folders containing the following: 1) An interview schedule 2) The approved interview questions 3) An approved candidate rating form 4) The applicant's application materials 7. The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. (Note: Although the applicants are rated, tne ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) 8. The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. 9. Once the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. 10. When approved, the candidate shall receive a contract which details his salary, pay grade, and other pertinent information. I --:J'---.   - , . IN' TIJE mHTED ST,\\7ES DISTilICT COURT EASTEIU: DI STl1 JCT O!' ARJCANSAS WESTERN DIVIS ION FKLED U.5. OI STlllCT COURT EASTU)N n1s,q1cr \"~K/\\\"'SAS SE\n) 1 1985 CARL R. B~ENTS, Ci...En/ 8y: -------- 1 ITTLE ROCJ( SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINT I ff.::.\".cLtr\u0026lt;I\u0026lt; V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULAS!\u0026lt;I COillffY SPECIAL SCIJOOL DISTRICT, ct al DEFENDANTS rvm.s. Lon.ENE JOSHUA, ns l-ieXt F1iend of Minors LESLIE JOSliU/,, ct al onDE}l INTERVENORS Pursuant to the o.grccmcnt entitled 11 Stipulc.tion for Proposed Ordi:!r Conce,ning Magnet Review Corrmittee\" filed by the three rarty school districts a~d the Arkansas State Board of Education,: the following Order is hereby eritered: The subject of this stipulation wa5 addressed by the Court 6f Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its opinion of.November 7, 1985, styled as above and reported at 778 F,2d 404, 436 (8th Cir. ,,. 1985). 1, Plaintiff end each of the defendant school districts will appoint a member of the Magnet Review Comnittee (MRC) and rep or t th~ name of t 11 at person to the Co u r t w i th in ten ( 10 ) days of the entry of this Order. The defendants State Department of Education will appoint two members of the ~me and report the names of those persons to the Court within ten (10) days. The Joshua i n t er v en or 5 w i 11 appoint a person to the MRG to 6 er v c, SEP -8 1986 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF '.4RKANSAS .. (  C e):-off icic, und report the nurnes of that rerson to the Court within t en (1 0 ) days. Plaintiff and defendants will confer wi U1in t he ten-d uj period conccrninG those to be nomed in on attempt to insur12 that the l\\iRC l:ns at lee.st two blac1\u0026lt; me:rr.'.)e rs, excl:.idinz the cx-offieio member. 2 . W i th i n t w c n t y - one ( 2 1 )  days f r om th c en t r y o f th i s Order, the MRC she.11 rr:'!et to beg-in plannine an intcrdistrict ms. g n ct school pro g- run. The MRC sh al l d c v el op a t i me tab 1 e for planning and irnplcmentin~ tbe mag11et school program. During the p l a n n i n g p r O CC S S , t h e r-.mc S h a l l : A. Consider plans and proposals for mogn~t schools by the p,rrties\nB. Heur evidence presented by the parties\nc. Submit, for comnent and evaluation, interim pro[)osnls to the rarties fo1 their corrment ond/ot criticism\nD. Evaluate both the segregative and 1escgregative efJects of any l_)roposnls advanced for magnet schools. E. Make findings concerning the number, location, staffing, racial rntios, and themes of the magnet schools . In determining the number and location .of magnet schools, the MRC shnll have as its [)rimary objective the furtherance Consistent with this objective, of effective desegregation. magnets ordinarily shall be established in school facilities located in or proximate to black residential areas. The MRC may make cxce[)tions to this general rule\nfor example, Williams School may be retained as a magnet. 2 - ~fy ~ ~ .. C C 3 . Th c l\\1RC sh u 1 1 r c po r t i ts f ind i n is to the Co u r t , toge th c r w i th such rec 01m1e n d at ions as mn y be n e cc s s n r y to th c cf f i c i en t operation nnd ndministrotion of the muanet schools. Any member of th c l\\IR.C mo. y f i 1 e con~ u t r i n g or d i s sent in g rep or t s  Th c MRC report and recomncndatio11s, and nny concurring or dissenting reports, must be submitted to the Court on or before December 15, 1986, which de:~dlinc may be ext.ended by the Court fur good cause shown. The parties will seek a prompt hearing and determination by t !1 e Co u r t on the MRC rec onmc n d at ions  .' 4. Upor in:plementntion of the magnet school program, the l\\filC will continue to monitor, evaluate, nnd reconrncnd changes in the actual operation of the ma1,\n11et schools. The MRC w i 1 1 f i 1 e an an nu a 1 r e [) o r t w i t h t h i s Co u r t  In performing its functions under this paragraph, :he t\\lRC shall follow the guidelines and procedures outlinec in the precedini paragraphs. 5. The 'ffiC may retain a consultant to assist in the rnagr.et planning process, and the parties may retvin other experts and consultants to make presentations or assist in the process. G. The representative of the Joshua intervenors on the lvIR.C shall be nonvoting, but shall otherwise be entitled to pa r t i c i pc. t e f U 1 1 y i n . a l 1 as p e c t s o f the de 1 i b e r a t i on s o f t h e MRC. 7. Any party, at any time, may move the Court for a hearing JULo61987 ru.1.0.fill  y G EJ:i~ OF, f..RM~l'jAl IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 2 \\337 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI CX)lJNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al DEFENDANTS ORDER A f t er hear in g fr om a number of w i t n es s es , i n c 1 u d i n g magnet school principals and curricula specialists, and upon reviewing the Magnet Review Comnittee (IvIBC) reports, I remain steadfastly o p t i m i s t i c t h a t s i x q u a 1 i t y i n t e r d i s t r i c t ma g n e t s c h o o 1 s c a n a n \u0026lt;  will be ready by fall. This will, of course, require the full cooperation of everyone involved. The principals are most impressive and will provide selected. ex c e 1 1 en t 1 ea de r sh i p , in s p i t e of the manner i n w  i ch they we r e Proper procedures have now been instituted for stnff~ selection. The at tor~ys ___ .~~~:_ _.:_:~~ed _ a comprorni se on the budget fo . ~e 1987-88 school year of $3100 \u0026gt;er magnet ~tudcnt. This f i gu r c is hereby approved. A 1 1 par t i es agree that the r o 1 e of the MRC mus t be c la r i f, i e d so th a t the i n t e rd i s t r i c t mag n e t s ch o o l s can be e f f i c i en t 1 y an c successfully implemented and operated. Divergent opinions in a corrmittee such as the MRC are not only inevitable but are helpfL . in thoroughly examining options. The current problem with the l\\IB.C is not that members differ in perspectives and opinions, but ..'\\ that any vote which is less than unanimous is viewed by the parties as a stalemate to be resolved by the attorneys. At first blush it is tempting to allow the par~ies to compromise and reach agreement however they choos~, whether through their attorneys or th r o ugh the rviRC. i t r u n s c o u n t e r t o t h e c 1 e a r i n t e n t o f t h e E i g h t h C i r c u i t Co u r t That is not a realistic long-term solution a~d of Appeals in ordering the rviRC to \"administer\" the magnets. A' _\n, Gene cal lY educ a ti ona 1 decisions should be made by educators, not by lawyers. with For the most part, the rviRC is composed of members excellent credentials and abilities in the field of education. The recent opinion in the St. Louis desegregation case shed s light on what the court of Appeals intended the role of the MRC in our comnunitY to be.\n:,iddell, et al v. Board of Education, et ~ No. 86-1511, slip 01- (8th Cir. June 8, 1987). 1 n i t i al 1 y it is c 1 ear that the MRC i s a de c i s ion -making, ~ rather than merely an advisory, body. Rock/North Little Rock and Metropolitan coordinating Comnitt .:.c (MCC) in St. Louis were charged with the task of administering specialty schools. (\"Liddell Both the rviRC in Li t t le authority to administer the interdistrict vocational schools just In St. Louis, the MCC was formed and given as the\n-\nIB.C was formed in this case to administer the ma%n c t schools. In the St. Louis case, by agreement, the da y-to-day opecation of the schools rested not with the MCC but with bo s d of education of the reserved to the boards host districts. The responsibiliti e s included \"the operation of the respective t. - 2 - . . \\ programs, emolovment of staff, development of personnel and eo.ch district's needs.\" appropriation of fund.s to meet Subsequent to the agreement, the district court ordered two v o c a t i on a 1 s ch o o 1 s c l o s e d and f u r t h e r o r d c r e d t h c I\\ CC t o d c v e 1 op a staffing plan to accorrmodo.te the reduced and re assigned stnff members in those closing schools, argued on appeal that empowering the MCC to develop a restaffin g The City Board of Educatio plan infr.inged on the powers reserved to the boards of education. The~~_D of appeals held: .we find little merit in this contention. It is clear ~ that the MCC mus t be g i v en add i t i on al au tho r i t y and  must be permitted to act with more independence and objectivity than it has in the past if the  schools are to be integrated. Even with its pow tR enhanced, the MCC must have the close cooperation o: the school districts if [the] plan is to succeed. - Liddell X at 27. Similarly the parties to this case have agreed that the host district of a magnet school should make the day-to-day decision s regarding the operation of the school. This agreement cannot and ~ w i 1 1 not be cons trued to r el e gate the MRC to the s ta tu s o f an unused appendage. The court in unequivocal language directed t .,'-' MCC in St. Louis to make independent investigations, evaluations and decisions: There is no evidence that [the MCC] thoroughly revi~wed the matter, or made an independent decision wi~ respect to it. As the district court indicated, th is practice cannot be permitted to continue. The l\\1CC must be permitted to exercise the responsibility given to it by the district court and this Court. Liddell X at 22. According 1 y, the r o 1 e of the MRC is to make rec orrrne n de d - 3 - po 1 i c L_~_L.Q.!}__S~g a rd ~g _ ____!_!:_E:_ . o p_e r_a,. _t ion .. of _the mag n e t sch o o 1 s  Those decisions should tben be corrrnunicated, in a written report, to the court for approval. The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and should reflect independent fact-finding. Objections to MRC reports should be filed with the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve, modify or reject the MRC's recorrrnendations. The court has neither the time nor the inclination to provide a laundry list of \"policy\" decisions as distinguished By way of example, in selecting f r om \" day - t O - day II de C i S i On S  s t a f f , t he MRC sh o u 1 d s e t the c r i t e r i a to be u s e.d o r p r o c e s s by which teachers are selected for magnet schools\nthe host district would implement that policy by appropriately selecting th  teachers. W i th r e s p e c t _ t o s ea t .. a l l o ca t i on , t h e MRC s ho u l d e s t ab l i s h a po l_i_\u0026lt;:.)'__f_E_r_ 2 ~-at _ al loca ti on __ _wj_j_h_ i..!!.__t~ _ p_o_~!_li_s __ ~ ~__0e st i pu 1 at ion which will maximize participation in the magnet schools from all ------  --- - ---- ---- - -------- ------ three districts. Each district should set its criteria for selection of its students for magnet schools to enhance it - --------------------------- --- ----------  -- For ___ ~he 1987_-_S~ __ school year, the parties desegregation efforts. have agreed, and it is hereby approved 1 that all North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special Schpol District (PCSSD) students who applied for magnet schools as of May 22, 1987 may attend the magnet schools they have chosen. As agreed by the parties, the -n--u-mb-e r- ---of seats allocated to NLRSD and PCSSD ar-e -t-o- b-e- -br-o-ken --do-wn- - -o-n- --a-n- -o--rga n-iz-at- io n-a-l- -l-e-v - 4 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN 0ISTR!~T ARKANSAS NOV O 5 1992 CARL R. BRE1\\J TS, CL\n:?.i\u0026lt; By: /1 , -!kJ1 \u0026lt;'kl J/\\. / DEP. C' ERi\u0026lt; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS I\"NT ERVENORS On May 26, 1992, the Magnet Review Committee (\"MRC\") submitted to the Court for review and approval a budget for the 1992-93 - school year for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992-  93. (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court heard tes~imony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions, approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992, the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant principal '=t Wr.1shington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet Elementary - - / School. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC' s letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the \"controlled choice desegregation plan. 11 It contends that the MRC' s role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the parties and approved by the court. In addition, the LRSD contends there are no numerical goals or quotas in the parties' desegregation plans and the-MRc' s position that the new assistant principal at Gibbs should be removed from her job because of her race is in conflict with the law and the parties' plans. The Pulaski County Special School District ( \"PCSSD\") and the North Little Rock School District ( \"NLRSD\") responded that they support the LRSD's views. 1 Background of the Magnet Review Committee. In a November 1985 opinion, the Eighth Circuit found constitutional violations on the part of the state of Arkansas, the PCS SD, and the NLRSD and included in the remedy the establishment of magnet schools. \"The district court may require a limited number of magnet or specialty 1The Court al.so =ivcd a JC(ler dated September 23, 1992, from the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors, expressing concern about the effect of the LRSD budget cut, on the magnet schools and the assignment of a white vice-principal lO Gibbs . See Exhibit A. -2- schools or programs to be established at locations to be determined initially by a Magnet Review Committee and approved by the district court after a hearing.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 436 (1985). The parties subsequently agreed upon the responsibilities of the MRC, which included oversight of staffing. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 659 F. Supp. 363, 373 (E.D.Ark. 1987). Furthermore, on May 13, 1987, Judge Henry Woods stated that \" ( s) taffing of the magnets shall be made in close consultation with the principal and the MRC.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 660 F. Supp. 637, 644-45 (E.D.Ark. 1987). Judge Woods further 'noted that the Eighth circuit stated that the magnet schools were to be adnlinistered by the MRC and that he considered staffing an important aspect of adnlinistration. Id. at 645. In orders entered later in May 1987, Judge Woods established the procedure for MRC review of staffing decisions: 8. Tentative selections shall be promptly submitted to the MRC for its review and comment. Any reservation or question raised by the MRC shall be promptly addressed by the LRSD. The MRC may, if it deems appropriate, address unresolved concerns to the Court before any actual assignments are made by LRSD. Order filed May 26, 1987, Document #843. See also Document #833. That the MRC was more than an advisory body was made clear in Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987: All parties agree that the role of the MRC must be clarified so that the interdistrict magnet schools can be efficiently and successfully implemented and operate~  . . . At first blush it is tempting to allow the parties -3- to compromise and reach agreement however they choose whether through their attorneys or through the MRC. That is not a realistic long-tenn solution and it runs counter to the clear intent of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in ordering the MRC to 'administer' the magnets. Initially it is clear that the MRC is a decision-making rather than merely an advisory body. [T]he parties to this case have agreed that the host district of a magnet school should make the day-to-day decisions regarding the operation of the school This agreement cannot and will not be construed to relegate the MRC to the status of an unused appendage. Accordingly, the role of the MRC is to make recommended policy decisions regarding the operation of the magnet schools. Those decisions should then be communicated, in a written report, to the court for approval. The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and should reflect independent factfinding. Objections to MRC reports should be filed with the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve, modify, or reject the MR.C's recommendations. By way of example, in selecting staff, the MRC should set the criteria to be used or process by which teachers are selected for magnet schools\nthe host district would implement that policy by appropriately selecting the teachers. Little Rock School District v. PUlaski County Special School District, 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1555-56 (E.D.Ark. 1987). In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), the Court addressed the argument that the MRC's authority with respect to the assignment of teachers was too broad. The Eighth Circuit stated: In our view, the District court order outlining the -4- duties and responsibilities of the Magnet Review ~ommit~ee _was well conceived. It recognizes the interdistrict character of the magnet school program and carefully allocates responsibilities between the Magnet Review Committee and the host district .. we specifically agree with the court's order with respect to the procedures to be followed in recruiting and hiring faculty for the magnet schools and the part that the Magnet Review Committee is to play in staffing operation. We do, however, make it clear that the collective bargaining agreements between host school districts and the classroom teachers associations remain applicable to the extent that such agreements are not inconsistent with the responsibilities heretofore given to the Magnet Review Committee or with orders of the District Court with respect to the staffing of magnet schools. 2 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski county Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1314 (8th cir. 1988). The Reductions in Staff. The LRSD Board of Directors approved budget reductions proposed by the LRSD administration on July 23, 1992. The LRSD proposed to reduce magnet positions by 14.9 full time equivalent (FTE) positions. The MRC says it learned of the reductions through the newspaper and called a special meeting for the LRSD to present its budget. During that meeting the LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11. J FTE rather than 14.9 FTE. More meetings followed during which the MRC discussed personnel cuts with magnet school principals and LRSD central office administrators. On August 28, the MRC voted on the proposed personnel cuts and approved the reduction of 7. 4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE 2m a footnote, the Eighth Circuit quoted from Judge Woods' July 2 order in which he stated that the role of the MRC is to make recommended policy decisions, which would be communicated to the court for approval. Su LRSD v. PCSSD , 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1556 (E.D .Arie. l 9S7). -5- positions. According to the MRC, the LRSD verbally agreed to reinstate the positions but declined to reinstate the people who had occupied the positions. The MRC now asks the Court to affirm the decision to reinstate 3.9 FTE positions cut from the original magnet programs by the LRSD and to reinstate to those positions the individuals who held them prior to the cuts. In response, the LRSD contends that following the implementation of the magnet schools programs, the MRC' s role changed from that of administering to evaluating and monitoring the magnet schools. It asserts that the MRC failed to act in accordance with a properly established policy, citing language from Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987. LRSD v. PCSSD, supra, 663 F. Supp. at 1556. In addition, the LRSD contends that it has no authority under the Professional Negotiations Agreement (\"PNA\") to reinstate the individuals to the 3.9 FTE positions because those individuals have been reassigned according to the PNA. It states that the 3.9 FTE positions must be filled in conformity with the PNA. (Exhibit B to Doc. #1693.) The LRSD' s position concerning the role of the MRC is not well-taken. The MRC's administrative oversight responsibility was not rejected along with the LRSD' s \"controlled choice\" student assignment plan as the LRSD suggests. The MRC's responsibilities continue and include staffing decisions. The MRC continues on an annual basis to submit to the court for approval a proposed budget for the six original magnet schools. The budgets proposed by the MRC represent its efforts to assure that the magnet schools -6- continue to provide those special programs that attract and retain pupils, thereby assisting in the desegregation effort. The MRC is made up of representatives of the parties and the State of Arkansas, a former party to the action, and the LRSD has been a member of the MRC since its inception. Dr. Mac Bernd, the new Superintendent of the LRSD, acknowledged the role of the MRC when he presented Proposal No. 14 to the LRSD Board of Directors. That proposal is titled \"A Recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee\" and suggests the reduction of 14.9 FTE positions at the magnet schools. In the proposal, Dr. Bernd states: \"It is our position that any reductions of personnel in the area schools should also be made in the magnet schools monitored by the Magnet Review Committee. Therefore, it is recommended that you authorize the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions to the Magnet Review Committee \" (Doc. #1649.) In a July 28, 1992 memorandum to the MRC, Dr. Bernd relates that the LRSD Board of Directors authorized him to propose a reduction in positions at the magnet schools. He states: \"Because the reduction in positions would create a total reduction in costs, we recommend that the per pupil rate be reduced from $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. 11 (Exhibit A to Doc. #1693.) The court is dismayed and somewhat confused about the LRSD's actions. The LRSD did not consult with the MRC prior to gaining approval from its Board for the recommended staff reductions even though the district has a representative on the MRC and was aware that the MRC was in the process of preparing a budget for the -7- magnet schools. Furthermore, the LRSD, after presenting the proposal to the MRC, failed to heed the MRC's recoIDIDendation that the same individuals be returned to the positions the LRSD had cut before securing the MRC' s permission to do so. The LRSD now attempts to dismiss the MR.C's administrative role and chastises it for not following through on court directives to establish policies and criteria for staffing decisions. If the MRC has been remiss in failing to come up with such policies and criteria, the LRSD, as a full-fledged member of the MRC, must share the blame. It appears that the LRSD wishes to recognize the MRC's authority to administer the magnet schools only when it agrees with MRC decisions. The court also has considered the arguments concerning the effect of the PNA on the staffing reductions. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has said \"that the authority of a federal court to alter or modify collective bargaining contracts in school desegregation cases must be based on a finding that the alteration or modification is necessary to further the effort to integrate the schools in question.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski county special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1316 (8th cir. 1988). The LRSD claims that the PNA does not allow it to reinstate the particular individuals who were transferred from the 3.9 FTE positions in compliance with the PNA. The Court believes, however, that by reinstating those individuals who were moved out of their jobs as a result of an action the Court finds was in violation of directives in this case, it is not setting aside the PNA. The magnet schools were designed to guarantee substantial -8- integration and important educational choices and they have proven successful in fulfilling this intended purpose. The court has stated on a number of occasions the importance of maintaining excellence in the magnet schools. \"Magnet schools . will be distinguished by the features that have made them successful in other cities: individualized teaching, a low pupil-teacher ratio, specialized programs tailored to students' interests, enriched resources and active recruitment.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1309 (8th cir. 1988). The magnet schools are racially balanced as a result of efforts to make sure that they are \"recognized throughout the county as truly high quality schools, with excellent teaching staffs and unique programs of interest to suburban and city students alike . \" Id. at 1312. The success of these magnet schools is critical to desegregation, and tampering with a prover success could undermine public confidence in the magnets and the school district as a whole. The Court recognizes that some authorities oppose magnet schools as tools for desegregation but it cannot question the concept because the parties agreed to the magnet schools and they are working. When it approved the parties' settlement plans, the Eighth Circuit stressed the need for a period of stability. While the court does not wish to become involved in individual hiring decisions, the Court must see that court directives are being followed. The LRSD must cooperate with the MRC as it fulfills its responsibility to administer the magnet schools. As has been -9- stated, administration includes decisions concerning staffing levels adequate to effectively deliver the magnet programs. While it does appear that the MRC has failed to develop criteria for staff selection and the Court believes that actual selection of personnel is the responsibility of the host district, the MRC's role in determining staffing requirements is not to be undermined. The Court, therefore, affirms the MR.C's decision to reinstate the 3.9 FTE positions cut from the original magnet schools' programs and orders the LRSD to reinstate the individuals who previously held the following positions: 1) the 1. O FTE music teacher at Gibbs International studies Magnet Elementary School\n2) the 1.0 FTE counselor at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School\n3) the .4 FTE counselor position at Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School\nand 4) three ( 3) . 5 FTE Gifted and Talented positions, one each at Booker, Gibbs, and Williams Magnet Schools. Ass i stant Principal at Gibbs International studies Magnet School. The MRC also asks the Court to vacate the assistant principal position at Gibbs and allow the LRSD to advertise and the principal to select a black assistant principal from among qualified candidates. The LRSD disputes that there is a requirement that magnet school staff positions be racially balanced and contends that the MRC's position violates the parties' desegregation plans and the law. The MRC does not contend that there is a requirement that LRSD label certain magnet school staff positions as \"black\" or \"white.\" -10- It does state that there is a goal of equal representation for blacks and whites both for administrators and teachers. The goal of equitable staffing appears throughout the LRSD settlement plan, and the Court notes that the Eighth Circuit has admonished the NLRSD and the PCSSD for not hiring blacks. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (1985)\n778 F.2d. at 440 (Arnold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The court finds that this goal of equal representation is an admirable one and should be attempted at every opportunity. Additionally, there does not seem to be a problem here with the availability of a pool of qualified applicants because the LRSD recently hired a black as the assistant principal at Washington to serve with that school's black principal. The LRSD appears to have made an unwise personnel placement decision in its selection of the assistant principals for the two magnet schools. The Court, however, will not require the LRSD to remove the assistant principal at Gibbs. It does expect the LRSD to select staff not only at the magnet schools but at all its schools consistent with the staffing goals of the desegregation plans and the law of this case. Conclusion. Although a superintendent and his board ought to have the right to run their schools in ordinary day-to-day matters, this is no ordinary matter. order and court oversight The LRSD must function under court in a lawsuit the district itself -11- initiated ten years ago this month. The districts have agreed to abide by both the spirit and letter of their own desegregation plans and they would do well to act in good faith in fulfilling the commitments made in their plans. In Freeman v. Pitts, U.S. __ , 112 s.ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992), the Supreme court held that in the course of supervising desegregation plans, federal courts have the authority to relinquish supervision and control in incremental stages, before full compliance is achieved in every area of school operations. Aillong the factors to be considered in ordering incremental withdrawal is whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance  . . . A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. U.S. at 112 s.ct. at 1446, 118 L.Ed.2d at 135. In summary, the LRSD is directed to reinstate to their former positions those individuals listed on page 10 of this order. It is further directed to consider racial balance in selecting staff for the magnet schools. In the future, the LRSD must consult the MRC and must seek court permission prior to making any staffing changes in the magnet schools. Any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year shall be presented prior -12- to preschool registration in the early spring of 1993 . .f ( . ,I- SO ORDERED this~ day of November, 1992. (U (1'\"' }Jr.\n~ ),~t) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -13- .JOH:-J W \\\\'..\\LKER R.-\\LPH \\\\'.-\\SHINC\nTON ~!.-\\RK BCRNETTF: \"WILEY.-\\. BR.\\:-,.\nTO\\ .. JR . . -\\1..iSTIN PORTER. JR.  Also adm1a.ed to Pract 1C'I! ,n G..-o r:z 1a \u0026amp; l.~ D1stnct o( f'ulum01a JOHN W. WALKER. P.A. :\\'!TOR\\EY AT LAW 1723 BROADIV A Y L!TILE Ron\n, ARK..\\:-JSAS i~206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) :37-1-4187 September 23, 1992 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: I have several requests outstanding before the Court regarding the Little Rock School District. I wish to add to that list concerns which have been raised within the Magnet Review Committee regarding the budget cuts proposed by the Little Rock School District. The District proposes to cut approximately 15 teaching positions in the Magnet school. See copy of letter to Magnet Review Committee from Dr. Mac Bernd dated July 28, 1992. I am concerned because in the budget cut proposals, the District has taken at least one action that makes absolutely no sense. It has removed the assistant principal at Gibbs Elementary School who had a salary of approximately $34,000.00 and replaced her with an administrator in the District who has a salary of $60,000 or more. I just don't understand this. Moreover, the removed assistant principal at Gibbs was African American\nthe replacement for her is Caucasian. The further irony of this whole matter is that the African American principal was placed at Washington with another African American principal while Gibbs now has two Caucasiar. principals. Exhibit A U. S. D:STR!CT JUDGE Page Two Honorable Susan Webber Wright September 23, 1992 The entire matter is suspect, we believe. requesting that Ms. Ann Brown's office inquire prior to any scheduled (hopefully) hearing or with the Court. JWW:lp cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Ms. Donna Creer Ms. Evelyn Jackson We are, therefore, into these matters meeting before or TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKIIAM STREET LITTT,E ROCK, An 72201 July 28, 1992 Magnet Review Committee FROM: Dr. Mac Bernd, superintendent of Schools C... l.  l3 SUBJECT: Budget Reduction Recommendation As a result of the Little Rock School District Board approving the 1992-93 Operating Budget, it is our position that any reductions of personnel in the area schools should also be made in the magnet schools monitored by the Magnet Review Committee. Therefore, the Board has authorized the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions as follows: Gifted \u0026amp; Talented - Elementary Counseling - Elementary Counseling - Secondary Music Teachers - Elementary (Except i3ooker) Teaching Vc1cancies - secondary 1. 5 1. 4 2. 0 3.0 Because the the reduction in positions would create a total reduction in costs, we recommend that the per pupil rate be reduced from $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. Zach Polen if 501-376-2423 ~6/17194 \\518.02AM GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent FROM: Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSO Deputy Superintendent Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Meeting By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: 1) A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's interviews. 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. Attachments [j2/5 Znch Polett l:f 501-316-2423 Qll 6/1 /194 Partial List of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee \\YtJ.WAM 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. 2) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? S) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary matters? 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 1 O) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/ or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children? JJ/o Zach Polett it 501-3/6-2-423 QlJ6/17/94 \\!\nd:04AM Partial List of Applicants We Would I ike to Interview on Tuesday, June Z Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan Strauss Zach Polett V' 501-376-2423 12l16117/94 ~ 8:0SAM Proposed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. 2) We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working dosely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible principal for Gibbs Elementary. C)S/5 TO: GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/15/94 FRO~: Dr. Henry Wi II iams, LRSD Superintendent Easter Tuc~er WI I I le Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Wilhelmina Lewellen Vickie Gonterman Gibbs Staff Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: F o 11 ow Up to Our Memorandum of June 4, 1 994 As members of the LRSD's Gibbs Principal Selection Committee. we again respectfully request to interview the fol lowing people for the prlnclpalshlp of Gibbs at the earl lest convenience: Sharon Davis Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchel I Diane Barksdale Katherine Tweedle Please ask your staff to schedule these interviews as soon as it is feaslble. Thank. you in advance for your assistance in this matter. GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION June 17, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 HAND DELIVERED RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Dr. Williams: Again, on behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank you for your time in discussing the selection process with us. I think we can all agree that an important component to this successful functioning of not only an individual school such as Gibbs but of the entire school district is the meaningful and significant involvement of parents and teachers in the decision-making process. As parents and teachers, we observe, on a daily basis, how our schools operate and, therefore, can offer relevant input in the selection of a principal for our school. At the conclusion of our meeting, you indicated that you would review the process and procedures which have taken place to date. You agreed to advise the committee whether or not you would permit us to interview additional candidates for the principal's position. Recognizing that you will be involved in other activities through the end of this week, we ask that you notify us by 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 20, 1994. Although I believe we made it quite apparent during the course of our meeting, I would like to reiterate that our primary concern is with the validity of the procedure by which the next principal of Gibbs is to be determined. Although it has been stated by the administration that this particular procedure had \"worked\" in prior applications, it has been our experience that the process in this instance is inherently and fatally flawed. Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Two When we initially learned that there would be a vacancy, the Gibbs PTA met and determined that we would like to be involved in the selection process. Subsequently, we undertook efforts to determine what the process would be and what we, the parents and faculty of Gibbs, needed to do in order to become a part of the process. At no time were we ever given specific or accurate information regarding the process and procedures to be employed in the selection of a new principal nor were we told what our role would be. Upon the recommendation of Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, we met and selected a committee to represent Gibbs and drafted communications to the school district requesting involvement in the process. we also requested information regarding the names of applicants for the position but were not provided that information until third party filed a freedom of information request. Upon obtaining this information, the committee met and on June 4, 1994, submitted a list of names of candidates that we wished to interview, a list of questions to be posed to the applicants, and after learning by word of mouth some aspects of the selection procedure, a list of proposed procedures that we wished to be included. This letter was hand delivered to both your office and that of Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent by a member of the Gibbs Committee. However, it is apparent that neither you nor any administration representative on the selection committee ever saw this communique prior to the June 7, 1994 interview session. On June 7, 1994, the parents and faculty of Gibbs posed several questions to the administrative representatives on the selection committee. We asked how the five interviewees were selected and were told that all five had been selected based on their expressed interest in the Gibbs position. We are now told by you that that was misinformation. It was not until the interview session that we were informed as to what the procedure for selection of the principal would be. Both before the interview process and at the conclusion of the interviews, we inquired of the administrative representatives whether, in the event that we were not satisfied with any of the applicants interviewed, could we interview additional applicants. In response to our inquiries, we were told that the answer to our inquiry was unknown but were later told that, yes, if we could not come to a consensus on the applicants to be recommended to you, the process would remain open and we would be able to Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Three interview additional candidates. During the course of our meeting of June 15, you indicated that your representatives were misinformed. The parent and faculty members of the selection committee also expressed serious reservations about the utilization of the evaluation forms. Our concerns were the lack of prior input into the questions to be posed to the applicants as well as the use the forms would serve in the selection process. We were assured that it would not simply be a matter of tabulating the scores and then selecting the top three candidates based on simple mathematics. There was substantial reluctance on the part of the faculty and parent members of the committee to fill out the forms until we gained assurances from the administration that those forms would not be used as set forth above. At the conclusion of the interview process, the consensus was that we had not interviewed a candidate that we -could recommend to the administration for the Gibbs principal position. After lengthy discussions, the group agreed not to submit any names to the administration and that we would request the opportunity to interview additional candidates. Administration representatives insisted that the forms be filled out and that was done only after again receiving assurances that the forms not be used and the scores tabulated to arrive at three candidates based on the highest scores obtained. We were told that the only reason to fill out those forms was to document the fact that the committee had interviewed the five applicants. Additionally, several members of the committee expressly stated that any recommendation to the administration would not be based solely on the evaluation forms as those forms did not accurately reflect an individual's choices. As a general matter, it is difficult to understand how a principal can be selected based solely on a thirty minute interview. Dr. Williams, based on the foregoing, we simply ask that you provide us with an opportunity to interview additional candidates and complete what we believe is an incomplete process. I am, under separate cover, sending a copy of this letter to the individual members of the Little Rock School Board as well as to Judge Susan Webber Wright and Donna Creer of the Magnet Review Committee. Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Four We look forward to your response. AFAjr/jc cc: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 T. Kevin O'Malley Ark. Board of Review Tower Building, Suite 700 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dorsey Jackson 1400 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John A. Riggs, IV J. A. Riggs Tractor Co. P.O. Box 1399 Little Rock, AR 72203 Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman Linda Pondexter Fuller Jr. High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Patricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Oma Jacovelli 6622 Gold court Little Rock, AR 72209 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Judge P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 \\.,/2onna Creer Magnet Review Committee 1920 N. Main North Little Rock, AR 72114 3860d GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION Dr. Katherine Mitchell T. Kevin O'Malley Dorsey Jackson John A. Riggs, IV Linda Pondexter Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli June 17, 1994 RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Members of the Little Rock School Board: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to Dr. Henry Williams following our committee's meeting with him on June 15, 1994. This letter is being provided to each of you so that you will be aware of our concerns regarding the selection process and procedures employed by the district administration which was designed to result in the superintendent's recommendation to you of a new principal for Gibbs Magnet School. we believe that it is important for each of you to know that the parent-teacher members of the committee unanimously believe that the process was inherently and fatally flawed, if for no other reason than it substantially eliminated any significant and meaningful input by the parents and faculty at Gibbs. Additionally, the selection committee did not recommend any names to Dr. Williams for consideration for the principal position at Gibbs. Members of Little Rock School Board June 17, 1994 Page Two As you can see, we have simply asked Dr. Williams to allow us the opportunity to interview additional candidates for the position of Gibbs' principal. AFAjr/jc Enclosure 3861d Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman BY,,\u0026amp;g~\u0026amp;b I MAY-04-1994 15:38 FR0'1 J.B. tJAN HJ0\u0026lt; RE~ TY, !NC TO May4, 1994 Dr. Remy P. Williams. Supcrint.e:lld=i Little Rock. School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Wi.Iliam8: 7712420 P .01 We, the faculty and trupport staff ofWilmms Magnet School, wish to express our deep concern over the possible reasssgomem of our principal, Dr. Edwin S. Jackson. Dr. Jackson, through bis effective administralive stylo and leadership. bas \u0026amp;uided Willi.ams Magnet School to a kvel of superior acbievemcot. OUr school's high-performance record spew for itself We highly recommend that Dr. Ja.cbon's transfer be reooosidc:rcd. Also. attached you will find a list of :actors that ~ hope you will consi.d before you make yout final decision. These are j ust a fr\nw of the numerous accomplishmeats that Dr. Jackson bas helped achieve during his tenure at Williams Magnet School. He bu truly helped to make our school a choice for ex\u0026lt;ielleooc.\" As we close this 1993-94 academic year, -we want to thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns about the future of our school. Re8pCCtfuily yours, Williams Magnet School Faculty/Staff I t1AY-04-1'394 15:39 FRO\"l J. B. ~ 1-o:J\u0026lt; RER..TY, I t\u0026lt;: ... Strong leadernup ... Staff commiument ... Parental support and tru\u0026amp;t ... Extensive leadership experience ... Low staff tum--over ... Pupil committment to K-6 ... 100%P.T.A. membership ... C.O.E. leader ... Staff support ... C...ontinuity in support of Magnet prubophy md goals ... High expectations TO ... firm, fair and coomtcnt with studcMI, staff and ~15 ... Knowledgeable o.f Magnet Review Committee Federal standards ... Good relationship with the ~ world ... ChOSM to serve on the 1oint Interim CommiUcc oo Education ... Scan~ ta.t scores aro ~ high ... Conceived idea of new building design and construction ... Profession.al in all aspects of his podtion ... National Association ofElcmenary Principals member ... Ovenight and Directions Cormniuc:e repm\nemativc ... Attends annual Intemational Magnet School Convention ... Fc:da.11 Legislative Chairman for Arlcamas Elc:mentaty Principals 7712420 P.02 TOTR.. P.02 45 Huntington Road Little Rock, AR 72207 May 3, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: -- C!ofy -- Thank you so much for visiting with me this morning by telephone t o discuss my strong support for Dr. Ed Jackson, Principal at Williams Magnet Elementary School. As an active member of our PTA, I've seen how dedicated a r i concerned Dr. Jackson is in promoting the goals of our magne t school. He is uniquely qualified in temperment and background to help us achieve our goals. My daughter is in the fifth grade and my son is a kindergarten student at Williams Magnet. My main concern is that our school continue to have the stablility that I feel Dr. Jackson affords us. He has worked hard and under his leadership all the children at our school have benefited as evidenced by consistently high test scores each year. Dr. Jackson has high expectations for the classroom teachers and ensures that the philosophy of academic achievement and discipline are consistently followed throughout the school at every level. Our PTA is looking forward to a much needed expansion in our school building scheduled to get underway this summer. Dr. Jackson has been involved in the planning and development of this project and, because of his familiarity, would be a great asset in seeing the construction to its end. My husband and I support the public school system and are eager to see it strengthened. Please hear our concerns in this matter and know that our need for stability and consistency in our school system is essential. Again, thank you for carefully considering this situation and fa , allowing me to share my feelings that Dr. Jackson should remain a s the Principal of Williams Magnet Elementary School. //\",,,- '-fV! .,J) /--0r-- tl-' (!_ IL.UU,j bee Magnet Review Committee Sincerely, Dorothy Dt- (Mrs. Paul B. Young, Jr.) Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent little Rock School District 810 West Markham little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: 16 Huntington Road little Rock, AR 72207 May 3, 1994 It has come to my attention that you are considering the transfer of Dr. Ed Jackson, the principal of Williams Magnet School. As the parent of a fifth grade student at Williams, I would respectfully ask that you reconsider this action. I believe that Dr. Jackson has done an excellent job of promoting the ideals of our school, basic skills, and has helped Williams to consistently lead the little Rock School District in test scores. His support of the classroom teachers and our strong discipline policy have created a learning environment where Williams Magnet truly is \"a choice for excellence.\" Williams has achieved and maintained excellence through a partnership of an excellent teachins staff, a strong principal, an involved PTA, and students who are interested in learning. Our school is very successful and I see no need for a change in this partnership. I was educated in the little Rock Public Schools and have served on the PTA Board of Williams Magnet School in various capacities for the past five years. I strongly believe that if the little Rock Public School System is to survive and flourish, a sense of stability must be established. With all the changes in the top administrative positions in the past several years, I woul\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"mus_sovcom_9-10-0","title":"Mailing List of Negro Schools and Principals","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 Mailing List of Negro Schools and Principals, 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":["Mailing List of Negro Schools and Principals"],"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=717%7C9%7C10%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_10-106-0","title":"Major General Edwin A. Walker","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 Major General Edwin A. Walker, 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":["Major General Edwin A. Walker"],"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=951%7C10%7C106%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_1-65-0","title":"Marcell Gordon","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 Marcell Gordon, 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":["Marcell Gordon"],"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=87%7C1%7C65%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_97-84-0","title":"Marie Rayfield","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 Marie Rayfield, 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":["Marie Rayfield"],"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=1350%7C97%7C84%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_2-31-0","title":"Marion County, 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 Marion County, 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":["Marion County, 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=121%7C2%7C31%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_13-47-0","title":"Mario Savio","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 Mario Savio, 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":["Mario Savio"],"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=986%7C13%7C47%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_2-20-2","title":"Marshall 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 Marshall 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":["Marshall 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=93%7C2%7C20%7C%7C2"],"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_2-20-1","title":"Marshall 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 Marshall 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":["Marshall 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=92%7C2%7C20%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_1-85-0","title":"Martin Luther King","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 Martin Luther King, 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":["Martin Luther King"],"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=134%7C1%7C85%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_13-29-0","title":"Martin Popper","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 Martin Popper, 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":["Martin Popper"],"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=963%7C13%7C29%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}],"pages":{"current_page":582,"next_page":583,"prev_page":581,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":6972,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}