{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"hbcula_abco_0085","title":"American Baptist College Library Handbook, 1993-1994","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"dcterms_description":["This is the American Baptist College library handbook, detailing the T. L. Holcomb Library's hours, services, and policies."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Buildings and grounds","African Americans—Education","College publications","African American universities and colleges"],"dcterms_title":["American Baptist College Library Handbook, 1993-1994"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0085"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["handbooks"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"scdl_clemsonboard_96","title":"Annual Report of the Clemson Board of Trustees, 1992-1993","collection_id":"scdl_clemsonboard","collection_title":"Board of Trustees","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Pickens County, 34.88752, -82.72532"],"dcterms_creator":["Board of Trustees, Clemson University"],"dc_date":["1993-01-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Clemson, S.C. : Clemson University Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Board of Trustees Annual Reports"],"dcterms_subject":["Libraries","Information science"],"dcterms_title":["Annual Report of the Clemson Board of Trustees, 1992-1993"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Carolina Digital Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/trustees_reports/96"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright of Clemson University. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required."],"dcterms_medium":["manuscripts (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_48833","title":"Astronaut Irwin salutes flag at Apollo 15 Hadley-Apennine landing site [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff.","On verso: 7/7/93 -- To my friend, with much love \u0026 caring Rich (last name illegible) [Z]alewa 29848 Roan, Warren, MI 48093."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Astronauts","Lunar landing sites"],"dcterms_title":["Astronaut Irwin salutes flag at Apollo 15 Hadley-Apennine landing site [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.48833"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photomechanical printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"mus_sovcom_50-2-27","title":"Barrett, Richard: Rebuttal File Exhibit KK","collection_id":"mus_sovcom","collection_title":"Sovereignty Commission Online","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":["Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":["Records collected by the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission on Richard Barrett, founder and leader of the Nationalist Movement, a white supremacist organization based in Learned, Mississippi.","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 Barrett, Richard: Rebuttal File Exhibit KK, 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":["Segregationists--Mississippi","Political candidates--Mississippi","White supremacy movements","Lawyers--Mississippi","Nationalist Movement (Learned, Miss.)","Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission"],"dcterms_title":["Barrett, Richard: Rebuttal File Exhibit KK"],"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=1455%7C50%7C2%7C%7C27"],"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":["Barrett, Richard, 1943-2010"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_29209466","title":"The Battle for environmental justice in Louisiana : government, industry, and the people","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":["United States Commission on Civil Rights","United States Commission on Civil Rights. Louisiana Advisory Committee"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Louisiana, 31.00047, -92.0004"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","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":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":["Louisiana : The Committee"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights Collection (Thurgood Marshall Law Library)"],"dcterms_subject":["Environmental protection--Louisiana--Citizen participation","Environmental justice--Louisiana--Case studies","Environmental health--Political aspects--Louisiana","Hazardous waste sites--Louisiana--Case studies","African Americans--Politics and government--Case studies","African Americans--Health and hygiene--Louisiana","Racism--Louisiana--Case studies"],"dcterms_title":["The Battle for environmental justice in Louisiana : government, industry, and the people"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr12en8z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_29209466"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["144 p. : ill., maps ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"guan_1283a_106-046","title":"Brooks, Mary Ellen - Hargrett Rare Manuscript Library, University of Georgia, 1993","collection_id":"guan_1283a","collection_title":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1910-2001)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jp2"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["Brooks, Mary Ellen - Hargrett Rare Manuscript Library, University of Georgia, 1993"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Hargrett Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/guan_1283a_106-046#item"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/guan_1283a_106-046"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Preferred Citation: Lillian Eugenia Smith papers, ms1283a. Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library, The University of Georgia Libraries."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Smith, Esther"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_865","title":"Budget: ''North Little Rock School District 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":null,"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School facilities","School buildings","School employees","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Budget: ''North Little Rock School District 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/865"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nI NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET 1993-94 I I I I I I SEP 1 3 1993 om'0 01 0~ g eg. .r.,  i i Monito: 1g REVENUE tomt Um ROCsKa m. DISTRICT ROEii SUltARY JU, 1993 RESTRitmF\u0026gt;1 IGlS JIUDtET LOOI. REVBIE tfflJfT MTillf-SUKR 50m. 60,000 199'2- l99J '1T StJIER LUST 16,500 sam.A CTMTSYi t.ES 50,000 11:SIRJCfIUOl8 amr 1DR1 DIA1E llJSTtl\u0026gt;ItSt. ERVICES 24,000 UEMl.l WJIE ... IIIStEl.1.AtelJS 9,000 NIDT TOTrLt. lrA. l\u0026amp;lRICm\u0026gt;l eDI 1'9,500 IDm.M:mllTM.D 50,000 S6,6U.18 amma. DUD 31,000 a,000.00 STATERa'EJIE PQ!IEIMERB 25,000 12P,17l.J2 TRANSP(RTATIIII 494,317 1DTMU. DL IUIRICIOm  99,000 213,\"111.S, VOCATIBOlJWIP.I EfT 22,002 STAlEII D9I VOCATIIISWTA. RT-lP 2,600 KINIO\u0026amp;ARMTETMER irt.S 8,460 llhB !llm1mll m,a m,om.oo tw\nfET/IHlHtllW\u0026amp;'On'. 300,000 \\'IDTDllfl. 80,436 80,415.96 IEiE\u0026amp;RE\u0026amp;AATmIDt 780,000 IDIIBUnBI M'IBWU 7,180 6,209.08 CDfEMSATAIJInD' 234,439 11GE111-111HI1M I mu. JD0,000 JD0,000.00 D'EP/ACT 18,:s:38 MCPRES\u0026gt;m. Y.AiaTJIII AD 400,000 IM4,39J.8l 234,116 mFEllii\\TlmA D 248,056 Zli,557.04 MCS lllERE JIUDlHT 0 MCF IEDIII. 229,ffl 229,51:S.OO SPECirEt. D.P RESDm.. 314,325 MCU IIR BlmHIJfr 31,603 D,60.1.00 SPECirtE. D.R ESJEfl'Irt. 25,000 MCP IEDlll. EIIDMJff U,407 U,407.00 SPEClrt.EDP.I ElDDl. 0 fFECIMEl.. PIEDlll. 1G,71J w,202.00 !HCitL Ellll'ATirJmt\n0 \u0026amp;PfCIMEJI..I DTJII(m : 5,000 5,000.00 LEVsIn w\u0026amp;\n25,000 \u0026amp;PfCIME.l.. IIIDEN1'UL 12,000 26,957.82 IEl1ttltRDliGRMT 7,900 IQ!IE I #fllB CillMIB 20,000 Q,392.95 lllml.NEU WMTS 2,000 TOT,tS. TATREE STRICTREEDV E1l 2,468,597 1DTMS.T AlEIU IRICIOIB 9I 2,221,256 2,55.6,7!5-'6 TDTMU.D L \u0026amp; BTAlE TDTrUt. l'lt. \u0026amp; STTAE 11:SIRJCtIEOV EII 2,322,256 2,1JD,m.u IOTRICTEDREVE1l 2,628,097 = meRIGIEWJIE FOOSDE RVIaR: EVEJlE ... RMW 3,714,:IIO 3,710,7 10.' llt. REVEME 636,000.00 llt. aua:TI!Hi .oo F'EDEJIWEt.l U5EJDT 1,300,000.00 STATIEIE itllUmEfT zs,000.00 IHTmST 5,000.00 01llR 3,000.00 TDTrftl.D I SERVIa: 1,969,000.00 1 IOml UTTLRO CsKam . DISTRICT REVEJSI.ElH fARY 1993 - 1994 leTRICTEDFl NlS BUl)f',[f lro1.REVEM AIUM MTIIIHUKR SDm. 60,000 199'i-1993 '1f S\\ltER Ill.EST 16,500 sam.A CTIVI\u0026amp;TUYS 50,000 11:SIRICIFElJl l8 am:r 1DITDM1E llJSllmll(. SERVICES 24,000 UDl.llWIIE MUff MUff IUSCEJ.1.AIElS 9,000 mrrt.L irA. RESTRICTED fDID.M:mITfSM.EI S\u0026gt;,000 56,616.18 ~ 159,500 asrm,w. IDVmS 24,000 21,000.00 STATREE VEllE IO!DWJEIIB 25,000 129,1''1.32 TIMH5PlRTATillf 494,317 TOTMU.D i. 11:SIRICI1O1 .'VB1 99,oao 213,'1 813 VOCATICEIlWlU. IMHT 22,002 Sl'AlEIB BI 1, VOCATICSITWM. T-lP 2,600 KIIIIB\u0026amp;MTEMlfA TERitt.S 8,460 IMll'URllffllll S2,226 513,002.00 WQ1'/K-TO-TftR MiP(RT. 300,000 VIDTllllll. 80,G6 ao,.m.96 llESEQE\nATAIIIDJt 780,000 IDIBUnBIMTBWU 7,180 6,209.08 mFENSATIJArfI D 234,439 D'EP/ACT IKIEf,1t-11H( 'RW\u0026amp;Ulf. 300,000 300,000.00 18,538 lflli'aATllll AD 400,oao 844,393.81 fFRE!Dm. 234,116 CDHJliA'itRAYD 248,5 25S,:J57.04 Alt S\\ltER EJltIOKNT 0 MC FIEIHll. :ra,515 :ra,m.oo SPEtIM.E D.P RE:SODl. 314,325 MC lllllR EllmHEff 33,603 D,60.1.00 SPEtirtE. D.l elllEMTift. 25,000 MCF lllDIII. EIIJD'fEfT 11,407 U,407.00 SPECirEt.D .P RE9lm. 0 \u0026amp;FmM.E J. fllEDIII. 1a,m w,202.00 lffCIM. EDll'ATICElEf t 0 lfB:W.DlDTJIIIECI: s,oao 5,000.00 LEVSI TRAlS 25,000 !fftlll El. llmENi1M. 32,000 26,957.82 IETI9:llRitr\nGRMT 7,900 tmUJl#flllQWOI 20,000 63,112.95 IUlUl.LNE16 ~ 2,000 TDTrSt.T ATREE STRICl9TEE1DlE 2,468,597 TOTMSi.' All1 1:BIRICImEIE 2,223,256 2,:SU,7.15.66 TOTMU.D l. \u0026amp; ITAlE JOTrlt1.r /t. \u0026amp;S TATE N:SIRICIEIEJ D 2,322,256 2,7,523.16 16TRICTElDV EllE 2,628,097 = 2 0TH LITl1.R OCsKa m.D ISTRICT REV9lESUMY 1993 - 1994 1992-1993 rnlM. REV9lE-f61RICTED llJDGET FEDl1. II.WIIE-fElnm:I DIE 1fM 1D MlE NO.NT Mllfr Mllfr SPECIAELD lATilmlf : 36,704 IHPIERJ 1,93,860 l,691,112.00 CJW'TtRI 1,561,000 IHP1ERn 7J,:stS 7J,:stS.OO DWTERII ~.593 tlDilliM., 011. PEIIIDII lZS,672 lZS,67l.OO VOCATillCfAALRP, LE RKINS 148,411 \u0026amp; PEIIIDIIID  a: 5,000 1,906.12 Till VI-B 320,286 TI1l Vl-1 310,000 3119,a.oo Pl 89-313 18,3:58 PL 8'-313 21,050 21,104.00 IEDICAID 29,000 IEID:m JB,000 26,431.95 IIIE.ESS ttSSISTNl:E 21,ffl IDJCAD, PIEIHD.. 1,600 13,187.81 IEDICAIDfl,E iCtm. 12,000 fft'CIII. a. PIEIHD.. n,a 2116,3115.00 SPECIAELD . PIIESOIIL 420,000 fft'CIIIE. L EJ:C 61,200 a,200.00 lM START 12,646 lliD ffllT .,644 .,646.00 .Im HIPPY 17,:SOO EB SfllT DB,154 101,090.44 JTPAlU T(Jt 9,612 EWJSI fllT QllfflMJt 18,564 18,564.00 JIPAA L'TEllNAPTRMO\nRM ~.ooo JIN HDfY 21,000 20,984.05 JTPA Pf!E-JROYIDT 30,000 JIN 1Ul1lt 9,612 14,738.10 JTPA-tlfl)AL EARH+l.lVK 19,000 JIN \u0026amp;.lBIMTMP 111M1 34,810 3D,l3B.84 JTPA EDlAllllf/llmocY 110,455 JIN fllE-8RlfflEIT s,m ...... MU\nEDlATlllf 92,900 IS EJIIDTDII 92,B 92,818.00 ltATW9:IBa, EISE1f00 42,000 MlMEISl:E,EISEIIIIIR G,740 42,740.00 CH II llRUllllll FIWIOIK 0 IIIEl.EIB 21,000 21,000.00 ASJOTilAi BATEJNT 0 at ll CUPID1 MF 1WE1111r 6,250 6,250.00 at I fllBilWDI FIIMJENr 52,790 52,790.00 TUTttm. ew.R EVEJIE 3,062,340 emY, E0IIII l0,159 39,1VS.OO MillESTAIMB tEJENr 1,186 .oo tN'ITtt. WTLARYE VEii: 1UTMfU. BW. IE8tE 3,21115,108 3,1\",1'6.7J llllREHTA llES 200,100 Ptl.l.BACI(T AllES 100,000 DIPITMll.f fl.AYIB EJI.E: Ptl.l.BACI( - ACCRlO 72,500 DEl.DaEHTTA llES 25,000 alllJfr TMEB 250,000 198,118.91 EXIDS CDIIISSillf 1,000 flU.1111 TAXES 120,000 101,497.21 DfTEREST 1,400 PILlJIO - MIIID 40,000 '2,970.05 IEI.DIIEllr TAXES 3D,OOO 26,731.JO TDTttr.l tPITALW TLAY 400,000 DIDI tDiWBilli l,000 1186.CS Df1EIE'BT 3,000 1,446.83 aJllDIN(f\n1Jfl)I BEM.: TOrMD. IPITMC.I IIUY 444,000 J91,!0.7S PflfERTYstt.ES 600 DfTEREST 92,000 JlllllK F1II lf.'t'BIE: IWMll SETTUIENT 7,400 ASll:STIUEW f '40,000 f'IOUrY au:s 95,000 95,767.00 F\\N) l1WISF'ER 60,000 JNIEIUI S,,000 136,014.31 IWIVIU.IEE 1lEIENT , .. 9,431.00 TOTARLll lItt\nFtMD 200,000 MIEi1IBL DMI 40,000 .oo FIJI, lMiftk 40,000 40,543.G.1 TOrMIU. D.DK FIii 254,SIO lDl,7:!15.34 TOTARLE VEN.( 39,914,8-40.00 lUTM.IEVEIIE 40,611,'61.00 41,111,036.32 3 I II II II II I BUDGETSU MMARRYE PORTS N1m1U 11l m IDOi. IISTRICI' um IIIMrf lff.1- l9M INi:BIRll!IO\"1 118 1111:Slkll!IFOU ii um MIUff I lnllE 31,QB,C,I I EDE JI DPmI11IEB II DPBlll11IB aM.. l,199,IO liEIIII. DlmU:mll 25,5'1,m DlfflU:l1III MDl'IEIIIIIiE I H.MTIIII J,\u0026amp;,6'0 MDl19IU ' IFEM11III IElllH 90,920 11L11t INDIDT i,176,700 DIDIEIT lM\u0026amp;IRl'ATIIJt 345,463 llWB'IRTATIIII FUellWIHRS \u0026amp;0,000 F1II) 1MlfERS 1H TDTM. 32,B,318 IN TDTM. Ill IIIIWff 07/0t/9J Projected F1ll8 Projected M.Na IBtll #MILMlE DFmmlES um 1111111T JD,\"6,497 l,Ol2.CIZS 2',ZM,291 J,SZ,240 11,'IZ 1,213,257 164,900 \u0026amp;0,000 J0,414,639 Projected IMAl:E l99'l - lff.1 1911D Im: MIUff 31, .. ,229.74 l,OP.5,911.49 a,454,a.s J,8B\n324.49 86,~.63 71P,841.l5 3D8,654.19 \u0026amp;0,000.00 a,a, 719.40 i,026,S86.18+ 31,655,403 =32,681,989.18-32,358,318 = 323,671.18 4 ..... STATE/UrAR.E STRICTAEmDW tS I IEVEJlE II EXPEJIDll\\HS TIWtSPfRTATIIJt IISEQE\nATIIJt aJf'EH!iAllREf JIIDTIIJt IDl)n\nAa:r.MRYOVER MC EWD'tEfT/Slffl.IES RESTlR:TtJUP~R a\nRM Alt SlMR mliRM AOCP RESOID.. Sf'Et:lrt.E D.m :som. SP. ED. RESIIIHTift. VWITIIIW. som.A CTIVSITfi.YES CUSTOD!IiRllY ICES IIISE.lAEIJS WtHTS SlJIERs om. ~IT SlllD lllST II LEVliI1 WtUSS MIC lllltATIIJtS III5al.1NWSQ Wfl'S ... TOTft. III 9.tlNY r---- tamf UTitE ROCSKC fDl.D ISTRICT llKET !llNRY 1993 - 1994 IMlGET AIOJfT 2,628,097 1,139,79\u0026gt; 1,150,230 243,230 31,890 2J,767 11,407 7,900 31,~6 234,116 314,325 25,000 24,602 44,727 24,000 31,046 88,500 18,~ l3,390 J,000 2,979 3,-183,615 7-1-93 Balance 689,414.17 STAlEIUDILE SIRJCIOF ROaU I II DIE MllfT IBfJI 2,a,m DFBm1UEB lMlflRTA'TIIII ffl,2DO ltii:UIMTIIII 760,065 IDFEIIM11E1JrrI IDTDII 2\",364 EMDE a.au MC CMlfflMR 211,e MCAEDIII. 229,515 9'ECIME..l . PIEDlll. 148,773 IP. El. IUDl:Jlf UL 32,000 VIDTIIIML 81,415 mm.a cTM1YS IUB 51,830 llli111UMf. lRVJCES LVl 81MIIS lmlJ'll#fllBQWffl IN TDTM. Projected Revenue 2,628,097 24,000 25,000 64,766 2,74.1,:!04 Projected Expenditures 3,483,615 Transfer from unrestricted revenue 19'2 -19'1 19RMMTE AIIUfl' 2,6\",9:111.0, l,12t,656.l9 673,463.61 2'4,Ul.15 18,225.90 28,'85.25 21115,807.48 f:56,202.00 26,200.33 B'l,'7.99 J2,SJ8.'4 7,270.48 U,'9.62 ll,'96.22 2,695,102.86 Projected Ending Balance 166,103.83CR 345,463.00 179,359.17 5 1, IQTH LITll.ER OCsKa m DISTRICT IIUl)(\nT SMWn FmM.PRO\nRMS 1993 - 1994 llJlltET AIOMT I ~ 3,214,736 II EXPEJfDIT\\16 DWTERI 1,561,000 CJWTEIRI 70,437 VOCATIIJW. 148,411 TITLEV I-B 323,000 Pl 89-313 19,006 1DICAID 30,000 1DICAIFDm DDl. 12,000 SP. ED. PIISODl. 442,429 5P. ED. Ea: 43,210 lADS TART 16,661 DWTERI 911B PRO\nRM 254,400 EVEMST ART 122,396 JTPAE ru:ATIOfll.ITER/Y 110.~ JTPAP IJER 17,500 JTPA1 UTIR 9,612 JTPtl ft.TERMTIVE ~.ooo JTPtl I.EMN-A-l.IVIIG 30,000 JIPA-CN'l)A I.EMN-A-l.IVK 19,000 le ED. CARRYOVER 26,1~ ED. 92,900 EISEJfOOM TH/s:IEM:E9 'J 30,864 EI!EtOD MTH/SCIEJ9a4 42,000 11111m 21,B'r.i IOll.SSr .ARRYOVER 11,m DW7TEIIR-m E.ERATED 1,914 Of II llllRICWlFt RitlIOK 4,683 BUCY 0 Ill TUTrt. 3,562,841 IUSJNRY 7-1-93 Balance 370,170.43 FElall. FIIIIWcl I EDE II EJIIBIII1IIIES DWTERI OIPIERII \\o1DT1lllll VIDTIIIK. ID EC lI1lE VI-I R.8'-313 IEDIOOI IEDIOOI PIEDDl.   El. PIEDIII. IP. El. Ett fDDSTMT l\\USTMT l\\91 STMT CMlfflMI J1PAP IIER J1PA MtR J1N rt.lEIIMTM Jl'PI\\PfE-fJfl.lfflEI JIU ED 111KE D.S M: El!EIIIER M1Ml9:IEJIE flJE.BB DWTERU -muMlD at II allWlLlll RWEIR at I fllliAMI DfflMJEJf1' ~ fl!llli11BMll\\1DllfT HI TDrft. Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures 3,214,736 3,562,841 199'2- 1993 UCiET 1111D MlE Mlllfr Mlllfr 3,199,B 3,W,91'.7J 1,\"6,e 1,471,500.10 11,198 16,m.85 m,m 124,'80.,0 8,906 a,m.u 364,at 1\",554.32 l2,229 l2,225.5 49,375 ,0,864.08 2,SIO 14,366.03 402,UI 316, 90!5.12 '8,200 61,918.24 51,390 53,047.94 138,154 107,090.44 30,41' 30,41'.18 21,000 20,984.~ 9,612 14,738.70 34,870 30,152.17 50,823 41,289.80 U.,,8\" 129,442.72 S,108 5,108.10 62,370 31,193.69 21,000 2,792.78 23,776 21,361.SJ 12,SIO 4,11511.U SZ,790 SZ,790.00 42,5.12 61,097.32 CS,671 44,ffl.68 3,875,625 3,172,911.79 Projected F.nding Balance 21,565.43 6 II 11 11 II -11 lllt1H LlT1lI m mm. m,ltlC\"I \u0026amp;IIETSIMIY CAPITALO UTLAY I. REVENUE II. EXPENDITURES III. SUMMARY 7-1-93 BALANCE 1993-94 BUDGET AMOUNT 400,000 420,000 PROJECTED REVENUE 34,828.03 + 400,000.00 * * * * * * BUILDING RESERVE I. REVENUE 235,000 II. EXPENDITURES 200,000 III. SUMMARY 1,246,774.84 + 235,000 * * * * * * BONDFU ND I. REVENUE -0- II. EXPENDITURES 2,031,025 III. SUMMARY 2,031,026.60 + 0 * * * * 1992-93 BUDGET AIDUNT 444,000 620,245 PROJECTED EXPENDITURES 420,000.00 * * 254,500 720,000 200,000 * * 3,714,500 3,710,000 2,031,025 * = * = 1992-93 ACTUAL AMOUNT 391,650.75 542,286.34 PROJECTED BALANCE 14,828.03 * * 301,755.34 81,994.00 1,281,774.84 * * 3,710,710.60 1,679,684.00 1.60 * * 7 .... Ii II - STATE/LOCAL FUNDED PROGRAMS EXPENDITURE REPORTS lllfflf UTll 11D IDlll. D1l'IRICT STATEIUDNIe. DPEJelllllEE CRT 1992- 1993 1993 -1994 DEE' 1M1 11M l[ um MIIIT MIIIT Nlllfl' 1. liEIEM. t.mlM. NiiwSIMl'JIISI IURJEB 2'1,000 291,419.12 MIIDIISIRATSUMIJIR IEB 315,'50 wtllf:WllD 8IURlB 44,000 44,964.48 wtnnr.AlEI 8IURlB 47,600 OABIFlDMIIDIMJRJEI 91,SDO lOl,192.S aJ8IJF1EIM IIDSIM .MJB 89,ts\u0026gt; aJIIDF1D \u0026amp;IIURIEI 23,600 Xl,381.07 aJEF1EI 8IUIJEI 244,410 SETI1U1E\u0026amp; IIURIEI 0 .oo STifElll8 0 SIIW 0 .oo IEIIFIT8 98,6l0 Wili .... 67,431.20 flllDWD IElVJID m,1,0 PIIOWESIE RVDD 140,720 10,,718.15 QIRI DATlllfa ar I0,000 mmD ATDIaI m 80,000 TI,1153.IS l.Ea. lBVIID 40,000 UULIEMID 2111,000 42,489.33 laBIKATilll lllmtR \u0026amp;0,000 EGIHATilll lllmtR \u0026amp;0,000 41,211.61 NMilERTE 'VIEiDI iu i IEE 25,000 IKIET illYJBIi Diul IEE 25,000 50,000.00 UR.JES l MlERIM.S 36,180 llfFUES l MTERIM.S 24,315 16,169.60 l'#Illt. IIJMY 3,400 C#Illt. lllllAY 1,800 .00 una 4,JOO IJ1lER 4,840 3,026.50 lUTM. 1,199,50 TDTll. l,CIB2,az5 1,or.5,917.49 2. Dll1iU:rml 2. DBTlll:TIIII AIIIINISJMTMSI URIES 2,25'2,57:5 MflDIJSlMTMS URIES 2,149,010 2,143,B.9\u0026amp; CERflflDIJOM .MJEB 17,691,000 URllfIDltEI 9URJEB u,m,a 16,1 .15,190.46 11.aIFJD 8MJIUEB 1,2118,900 llMIDFlOM IIDMI AmS 0 .oo UBm1nE1 00l1IS KZ,m a.MBIF1D8 'URIEI 1,161,990 1,181,329.24 aamutE l1\u0026amp;lf1EI 22,SOO umnnE 1900B m,'Z!II 341,43:2.73 STIF8ll8 J,000 llllJTI1U1EaM i6IFIEJI 20,000 22,a.10 STIPEJll6 U,671 9,773.00 l\u0026amp;EFITS 2,150,1?5 EEHIS 2,126,576 2,120,145.95 PllDWDBVDD 259,189 11IITlllf-faa 130,000 NDWDSEJMCD JIM,B XJ,614.32 l1ITITmHIGET 950,000 11JITIJJHICIB 140,000 122,087.84 1UmUIHIMilE 950,000 923,298.32 UPl.JEB l Mmwt8 Sll,655 SFfUEB l MlEWILS 573,084 513,'72.lJ \"\"1TM. IIIMY 40,341 r.wITMr.l lMY 76,265 10,449.44 ana 15,263 IJ1lER 18,598 211212,2 9. \u0026amp; 111TM. 25,97,135 TOTM. 24,224,297 24,454,285.45 8 tamf Lim.E 11D IDlll. JJIIRICT STAltll.lDl. Ra DPEIGiltllE IIEPmr 1991-1994 1ffl - 1991 um llllliET YEM1 DM TE IIIIUfT ... ... J. lli\\Dl1DWa, IHJIATIIII 3. MDnEME, IHMTJIII .uJ1611MTIIISI flURIB 9,000 -a.\n1111111 8URJB SJ,111\u0026gt; 51,920.111 aJJISIFJEMDI IINI IURIEB 41,250 aJSBIFlOM IIDIl ill.MJEB 3',000 3P,6C5.J6 a.\u0026amp;IFJEI 9URIEI 1,723,000 l1AISJFIEJIURJEB l,lllS,000 l,610,IDB.7' Ef.FI1S 236,950 EEF1lS 210,Q) 226,862.33 PIIDWDravm 219,800 PIIDIIEI flERVJID 319,940 211,'11L42 Ul1IJTJEI 1,084,100 unLITJEB l,IOl,000 1,0067, 10.12 llfflIB , MTERIU 349,950 UPIJEI ' M1Bml.l m,mo CD,567.0'l one 0 rRITM.IIJtl.AY 5,000 D,040.29 DBIWIE 175,000 0110 0 .oo TOTM. 3,IIB,650 DII.IWa 200,000 160,0:ZS.'8 TDl'M. 3,Zl,240 3,893,324.49 4. IE/UH 0.MBIFIDSIURJES 80,000 4. ID.TH ea:ns 9,200 D.MBIFJ9 SIURIES 77,000 1,,om.~ PIIDWDIBYIID 720 EEHIB 8,99\u0026gt; 8,697.76 llffllEB,MlmliS l,000 fUIIHlfD ElYim 910 1,o5.00 rlf\u0026gt;ITMI.I Jtl.AY 0 SFPUEB, MTERIM.S 1,000 f.1).63 rmo 0 rRITM. llffl.AY 0 .oo TIITM. 90,920 0110 0 .00 lOTM. 87,920 86.~.63 9 IQ1H LITTlER OC6K0 ID.. DISTRICT STA'IE/LCFrIliti. )E XPEHDilR\\lmE RT JLY, 1m 1992-1993 BUIUT um mR 10 JIAlE AIW{f NlllfT 1111111T 5. JOIE) JOT 5. IIIIIEIJDT DISTIUCBTO fD6 DIIIRICT1 11118 PRitcIPf4. 412,150 fRIJCDW. 610,100 185,100.00 INTEREST 704,575 Df1BBT 521.860 m.m.:w FEES 1,530 ffD 1.140 731.20 TOTlt. 1,118,25:S TDTM. 1.m.100 711.5.79 PCSSIDO IDS\u0026lt; MEXATICIO PCB - (MIEIATIIIO PROCIPlt. 16,320 PRill:lM. 13.312 a.185.46 INTEREST 7,030 DIIBUT 1.:su 15,G4.3J FEES 0 ms 0 .oo TOTlt. 23,l\\50 TDTM. 2D.B2B G,619.74 L R BOND(IVSQ T SDm.\u0026gt; L R 11111C6 tw\nlfJ! DID.) PRitcIP'4. 11,~ fRIJCDW. 11,000 11,000.00 INTEREST 23,380 INTEREST .. ,219 24,139.62 ms 30 ms :ID ZS.GO TOTlt. 35,095 TDTIL :,P,329 JS,164.62 TUTlItO. CDID T ...1...17 6,700 TDTMm. e ror 1.213,257 119,841.15 6 ~ATIIJI 6. l\"RlfllBllln'ATUII TiWEParrATIIJI 345,463 11WlflltTATDII 164,900 308,654.19 TUTlt. 345,463 TDTM. 164.900 3118.6:54.19 = 7. F1IID11 Wf5FIR 7. FUii 11WIHR F111DTIW\u0026amp;ER 60,000 F1III 1JWlfER ',000 ',000.00 I lDTAL 60,000 TDTM. '000 ',000.00 :-:::r:::c STATEIUrlJlRt. STRICTED STAlEIUrJtL. IIEIIRICIED fUGl\u0026gt;D Tlt. 32.397,074 FIie TDTM. 30,414.639 J0.\u0026amp;,719.40 -- 10 L REPORTS OF STATE RESTRICTED PROGRAMS tom! Um ROCSKc tm.. DISTRICT STATREE STRICTPEfOD\" .IW6R mm JU, 1993 ~ATillf TIIMfllfrATillf lMltfJ tWll(T I ft'E1.(E2 - 73140) 794,317 ( IEVDI (2-731-40) II EXPEM\u0026gt;Illl6 II EXFEIDilt.lEB SltMIES SIURlE5 AlltfIHISTRATillf 0 MIIDIIll'IMTltll ll.J\\$IFIED AlltfIN 43,700 llJaIF1ED AlllUN NIKERTIFil:ATED 74'5,000 IIIHDl1fll'ATED STIPENDS 0 STIPEJll8 IEEFITS 9:\u0026gt;,000 ElfilS PlRJWiESDE RVICES 54,730 PIIDIMEII EMID SlffUES la HATERIM.S 136,000 SfPlIES I IIATBUU OTIR 65,350 OT1ER --- t11 TOTll. III SllMff 7-1-93 Balance -0- 1,139,790 Projected Revenue 794,317 1H TDTll. Projected Expenditures 1,139,780 u 1992 - 1993 am:r 1MTOM1E NOJfT MIUfT 812,226 813,002.00 0 .oo 41,000 41,998.32 611,000 717,8.17 0 .oo 87,600 9'3,3837.8 :18,100 .,,18'l.27 131,500 1:54,048.65 48,000 65,6:54.00 rn,200 1,121,6:V.19 Projected Ending Balance 345,463 CR Transfer from Unrestricted Revenue345,463 -0- 11 tomt LITTlR OCrKo m_ DISTRICT STATREE STRICPTREtmD1 IS~ JU, 1993 1992 - 19'3 DESEJ\nRB\nATIOf JllDtT NDJfT um YIITRO I IAlE AIIIJfl' Mlllff I fODI (2-73291\u0026gt; 780,000 600,000 844,393.81 rm II EXPEHDITUU Sil.MIES ADttlNISTRATIOf 0 a.ASSIFIEADD ttIN 40,000 39,000 40,203.84 CERTIFir.ATED 107,170 31,910 40,412.18 tOHDTinr.ATED 374,992 31,,00 275,928.71 SUBSUME 52,000 35,000 2,368.10 STIPENDS U,600 48,~ 15,1:B.JB IEEFITS 75,696 :1:5,311 46,482.74 PllOWD SERVICES 288,900 172,710 175,861.17 lffl.IES \u0026amp; IIATERIILS 114,362 51,3\u0026gt;0 36,793.52 CWITft. llJll.AY 49,760 45,710 38,267.34 DT1fR s,~ :S,3\u0026gt;0 2,557.00 1H TOTft. 1,1:10,230 760,06.'5 674,027.98 III SlJIWrf Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $371,797.32 + 780,000.00 1,150,630.00 = $1,167.32 12 IG1llU TTLREO O6t0 ID. DISTRICT STATRE ESTRICTPERlDx\nfWtS REPOO .ILY, 1993 1992 - 1993 aJI\u0026gt; ED UXiET AtWfT um 1EMTDM1E NOIIT MIUn' I IDEM (2- 73293) 240,080. 248,(156 m,SSJ.04 II EXPEHDITUlES sttARIES AlllffNIS'IRATillf 0 aJtSSifIED ADtlIN 0 0 .oo CERTIFICATED 109,000 0 .oo tDHDTIFICATED 82,000 99,0'9 99,928.24 SlllSTinm: 0 111,600 119,ZD.78 STIPOtlS 0 0 .oo IEIFITS 22,600 211,m 24,BSZ.06 PlKHASEDSERVICES 24,330 34,860 30,900.16 SlFPLI\u0026amp;EK S AlERIM.S 5,300 22,100 19,254.61 rRITALC lffi.AY 0 0 .oo D1llR 0 296,364 294,168.115 ... TOTAL 243,230 III SllW4RY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $5,695.68 + 234,479.00 - 240,080.00 = $54.68 13 tOmf Lint ROCsKo m.D ISTRICT STATIEE JRICTEDPt D\nRMS RmRT .ll.Y, 1993 RADKm a\nrwt BUDGET AtOMT 1992 - 1993 I IEVDt (2 - 73221) 0 IODI\u0026amp; PlllilWI um YEIIRTOIATE II EXPEMDITlRS NlllfT NlllfT !W.MIES I REEIE\u0026lt;2-7ml\u0026gt; 0 .oo ADtllNISTRATIOf 0 Q.ASSIFIE]) AlltlIN 0 II DFEJIII111EB CDTIFirATED 0 toHDTIFirATED 0 MJIES SlllSTIME 0 STIPEHDS 0 SfIPENIB 0 .oo BEllFITS 0 19EFITB 0 .oo PtlOWD SERVICES 22,780 PIIDWDIDIID U,860 17,Zf?.!5 Slffl..IES Ii tlATERW.S 7,110 UPUEB l MTERIU ll,151 968.J:S C#ITAL OOTlAY 0 ono 800 .oo l1T1fR 2,000 Ht TIJTM. 23,811 18,225.90 ... TOT,t. 31,890 III !llfNY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $31,893.77 + -0- 31,890.00 = $ 3.77 14 Alt r.tftYOVER I lVElE II EXFENDIT\\HS Sil.ARIES ADNIHISnTmRA. Cl./tSSIFIAElll)t tIN CERTIFir.AlD QHEUIFir.Am\u0026gt; Sl.QISTilUl[ STIPENll6 IEIFITS ftlDtASESEDR VIID SlffUES \u0026amp; MTERilt.S C'ltPITllrltT. LAY one 1H TOTlt. III~ tRTHU TltEO :Xs am.D ISTRICT STATIB l'RICTEPDR CXM6fE \u0026gt;\\RT IIUIIGT NDffl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 S,267 0 3,:500 ZJ,767 7-1-93 Balance $23,767.52 + .U.Y, 1993 Projected Revenue -0- 199'1- 1993 DriET 1FM TO IIAlE 111111' Nlllfl' 0 .oo 1,404 1,404.00 0 J99.00 9,020 9,020.00 0 .oo 792 827.94 2,811 2,u.2., 7,429 7,ffl.9'l J,m 3,511.,P 3,5)() 3,472.21 28,615 28,615.Z Projected Expenditures - 23,767.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ .52 15 IOml UTTLR OOSCO Dl. DISTRICT STATREE STRICPRT(EX\nDRf ft\n~ ,ll.Y, 1993 Aa: ELlUIPIEfT/Slffl.IES BUDr.ET NOMT 0 II EXFEHDITtRS SM.MIES ADttINISTRATI!i. 0 llASSIFIE]A) DltIH 0 CERTIFICATED 0 111+-CERTIFICATED 0 SIIISTITIITE 0 SJIPOl)S 0 IEEFITS 0 lilfPlIES \u0026amp; MlERilt.S 2,587 rN\u0026gt;ITtt. llffi.AY 8,820 OTIR 0 11,407 i III SlJtWrt Projected 07/01/93 YEMT OD ATE FlN)S Projected Ending JW..a REYE1lE AVAD.All. Expenditures Balance I 11,407.00 + .00. 11,407.00 - 11,407.00 = $ -0- II 16 .I tmfH lITTl ROCSKO Dl. DISTRICT STAlER ESTRicmP\u0026gt;l9\nIWtS REPIRT .ll.Y, 1993 Al[ 5lJlR PlmWI urn Nil.NT I REVEllE\u0026lt;2 - 731:51\u0026gt; 0 II EXfEMDITl.1S Sit.MIES AlltlIHISTRATICW 0 ClASSIFIEADD ttIN 1,625 llRTIFICATED 3,606 IOHDTIFICATED 15,450 SUBSTIME 0 STIPEMDS 0 IEEFITS 2,187 PllDWDSERVICES :5,785 stffl.IES\u0026amp; K ATERil'LS 2,923 CAPITfCt. llll.AY 0 DT1fR 0 1H TDTrt. 31,576 I III~ Projected 07/011'13 YEATROD AlE FllfDS Projected Ending BIUtl:E R6t)I AVAILAll Expenditures Balance I I 31,576.19 + .00 .. 31,576.19 - 31,576.00 = $ .19 I I I 17 Nlmf UTTtER OCsKo m.D. ISTRICT STATER ESTRICTPERDO IMISR Ef1JlT ,11.Y, 1993 Alt PRESDm. 1992 - 1993 JIUDGET MC PIEDID. AtDlfT um YEM TO MlE I RE't'EN(.2E - 73150) 234,116 NIUfT NIUfT I IEEI (2-731:11)) m,sr.s m,sr.s.oo II ElffMDITlllES Sit.MIES II DPEJIIITllU ADHINISTRATI\u0026lt;lf 0 SIUm.B ll.ASSinEDA IIIIIN 0 CDTinCATE]) 0 a.MliIFlEJ MIIIN 0 .oo IOHDTIFICATE]) 157,847 IIIHD11Flr.A1ED 146,157 140,228.77 USTITUTE 0 STJfEJll8 700 .oo STIPENDS 0 JIEJEFITS 32,llP 17,998.65 IEffllS 27,C'/57 PlRJWIESI ERVIaB 23,:529 3,365.74 PlRJWiESDE RVICES 24,612 flFPUESl MtmU 20,900 31,297.35 UfUS Ii MTERIALS 20,600 r.N\u0026gt;IT1M11. 11.AY 2,600 12,794.22 r.tf'ITtt. llJTl.AY :500 011ER 3,:500 122.75 IJTlR J,:500 HI TOTM. 'm,5'1S :m,807.41 HI TUTtt. 234,116 I III aJt1My Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 234,116.00 234,116.00 = $ -0- I 18 ,J lffl:IM. ED. fllEiDID. I II lWJl (2- 73235) EXPEM\u0026gt;Il\\JIES SfURIES AllltIHISlRATICII llJISSIFJEAl)J lltIM CDTIFICATED fOHDTIFICATED SUBSTITUTE STIPENDS BEJIFITS PlRJWiESDE RVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; MTERIM.S CAPITMllJ.T. l.AY OT1D 1H TUTrt. 07/01/93 MAa IG11f Um. IUlC !DOI.. DISTRICT STATREE STRICTPmED\nR MSR EPIRT .l.l.Y, 1993 IIUIX\n[J AID.NT 314,325 8PCIME.D .P IEilJll1. amr MIUfT I IIE'8I (2 - 73ZIS) - 1411,773 19,000 0 II DF81\u0026gt;ITIIEI 263,810 0 SMJRlEB 0 0 a.MSiflEI MIIDI ,,ooo lJ:RII f IDlrt'.D B\u0026gt;,403 31,515 STIFEJll8 0 0 IEJIFITS 13,310 0 HI lUTM. 1411,773 0 0 314,325 AMIS RED AVAILAlU EXPEMDITt.llEB IW.Ata .00 + 31432~00  314325.00 - 314325 .oo \" .oo 1992 -1993 YEM TO IIAlI MIUfT f.S6,202.00 :s,000.00 136,210.16 .oo 14,931.84 f.S6,202.00 19 ffl:Itt. ED. RESUEHTIAI. I II.VEIi (2-73233) II EXPEHDITIRS !W.ARIES AlltlINISTRATIIJf ll.ASSIFIEADD IIIN CERTIFir.ATED IOHERTinCATED SlSSTITUTE snmms IEFITS NDIASEDSERYICES StffLIE\u0026amp;SK AltRIM.S cwmtI.IJ Jl.AY OT1R ... TOTAL III~ 7-1-93 Balance $757.49 tlRTlfU m ROCsXa m. DISTRICT STA'!1 6TRicm\u0026gt;P R!x\nRNIS~ amw AlfUfT 25,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 25,000 ,..... + .ll.Y, 1993 SFWl El. 11:SIIEIUt#.. I II Projected Revenue 25,000.00 IEEI (2-7m1) ElffNDI111\u0026amp; SM.MIES NDWD tlR'fltU 1H 101M. Projected Expenditures 25,000.00 1992 -1993 um 1EM1 1JD ATE MIUff MIUff 32,000 26,ffl.82 32,000 26,200.33 32,000 26,200.33 Projected Ending Balance = $ 757.49 20 !DOI.. M:TIVITSYtU S I REml (2 - 71730) II EXPENDil\\lS SAl.ARIES ADHIHISTRArim. Q.ASSifIEJ) ADHIH CEITTFICATED tOHIRTIFICATEJI St.llSTITUTE STIPENDS IEEFITS P\\R:HASEDSERYICES SlffUES\u0026amp; lfATERIILS CAPITIrItJ. Tl.AY D1lR ffl TOTM. III SlJl1My 7-1-93 Balance IOITTUf TTlER OCSKD m. DISTRICT STATREE STRICTPER(DUA flS REPCRT JllD(\nT NDM 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U,000 20,202 13,45\u0026lt;1 75 44,727 .ll.Y, 1993 .. Projected Revenue 1992-1993 um YEMTDIIA'IE AIOlfl' AIOlfl' so,ooo 56,616.18 ts,'67 12,2'.11.14 22,983 15,184.83 12,800 4,836.'7 80 249.00 51,830 32,:508.94 Projected Expenditures Projected Ending Balance $33,493.09 + 50,000.00 59,092.00 = $24,401.09 21 IDmf LITTLREO C!ieD OI. DISTRICT STATREE STRicmP\u0026gt;R OilWISR EPm'T .I.LY, 1993 llSTIDIWS.E RVICIS llUDGT NOJfT QB111111St.E RVIID I Rn4EJ( (2-71752) 24,000 II EXPENDil\\RS SIURIES AIJIIINISTMTIIJI ll.ASSIFIEADll ttlN CERTIFir.ATED tO+-aRTIFir.ATED 9.IBSTmm: STIPENDS IEIFITS PllOWBSERYICIS stffl.IES\u0026amp; 111\\TERitt.S rRITrtl. lm.AY llT1U 1H TOTrt. III~ 7-1-93 Balance $20,729.52 0 0 5,000 14,400 0 0 1,675 900 725 0 1,300 24,000 + I II Projected Revenue 24,000.00 IDEJI (2 - 71752) 8PmI1IIU SM.MIES IIIHDTIFB'.ATEI Silri:lilB IEIFI1S fllllWD 1DV11D llfPllES l 111\\lERIU IJPITM1.1 111.AY one 1H TOTM. Projected Expenditures 24,000.00 ,.... 1992 - 1993 UliET YEM TO DATE NIUfT 24,000 16,100 0 1,400 l,SDO l,SDO 2,400 1,100 24,000 Projected Ending Balance NlllfT 211,000.00 5,391.51 .oo 440.66 m.w ffl.'11 .oo .oo 6,706.U = $20,729.52 22 lMSTMIIS I REVEN(2-7 1941) II EXPENDITlllES SALARIES ADttlNISTRATI~ IUSSIFIEDA DNIN CDTIFICATED tDHDrlFICATm SlJBSTITUJ[ STIPEM\u0026gt;S EIFITS PU1JWSaE RVICES Slffl.JE\u0026amp;SI IATERIALS rRITlt.. llJTI.AY l1nQ III~ lJ!THL ITllER OCSKD m. DISTRICT !rrAtr: RFR'JRICTPERDaM ISR mRT .ll.Y, 1993 lllllGET AIOJff LMSTMIIB Z5,000 I REDE (2 - 71941\u0026gt; II EHNDI11JU 0 SIURJES 0 S,900 AIININIS1T'IMIII 15,000 IDIIFIDnED 0 IIIHDTlfir.Am 0 ITlPEJll8 2,715 IEJEFITS 4,750 flRJWD SERYICES 965 IFPlIEB i MlBWU 4,000 twlTM. lllllAY 0 HI TOTM. JJ,390 7-1-93 Balance Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures $8,390.38 + 25,00UOO 33,390.00 1992 - 1993 um 1M TO Ml NlllfT NlllfT 25,000 zs,000.00 0 .oo 4,800 :S,280.00 12,:SOO 6,7J1.:W 0 .oo 2,205 1,191.84 7:50 66.1:S :500 994.34 4,245 2,34:5.70 25,000 16,609.62 Projected Ending Balance = $ .38 23 !UlfR sam. II EXfflfDil\\HS SURIES ADNINISTRATI[J4 IDTIFICATED IOH:ERTlFICATED STIPENDS IEIFilS PlllDfA!E) SERVICES UPllES \u0026amp; NATERIM.S 111 !U1Wrf 7-1-93 Balance $43,763.64 IGTH Um ROC!KD OL DISTRICT STATREE STRICPTRE(lD\nR AflSR EPmT .ll.Y, 1993 ur.o AtllM 60,000 8,460 66,060 2,210 0 6,026 2,320 3,424 88,~ Projected Revenue + 60,000.00 Projected Expenditures 88,500.00 Projected \u0026amp;iding Balance = $15,263.64 24 RESTRUCWRINGGR ANT I REVENUE II EXPEJl)ITI.16 SALARIES ADIUNISTRATIIJt 11/tSSIFIAE1D1 1tIN IDTIFICATED IO+-CERTIFICATED SIIISTIME STIPHDS IEIFITS PtJIOWD!I RVICES Slffl.IES l ttATERIN.S CltPITrtW. TLAY OTIER III !lttWrf  7-1-93 Balance $ -0- tG1Hu m ROCSKO ID.D ISTRICT STATREE STRICPTfflEr.DlW ISR EP11rr .ll.Y, 1993 IIUll\u0026amp;ET Atllffl 7,800 0 0 0 0 0 1,600 125 4,100 1,975 0 0 7,800 + Projected Projected Revenue Expenditures 7,800.00 7,800.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 25 REPORTS OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS tR1HL ITTLR OCSKO ID..D ISTRICT FElEW.F m\".IWtSR EPIRT .11.Y, 199'3 OrfTER I 199'l - 1993 amr atPIBt I AID.HT am:r YM TO DA1 I REVEii(6 - 74411) 1,561,000 MIUf1' MIUf1' l IQ8I (6-74411) 1,93,860 1,691,172.00 II EXPENDIMES SttMIES II DFNDIT\\IU AllttlNISlRATIIJf 70,~ BMMIES AllttlNN, IHDTIFICAl'ED 0 CDTIFICATED 416,195 HIIDIISIRATDII 1u,m 112, 104.89 tOH'ERTIFICATED 418,268 IDIIFIDIIED 517,SIO 3\u0026amp;M46.68 SUBSTITU1TEEfQ ER 0 IIIHDTJFltAlED 436,010 JIM,424.00 STifEHD 4,900 S1lP8lt S,SIO 4,200.00 IEFITS 334,335 IIE\u0026amp;ITS 1111,1:IO 2:58,560.83 ftR\u0026gt;WiED!I RVICES 1'30,422 PIIDIMIJ IIRVI1D 14t,964 49,969.4:5 Slffl.IES\u0026amp; t lATERirt.S 136,495 IIFPllEBI MlERIM.S 216,930 197,!5.61 CttPITlItI.J Tl.AY 2,500 Dl'ITIL1 1111AY 76,190 67,024.12 l1TlR 46,931 011ER '9,526 JB,714.52 --- Hf TOTAL 1,561,000 HI TDflL 1,966,685 1,478,SI0.10 Projected 7-1-93 Projected Balance Projected Ending Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 1,561,000.00 - 1,561,000.00 = $ -0- 26 DWTEIIR I RE\\91 (6- 74413) II EXPENDI11JS stUIUES ADltINISTRIUI(Jt AIIIIIINO, HDTIFICATED CERTIFICATED tOHDTIFICATED 9JISTI1U1[ 100R STifOfD IEIFITS PIJDWiESDE RVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; ttATERiltS l:APITAllJLT LAY ono lff TDTAL III !UtWff 7-1-93 Balance lOOHL ITllER OCslo m.D ISTRICT fEIDlt.fR(UMSREPOn' llJDGET MU(T 65,593 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 45,676 20,761 0 70,437 ,llY, 1993 awrER II I u Projected Revenue IDBI (6 - 74413) DFmIT\\IU SM.Mm IEJf.FITB NDWDIEMaB aFPUESI MTEIWlS DIPITMIII. MY Hf TDTM. Projected Expenditures $4,844.47 + 65,593.00 70,437.00 .... - 1992- 1993 um YIM TO DAlI AlllNT MIUfl' 73,'15 73,515.00 l,ISO 4,053.28 20,115 19,782.04 50,443 47,733.03 6,190 4, 78:5.SO Bl,198 1,,m.m Projected Ending Balance = $ .47 27 IG11IU TTl.R OCSXC IDl.D ISTRICT FElEM. PfmWtS REPCRT .ll.Y, 1993 mTIIM. - CIR. PEH\u0026lt;IHS 1992 -1993 BUDGET AIDlfT WEI\\TJDIM- D. R. PAICDII ' I IDEH. (6-744321 148,411 DIE 1fM TO MTE MIUfT NIUfT II EXFEMDll\\R'S I IEEJl(6-74432) 125,672 125,672.00 91.Mil'S II DfEJeI1111.B ADHINISTRIITIIJf 3,564 AllltINI,O HDTIFICATED 0 liM.AtJEB CERTIFICATED 38,210 JOH:ERTIFICATED 26,200 tDIJFDlED 36,364 36,918.00 !USTITU1T00E R 1,000 t11HDTlF1011EI 7.6,200 27,7 90.7.6 STIPEMD 900 samuTE 100B 2,178 .oo SJDIEJI\u0026gt; 0 318.40 BEIEFITS 18,803 EEmS 18,360 17,856.:111 PlRJtASE6DE RVIID 17,231 PIJIJWD ll1MID 10,318 U,774.03 !iffl.IES Ii MTERitt.S 25,689 IIFFUES Ii MTERIU 20,465 24,5.15.10 CAPITMlll.l.l .AY 16,914 DIPITMII.J TUY u,m :s,a.13 01llR 0 one 0 .oo 1H TOTAL 148,411 HI TDTM. 125,672 1246, 80.:IO III SllltARY 7-1-93 Projected Projected Projected Balance Fnding Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 148,411.00 - 148,411.00 = $ -0- 28 IDTHL ITllElo :lt sam.D ISTRICT FEJJEM.PRmW1SREP(RT Jl.Y, 199'3 TITLEV l-B lllllGET NO.NT TITI. VI-I I IDEM (6 - 74416) 320,286 II EXPENDillHS I leEII (6-74416) SIORIES AllftIHISrlIRCAlf 0 II EJHNDilllU AlllmfI, OHDTIFICATED 0 9URIE3 CERTIFir.AlED 0 IOH:ERTIFir.ATEI) 185,000 JIIHDJJFir.AlO SlDISTIT1UJ/0EE R 0 flEfI1UIE 180B STIPEND 0 smm IEEFITS 52,350 l8EFITS PlRH\u0026amp;]) SER'i!CES 42,200 PIRHIIEI IIJlVIID Slffl.IES\u0026amp; M TERIU 43,450 Ufl.lB \u0026amp;M mtIM.B CAPITftw. n.AY 0 CflPI1JIlI IIUY ono 0 RI TDTM. 1H 10Tft. 323,000 III SlJNRY 7-1-93 Projected Projected Balance Revenue Expenditures $2,779.95 + 320,286.00 323,000.00 tffl - tffl um YEMTOMTE Nlllf1' MIUf1' 310,000 309,2311.00 19',000 194,118.80 0 .oo 0 .oo 64,000 63,ffl.99 80,68:S 82,125.73 25,539 19,254.94 60 76.86 364,2114 J!9,:i54.32 Projected Ending Balance = $ 65.95 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I ' tOmt LITTLRE OCsKa m. DISTRICT FEJEW.PR(l\nIW61E'(JO' .ILY, 1993 PIB.ICL /tW1 19-313 llmr.ET AIDJ(f PIil.IC lM a,-313 I l8E1U (6 - 74417) 18,D DICE' MIIIIT II EXPE.Nl\u0026gt;Il\\HS I IE\u0026amp; (6-74417) 21,060 SM.MIES AllttINISTIROAt 0 ll EJFBalltlEB ADtllNto, KERT1f'ICA1ED 0 (D'TIFICAlED 9M.MIES roHDTIFICAlED SlllSTITUI[ TADD STIPEND IE\u0026amp;ITS PlR:HA5EIIDR VICES SlffUES ,. lfATERilt.S CWITArLu n.AY OT1R ... TUTM. III !illltARY 0 12,100 0 0 4,600 0 2,306 0 0 19,006 7-1-93 Balance $648.11 + tOHERTIFDTD 2S,B STIPEND 0 IENEFI1I 6,679 PIRJWDIIRVIID 0 llffllEB t. MTDWill 0 ... lUfM. 3'2,229 Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures 18,358.00 19,006.00 lffl - 1993 YEllOMlE MIUIT 21,104.00 25,'14.23 .oo 6,7ll.22 .oo .00 3'2,22:5.5 Projected Ending Balance $ .11 30 IEIIr.AID I 1VEM(6 -744U\u0026gt; II EXPENDIMES SM.MIES AlUHISTRATillf AIIIIIN,f llHDTIFir.ttm\u0026gt; aRTIFir.ttm\u0026gt; IOHDTIFil:AlED BJBSTIM1E0 0ER STIPEJI) IElfITS P\\RJWiEDSE RVICES SlFflIES\u0026amp; MlERIU r.APITMll.J. Tl.AY 0110 HI lOTM.. III SlllWff 7-1-93 Balance $1,001.76 hUmf LITTlER OCSKC IDl.D ISTRICT FEJEM.PmMtSIE'1RT amT IVIU{J' 29,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,400 600 0 0 30,000 + .ILY, 1993 ' IDIOOI I REWJI(6 -74414) n muDITIIEB Projected Revenue 29,000.00 MJiRIES PIIQWDEM(D SfPlIES Ii MTEJWlS ClfITM. llm.AY 1H lOTM. Projected Expenditures 30,000.00 1992 - 1993 UC\n[J YAR10 DAlE AIIUfT AIIUfT JB,000 2.6,431.95 47,700 47,409.5.l l,615 3,454.:115 0 .oo 4',m :I0,864.08 Projected Ending Balance = $ 1. 76 31 IEIIr.m PIIESDID. I ~ (6 - 74415) II EXPENDll\\lES SM.MIES ADIUNISTRATICW AllltINI,D HDTIFIC'.ATED IDTlFir.ATED IOf-CERTlflr.ATED SlllSTIME1 EltlHR STIPDII IEFITS PIIOWD SERYI(D SlffllES \u0026amp; MlERIALS CAPITltltJ. Tl.AY OTlR 1H TOTIL III !UWtRY 7-1-93 Balance $205.09 IOffll LITil ROCSKO ID. DIS'TRICT FElEW. fR(l\nRMS fEl(RT amT NllM' 12,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 1,000 0 12,000 + .11.Y, 1993 IEDIWI PIEDIIL I ADEii (6 - 74415) II EXPEJl\u0026gt;IlllD Projected Revenue 12,000.00 M.MIEI PIRJWD SERVIID SFPUEI I M1EIWILS CWITil IIJ'IUY HI TDTM. Projected Expenditures 12,000.00 = 1992 -1993 UliET YEM TO MTE MlllfT NllJfT t,600 13,187.83 0 13,490.40 l,000 ffl.63 l,500 .oo 2,500 14,366.03 Projected Ending Balance $205.09 32 tm1ll UTTLREO CSKD IXLD ISTRICT FEDEJW.Pfi[J\nRMSREP[RT .11.Y, 1993 lfECIALE JU:ATitlPfI EDDL klllGET 9'ECW.E IIIDTDfIlEI DOI. NOJfT \\ I REEU C6 - 74418\u0026gt; 410,620.00 I EDE (6-74418) II EXPENDillm 5't.MIES n EJPENIIt111B ADNINISTRATia. 0 BM.MIEI AIJIIINtD, H:ERTIFICttrn\u0026gt; 0 CDTIFICATED tDH:ERTIFICATED SUBSTIMrEu oR STIPEND IEEFITS P\\R:HA!DS ERVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; tlATERilt.S CAPITACLlf TLAY IJTlR tu TaTAL III 5lNtMY 252,000 0 470 0 M,459 90,200 14,000 16,000 4,300 442,429 7-1-93 Balance IDllfluud IIIHDTIFDlEI 9E1l1U1E 1'E/alR S11PfJII IIBEFITS PIRJWD!IRVIID UPUEB ' 111\\lEJWLS CIIPIT1M11. 11.AY one HI fflll. Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures DIE' NIUfT 359,lSO 216,780 7,SO 1,000 0 61,2115 fM,478 10,400 16,?ZS 4,000 402,161 $12,309.40 + 410,620.00 422,929.00 = 1992 - 1993 YEM 10 MTE MlllfT 286,3115.00 186,207.67 10,ffl.20 417.90 .oo 46,892.,1 44,112.90 8,509.67 16,54:1.37 3,239.90 31',905.12 Projected Ending Balance $.40 33 NOmtU rn ROCSKO ID. DISTRICT rnERft.f'R(l\nIWtSREPIRf Jl.Y, 1993 !fftIM. EIU:ATICEl tC C IIUllW AtOJ(T !FECII'-ElllDTllll E C C' I IEENE \u0026lt;6- 74419\u0026gt; 36,704 UCiET illUff II EXPEHDI1\\E [ IBBI (6 - 74419) '8,200 SALARIES w AlltllNISTRl(lA4 19,000 II meerruo A1ltlINt,D HDTIFICAlED 0 CERTIFICATED IOHEUIFICATED !USTilUTET EIOER STIPM\u0026gt; IEEFITS PllDWE) fDVJaS Slffl.IES Ir MTERI\"-5 CN\u0026gt;ITlMlJ.T I.AY one Hf TOTM. III S1JWm 0 6,900 0 0 6,835 8,700 1,600 0 0 43,03'5 7-1-93 Balance $6,281.76 + SIUIRlEB MNDIISTMTJIJI 32,42!5 IIIHDOFDTEI 7,000 BJIPEIID 0 11:.ii:FIIS 9,800 PllOWD IIERVIID 18,67:5 IFPllES Ir M1BUU 300 ... TDTM. '8,200 Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures 36,704.00 43,035.00 1992 - 1993 YEM TO DAlE MIUf1' '8,200.00 33,298.96 7,318.08 .oo 10,:564.63 10,i2l.33 613.24 61,918.24 Projected Ending Balance $49.24CR 34 IOTHL ITTLRO CsKo m.D ISTRICT FEJEW..~~ JLY, 1993 lAD STMT amGET 1992 - 1993 NIUfT \\ lAI STMT I ID9l (6 - 74421) 72,646 um YEM TO MlE NIIJfT AtlUfT II EXFEM\u0026gt;IllRS I IEVEJI (6-74421\u0026gt; 48,644 48,646.00 \u0026amp;rt.MIES ADKINISTRATlllf 0 II DPEIEt\\lD AIJIIIMI,O HDTIFICAlED 0 CDTIFICAlED 30,000 8MMIES tDHEIITTnCAlED 0 gJ!SfllUJE ~ 0 lDllflOllO 17,000 16,677.12 STIPEND 0 STlfND 0 .oo JIEJFITB 1,661 IEIEFl1I 4,760 3,300.65 PllDWD!OVICES 29,000 flRHISEI IER'fflD 28,000 25,357.(7 SlffUES lo IIATERIIU 10,000 SfllUEB I MTERIU 8,630 7,712.70 ctf\u0026gt;IT#.C. IJTlAY 0 CIIPITIIILJ MY 0 .oo IJ1lR 0 1H 11JTIL 91,390 '3,047.94 w Hf TOT#.. 76,667 III SlllWrf Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $5,343.19 + 71,324.00 76,667.00 $ .19 35 ' IIRTMLI Tn.E1 1D sam.D. ISTRICT f'EOl1.PRIJ\nRMSREPIRT JLY, 1993 Ft'EHS TMT 1992 -1993 llllr.ET AIIUfT fl1DIS TMT I l\\fJI (6-74420) 122,396 lllCiET WM 10 IWilE Nlllf1' Nlllf1' II DPBl)ITlJU I EDIE (6-74GO\u0026gt; fll,154 101,090.44 SM.MIES n EHMII11III AIMINISTRI\\TIIM 10,900 AIIIIIN, IDHDTIFICATED 0 MJm9 (DTJfJCATED 0 toHDTJFICAlD 69,5:50 MIWiiBIMfllll 10,000 ,,m.20 SlllSTI1U1TEE fOER 0 IIJHBTJFDlO 67,000 :11,11,. STifEtl) 0 mPEJID 0 .oo IEf.FITS 20,917 Elfli9 21,154 20,748.17 PllDWD SERVICES 12,000 PIIIJWD IEMID 17,800 11,008.14 llfPUB l MTEllltS 8,229 UfUEI l MlDWU 13,SIO s,,rz.a CWITMW. ILAY 0 DIP1Ti1l1l 111.AY 2,SIO .oo IJl1D 800 D1IB 0 855.00 1H TIJTM. 122,396 NI TDTM. llll,154 107,090.44 III !lltlMY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Fnding Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 122,396.00 - 122,396.00 = $ -0- 1, 36 J tRTHL ITllR OCsXo m.D ISTRICT FEJIEM.PR[J\nRMSIE'(RT J T PA EDUCATION/LITERACY lllD\u0026amp;ET Nil.NT I. REVENUE 110,ffi II EXFEM)lllR.S Sit.MIES ADttIMISTRATIIII 42,630 AlltlJNM, JHDTIFICIITED 0 CDTiflr.AlED 35,030 IDHDTIFICATED 0 !UISTITU1J0E0 R 0 SUPEMD 0 DFITS 18,615 PlliOMSESDE RVICES 6,000 !lfPLIES \u0026amp; MTERI/t.S 0 rlnrrt. (lJll.AY 0 OTlR 8,180 UO,ffl III SlltlARY 7-1-93 Balance $ -0- + .U.Y, 1993 Projected Projected Revenue Expenditures 110,455.00 110,455.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 37 I I I IGlll Um ROCsKam .D ISTRICT fDEM.PR(J\nRMSREP(RI' I .ll.Y, 1993 I Jffll HIPPY I UGET AIIUfT 1992 - lffl I IDEJI (6-74429) 17,500 JIPA HIPPY (6 - 74430) llllliT 1M m MlE lltlll(J lltlll(J II EXPEMDITtHS I EWJIE (6-74429) 21,000 20,984.15 SM.ARIES (6 - 744.l\u0026gt;) AllltINISlRATillt 0 AllltlM, toHDTIFICATED 0 II DPDlITIIIB (DflfICATEJ) 0 IOH:ERTIFICAlED 12,250 SM.MIES 911STIMET E.ADD 0 STIPEND 0 IOHDDFitATEI 14,17:5 13,~.62 STIPEIII 0 .oo IEEFITS 3,350 IDEFITB J,BZS 2,ffl.13 ftKIWlED !DVICES 400 PIIIHIIEaIR 'WllD t,Ol:!O 276.37 SlfPLIE\u0026amp;S .t lATERIM.S 1,500 SlffUES I. MlERIU l,'-'O 4,445.93 ctfITrt. lllll.AY 0 ono 0 Ill TDTM. 21,000 20,984.15 - HI TOTft. 17,500 ProJectea Ill SllNRY 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 17,500.00 17,500.00 = $ -0- 38 .... IOmfL IT11R OCsKa m.D ISTRICT ~PR(gWtSIEP(RT .11.Y, 199'3 JTPA~ IlmT AIOlfT lffl - 1993 I REVEii(6 - 74428) 9,612 JIN MIit UCE YEM 10 IIAlt'. II EXml\u0026gt;mHS MOlff MOlff ~IES l EWJI (6 - 744.2B) 9,612 14,738.70 AllttINISTTIRCAlt 0 ADIUNt,o HDTIFir.ATED 0 IDl'IFir.ATED 7,:560 II DP911111JEB toHDTIFir.ATED 0 !lJBSTIT\\JT1[ EADR 0 IIMAIES STIPEND 0 Wilflull'Ell 1.~ il,8:56.00 IEIFITS 1,:512 STIP9ID 0 .oo PllDWD SERVICES 100 WIIB 1,512 2,347.14 SlFPlIESl IIATERIILS 440 PllDWD SERVICEB 0 95.JO C/f\"ITtILIJ TlAY 0 9ffUB  ttATBWl.S 540 440.26 Ol1R 0 1H TDTM. 9,612 14,738.70 HI TUTtL 9,612 Ill 5lltWrf Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ 287.16 + 9,612.00 9,612.00 = $287.16 39 IDmf I.ITTlER OCSICD DJ..D ISTRICT FEDERft.Pm\nRftl6RP(R'I' Jl.Y, 1993 JTPAtt. TERNATIVE IU)(\nET AIDJ(T 1992 - 1993 I REVEJ(6E- 74431\u0026gt; 35,000 JIN M.'IEIIIMTM DIE 1M TO DATE II EXPEMDITllD NlllfT NlllfJ' SALARIES I 1BB1E (6-74431\u0026gt; 34,870 30,138.84 ADttIHISTRATillf 0 ADttINtD, HlRTIFICAlE\u0026gt; 0 II motDillJEB aRTIFICATED 2:5,200 IOHDTIFICATED 0 SeURJES 911STI1U1T0E0 ER 0 STIPEND 0 lJ:RllflO.TED ZS,200 23,831.09 UBJIMETEMJD 0 'YI.BO IE6IT5 7,170 STIPEND 0 .oo PUDtASESDE RVICES 130 ElfI1B 7,170 5,741.40 SlffUES \u0026amp; MTERI/t.S 2,500 11.ffUEBl MlBUU 2,SOO SW.88 ~Iltt. llJTl.AY 0 ... mtt. 34,870 30,152.17 ono 0 1H TOTtt. ?S,000 III stJNRY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 35,000.00 35,000.00 = $ -0- 40 tamf UT11R OCsKa m. DISTRICT FEllEJWfR.( X\nRMS RfflRT .lLY, 1993 JTPAP RE-Jfl..O'flHT JUlGET AIUl(T 1992 -1993 I 10EME C6 - 744Z7) 30,000 J'l'N PE-EJFUmllfr UlliET YEM 10 DATE II EXfEJIDll\\16 AllllfT NlllfT StUIRIES I EWJI (6-74427) :S0,823 48,289.80 ADIIINIS'JRATl(J4 0 ADIIINtl,l HDTIFICATED 0 II EFENDITLID CERTIFICATED 20,531 toHIRTIFICATED 0 SM.MIES SUBSTllU1tE0 0D 0 STIPEND 0 IDTIFID\\1ED 34,098 32,476.20 S1'JPEJII 0 .oo \u0026amp;FITS 5,015 IEEFITS 8,331 7,957.02 PlR:tWE\u0026gt; SERVICES 1,866 fUilH\u0026amp;J IERVIID 2,600 2,793.43 UPl.lES \u0026amp; tlATERI\"-5 2,588 SffUES \u0026amp; MTERIU ,.m 4,962.15 CIIPITrtM. l.AY 0 CWITMIIJ. II.AY 0 101.00 OnER 0 .. TDTM. :so,m 411,289.80 1H TOTll. 30,000 III SlltWff Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 30,000.00 30,000.00 = $ -0- 41 JTPA-CAPDA I REVENUE II EXPEMDITIJU SM.ARIS ADtlINIS'JRATIU. AlltlINI,O KERTIFil:ATED (DTifltATED fOf-CERTIFir.ATED SUBSTmr1rEE ltOR STIPEND EIFITS PU!OWD SERVICES SlfflIES \u0026amp; IIATERlrt.S CAPITltliJ TlAY OTtfR III Slll'MY 07/01/93 MR:E .00 IIIITTt LITl1 RID sam. DISTRICT f'El1ERlPllR. tJ\nRMS ~ I .ll.Y, 1993 JlQ)f\nET AIDJfT 19,000 0 0 1S,470 0 0 0 3,530 0 0 0 0 19,000 == rums RE'VEN.E AVAILAlU EXPEHDITtm M.AN::E + 19,000-00  19 00000 - 19 000 ,00 C ' ' .oo 42 Dill AND1 t1DD.. CARRYOVER I IBEK (6 - 74461\u0026gt; II EXPENDillRS SN.ARIES ADttIHISTTIR04A AllltINI,O HDTIFICATED CIRTIFICATED IOHDTIFICATEJ\u0026gt; SUBSTIM1E0 0R STIPEND JEEFilS PIJDWE) SERVICES Slffl.IES I, HATERI\"-5 rltPITAWI. MY OTlR HI TOTAi. III SUMrr 7-1-93 Balance tGTHL ITTl.ER OCSKCI Ul.D ISTRICT FElEW. PR(x\nrwtS RmRT aJ1)(\nET AID.HT 00 S,900 6,~ 0 0 200 500 3,275 4,270 S,500 0 0 26,145 .11.Y, 1993 Projected Revenue Projected Expenditures $26,145.00 + -0- 26,145.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 43 DIU EllOCATICW I reElE (6- 74460) II EXPEHDIT\\IES kARIES AllHINISTRATIOf ADHINto, H:ERTIF'Ir.ATED Cf.RTIFir.ATED toH:ERTIFICATED SUBSTITU10T0ER STIPEND IEEFITS PlR:HASESDER VICES Slffl.IESIi lfATERiliS CN\u0026gt;ITMru. n.AV OTtER lff TUTlt. III SlltlARY 07/01/93 M.lla: tomf UTTLER OCsKo m..D ISTRICT FEDERfA'RLlJ\nRNtS RP1ET JJ.Y, 1993 lllS MD M.aHL BUDtT AlllJfT um NlllfT 92,900. I IEVBIE (6-74461\u0026gt; 92,9 II ElfflellllEB stUtRIES 17,700 0 MIIDIIS1MTIIII 0 0 AIIIDI, JIIHDTIFIQ\\TED 0 19,500 tDIIF.tblTED 38,?.,0 1,600 IIIHDTifltATEI 0 3,000 UBTl1U1Em a\u0026amp; g STIPEND 7,62D 10,095 lEEF1TS 10,660 26,085 PllDWD IIRVI1D 92,325 14,920 !lffLlES Ii IIATERilt.B 11,821 0 DPITII. IIIILAY 2,200 0 OTID 0 92,900 1H lUTM. 16:5,896 F1MDS AVAILAll.E EXPENDITIHS IWN:E .oo + 92,900.00 = 92, 90000 - 92,900 .oo = .00 1992 - 1993 mRmMTE NlllfT 92,818.00 23,m.14 .oo 13,732.74 .oo 1,615.'1.5 3,940.00 10,100.21 62,108.62 12,631.66 1,936.40 .oo 129,442.72 44 IGTHL I11l ROCSKCf Ol.D ISTRICT FEDERPARLm WtSR EPOrr EISENHOWMERA TH/SCIENCCAER RYOVER BUlltT NO.NT I REVENUE II EXPEMDiltllES SM.ARIES AlltlINISTRICAlf ADtlINto, H:ERTIFICltm\u0026gt; CERTIFICATED IOt-CERTIFICIITED Sl.llSTIMETE IOR snmm IEIFITS P1RlED SERVICES SlffUES a. tlATERitt.s cwmtW. TtAY 011R III SllNRY 7-1-93 Balance 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 7,300 1175 9,486 8,403 800 2,000 30,864 $30,864.00 + .ll.Y, 1993 Projected Revenue -0- Projected Expenditures 30,864.00 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 45 1BTHU m ROCsKa m.D ISTRICT FEJ\u0026gt;ERft.PR(X\nfWIS~ .U.Y, 1993 EISEtHJERlt ATIVSCIEta 1992- 1993 llJllGET EI1EHIER ltA'1HIIEIEIIE Nil.NT aa\n[T YEMto JIAlE I REVEll.(E6 - 74453) 42,000.00 MIIIIT AIIUfl' = I IED (6 - 74CS3) 42,740 42,740.00 II EXPEM)Illm ~ II DPfJIDilUEI ADHINISTRATIClf 0 BIURJES ADNINID, HIRTIFICAJED 0 CERTifICATED 0 iTED 0 .oo MIHIRTIFICATED 0 UB1l1U1ET l4HR 3,000 1,D\u0026gt;.80 SUBSTilllTE ACHR 4,000 STIPm 1?,000 6,994.23 STIPEND 12,000 JIJlfI1B l,510 67'.li \u0026amp;FITS 1,000 PIIIJWD flRVIID 26,5\u0026gt;0 18,46.1.14 PlmWiED SERVICES 17,000 SffUB Ii MTEJWU 8,710 2,446.42 Slffl.IE\u0026amp;S I IATERIALS 6,000 CWITMII.J IUT 1,600 'llB.99 CWITALll JTlAY 1,000 onD 2,000 .oo OTIIR 1,000 1H TOT#.. 62,370 31,193.69 Hf TOTAL 42,000 III SllNRY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $ -0- + 42,000.00 - 42,000.00 = $ -0- 46 HOMELESS lllffit UTTLREO CsKo m.D. ISTRICT fEDERlPt. RlUNISR EPtRT BUDGET ND.NT .11.Y, 1993 I REVENUE ,,_21.875 II EXPENDilllEi SAL.MIES ADtlINISTRATIIJI ADtlIHID, H:ERTIFICAl'ED CERTIFICATED IOH:ERTIFICA1ED SUBSTilUTTEE IOR STIPEND IEEFITS PlR:tWiESDE RVICES !lFPUES \u0026amp; WITERIM.S r.APITAIILJT I..AY 01lR III SUtWrf 7-1-93 Balance $ -0- 0 0 0 11,980 0 0 1,900 6,454 1,541 0 0 21,875 + I II Projected Revenue RE\\91 (6 - 7442'.l) DPBl)ITUU UIURIES IHI IFlDnD t11HD11FD:11ED STll'Ee IEJlfITS flRlWIEJ llJM(D llffllEB I MlBWU HI TIJTM. Projected Expenditures 21,875.00 - 21,875.00 1992 - 199'3 llmT lDRTOJlt\\TE NIUfT NIUfl' 21,000 21,000.00 6,190 468.00 2,230 l,:iot.:io 0 .oo t,710 390.'7 5,710 280.00 4,:IOO ~.31 21,000 2,792.78 Projected Ending Balance = $ -0- 47 CHAPTERI SUMMERP ROGRAM I REVENUE II DfEMDIT\\16 SIURIES ADIIIHISTRATIIII AIIIIIN, toHERTIFICATED lDTIFICATED IOHDTIFICAlED STIPEJID IEIFITS MOWD SERVICES SlfPlIS \u0026amp; tlAltRIALS 01lER III SlllWff 07/0t/93 IWlH:[ 254,480.69 + fRTLHI TTlR.EO CSKC IDLD ISTRICT ~PRO\nRNtS~ JlmT NlllfT 0 0 0 136,000 24,060 0 40,920 44,260 500 8,760 254,~ .ll.Y, 1993 FlN)6 REDE AVAilAll.EE XFENDll\\llES .00  254,\"80.69 - 254,400.00 = BAl.Na 80.69 48 tRTHU TTlER OC6KC tlD. DISTRICT FEllEJWP.f.O ifWtSR EP(RT .11.Y, 1993 atAPTEIRI ACCELERASOTEIDD. JIUD\u0026amp;ET NWfT 1992 -19'3 0 awmt lJ CB EMU IIHll I REVE1I(E6 - 7J262) 0 llllliET YM 10111\\lE MIUfT tVIUIT II EXPEHDITIJ6 I E\\91 (6 - 73262) 0 .00 SIURIES AllltINIS'JRATI(lf 0 II ElffJIDI111EB AllttIH, IDKERTIFICMED 0 CERTIFICATED 0 SMMJEI tIHIRTIFICATED 0 SUBSTllU1T00ED 0 fllHD'1JFit11EI 6,SIO 4,981.86 mPEND 100 S11PEID 12,a, 11,783.34 IEEFITS 8 MFliS 2,'?m 2,794.61 PlRJWiE!DD VICES 1,806 PIIOWDfDVICEB 1,621 1,719.72 QfPLIES \u0026amp; ttATERIAI.S 0 llffUEB Ii MlBUM.S 0 82.00 C'IIPITMlll.T LAY 0 HI TOTM. ZJ,276 21,361.SJ ono 0 HI TaTM. 1,914 III SllWtRY Projected 7-1-93 Projected Projected Ending Balance Revenue Expenditures Balance $1,914.47 + -0- 1,914.00 = $ .47 49 OW'1IR II ~Illlllt FlWElR I REDE C6 - 74331\u0026gt; II EXPENDntm !W.ARIES AlUNISTfIRIJAf AmtINI,O HDTIFICATED IDTIFICATED IOHDTIFir.ATED SlJBSTIM[ TE/OD STIPEM\u0026gt; IEEFITS PlRJWD SERVICES Slffl.IES \u0026amp; MTERitU CAPITtlLll Tl.AY 01lR III \u0026amp;INRY 07/0t/93 MRa 4,8:18.16 + tlRTllL im ROCsKo m.D ISTRICT FEllERfFt.t UIWtS IIP(RT . .ll.Y, 1993 aJJX\nET AtDJfT awmt n llllWll.lFlIlW Elm 0 m I IBBI (6 - 74311) .0 II DFENDilllEB 0 0 SMJlEB 3,000 0 BErmnElF/OElt 1,000 STIF8II 533 E\u0026amp;IIS m PIIIH\u0026amp;I IERVDlS 0 llfflUD \u0026amp; MlERilt.S 0 0 JS 4,e:i8 F\\JIDS AVAI1.All EXPENDIT\\HS .oo s 4,e:i8.16 - 4,858.oo. lllRT NlllfT 6,250 4,000 1,400 :m CID 175 6,250 WWW IW.Nl:E .16 1m - 1m YEM TO 111\\lI NlllfT 6,250.00 34.'2 1,258.00 98.'2 .oo .oo 1,Jft.84 50 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET FOR_ . FOOD SERVICES 1993-94 ' rRTLHim  ROCsKo m DISTRICT FOOSDE RVICE 1993 - 1994 1992 - 1993 BUDGET MlM BUDGEVT EMT OD ATE I REYEM(Fl.N D 08 ) I, 959,000.00 AtOMT AtW4T 1,983,110.00 I, 971, 947.4-4 wnn= II E\u0026gt;ffNDITtm AmIN SIURIES 100,000.00 a.ASSIFIE!DW .MIES BIIS,000.00 94,000.00 96,221.82 820,000.00 902,2 '462. 1 IEEFITS 121,825.00 128,560.00 110,232.46 1UCW15SEEDR I/ICES 25,700.00 UTILITIES 9,700.00 4,787.05 8, S0.00 5,250.00 6,381.00 SlFPLIES tlATERirts -M,525.00 FOOD 749,000.00 44,350.00 38,383.07 tlAINTBW: 26,000.00 765,000.00 685,249.75 23,500.00 17,895.02 EWiftNT 25,000.00 22,000.00 11,781.10 OTIR 5,000.00 1,850.00 5,723.19 ... TOTlt. 1,990,500.00 1,914,210.00 1,779,900.67 == 07/01/133 FlNDS III 9JMri BtUKE R\\9U AYAILAILEEX PENDITIJ!ES BtVltil n, 79. a + 1,959,000 = 2,431,479.40 - 1,990,500 = 440,979.40 Student Rates Elementary Lunch 1.20 Elementary Lunch 1.20 Secondary Lunch 1.25 Secondary Lunch 1.25 Breakfast .90 Breakfast .90 Adult Rates 1.60 Lunch 1.60 1.10 Lunch Breakfast 1.10 Breakfast 51\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_266","title":"Business cases","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Business cases"],"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/266"],"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\nSTCASE02 REVISED 21 APR 93 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SHORT TERM PROJECT BUSINESS CASE GUIDELINES AND FORMAT FOR BUSINESS CASE I. BACKGROUND. A business case is a written presentation which identifies and describes the main features supporting the decision-making process on an issue facing the organization. The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision. and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, this type of document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a staff paper. a decision analysis, and a program analysis. While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, the purpose remains essentially the same...decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered when developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective....present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale...SELL YOUR IDEA. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. It should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format, is also advisable that the Executive Summary follow the formatting as the actual presentation. It same detailed data supporting the topic. It should not contain the Keep it at a high level...what would you want them to know if they were running after a departing flight. II. BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. Background. 1) Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based onfacts. You should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand. 2) Background information. Background information should include conditions leading up to the situation, and why the situation is now being considered. Previous attempts to solve the situation should be noted along with their results and short comings. B. Problem Definition. 1) Problem statement. The problem section should be a concise statement which defines and describes the problem situation. --- --- \" problem exists. There may be a need to convince the reader that or a Only one problem should be addressed at a time\navoid letting multiple problems confuse the situation. 2) Considerations. problem? What are the causes of the problem? What seems to be the real they known? Who is affected? To what extent are What is the magnitude of the problem? Who are the primary actors in the situation? C. Analysis of Alternatives. 1) Process. you generated and analyzed your alternatives, the participants. Provide a written description of how Be sure to include 2) Identification. Identify all of the alternative programs or activities which you considered in your decision-making process. factual terms. Be sure to describe the characteristics of each in REMEMBER... the \"do nothing It alternative should always be analyzed as a possibility. 3) Analysis. Each alternative should be discussed in terms of impact: impact on objective, impact on legal obligations, impact on requirements, finances. impact on personnel. impact on The section should include a statement as to why the alternative was rejected. should clearly make its point. Each analysis should be brief, but While you should have supporting information in your files, each analysis should not be to the level of detail as that in the selected alternative. D. Recommendation. 1) Action recommended. from the analysis of alternatives. The recommendation follows be written in brief, clear, positive statements. The action recommended should 2) Rationale. This section should provide the rationale for selecting a particular alternative, including a summary of the primary factors supporting the decision. E. Obj active. 1) Objective of the recommendation. objective of the recommended action, outputs. Define the not the immediate physical 2) Goal support. This section should includestatements and examples of how this program recommendation will support specific, stated goals of the district, establish a direct relationship. It is important to 3) Evaluation criteria. In this section, you are going to define how you will know if you are meeting the specified objectives. plan. These will become a major component of your future There must be at least one evaluation criteria for each objective, and there are usually several. a) How can estimates of progress against these objectives be made? b) Identify the appropriate measures of effectiveness. c) Both quantitative and qualitative criteria may be used. d) Be sure to consider what data you are going to need to prove the criteria, and how you are going to get the data. Is the criteria an going to cost more than it will yield? 4) Expected benefits. This analysis should include explanation of the anticipated benefits and when they expected to be realized, the expected benefits. are It should also identify the recipients of F. Impact Analysis. 1) Program, both positive and negative. Describe the impact of the program, If you execute this recommendation. Call in the \"Expected Benefits how will it above. programs...will something fall off the table, primary actors impacted? impact other Who will be the 2) Desegregation Plan. How will this recommendation impact the Desegregation Plan? 3) Court Orders. impact court orders? 4) Political factors. How will this recommendation Are there major political factors that seem to affect the situation, and how will you address them? Are your strategies in the implementation plan? 5) Risks. This section should include a discussion of the risks of doing this program, and the risks of not doing this program. 6) Timing. how will you deal with them? What are the major timing issues, and G. Resources Analysis. 1) Personnel analysis. What is the projected impact on the head count and type of position before and after the recommendation? Include an estimate of support staff required in both numbers and types of positions. Is there a recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel? should be included. Training requirements 2) Financial analysis. All of the financial considerations should be examined at this point. a) All operating costs, including personnelH. and benefits, fiscal years for each of the next 1-5 should be outlined. An estimate of equipment required should be prepared and should include all hardware and support equipment. Both capital b) expenditures and a monthly cost over the life of this equipment should be detailed. The source of revenue funding should be identified, along with any requirements. c) The cost savings forecast for the first year and years 2-5 (if appropriate) should be projected. A discussion of total cost savings potential should also be included. Force Field Analysis. 1) Forces For. Who will be the primary supporters of the recommendation? Why will they support the recommendation? How can you maximize the influence of these forces? 2) Forces Against. detractors of the recommendation? Who will be the primary recommendation? over? Why will they oppose the How can you minimize their influence or win them 3) Confidentiality. You should determine if you want to include this section in material for public release. I. General Implementation Plan. 1) Milestones. The general implementation plan should include the milestone events for monitoring. not be a detailed project plan. This should 2) Timelines, timeline associated with it. 3) Tasking. Each milestone event should have a Each milestone event should have a specific person, identified by name, tasked with ensuring the event is completed on time. A single overall project/program leader should be clearly identified. 4) Reporting. Regular status reporting procedures on the implementation plan should be identified in terms of who. what, when, and where. Status reports should be in the format of the implementation plan or an established standard reporting format. quarterly basis. Status reports are usually submitted on a monthly orSTCASE02 REVISED 21 APR 93 SHORT TERM PROJECT BUSINESS CASE GUIDELINES AND FORMAT FOR BUSINESS CASE I . BACKGROUND. A business case Is a written presentation which Identifies and describes the main features supporting the decision-making on an issue facing the organization. process The purpose is to put forth in a logical order all the facts surrounding the situation, all the steps in the decision process, impact of the decision, and a general implementation plan for the decision. In addition to being called a business case, document is sometimes referred to as an issue paper, a decision analysis, and a program analysis. this type of a staff paper. Qecision While each of these types of presentations may vary slightly in content, remains essentially the same...decision support. The format and guidelines provided below give a most inclusive outline for a complex business case. While all of the guidelines should be considered when developing the business case, the nature of the particular situation will, of necessity, dictate a possible modification of these guidelines. However, you must remember the objective....present your process and case in a logical order, providing strong rationale... SELL YOUR IDEA. the purpose I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary should be a one to three page overview of the business case. it should highlight only the key points within each of the outline topics in the business case format. is that the Executive Summary follow the formatting as the actual presentation. also advisable It same detailed data supporting the topic. It should not contain the -- . Keep it at a high level...what fl'^^h '^snt them to know if they were running after a departing II . BUSINESS CASE FORMAT AND GUIDELINES A. Background. 1) Current situation. This section should include a clear statement of the current situation, and should be based on facts. YOU should consider that the reader may know nothing about the situation at hand. , 2) Background information. Background information should Include conditions leading up to the situation, and why the now being considered. Previous attempts to solve the be noted along with situation situation comings. should their results and short a B. Problem 1) Definition. Problem statement. The concise statement which defines and problem section should be situation. problem e.xlsts. describes the problem There may be a need to convince the or reader that a Only one problem should be addressed at a time\navoid letting multiple problems confuse the situation. 2) Considerations. What seems problem? What are the causes of the problem? they known? who  ' to be the real is problem? Who are the affected? To what extent What is the magnitude primary actors in the situation? of are the C. Analysis of Alternatives. 1) Process. Provide a written description you generated and analyzed your alternatives. the participants. Be sure to of how include 2) Identification. Identify all of the alternative programs or activities which you considered in your decision-making process. Be sure to describe the character1st' factual terms. REMEMBER... the \"do nothing\" always be analyzed as a possibility. ics of each in alternative should terms of impact: 3) Analysis. Each alternative should be discussed in impact on legal impact on objective, impact on requirements, obligations, impact on personnel, impact on The section should Include a statement as to why the should be finances. alternative was rejected. Each analysis should clearly make its point, while you should have supporting Information in your files, each analysis should not be to the level of detail as that In the selected alternative. brief, but D. Recommendation. 1) Action recommended. from the analysis of alternatives. The recommendation follows The action recommended should be written In brief, clear, positive statements. 2) This Rationale. section should provide the for selecting a particular alternative, including a summary of the primary factors supporting the decision. rationale E. Objective. 1) Objective of the objective of the recommended action, outputs. recommendation. Define the not the immediate physical 2) Goal statement support. This section should include and examples of how this program recommendation willsupport specific, stated goals of the district, establish a direct relationship. It is important to 3) Evaluation criteria. In this section, you are going to define how you will know if you are meeting the specified objectives. plan. These will become a major component of your future There must be at least one evaluation criteria for each objective, and there are usually several. a) How can estimates of progress against these objectives be made? b) Identify the appropriate measures of effectiveness. c) Both quantitative and qualitative criteria may be used. d) Be sure to consider what data you are going to need to prove the criteria, and how you are going to get the data. Is the criteria explanation going to cost more than it will yield? 4) Expected benefits. This analysis should include an of the anticipated benefits and when they expected to be realized. ........................... '   are the expected benefits. It should also identify the recipients of F. Impact Analysis. 1) Program, both positive and negative. If you execute programs...will this Describe the impact of the program. Call in the \"Expected Benefits\" above. recommendation, something fall off the table. how will it impact other primary actors impacted? 2) Desegregation Plan. Who will be the impact the Desegregation Plan? 3) Court Orders. How will this recommendation impact court orders? 4) Political factors. How will this recommendation Are there major political factors that seem to affect the situation, and how will you address th.? Are your strategies in the implementation plan? them? 5) Risks. This section should Include a discussion of the risks of doing this program, and the risks of not doing this program. 6) Timing. T how will you deal with them? What are the major timing issues, and G. on the head Resources Analysis. 1) Personnel analysis. recommendation? count and type of What is the projected impact position before and after the Include an estimate of support staff required in both numbers and types of positions. Is there a recruiting pool from which to hire the needed personnel? should be included. Training requirements 2) Financial analysis. All considerations should be examined at this point. a) All operating costs. and benefits. of the financial including personnel for each of the next 1-5fiscal years should be outlined. An estimate of equipment required should be prepared and should include all hardware and support equipment. Both capital b) c) expenditures and a monthly cost over the life of this equipment should be detailed. The source of revenue funding should be identified, along with any requirements. The cost savings forecast for the first year and years 2-5 (if appropriate) should be projected. A discussion of total cost savings potential should also be included. ur*** H. Force Field Analysis. 1) Forces For. of the recommendation? Who will be the primary supporters Why will they support the recommendation? How can you maximize the influence of these forces? detractors of 2) the recommendation? over? 3) Forces Against, recommendation? Who will be the Why will they oppose primary the How can you minimize their influence or win them Confidentiality. J .*. * vx M A J. X u J  XVU DIUJUIU UCI fltfT 'want to Include this section in material for public You should determine if you release. I, General Implementation Plan. 1) Milestones. The general implementation plan should Include the milestone events for monitoring, not be a detailed project plan. This should 2) Timelines, timeline associated with it. 3) Tasking. Each milestone event should have a Each milestone event should have a specific person, identified by name, tasked with ensuring the event is completed on time. - - A single overall project/program leader should be clearly identified. 4) Reporting. Regular status reporting procedures on the Implementation plan should be identified in terms of who, what, when, and where. Status reports should be in the format of the Implementation plan format. Status quarterly basis. reports or are an established standard usually submitted on a reporting monthly or I z 7. y. TAiKOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 October 29, 1993 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Last spring, the Uttle Rock School District began a practice of preparing business cases on all budgetary decisions. The purpose of this business procedure was to help the district make prudent financial and programmatic decisions. The intent was for business cases to become a systemic process, and not just a temporary effort to get through the budget crisis. During the LRSD budget hearing on July 8,1993, Judge Wright stated: 1 am glad to see that the board is using the business case approach for the district to justify its expenditures. That is a smart thing to do. That is a prudent business thing to do and a good management tool, and its very much part of the budget process that Ive been asking them to instill as part of their system, as part of their school system.\" At the conclusion of the same hearing, the Judge told the LRSD representatives that \"you have made a lot of progress in terms of having a budget process. The business cases are part of this budget process. Youve made a lot of progress in your budget document itself in terms of putting it in such a form that we can monitor it. You are to be commended for that, but you have a long, long way to go. Youve just started. This is just the beginning of the process\". Throughout the spring and early summer, district personnel regularly prepared business cases on all major decisions. The LRSD Board of Directors even required employees to prepare business cases when considering financial and programmatic decisions for the tentative budget (Board of Directors, Regular Meeting Minutes, May 27, 1993). During testimony in the July 8, 1993 budget hearing, Mark Milhollen pointed out that requirement: The Board felt that it needed to have an adequate and working knowledge of the changes to the budget and they felt that the business case approach was the best way to handle this.\"October 29, 1993 Page Two As you well know, many critical financial decisions have been made during the last several months, and a tough new budget cycle is rapidly approaching. The Court expects the district to continue the practice of constructing business cases as part of a systematic decision-making process throughout the district. Therefore, please forward to me copies of the supporting business cases prepared prior to October 28, 1993 (the date of the last Board meeting) on the Truancy Program, the Romine Interdistrict School Communications Station, and the Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology and Educational Research theme. Also, please provide a list of all new positions which have been added to the current fiscal year budget after those considered in the July 8, 1993 hearing and subsequently approved by the Court. Please append to that list the supporting business cases that were prepared prior to October 28, 1993 for the new positions. If no business cases exist, please explain why this critical support process has been abandoned, and how you intend to proceed during this fiscal year. Please forward this information by next Thursday, November 4, 1993. It appears to me that the district is continuing to incur expenditures over and above those approved in the regular budget cycle. The business case process has served the district well in budget planning and management during this past year. I sincerely hope you will continue, and even further develop, this beneficial practice. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, m S. BrownExhibit 1-C Revised LITTIJ3 ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) BASE SALARY (1993-94 Schedule) tn O 20,000-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001-55,000 55,001-60,000 60,001-65,000 65,001-70,000 ____(B)____ NUMBER OF CERTIFIED POSITIONS 301.50 433.30 470.90 411.50 216.00 20.00 (C) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY 1992-93 21,320.10 26,148.75 30,702.44 35,010.48 39,430.38 44,607.72 (D) ACTUAL AVERAGE STEP INCREASE 804.37 805.44 806.53 809.77 824.31 947.95 (E) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY RAISE 671.10 ___837.56 947.47 1,085.23 1,307.76 1,382.95 (F) AVERAGE TOTAL INCREASE (D^E) 1,475.47 1,643.00 1,754.00 1,895.00 2,212.07 2,330.90 ___(G)___ REVISED AVERAGE SALARY (C+F) 22,795.57 27,791.75 32,456.44 36,905.48 41,642.45 46,930.62 (H) IMPACT ON BUDGET (B-F) 444,854.21 711,911.90 825,958.60 779,792.50 477,807.12 46,618.00 (I) TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT (B-G) 6,072,064.36 12,042,165.20 15,203,737.60 15,106,605.02 8,994,769.20 938,772.40 TOTAL 1993-94 AVG SAL 1,853.20 32,008.91 3,286,942.33 59,310,913.85 NoIe: The base salary ranges in (A) are determined using the 1993-94 salary schedule: therefore, average salaries (or the personnel shown in (C) for 1992-93 may fall below the ranges defined in (A) for 1993-94.BUSINESS CASE SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Superintendent of the Little Rock School District is dedicated and committed to developing for this state and for this community,  -J ^2 , X.  . He is also committed the finest educational system in the nation. to a strong leadership team and believes the Little Rock School District has organization, all with of the elements accomplish that goal. the exception of present in its a few individuals, current to However, to accomplish the desegregation goals there are needs within the organization that cannot be met by individuals who are currently employed by the system. Therefore, at this point, after having been Superintendent for approximately two months, he has found it necessary to add a person to the administrative team with skills not identified in members of the current leadership team. In this business case, the Superintendent is establishing the need for a Special Assistant to the Superintendent that would be engaged to carry out specific responsibilities related to planning, grant writing, district advocacy and governmental relations. iL.i_ position would allow the District to reach into other areas that This have not been explored or developed to the fullest extent. One such area is that of governmental relations. Federal grant writing to a more extensive degree needs to be explored and we must expand our relationships with state legislators, and those who work for them. This person could also assist in meeting the District's commitments increasing parent involvement and community support. for A. BACKGROUND Little Rock School District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school districts, including safety and security, urban flight, racial and financial issues and aging buildings. The District's implementation of a very costly desegregation plan and escalating non-desegregation costs presents an accepted challenge of securing additional revenues. Prior to the 1989-90 school year, the previous administration and Board of Directors negotiated settlement with the parties. This settlement included a a financial settlement with the state of Arkansas. Several essential issues are apparent, i financial settlement and present local/state fundings sufficient to implement the Concerns regarding the perception of inequities of resources in our area schools and the first the plan. are not use of non-recurring revenue to balance our budget must also be addressed.B. PROBLEM DEFINITION To give a piece of background on why this position is important, I would have to reflect on the current organization chart which addresses basic areas of the District's operations, but does not address the need of the District to be more actively involved in securing additional federal and state funds. The organizational chart does not address the need for the District to become more heavily involved with governmental agencies or other funding sources. It should be pointed out that while some of these functions were performed, they were not performed to the extent they will need to be in the future as we grow and restructure the District to meet the needs of the 21st Century. As we look at the potential budget crisis in the District, the need for new dollars at the state level and the community is extremely essential to school district funding. It becomes incumbent on the school district to look at ways of securing funding for additional programs and services that are currently required by District students, parents and the community served by the school system. While the District has been engaged in securing some of these federal fundings, the background seems to suggest to me we have not been as proactively involved in this area, and we need to be more attentive to these areas if we are to get beyond the criticisms that are heaped on school systems across the country. Some criticism seems to suggest that educators are insensitive to the fact that there is a limit to which individuals in our community are to be taxed for education services. Therefore, we need to have in place a process that will allow us to find other revenue streams to meet our operational costs. In response to these concerns and perceptions, the Superintendent is proposing that we employ an individual to work with the District to explore the possibilities of expanding this vital area. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES After a careful evaluation of the current staff by the Superintendent, those individuals who are in the District who have some responsibility associated with this area cannot take on any more duties without losing effectiveness in their present areas of responsibility. This analysis seems to suggest that while we have capable people on staff, the scope of their responsibility in meeting the day to day operational needs of their departments and schools does not suggest sufficient flexibility to add to their positions. However, it does suggest that another position should be added to the District to take on these responsibilities. D. RECOMMENDATION It is the Superintendent's recommendation that we employ an individual to work with the District: 1. To have primary responsibility for formulatinggrant proposals in such areas as narrative applications, budget formulation and programmatic implementation. 2. To have the responsibility for the implementation of the school district's commitment desegregation, parental involvement, community support, etc. regarding 3. To assist in the development of schools as the center for enriching the social, recreational, and educational life of the community. E. OBJECTIVE The objectives for this person will be to work in an advocacy position for the District to secure federal funding and increase the revenue from federal sources and also identify other areas at the state and federal level where resources may be obtained to aide in the fiscal abilities and strengths of the District to deliver a quality educational plan to the citizens of Little Rock. Evaluation The effectiveness of the position will be determined by the amount of additional revenue generated as well as successful implementation of LRSD's strategy regarding parental involvement and community support. Expected Benefits Additional funding secured by the District will allow the District to meet obligations identified in our Desegregation Plan and other court approved documents. The District will also work to enhance parent and community involvement in decision making and communication. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS It is anticipated that the addition of this position will assist the District in remaining solvent and is to be considered a strategy for addressing our shortfall of funding. Desegrecation Additional funding will assist the District in meeting its commitment to our children and patrons. '/ involvement components are supported by the efforts of this staff The parent/community member. Court Order The District would be afforded greater opportunity to meet its obligations.G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS The necessary resources for this position are generated from several positions that have not been filled by the District. The grant writer position has been combined with the duties of the Special Assistant to the Superintendent. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the Board, central office staff, some principals, teachers and parents. This recommendation can assist the District to provide needed resources in our area schools. The primary detractors will be persons concerned with our ability to remain solvent as well as the addition of other top level administratorsecef:': t'f , /TA e-e/ LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 22, 1993 NOV ii 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mrs. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: Provided per your request are copies of the requested business cases. These business cases will be presented to the Board of Directors for their approval during the special meeting that follows our December Agenda Meeting. It is extremely important that we move forward with the Romine project as the new program can be an excellent recruitment tool. Please contact me if additional information is needed. Sincerely, Henry P. . Q lliams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 BUSINESS CASE GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY THEME EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The LRSD is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. The incentive schools are an integral part of that plan, and their success is directly related to the success of the District's long-term desegregation plan. Each incentive school, was required to develop and implement a school theme. In support of the desegregation plan and a commitment to total quality learning, Garland Incentive School identified a multimedia technology theme. Realizing the cost of technology and especially technology that is on the cutting edge, the multimedia technology theme implementation is to be phased in over a period of 3-5 years. A plan of action is required to implement the theme in a way that supports the desegregation plan and provides quality training and learning for students and teachers. This business case is for the first phase of implementation of the total plan for Garland Incentive School. A. BACKGROUND Garland Incentive School serves a minority community with students being challenged outside of the school by drugs, violence, gangs and many other problems plaguing today's urban school districts. The school is considered a safe zone and its students are proud and secure within its walls. The school's theme has been historically centered on communication and basic skills\nhowever, with the revision of the desegregation plan, the school's theme was changed to Multimedia Technology and Educational Research. Multimedia Technology combines text, graphics, sound, animation and video to convey information. Educational Research deals with using this new technology to locate, evaluate, and use information with excitement, motivation, and creativity. Prior to 1992-93 school year, the school maintained a Mass Media theme though the theme concept was not being fulfilled. When the desegregation plan reintroduced the theme concept, the school's Mass Media theme evolved into Multimedia Technology and Educational Research. A new theme specialist has been hired with the responsibility of developing and creating the excitement necessary to recapture the minds of students and to create interest in desegregating the school. Parents, community members, teachers, and the school's principal, established the goals and objectives for the theme based on technology. The school's Total Quality Learning (TQL) team worked after the regular school year to provide the basis for the program. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION The myriad societal problems within the local community and the projection of societal norms are concrete issues that must be addressed in the educational arena. To combatthese problems Garland must implement a plan that is dynamic and capable of capturing , I-------- Viitu, IO the young minds and preparing them for a future which is constantly moving in technological leaps and bounds. To accomplish this task wiZZuc.! desegregation budget, phases of implementation have been developed. constraints of the These phases can be accelerated provided additional ! budge. cos.rain.s. revenue is made available. will provide students and staff with the minimum hardware, software and training n?fn .r multimedia technology. This phase will include installation of four computers in each 1st grade classroom, one teacher workstation in each classroom 5 y K and 2nd grades and A fi iTi on 511 oiv _1  \u0026gt;. Of additional six station lab for 3rd through 6th grades. an Phase II will install 4 . computers in each 2nd, 6th, and CBI classroom with network capability mstaUed for all computers throughout the school. This phase will also include ------------ ovuuui. lUli UlliUsC win ai5 ardware software and installation of an audio/video lab with satellite capabilities. A software library will also be established during this phase. D computers in each 3rd and Sth grade classroom and 3 computers in ead ng, Mat^h, and Resource. This phase will also include hardware, software and inct51 5Jfir\\ri  : - 11.  installation of an electronic library. installation for Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and 4th grade classes. This phase will also include additions to the software library and the construction of a new media center or the expansion and remodeling of the existing one. The cost of full implementation in the first year would be prohibitive\ntherefore this business case is written only to address Phase I of the Multimedia The current task before Implementation Plan.  IS to determine the best way to implement the theme in a way most effective for our students and staff. C. analysis of ALTERNATIVES The Garland community considered several alternatives prior to developing this plan for implementing multimedia technology into the school: Laser Disc players, CD-ROM drives for current computer systems, networked drives, and portable drives. Though all are a V\"\" to provide the students with multimedia nX tlior creativity. In addition, the computer hardware presently at Garland ranges in age from three to seven years and will not support multimedia technology. It was decided multimedia computer systems which could stand alone or be networked would provide the best solution. 2D. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the District implement Phase I of the Garland Incentive School Multimedia Technology Plan during the 1993-94 school year. The rationale for this recommendation is that this phase of multimedia technology provides: * Software for grades K-2 that supports the LRSD revised curriculum. The software directly addresses the key concepts of reading, writing, listening, and speaking that are emphasized in the curriculum. An additional feature of the software is the use of thematic units to make connections between the various subject areas, making learning more relevant, \"^ematic units are a focus of the District's revised curriculum. This software will be av^lablein all first grade classrooms with four computers each and in a lab setting for Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, and 2nd grade. * Software for teachers of grades 3-6 that provides administrative assistance. The software has desktop publishing capability, but most importantly it provides portfolio assessment tools that allow teachers to collect, organize, and present student portfolio information. Portfolio assessment is encouraged by the District and this tool will enable teachers at Garland to implement this form of assessment. This software will be available through one station in each classroom. * A multisensory approach to learning that meets the auditory, visual and kinesthetic styles of students. * Presentation software for teachers 3-6. This software enables the teachers to produce multimedia presentations integrating video, audio, graphics, and text into classroom instructional units. * Software for students in grades 3-6 that provides opportunities for developing creativity and critical thinking skills through productions levied around the existing curriculum. This software will be delivered through a six station lab setting. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to better support the LRSD's desegregation plan by partially implementing multimedia technology into the Garland Incentive School. The district as well as the school needs this technology in preparing our students and teachers for the future. The technology used appropriately can recapture the minds of our young people, save the staff many hours of manual labor and provide exciting presentations to the students which will encourage and motivate students to learn and master the curriculum. 3Evaluation Criteria * Monitoring of student progress through technology and Portfolio Assessment. * Increased teacher use of technology which will also increase teacher proficiency in instructional and administrative tasks, including increased use of ABACUS. * Increased use of Cooperative Learning and thematic teaching concepts. * Increased student interest in multimedia technology and learning. * Increased parental involvement due to increased student interest. * Timely, detailed reports for conferences, administration. Board of Directors, and the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring. * Achievement results will positively impact recruitment to Garland. * Peer and parent/teacher evaluations of student portfolios. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS Multimedia technology can open new doors for the students. It has the potential for assisting Garland and the District in stimulating this minority community as well as improving the goals of desegregation. Multimedia technology not only motivates students to learn but it also supports the District curriculum in ways exciting to students and teachers. Though the initial cost of technology is always high it is not always an object when it comes to educating and motivating a disadvantaged population and creating an environment conducive to desegregation. Desegregation This plan totally supports the requirements set forth in the desegregation plan referencing theme implementation. Court Order Implementation of this plan would allow the school and District to demonstrate compliance of court order to develop a new theme which does not duplicate any existing incentive school theme. 4Political Factors The District can receive favorable responses from the court and schools if resources are provided to implement this theme. Risk The equipment and software provided by implementing this phase of the plan is versatile and can be transferred if necessary with the exception of minimal installation cost. The additional funds requested for this phase and future phases will be viewed as a wise investment. Should the District decide not to support this system, the results can be very damaging and regarded as inefScient use of desegregation funds. . G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS Provided is a listing of hardware and software that must be purchased to implement this phase of the multimedia theme into the Garland School. Included is the projected budget for staff development of teachers. 5PROJECTED BUDGET FOR 1993-94 FOR MULTIMEDIA TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE/SOFTWARE I. Pre-Kindergarten - 2nd Grade A. 1 st Grade Classrooms (3 computers per classroom) B. Pre-K, Kindergarten, and 2nd Grade (use of a 3 station Lab) $29,299.00 Recommended Package: Apple Early Language Connections School Bundle. Designed for use among three classrooms at same school site. Contains three Teacher Stations (Macintosh LC 520 8/160MB w/CD-ROM and standard keyboard), six Student Stations (Macintosh LC 520 5/80MB w/CD-ROM and standard keyboard), three ImageWriter 11 network printers, three Apple Color OneScanners, one Scholastic Inc. Kit, three Early Language Connections Learning Kits, and two days of training. II. 3rd to 6th grade. A. Teacher Stations ( 1 per classroom) $3,025.00 X8= $24,200.00 Recommended Package\nMacintosh Quadra 660AV Teacher Solution. Quadra 660AV 8MB Hard Disk 230MB w/CD-ROM, Audio Vision 14-inch Display, Audio Vision 14 Display Adapter Kit, Apple Keyboard II, ClarisWorks 2.0, Claris Works for Teachers 2.0, and Teacher Productivity Kit (Kit includes 4 CDs\nI) Apple Teacher Productivity CD w/Calendar Creator, ClassMaster, Correct Grammar, Make Test, \u0026amp; School Font, 2) Grolier's Multimedia Encyclopedia CD, 3) World Atlas CD, 3) US Atlas CD.) B. Lab for students and teacher training. Recommended Solution: 1. 2. 3. Temporary Lab Server (1 each) Recommend Quadra 660AV Student Stations (5 each) Recommend Mac LC 520s Printers $ 3,025.00 4. $1,765.00 X5= $ 8,825.00 Laser Printer (1 each) (Laser Pro 630) Color Dot Matrix (1 each) (Apple Color Printer) Color Scanner (1 each) (AppleOne Color Scanner) $ 1,786.00 $ 638.00 $ 936.00 TOTAL PRE-K TO 6TH TAXES (5.5%) TOTAL $68,709.00 $ 3.779.00 $72,488.00 CABLING AND INSTALLATION (EST) GRAND TOTAL $ 2,500.00 $75,000.00 NOTE: Inservice will be done by IRC Curriculum Specialist and Garland Incentive School's Multimedia Theme Specialist in addition to training included in bundle above. 6H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS Primary supporters will be students and patrons in the Garland community. Other supporters will be those in the community who want to see successful themes implemented in the incentive schools and those who feel that it is important for students to have access to technology that is on the cutting edge. Primary detractors will be limited to those who feel that the expense of the multimedia theme may not be justified. Information should be provided to them that will allow them to see the advantages of multimedia and to see the progress Garland students make after implementation. ___ I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TIMELINE Date 11/93 11/93 12/93 1/94 Activity Plan presented to Board of Directors for Approval Bid for Hardware/Software Opened Hardware/Software Ordered Hardware/Software Installed Person(s) Responsible Superintendent 1/94 1/94 Additional material/supplies ordered Staff Development begins Purchasing Purchasing Vendor Theme Specialist Theme Specialist Vendor Theme Specialist 2/94-6/94 On-going monitoring/assistance provided Principal 5/94 Evaluation of current theme implementation Theme Specialist Curriculum Supervisors Principal Theme Specialist Teachers Curriculum Supervisors 7BUSINESS CASE TRUANCY REDUCTION PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on providing a learning environment that meets the academic, social and emotional needs of It all students. is further committed to ensuring that adj. students receive a quality education in a desegregated environment. Over the years, the District has begun to recognize a growing truancy problem which has an adverse effect oh the student's academic achievement and emotional and social development, thereby frustrating the District's ability to carry out its educational mission in the community. To address this problem, the Little Rock School District has joined in a partnership with community leaders, youth servicing agencies and the Little Rock Police Department to develop and implement a truancy pick-up program that should have a significant impact on reducing truancy in the Little Rock School District. A. BACKGROUND In the spring of the 1992-93 school year, a group of concerned citizens composed of community leaders, youth servicing agency representatives and Little Rock School District officials formed a collaborative to explore an effective response to the alarming number of school aged children and youth who are truant from school onany During school hours, school aged youngsters were being observed standing on street corners, in malls and other The number of calls on any given day. shopping centers or roaming in neighborhoods. from concerned business proprietors and parents to District offices to report truant students had become more frequent and added to the growing concern. citizens, In response to the problem, the collaborative developed a proposal that would take advantage of permissive legislation (Act 867) passed by the Arkansas Legislature in 1989, which authorizes school districts to partner with the local police department in implementing a joint truancy reduction plan, of this Act, '  ..................... Using the provisions the collaborative developed a truancy reduction proposal called Project STAY (Support Truancy Alternatives for Youth) and presented it to the LRSD Board of Directors for their review and approval on October 28, 1993. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION and In the 1992-93 school year. Little Rock School District elementary and secondary students logged 227,414 (full day) unexcused absences. School absences are excused only when a child is ill\nwhen a family emergency exists, i.e., death in the family, seriousfamily member or other extenuating circumstances in the immediate family of the student exist, or if the student is participating in a school sponsored activity that has been approved in advance by an appropriate school district official. School absences that are not excused violate Act 292 passed by the Arkansas legislature in 1991. This act requires that \"a child between the ages of five years and seventeen years, both inclusive, who has not been officially excluded from school must be in attendance. II The District also believes that it is necessary to require students to be punctual and in attendance for instructional purposes each school day. C. _ ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES To address the truancy problem the Little Rock School District has attempted a number of strategies over the years. ___ __________ revised its attendance policy at the beginning of the 1989-90 school year providing for increased parental contacts, clearly defined court referral procedures and more strict consequences for unexcused school absences as a way to discourage school truancy. However, the problem continues and appears to be used included court referrals The District alternatives have worsening. Other establishment of a Truancy Review Committee. and the COURT REFERRALS The parents of students covered under the state compulsory school attendance laws (5 years through 17 inclusive) ___ referred by school administrators to the Little Rock Municipal Court. Parents/guardians who are found to be negligent in their responsibility to ensure the daily school attendance of their child/children may be fined up to $ 50.00 per day as provided for through Act 473 of 1989. This intervention's effectiveness is limited to those truancy cases in which the parent is clearly shown to be at fault for the child's non are attendance. In those cases where the minor child refuses to attend school in spite of the parents efforts arrena efforts, the Municipal Court does not deem it appropriate to fine the parent. cases have been referred to the Pulaski County Juvenile Court on a FINS (Families in Need of Services) petition. These Because of the overwhelming number of serious juvenile cases the Pulaski County Juvenile Court has to deal with, truancy cases are a low priority and are not heard in a timely manner, structure for filing a FINS petition '\"/h ths tint -J also a barrier because many parents are financially unable to pay the filing fee. Unfortunately, very little support for truancy problems is available through the Juvenile Court. with the Court is Unfortunately, veryD. truancy review committee (TRO Committee in the four in the 1990-91 cases for students restructured es Famili schools es. Families were referred to the TRC Municipal Court referral. HowevS S2!?a PPohlem supported by New Futures, as an alternative to because so few schools i committee has not been IS , . 3t bGst activated for the 1993-94 school The year. Ss2%\"ou?a'\\^iv\"ea - the abdication Of thS DisSat^s rSSon.i^^^^^ as- an- institution. Moreover the Distileducational of ---------District recoanizes __ this magnitude cannot be support and involvement - recognizes that a problem of thr^oJA? the LRSD without the or tne total community. RECOMMENDATIONS Through a collaborative a truancy reduction proposal was developed.  ~ ~~'-J youth concerned community citizens Its goals are to: Reduce the truancy District. Identify non-enrolled rate in the Little Rock School school-age children/youth. support to truant ensure regular school attendance. between the school parents of truants. stuaents to district and Promote broad-based sohool/oommunity oon=eS\ns?^^ involvement in addressing This proposal unites the Little Rock School District and the Little Rook Police Department in a unique SrtnersMo\" . _ *  During school vonfh T.7ho~W~\" stop and question school- determine why they are not in  area to provide documentation that their ateenr ^f students cannot legitimate reason, the wtrolSIi wi 11 center designated bv the t-i n V ^^^^^port the student to 4800 West 26th Streit. School District located age children and are not in school. in a public If the students . , their absence from school the patrolman will transport a a qfnHom-t- 'll District located at or by LRSD personnel. staff to ensure that the been resolved. . sihher by a parent/guardian All cases will be followed up by center issues that precipitated the truancj have\" Our recommendation is cost-effective because human suocort of tho _____ oecause J of the fiscal and It provides a high support of parents, the business community leaders\nand it will Prese^^^^onsisteni support of the partners\nstrategy which has the and other will present visibility communitymessage to students and parents that school truancy will not be tolerated in the District. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of the Truancy Reduction Program is to reduce the truancy rate of LRSD students K4.4. J T ---------- covered by the Arkansas Compulsory School Attendance Law (ages 5 through 17 years, inclusive). inclusive). EVALUATION CRITERIA The LRSD will evaluate the program to effectiveness by using the following criteria: determine its F. decrease in truancy rate of targeted students when compared with 1992-93 attendance data\nimproved communication between parents and the school district as measured through parent contacts and structured feedback\nincreased support and involvement of the community in addressing school/community issues and concerns. IMPACT ANALYSIS expected that the implementation of XU xs. ejipeccea mat me a collaborative truancy will have a positive impact on both the school and community. The community will be reassured of ths n T chr -1 /-\u0026lt;- / o - The community will be reassured of the District's commitment to the education of all children. project will open the door for other collaborative between the District and The success of this future. opportunities community groups as they arise in the Desegregation Plan The education of all students in the LRSD cornerstones desegregation plan. of the implementation of this is one of the Successful program will support this commitment. Court Orders No negative impact is noted. Political Factors Failure to act aggressively to address  ^^g^^ssively to address the truancy problem would be perceived negatively by the community. Risks Inability to sustain funding for the may be an issue that will need addressing. program in future years Timing The truancy program is  - X.' -- currently being implemented with excellent support from the Little Rock Police and other community partners. Department Failure to continue the programG. would cause the District to loose valuable community support in resolving response. a problem that requires RESOURCE ANALYSIS united community a The District share of the costs for implementing this program through the end of the 1993-94 school year are projected to be $58,943 to cover personnel, transportation, utilities, equipment and supplies. Our community partners have pledged $63,840 to support the program financially and are also assisting in the recruitment and training of the volunteer staff. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this project are church leaders, the Little Rock Police Department, youth servicing agencies. New concerned Futures and other citizens. These supporters recognize the need for a total community response to the education of all children and youth in the city of Little Rock. Detractors to the program may be parents or other citizens who have misinformation regarding the programs goals and a lack of understanding of the role to be played by the Little Rock Police Department. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The assistant superintendent for secondary schools and the director of pupil services have primary responsibility for program implementation and monitoring and to ensure that objectives are accomplished as outlined in the proposal. Monthly status and written quarterly reports will be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors.BUSINESS CASE ROMINE INTERDISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMMUNICATION STATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Information Age of today and the future requires new approaches to education and classroom environment. The amount of factual information available to us increases at a more rapid rate than we can\npossibly learn and retain by using traditional educational methods. Students today need to know where and how to obtain information, evaluate which pieces of information are relevant to the problem they are trying to solve, and be able to apply the problem-solving processes necessary to guide their group to a successful conclusion. The Communication Station proposal seeks to create opportunities for teachers and students that are aimed at bringing information and technology together. A. Background The success of Romine Interdistrict School hinges upon student opportunities and staff competence and preparation. The Communication Station proposal that engages in new ideas and approaches actually provides profitable learning experiences for students, teachers, and administrators of Romine. In a very unique way, the Communication Station allows video and audio capabilities in the classroom via satellite technology. The importance of keeping up with the latest technological advances benefits all, but also allows us to applaud the efforts of the Little Rock School District, especially Romine Interdistrict Elementary School. The effectiveness of this proposal will certainly help parents of the greater Little Rock metropolitan area to realize just how attractive Romine is. This is definitely the answer to one aspect of interdistrict schools in the Little Rock School District. It simply has to lead to more success. B. Analysis of Alternatives The present and future benefits of a program rich in staff development opportunities and authentic student achievement experiences cannot be served by traditional educational methods. We are convinced that we must sustain and improve upon the difference that is now the perception of our work with students. The chance of doing so only happens through a willingness to totally and completely ready our students for the 21st century. This is virtually impossible without this significant change.C. Objective The objective of the preceding recommendations is to adequately support and enhance the critical aspects of the Communication Station and make other curricula efforts easier for students, teachers, and administrators of Romine. D. Expected Benefits The positive effects of the Communication Station fit the goals and objectives of our school theme: \"Computer Science and Basic Skills.\"  Problem Solving processes tied to familiar skills in math, language arts, science, and social studies\n Regular opportunities for childrens optimum learning (higher-order thinking skills, communication, leadership, and study skills)\n Interactive instructional software/hardware technology (satellite communications)\n Cooperative learning ventures/projects\n Staff development and training\nand  Technical support for students, teachers, and administrators E. Impact Analysis The Communication Station is designed to provide the instructional staff with tools to enhance their positions as instructional leaders. Teachers will use a state-of-the-art delivery system to conference with field experts, to participate in thematic instruction, and to share materials and ideas with each other. Teachers are likely to explore many more opportunities for students because of credible leadership coming from on-site specialists, field experts, and other teachers across the nation. The proposal also allows the technology to become a tool for students, as well. Finally, it should be noted that the promise of Romine Interdistrict Elementary School can be significantly increased by this effort. 2F. Resources Analysis Existing staff members with an understanding of the schools theme, curricula expectations, computer technology, and the principles of the Communication Station are willing to take on the challenges basic to new staff positions. G. Force Field Analysis Support for the Communication Station and other recommendations will be nothing less than great. Clearly, anticipated excitement will be widespread, enabling all teachers, students, parents, district administrative staff, school board members, and members of the community to support and share in what will be accomplished by full participation in this proposal. Again, we are convinced that this is the best professional decision to be made on behalf of the students of the 21st century\nfortunately, we are talking about the students of Romine. Educational researchers all over the country acknowledge that such programs are highly valued. For this reason, school districts are sufficiently applying and devoting dollars to this kind of refinement and development. We do not want to bypass this opportunity. 3BUSINESS CASE SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Superintendent of the Little Rock School District is dedicated and committed to developing for this state and for this community. the finest educational system in the nation. He is also committed to a strong leadership team and believes the Little Rock School District has organization, all with of the accomplish that goal. the exception elements present in its of a few individuals, current to However, to accomplish the desegregation goals there are needs within the organization that cannot be met by individuals who are currently employed by the system. Therefore, at this point, after having been Superintendent for approximately two months, he has found it necessary to add a person to the administrative team with skills not identified in members of the current leadership team. In this business case, the Superintendent is establishing the need for a Special Assistant to the Superintendent that would be engaged to carry out specific responsibilities related to planning, grant writing. district advocacy and governmental relations. This position would allow the District to reach into other areas that have not been explored or developed to the fullest extent. One such area is that of governmental relations. Federal grant writing to a more extensive degree needs to be explored and we must expand our relationships with state legislators, and those who work for them. commitments support. This person could also assist in meeting the District's for increasing parent involvement and community A. BACKGROUND Little Rock School District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school districts, including safety and security, urban flight, racial and financial issues and aging buildings. The District's implementation of a very costly desegregation plan and escalating non-desegregation costs presents an accepted challenge of securing additional revenues. Prior to the 1989-90 school year, the previous administration and Board of Directors negotiated settlement included a a settlement with the parties. financial settlement with the This Arkansas. Several essential issues are apparent, financial settlement and present local/state fundings state of first the to implement the are not the sufficient plan. Concerns regarding perception of inequities of resources in our area schools and the use of non-recurring revenue to balance our budget must also be addressed.B. PROBLEM DEFINITION To give a piece of background on why this position is important, I would have to reflect on the current organization chart which addresses basic areas of the District's operations, but does not address the need of the District to be more actively involved in securing additional federal and state funds. The organizational chart does not address the need for the District to become more heavily involved with governmental agencies or other funding sources. It should be pointed out that while some of these functions were performed, they were not performed to the extent they will need to be in the future as we grow and restructure the District to meet the needs of the 21st Century. As we look at the potential budget crisis in the District, the need for new dollars at the state level and the community is extremely essential to school district funding. It becomes incumbent on the school district to look at ways of securing funding for additional programs and services that are currently required by District students, parents and the community served by the school system. While the District has been engaged in securing some of these federal fundings, the background seems to suggest to me we have not been as proactively involved in this area, and we need to be more attentive to these areas if we are to get beyond the criticisms that are heaped on school systems across the country. Some criticism seems to suggest that educators are insensitive to the fact that there is a limit to which individuals in our community are to be taxed for education services. Therefore, we need to have in place a process that will allow us to find other revenue streams to meet our operational costs. In response to these concerns and perceptions, the Superintendent is proposing that we employ an individual to work with the District to explore the possibilities of expanding this vital area. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES After a careful evaluation of the current staff by the Superintendent, those individuals who are in the District who have some responsibility associated with this area cannot take on any more duties without losing effectiveness in their present areas of responsibility. This analysis seems to suggest that while we have capable people on staff, the scope of their responsibility in meeting the day to day operational needs of their departments and schools does not suggest sufficient flexibility to add to their positions. However, it does suggest that another position should be added to the District to take on these responsibilities. D. RECOMMENDATION It is the Superintendent's recommendation that we employ an individual to work with the District: 1. To have primary responsibility for formulatinggrant proposals in such areas as narrative applications, budget formulation and programmatic implementation. 2. To have the responsibility for the implementation of the school district's commitment desegregation, parental involvement, community support, etc. regarding 3. To assist in the development of schools as the center for enriching the social, recreational, and educational life of the community. E. OBJECTIVE The objectives for this person will be to work in an advocacy position for the District to secure federal funding and increase the revenue from federal sources and also identify other areas at the state and federal level where resources may be obtained to aide in the fiscal abilities and strengths of the District to deliver a quality educational plan to the citizens of Little Rock. Evaluation The effectiveness of the position will be determined by the amount of additional revenue generated as well as successful implementation of LRSD's strategy regarding parental involvement and community support. Expected Benefits Additional funding secured by the District will allow the District to meet obligations identified in our Desegregation Plan and other court approved documents. The District will also work to enhance parent and community involvement in decision making and communication. F. IMPACT ANALYSIS It is anticipated that the addition of this position will assist the District in remaining solvent and is to be considered a strategy for addressing our shortfall of funding. Desegregation Additional funding will assist the District in meeting its commitment to our children and patrons. / 1\n^ involvement components are supported by the efforts of this staff The parent/community member. Court Order The District would be afforded greater opportunity to meet its obligations.G. RESOURCES ANALYSIS The necessary resources for this position are generated from several positions that have not been filled by the District. The grant writer position has been combined with the duties of the Special Assistant to the Superintendent. H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the Board, central office staff, some principals, teachers and parents. This recommendation can assist the District to provide needed resources in our area schools. The primary detractors will be persons concerned with our ability to remain solvent as well as the addition of other top level administratorsODM @1002/002 CKCBBBS I Little Rock School District RELEASE December 2,1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;SB\u0026gt;jiUilji The Little Rock School District has nieetingtobeheldi scheduled a special board agenda meeting at 5 ^mediately foUovrfng e regularly scheduled includes the following topics: agenda 1. Discussion of e new LRSD Organizational Chart 2. Nurses Agreement Koudue to the Superintendent) ' position for the assistant 4-Format for agenda meetings. ^rTTiT 810 West Markham Street Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor December 3, 1993 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: At last Augusts hearing on the LRSD 1993-94 budget, the Court reviewed the budget and numerous related business cases. The Court closely questioned LRSD about the business case that reduced the districts Communication Assistant to a part-time position. Judge Wright advised the district that the Court would particularly watch this staff reduction because it appeared to be a retreat from the Interdistrict Plan which requires the districts to search for ways to increase the number of staff responsible for public relations programs. In its August 26, 1993 order, the Court expressed strong concerns about the Communications staffing change because it represented a reduction that created the potential for negatively affecting desegregation progress: \"The Court questions the effect that losing a full-time Communications Assistant will have on the districts ability to meet its plan obligations.\" I understand that, although it was approved by both your Board of Directors and judge Wright several months ago, the Communications Assistant position still remains open. Even though you have been in the process of reorganizing your staff, leaving this half-time position vacant for so long a time (the fiscal year is now half gone) is particularly troubling in light of the Courts pointed concern that a part-time position may not be enough to help the district meet its desegregation obligations. I also understand that the Communications director recently has been charged with coordinating the districts recruitment efforts, a new responsibility that inevitably leaves her less time to spend on regular communication duties and creates yet another void in the Communications office. Please let me know the date by which the Court can expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled. Also, will this position still be part-time or will it be full-time in light of the directors increased responsibilities? Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown 04-04-1994 11:ISAM FROM TO 3710100 P.05 1 I1 i i i I i i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 1 March 31, 1994 ! II TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ke nr intendent II SUBJECT: Proposal Funding of Business Cases I ji j I1 Per your request, attached are itemized listings of costs for implementing business cases as submitted for your review on March 29, 1994. I I I I I I I 1i I II 04-04-1994 11:ISAM FROM TO 3710100 P.02 1 I I I ! 1 BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY I  INCENTIVE SCHOOLS (Required - Double Funding) 1. 2. SCHOOL Franklin ITEM AMOUNT I ! 1 i Rockefeller 3. . Rightsell 4. Mitchell 5, Garland 6. Stephens Theme 1.0 Spanish teacher $40,000 25,000 1.0 Aide - Alternative Classroom Specialist 1.0 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher Teciinology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher No impact on Incentive School Budget. 12,000 25,000 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 O' J I I I I I I I i i04-04-1994 11:17AM FROM TO 3710100 P.03 BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY II  DESEGREGATION PLAN/ADE (Required - Need Funding) t I 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. department English Math/Lang. Arts Science/Voc. Ed. Science English/For. Lang. Science ITEM English as a Second Language Math/Lang Arts Revision Applied Biology/Chemistry Science Revision For. Language Revision Hands-on Science amount S 75,880 21,100 93,000* 10,000 7,500 25,000 o. Total $139,480 * Fund source - Carl Perkins (No LRSD funds) I I04-04-1994 11:17AM FROM TO 3710100 P.04 [ \u0026lt; i i j i i 1 BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY III - RELATED DESEGREGATION/ADE I i i (Not Required'But Essential) DEPARTMENT/SCHOOT. ITEM AMOUNT L Science/Math (K-3) Science/Math Readin g S 18,000 2. t I 1 o. 4. 5. Foreign Language Social Studies Romine Foreign Language { I I Foreign Lang. K-12 Revision (UALR) Secretary Theme Specialist For. Lang. Immersion Total 15,000 18,000 (use existing position in District) 3,000 S 54,000 GRAND TOTAL $193,480 i I i i I I 1 f I04-04-1994 11:15AM FROM TO 3710100 P.01 Arkansas Democrat^^azette FAX NUMBER: NEWS ROOM: (501) 372-3908 DATE: TO: FAX NUMBER: NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: H pgge-S MESSAGE: 2lka_6jvLin2j4L_:OLe lArrAhUrin Xu\u0026lt; rrnijgi CAPiTOLAIMD SCOTT  P.O. BOX 2221  little rock, ARKANSAS 72203-2221  (501) 378-3400 SUPERINTENDENTS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1994-95 PROGRAM ADDITIONS/DELETIONS/MODIFICATIONS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASES - 1993-94 STATUS REPORT SCHOOL AND/OR PROGRAM MANAGER Dennis Glasaow/Carol Green BUSIINESS CASE Applied Biology and Chemistry/VocationaI Education PROGRAM STATUS\nX Addition Deletion Modification REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS DESEGREGATION PLAN: Q Yes No REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS STATE REQUIREMENTS: Q Yes No  NOT REQUIRED BUT ESSENTIAL TO DISTRICT: Q Yes No REQUESTED LEVEL OF FUNDING $93,000 (Carl Perkins Funds) RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF FUNDING $93,000 Submitted by Superintendent HPWnkiySTARPT.BC 105BUSINESS CASE APPLIED BIOLOGY AND CHEmSTRY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Act 980 of 1991 passed by the Arkansas General Assembly creates state statutory requirements for the establishment of a Tech Prep By regulation the State core curriculum for high school pT-ngr-ams. Board of Education identified the minimum core of courses for technical preparation. Three units of science are required. One or two of these units can be earned by taking applied science courses that are the equivalent of college preparatory courses. Applied Biology and Chemistry I and II (a two year sequence) are the equivalent of biology. Act 969 of 1993 mandates that students who graduate from high school after May 1, 1997, shall have successfully completed either the college preparatory core curriculum or the technical core curriculum institutions for public four-year unconditional to . of higher education. Act establishes qualifications for valedictorian and salutatorian and distinction admission 1117 as an honor graduate of a high school. These qualification include successful completion of either the college preparation core curriculxan or the technical preparation core curriculum. The Little Rock School District must have in place a technical preparation core curriculum for ninth grade students in the 1993-94 Applied Math I was implemented for ninth grade students this school year (1993-94). Applied Math II and Applied Biology and Chemistry I will need to be implemented beginning in Finally, Applied Biology and school year. 1994-95 for tenth grade students. Chemistry II will need to be implemented in 1995-96 for eleventh grade students to complete the State mandated applied math and science sequence. A. BACKGROUND Tech Prep is a national movement to better prepare students for the complexities of life in the 21st century. The Tech Prep program was first conceived to better prepare students for the dememds of our increasingly complex economy and workplace by delivering stronger mathematics, skills. science, communication, and technology It has since been funded through the federal Carl Perkins Act and endorsed by employer communities around the country. Tech Prep/Applied Academics is consistent with the type of educational reform advocated by the SCANS Report (Secretary's Council on Achieving Necessary Skills): skills is 'in context'. . n \"The most effective way of teaching At the same time that the federal government was advocating restructuring in vocational, mathematics and science education, the Arkansas General Assembly was also mandated restructuring. Act 980 of 1991 requires that schools establish a Tech Prep core 106curriculum. The Tech Prep program was adopted to eliminate the artificial division between \"academic\" and \"vocational.\" The competencies of all students in math, communication, science and technology must be raised regardless of whether students are college-bound or work-bound according to the Tech Prep pyngr-am philosophy. Tech Prep is considered a \"dual-purpose program of study,\" meaning that upon completion of the Tech Prep core, students are prepared to enter a vocational or technical program, a college preparatory program or a combination of the two. The regulations that accompany Arkansas Act 980 of 1991 identified the math and science courses that comprise the College Prep and Technical Prep core curriculum. - -  ... - - In both Math and Science, an applied academics course sequence can substitute for traditional college prepeuratory courses in the Tech Prep core curriculum For instance Applied Math I and Applied Math II are the equivalent of Algebra I and may be taken to meet the Algebra I graduation requirement. Likewise, Applied Biology and Chemistry I and II are the equivalent of biology and can be taken to meet the biology graduation requirement. courses Applied Math and Applied Biology and Chemistry are developed by the Center for Occupational Research and Development Forty four states, including Arkansas, have participated The CORD (CORD). in the consortium to implement these two courses. curricula are the only ones accepted by the State of Arkansas ^d ?funded through the Carl Perkins Act. The Applied Math and Applied 'Biology and Chemistry curricula developed by CORD are competencybased, occupationally related, and have the materials packaged in modular form. B. PROBLEM DEFINITION An applied science course must be implemented in 1994-95 to conform Currently, Applied Math I is offered at the ninth   (Applied Math II) will be There is no approved applied science to State Law. grade level and the second year implemented in 1994-95. course that is part of the LRSD Program of Studies. c. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 4 The acceptable alternative is to begin an applied science sequence The second year of the sequence can be  If applied science sequence is not implemented, the District will lose federal and state fxinds and lose State accreditation. In offering the applied science sequence, two approved courses are available\nApplied Biology and Chemistry (ABC) I and II and Principles of Technology (PT) I and II. ABC I and II cire the equivalent of and substitute for biology. PT I and II are the equivalent of and sxxbstitute for physics. beginning in 1994-95. implemented in 1995-96. ABC I and II can be offered either in grades 9-10 or grades 10-11. A grades 9-10 implementation would require almost twice as much equipment and supplies since grade 9 is in junior high and grade 10 107Much of the ABC I equipment and supplies and ABC II equipment and supplies are the same. is in senior high. The duplication of equipment and supplies could be eliminated if ABC I and II are both offered at the high school level. The high schools already have much of the equipment for ABC I and II (e.g., microscopes, safety The remainder of the equipment and supplies can be equipment). purchased with Carl Perkins start-up funds during the 1993-94 school year. Carl Perkins funds cannot be used after 1993-94. Many certified biology teachers are available to teach ABC I and II after they receive special training the summer. PT I and II can be offered either in grades 10-11 or grades 11-12. Neither arrangement would be more expensive than the other. All five high schools have some PT equipment and supplies since Unified Physics, an existing District course, uses some of the PT units. The PT component of Unified Physics has not been supported by the majority of the physics teachers in the District. Physics teachers are in short supply and numerous extra sections would necessitate additional staff. Carl Perkins The equipment and supplies for PT I and II can be purchased with Carl Perkins fxinds during 1993-94. fiinds cannot be used after 1993-94 for this purpose. D. RECO ATTON The Little Rock School District administration recommends that Applied Biology and Chemistry I be offered in the tenth grade beginning with the 1994-95 school year with Applied Biology and Chemistry II to follow in the eleventh grade in 1995-96. Current year Carl Perkins (1993-94) fluids will be used to purchase start-up materials and equipment for both courses. E. OBJECTIVE Applied Biology and Chemistry I and II will be implemented in 1994- 95 and 1995-96 respectively to meet State and Federal requirements and to provide students with the academic skills to have several career and/or training options upon graduation. The objective supports District goals #1,2,3, and 4. The applied science program will help students grow academically (goal #1) while teaching skills in the context of real life situations. The Tech Prep concept is that all students must be prepared as contributors to society (goal #3) by providing them with a rigorous program of study that will give them career and training options upon graduation. Outside funding will be used to support the program (goal #4) through the Carl Perkins Act. Finally, teachers of the applied science program will receive special training during the summer of 1994 (goal #2). 108F. evaluation criteria Implementation of the Applied Biology and Chemistry program will be evaluated by: 1. 2. 3. Students will enroll in ABC I during the 1994-95 school year and ABC II during the 1995-96 school year. ABC teachers will receive summer training. ABC students will also take a unit of chemistry or physics. Post graduation surveys by Pupil Services will indicate that the number of students who go to college or technical school after graduation has increased. IMPACT ANALYSIS 1.) Progreim The Applied Science program will allow the District to comply with State and Federal requirements. It will give students a relevant, hands-on science course that will prepare . graduation. them to take advantage of options after 4. The Applied Science Program will infuse tens of thousands of dollars of science equipment auid supplied into our The high schools using federal Carl Perkins funds, program will likely negatively impact a science course currently offered called \"Science Technology.\" \"Science Technology\" is an applied course but is not sanctioned by the State or Federal Government as a Tech Prep course. \"Science Technology\" will probably suffer from sparse enrollment and be deleted from the District's science curriculum.after ABC becomes fully operational. 2.) Desegregation Plan The Applied Science program will not negatively impact the Desegregation Plan. The Applied Science curriculum will support the vocational education goal found on page 104 of the Desegregation Plan: \"Upgrade courses, equipment and instructional methodology to reflect current and projected technology for job market needs.\" Tech Prep, of which applied science is a component, is designed to better prepare students for the demands of our increasingly complex economy and workplace by delivering stronger mathematics, science, communications. This certainly supports the goal and technology skills. in the Desegregation Plan. 109G. 3.) 4.) 5.) 6.) Court Order No negative impact is noted. Political Factors Failure to implement the applied science curriculum would be a violation of State and Federal Requirements. Some parents and students may complain because students in the Tech Prep core curriculum must complete 4 units of science in contrast to 3 units in the College Prep core ctirriculum {2 units of applied biology and chemistry = 1 unit of biology thus accounting for the extra unit). Risk Risks of not implementing would be loss of federal funds and State accreditation. Risks of implementing include a possible negative reaction from some parents and students about 4 units of science being needed to meet Tech Prep core curriculum requirements. They may complain that 4 units of science decrease the opportunity to take elective courses. Timing Applied science must be implemented in 1994-95 to meet State and federal requirements, RESOURCES ANALYSIS Training 2 Teachers per school X 5 Schools X $100/day X 10 days = Textbooks, Equipment, Supplies, Manipulatives = Total H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS $10,000 $?2.QQQ $92,000 The primary supporters of this project are the business and industrial community who want to see graduates who are better prepared to assume jobs in the marketplace. Detractors may include some parents and students difficulty meeting graduation requirement for Tech Prep. who have I.  SAL IXFL' NATION PLAN The Supei^risor of Science has responsibility for the curriculum aspects of the Applied Science proposal. The Director of Vocational Education has responsibility for the financial and preparing the Carl Perkins reporting aspects of the proposal: grant, ordering equipment and supplies, filing required reports, etc. The Director of Staff Development will help coordinate the training aspect of the proposal. 110Carl Perkins grant submitted 6/1/94 Dir. of Voc Ed. Principals and counselors notified 11/1/93 - 11/31/93 of Tech Prep Requirements and Textbooks Dir. of Voc Ed. Materials, Supplies, and Textbooks Ordered 1/3/94 - 2/28/94 Dir. of Voc. Ed. Supv. of Science Details of Program is Discussed with Counselors 2/17/94 Supv. of Science Teachers to be trained identified 2/1/94 - 5/1/94 Supv. of Science Principals Program is Discussed with Students 3/1/94 - 5/29/94 Counselors Students Registration 3/14/94 -5/20/94 Principals Counselors Teacher Training Occurs 6/1/94 - 8/15/94 Supv. of Science Dir. of Staff Dev. Program Implementation 8/ /94 - 6/5/95 Principals Teachers Reporting on the implementation of Applied Biology and Chemist^ will be done by the Director of Vocational Education as part or me  Carl Perkins grant requirements. \u0026lt; ./ 111BUSINESS CASE ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (ESL) PROGRAM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Currently, the district is operating an ESL progreim which provides tutorial services for identified non-English speaking/limited English proficient students. The progreim was established in 1991 in an effort to achieve compliance with federal laws and state regulations. The primary goal of toe LRSD ESL Progreim is to assist non-English speaking or limited English proficient students in acquiring toe level of English language skill necesseiry for parity of participation in the standard instructional progreim. The ESL students are identified by the local schools through a referral process that links them with the ESL program. The program is managed through the office of communications, English, ESL, and foreign languages, which supervises the six part-time tutors who staff the program. assigned to the referred students for a minimian of one hour These tutors are of pull-out language instruction each week. The tutors travel to the students' schools and assist the principals, teachers, and coxinselors in devising a support plan for each student assigned to them. The district proposes to continue the ZSL program for the 1994-95 school year and to continue to develop it so that full compliance with federal laws and state regulations is, ult^ately, achieved. The 1994-95 program will serve a minimum of 100 students through the services of eight tutors. Additional program components will include the provision of adequate materials and supplies\ndevelopment program\na comprehensive staff and identified/referral/assessment/evaluation process. revised A. BACKGROUND a In late April, 1993, the district conducted a Home Language Survey at the request of the Arkansas Department of Education (AUE) . All 50 of the district's (regular) schools were asked to administer the survey to all students in all classrooms at all grade levels, K-12. The district succeeded in obtaining a 50% to 60% average response rate from the 50 involved schools. The Home Language Survey results revealed 400+ students who were potentially eligible for English as a Second Language (ESL) services because a language other than English was identified as the primary language used in their homes. 1 90These 400 students represented 66 distinct language groups, other than English. The results of the 1993 Home Language Survey confirm sizeable ESL eligible population in the district. a Federal laws, which have been enacted to support and protect civil rights, require the district to provide whatever services are necessary to ensure that ESL identified students can succeed in mainstreamed classrooms. Because the laws do not recognize a language barrier as a handicapping condition or as the district cannot provide such a skills deficit, services for these students through existing Chapter One or Compensatory Education programs. B, PROBLEM DEFINITION The district is not in full compliance with federal laws and state regulations regarding the provision of services to nonEnglish speaking and English limited proficient students necessary for parity of participation in the standard instructional program. Failure to comply with state regulations as outlined in the revised Arkansas Public Schools Standards for Accreditation may result in loss of state aid and district accreditation. Failure to realize the full intent of federal legislation may result in a lawsuit Failure to against the district on behalf of ESL students. respond to the needs of ESL students will results in education deprivation which will become a life-long handicap for these students. C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES There is no other alternative available to the district. Provision of special ESL services is a local responsibility and it cannot be supplemented through special education or compensatory education programs. D. KECOy ATIONS The district administration recommends to fully fund the ESL progrcim-, for the 1994-95 school year and to continue to develop it so that full compliance with federal laws and state regulations is, ultimately, achieved. The 1994-95 progrcim should serve a minimum of 100 students through the services of eight tutors. Additional program components should include the provision of adequate materials and supplies\na comprehensive staff development program\nand a identification/referral/assessment/evaluation revised process. 2 91. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of the continuation of the ESL program is to achieve parity for participation in the standard instructional program for all ESL identified students. EVALUATION CRITERIA F. The evaluation criteria for the 1994-95 LRSD ESL Program will include family/parent, patron, principal, guidance counselor, tutor, and student satisfaction with the ESL program\ntutor, teacher, principal, guidance counselor, and family satisfaction with ESL staff parent/fanily development\nexcunples of student work demonstrating achievement of program ooal/obiectives\nresults of goal/objectives\nteacher-made tests\nobservations in classrooms that identify teaching/leaming\n____________ reflecting appropriate materials and supplies\nand total number students exiting the program into the mainstreamed learning setting. quality inventories of IMPACT ANALYSIS The continuation of the LRSD ESL Program will have a positive impact on the schools, the district's learning achievement, district persoimel, parents/families, patrons and students. The result will be increased community and state support. DESEGREGATION PLAN The LRSD ESL Program personifies the desegregation plan It clearly demonstrates multiculturalism intent. infusion. COURT ORDER No negative impact is noted. POLITICAL FACTORS/RISKS Failure to continue the ESL progreun at the proposed level of funding will result in great risk to the district, the prospect of loss of accreditation, loss of state aid, and probable lawsuits. including TIMING Continued implementation of the ESL progreim during the 1994-95 school year is critical to the district and its clients. 3 q9G. RESOUHCE ANALYSIS The following allocations will be necessary to adequately fund the LRSD ESL Program for the 1994-95 school year: 1. Salaries 8 tutors X $1,500 per week X 36 weeks = $54,000 ($15 per hour X 100 hours per week) 8 tutors X $45 per month X 9 months ($15 per hour X 3 hours per month for prep) Total salary cost 3,240 - $57,240 2. Materials and supplies $10 per student X 100 students $50 per school X 50 schools Total materials and supplies cost = $ 1,000 = 2,500 = $ 3,500 3. Staff development * $45 per day X 2 days X 100 teachers (Substitute teacher pay) $90 per day X 5 days X 8 tutors (Tutor stipends) $5 X 108 participants (Training packets) Total staff development cost - $ 9,000 3,600 540 = $13,140 4. Assessment/Evaluation , $20 X 100 students \" 3 Total Assessment/Evaluation cost $ 2.000 $ 2,000 ' Total program cost - $75,880 '8 H. FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS The primary supporters of the LRSD ESL Program are the tutors, classroom teachers, guidance counselors, administrators, parents, students, patrons, and government. There are no known detractors. I. GENERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The supervisor of commtmications, English, ESL, and foreign languages will have the primary responsibility for organizing and implementing the ESL program. The supervisor will hire the tutors and coordinate the referral process with building principals. The supervisor will also oversee the procurement of materials and supplies and will plan staff development. 4 93LEGAL ggQWRgMgnS Summery Of ^edercl mondates tor th* Pfoygiop p/ Cqugi Ediirrrrionrri O^nort' jnitv tn Mctionel Onoin Mmorffv Students  1. No discrimination or exclusion from benefits on the ground of roce. color or national ongtn. Title VI. CrvO Rights Act of 1964 (1964) 20 U.S.C. sec. 20CDd. 2. No denial of access to porticioction in sctiool programs because of language. No segregation by tracking, ability grouping end assignment to special education. No exclusion of parents from school infonmarion. Pottinger. J.^(Director. OCR/DHEW) (1570) Memorandum to School Districts With More Than nve Percent National Origin-Minority Group Children regarding Identificotion of Discrimination and Denial of Services on the of Notional Origin. 35 Federal Register 11595. 3. No discrimination of exclusion from benefits solely on the basis of o handicapping condition. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1973) sec. 504.29 U3.C. sec.794 4. Take affirmotive steps to provide LP students special instruction designed to overcome their sngfish language deficiency. There is no ecuaSty of treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, text books, teachers, end Curriculum' for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from any meoningfui education. Leu V. Nicnois (1574) 414 U.S. 563. 5. No uniowtui denial of equol educational opportunity to NOM individuois. A Districts must take appropriate action to eaual porticipotion. overcome languoge barriers that impede Eduol Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (1974) 20 U3.C. sec.l7C3(n. 6. Use the home language os needed for home school communication and parent mvolvement. IE? may provide thot instruction be corned out bSinguolty. Education for AH Handicapped Children Act (1975120 U.S.C. sec. 1401. 'pP exceptional students hove a rightto receive bilingual services Jose P. V. Amboph (1979) EHLR 3 551: 245 (P n N y.) Y.S.. et oL. V. School Distrief of Philadelphia (1986) CA. 85-6924 (LD. PA) 8. An appropriate program is based on a sound theory, allocates sufficient resources to the program to implement the theory, and can demonstrate effectiveness in  teaching English end other subject areas, leading to parity of participation in the sroncord instructionol program Ccstoneac v. Pckcrd (1961) 648 F.2d 989 (Sth Ci.). 9. States must estabfish stondords and guidefines for service to NOM students end monitor school disnicts for compfiance with those standards. Idaho MigrOTt CouncS v. Board of Education G981) 647 F2nd 69 (9th Ci). Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education (1967) 811 F. 2nd 1C30 (7th Ci). 10. Foreign-bom NOM students hove constitutional Flyer v. Doe (1952) 457 U3. TfT? protection. 11. staff members serving LS? students must be trained and Bngusticclly ouaCfied. Both oral end wntten skills of LE. students ms be assessed for exit pu.'pcses. program entry end Districts must monitorttie progress of students offer exit. An eppropnete program enables L=? students to uttimetety compete cccdemiccliy witn inglis-n speaking peers. Keyes v. School Distnet No. 1 (1983) 576 F. Supp 1533 (D. Colorado) vv 94SmrmgY Sf Mcigf HgagnlhWIea d. pmet^ to Ng^one^ origin Minority Students. 1. Identity NOM Jtudents. 2. Assen NOM rucents to identify L? riudents. J. Estcaisn enteric for entry into, ejot from, end recicssifiddtion into trie oftemetive progrom for L students. Oid^ncse instrudtiondi needs ond Dfcvide on driemotiye progran whidfi meets L Students specioi needs for Engiisft Icnguoge instruction, for undetsrondoOle ^CTon ,n otner content orecs. one for positive seif concept end idenrificdtion Witt) meir cuiturci tientoges.\n. Previce oopropridte end compdroOle insrtuctionol 6. oocoftunrties. Provide dudiified tedoners. mdteridls dftd srctf troining a. 9. IC. 11. Provide ecud cccess to other district progrems end senrices. Provide for pcrentcl involvement. Mentfor the progress of students offer progrem eat end reciessify students os needed. cvciudte tne e/temetrve progrem ond revise os needed. Moinroin student records. a\n? n\ngTUC7 mmv Amoen. A. N. cne Maianeai. S. E (1987) SSngue Eeucatiorr A Souceoooa. Naw Yonc Taecnen Caaaga Prao. ^ur**. f S. (1981) SiSngucawTi/BicuSureSun in Amencan Eaucstion: An Aevantira in Woneencne. Ihe Annes or me Amencan Acaaemy e Pgiitica one Soc:e Soer8 154.164-177 CCSSO Bjotirc cnff en ecucswnol ScaKV (IW05 Scnool Sueses lor Umtfta ^nqpn PreAocnr Stueann: tha Cncllanga ona Stora Besoorua. WeainQTon: CdSSO CiaTT!.ClW)fnBO\u0026gt;anna.'HnonryStuoano. Sccxmanro: CA8E. ^monaei. A. T. ena Pet S.WJ. (1989) Iha Rignt lo Sacawe BBnguel Saaciol catcanon. WaiTi Eaucanon Lew Beoonar. Augisr. 1989.1067-1091. Pemeneat a_ Menrr-Saine. t. ana Peirovien. J. (1989) Rwa Ctiei Hign Senool Orooour Stuey: Cherearetsne: at lsoar\u0026lt;c Hign Senool Stueann. Wemrigron: A5B1BA Asoociion. me. msButa lor Poiey Beiaraen. ffar. J. M.. ena Cairefe. J. W. (1938) Naw veieat: Ifwiiijmy Sluaans h tSl. Pusie Senoos. Bonon: Nenone CocMon e Aevoesrai tor Sluaaras. Aonee ScA/META (5/22/90) Proooiaa ESCt. Agreement tcaonosae: Deuui ii i lai e et Eoucanon. Soractai. P. (1988) taenraeet Aiarenca Moaula: Netlonot Origin OasagrageOon: Paeare Sreiurai ena Oiraenyai Bagoreing Nerione Oiigrt Stueans. Son Antonio: DSAJOaC-SCC. Lew. J. (tB85) BBneuoSan. BaeafCt Poiey on Banguet Eaucerton end Intaiciitieel Baicnoni. mramenenesJoune al inrarcunm Beienani 9.2.11G-iSQ. MBar. S_ Niccleu. S_ Oit. AA. Veieiviaio. S_ onaV/oSeer. S. (1990) too Lera to Batea: Becansieanng Saeano-Chenea Caaortuntiei tar HSacnc ana Omar Otoooun. wemeigton: Hoocnic PoPcv 0aeBment Ptotact in oaocicnon wdn ma Acaeamy tor Eaueanoncl Oeveiocmanr. nalEO Eaucation Puna (1990) EnglSn Plus LagSletive Bessat lor School Boera Memoen. waningron: NALEO Bcoi. P.O.. Baras. C. one Eiesoaeo. 0. (c.1988) tha Biam at Limitaa EnaBtft Broficienr Stueann: A Heneaooa tor Poretm ena ComrrBjruty AevoearaiAoi Saraenei ea lei Eirueienras con Conwao Limteea oat leome ir^qlas Merue oeie Poarei ca rcmae y Oalemorai ea le Camuniaaa. Sen rrencoea: META, wrm tna ceorcnca or CXAP. ScnBcga. B.. cne Canto Paeioerg. B. (1981) tha Stena or Eauaation lor Maseniei. Eaucaocnei Laceerme Jan.. 1981. Wonj. S. CT387) Tha Langucae Lacmna Stuctfcn at Alien ln\"i i i!cn Stueann in tna Unfee Stcrec A 'x^ra cne Pivcnoa^ausie PanoaerNc. na3 joune) 11.22-!34. 95SUPERINTENDENTS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1994-95 PROGRAM ADDITIONS/DELETIONS/MODIFICATIONS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BUSINESS CASES - 1993-94 STATUS REPORT SCHOOL AND/OR PROGRAM MANAGER Rightsell Incentive - Sharon Davis BUSINESS CASE Technology Theme Implementation PROGRAM STATUS: Q Addition Deletion Modification REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS DESEGREGATION PLAN: Q Yes No REQUIRED OR SUPPORTS STATE REQUIREMENTS\nQ Yes No NOT REQUIRED BUT ESSENTIAL TO DISTRICT\nQ Yes No REQUESTED LEVEL OF FUNDING $125,732 RECOMMENDED LEVEL OF FUNDING $ 75,000 (maximum) Submitted by Superintendent HPW/Ua/STARiT.BC 45BUSINESS CASE RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL CAREER AWARENESS AND MASS MEDIA THEME EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The LRSD is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the local learning environment for all students, incentive schools are an integral part of that plan, and success is directly related to the success of the District's longterm desegregation plan. Each incentive school was required to develop and implement a school theme. Rightsell Incentive School Identified a theme of Career Awareness and Hass Hedia Technology. The Career Awareness component has been in place since the beginning of the 1993-1994 school year. This business case addresses the first phase of implementation of the Mass Media component. in place The and their This business case A. BACKGROUND Parents, teachers, administrators and community volunteers selected the \"Career Awareness and Hass Media Technology Awareness\" theme to provide learning opportunities that would foster positive social growth and produce responsible and productive citizens. building level theme development team reviewed the four core areas the Little Rock School District Curriculum and decided that Language Arts and Social Studies were areas that would support both the  Career Awareness and Hass Hedia Technology. TL_1_11_1..^ activities have been developed to implement the Career Awareness Component of the theme as follows: The The following L^S-^uer Outcomes for the Career Awareness Theme component were developed. Career Clusters were identified at each grade level. The cluster areas selected will create readiness for the Academics Program or Occupational/Technical Specialty Area. Our program, like the Arkansas Tech Prep Plan Establishes Higher Expectations of All Students by Integrating Academic and Vocational (Career) Education. Secondary-Level Applied The Rightsell Career Awareness curriculum offers a sequential program of study for all students. for low-level Our thrust is to eliminate the need unconnected academic coxirses. and vocational Social Skills Training, a skill development program, was designed to target behaviors that students need to be successful in solving, areas such as responsibility, problem goal setting, decision making. The and 465 counselor, classroom teachers, specialist, speakers teach the skills on a daily basis and reinforce them continually throughout the and resource year.  Industry site Visits, trips x.u.o.x, aice visits, field trips. Industry Adoption Pro^ams, and Youth leadership organizations/clubs xmpiementea. were related programs to support the Mass Media T chnology component were implemented - Closed Circuit Television, Rightsell Channel 36, Cable in the Classroom rogram-Storer Cable, Extended Day Newspaper-Using Aldus Pagem^er and Children's Writing and Publishing Center, and the Newspaper-In-Education Program. Closed Circuit  Career Planning/Educational Opportunity Research Activities were encouraged through campus site visits and mentorinterviews to empower students to become active participants in their academic planning and career preparation process. and Advanced Mass Media Technology is the future. .. ., , , ---------------sj  luuuxc, and usually not readily available to urban children in the home setting. A Laptop Computer Parent Loan Program is in place at Rightsell. We presently nave 3 laptop computers. They library/media loan program to classes, program and a 3-day Parent Loan Progr-am. school children the They are in constant use through the the Extended Day Class loan We must offer inner city . opportunity to learn about and become comfortable with this equipment and technology. The technological system we choose must be both state-of-the-art and capable of Rowing as new advancement become available. The Mass Media Technology Awareness component of the theme will be implemented throughout the Language Arts Curriculum. Teachers will integrate specific media communication activities at each grade level with key basic skills in the Language Arts Curriculum, components of the theme will\nThe Mass Media Teachers will integrate Specific Show the relationship between basic skills taught in the classrooms and used in every day mass media communication in the \"real world.\" Teach how technology enhances the communication process between people, businesses, and countries\nand teach how \"messages\" influence our lives. * Establish a student production studio (Rightsell Channel 36) and teach students how to communicate their ideas using communication technology, teacher transmissions student and controlled by the can play automatically or be teacher via a remote unit. Rightsell Channel 36 programs can be presented to selected classrooms or displayed throughout the school. 47* Challenge students to explore communication possibilities that e^end beyond their immediate family, friends, and community. Some of the existing communication systems include The Information Highway, FrEdMail, Internet and Distance Learning. Introduce students to career opportxinities related to Mass Media Communication. Learner Outcome for the Hass Media Technology Program Learner Outcomes for Mass Media Technology are linked directly to the LRSD Language Arts Program Outcomes. They are: Ability to communicate effectively using appropriate standards of grammar. Using writing thoughts/ideas/information. the process to convey Using tools of technology at an effective, efficient, flexible and adaptable level. Model effective listening and speaking skills to communicate and to succeed academically, socially, and economically. around Exhxbiting a better understanding of self, others, the world them through positive listening, speaking, reading and writing. and Ability to read with fluency attend to meaning of what is read. A theme specialist has been employed to assist in all phases of theme implementation, working with all staff, student and parents at the school. B. PROBLEM DEFIKITION In order to fully implement Rightsell's theme a plan has been developed to facilitate learning through the use of technology. Our theme requires that students advance to a higher level of through technology by becoming proficient in communication skills and interpersonal skills. Technology is an integral part of our theme that will be used to improve literacy skills, to motivate students to achieve and to adequately prepare them for the twenty-first century. 48district's To fully implement the Mass Media Technology Theme within the budgetary constraints, a fivephase process is recommended. Phase 1 Applied Communication Technology Basic Skills Program Enhancement Language Arts Skills that support the Mass Media Technology Theme will be identified. The Extended Day Program will be restructured and Enrichment Activities developed. enhance the Mass Media Technology Theme will be An interactive learning environment that promotes reading, writing learning across the curriculum will be established. Using the distributive method, five computer stations will be installed in each primary classroom. An Integrated Language Arts Program at the P^iary Level will be installed in each unit. This software will help students develop their emerging literacy and acquire the interconnected skills of reading and writing. Grades 4 6 will use the existing computer lab to assist in developing student proficiency in language, communication and self- directed research skills. A laser-printer and appropriate software will be added to allow student work to be printed. Intermediate Writing Process Model that guides students through pre-writing, drafting, revising, editing and publishing will be implemented. The components of that model are as follows: Literature-Based Writing Program is designed to help students master the interconnected activities of reading, writing and thinking. The Writing Program integrates reading and writing instruction in.realistic literacy tasks that encourage students to use language in meaningful contexts. Keys to Adventure (Keyboarding)teaches proper finger placement, and demonstrates correct reaches to the keys, shift keys and punctuation marks within the context of \"around the world\" activities. The Writing Processor combines the student-oriented word-processor with instruction in the five steps of the writing process. Phase 2 Computer Stations in the Fourth Grade Classrooms Five computer stations will be added to each fourth grade classroom, allowing for more integration of technology into the 49curricultm. Building on the foundation skills established at the grades, software at this level will be an updated version tne ath and reading software presently in use. The new software will also allow for increased connections the curriculum, presently in use. ------------- between areas of supporting the district's emphasis on thematic units and the holistic approach to teaching, assessment capabilities that will allow individualized lesson plans based on student deficiencies. The updated software for Phase 3 Computer Stations in Kindergarten Classrooms and Fifth Grade Classrooms Five Computers Stations will be placed in each fifth grade and At the fifth grade level students will use updated reading/math software with the capability of making , -------- Kindergarten students will use integrated language arts software in the classroom. kindergarten classroom. curriculum connections. j t in the classroom. Emerging literacy skills win  literature-based, thematic approach that Will no Ir^ ________________ will help build a strong foundation in critical language skills. Phase 4 Computer Stations in Sixth Grade and Pre-K Classrooms computer stations will be placed in each sixth grade classroom and three stations will be placed in the four-year-old (Pre-K) this phase of implementation all students will utilize technology within the classroom setting. classroom. sixth grade is an extension of the reading/math software in place for fourth and fifth grade. continue to be emphasized. Thematic units will Software for fouryearold will provide developmentally appropriate experiences for the young child. It will be built around a variety of multi-ethnic literature, science, and mathematics units. This early childhood and emerging literacy language program stresses that children grow into reading and writing with no real beginning ending point, that reading and writing develop concurrently and interrelatedly and according to no one right sequence or order. This Many of our students come to us deficient in language readiness skills. Students in early childhood programs must be immersed in skills. literacy experiences. in order to meet the first national educational goal set by the President and 50 governors in 1990: the year 2000 all children shall start school ready to learn.\" In \"By 50given the is inevitable. Technology provides ,. -  vehicle that will motivate engage the pre-school child. motivate, captivate and Phase S Career Demonstration Lab Teacher Resource Lab/Interactive Development Center. Media Oesigu and Telecommunications Product Parent Training/conference Training/Production Center Canter Due to the budgetary constraints LI _ 7.. S iinan'Sr for implem'entin^'phale inance this Career Demonstration LaL i, sponsorships and public donations. student work stations that of the LRSD, Rightsell School will 5. We will work I^b through grant writing, computer scanner retail The lab will include allow hands-on career experiences. center will be established to control A inventoT-v eauaoxisnea to conuroi Sto?r 7siltiatsd  in the Rightsell Roadrunner Student SSonkitVon^ installed with monthly ArkaSS\nCos.etoloqy, and Hair Care Pr'4ct ,etc ... The Career Demonstration Ta. a.  ------------ Lab will also house Interactive Training Lab for provide a state-of-the art Multimedia, video. a Computer Based parents and teachers. The Lab will computer lab featuring integrated and presentation hardware as well as classroom ___J  ' ------------------------------iiaiuwait: Classroom Sihigh-tech instructional labs. Computer Based Interactive Training Lab will allow parents ^eS!SSs^tnUV\"V a classroom that bring remo?\nnetworks university libraries, as well as math and their desktoos. This allows to desktops Communications/Telecommunications, This science -.-^wAxx^auioiis/iexecommunications, Distance Learning. Teleconferencing and a Computer Command Center that puts COmnutpr. mniieo an/A ----------- puuo MultiMedia computer, mouse and monitor in the instructors control . Video- every recommend that the Computer Lab Attendant position be eliminated. With the inservice rreininrr rhat- 11 With the inservice training that will be teaching staff and the instructional aides . ---------------------over , . a.a. J a. years, toere will not be a need for a computer lab in addition to the regular training, instructional aides will receive all of the   the district computer lab attendants the course of four attendant. addition to two Specialist, who also has a technology technical assistance.  ' ' as training provided for a back up. Our Theme background will provide The elimination of this part-time position will save approximately $7,346.60 yearly including salary fringe benefits. and 51C. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES Several alternatives were implementation at Rightsell. considered in planning for theme One alternative is to provide a television production studio by adding eguipment to a closed- circuit television system already in place. K_______ production skills must be built on the foundation of sound reading, writing, and oral communication skills. However, television thoroughly developed first, production phase. These skills should be before students move into the I ! i Another alternative considered was use of the existing computer lab for teaching and reinforcing literacy skills, five years old and slow by current standards. state-of-the-art The existing lab is - ___________ It will not support the software needed for Rightsell students. However, continued use of this software for grades four through six will provide sufficient literacy reinforcement for another year or two. The Language Arts software in the existing progrim is designed to remediate and reinforce specific reading skills rather than iMerse beginning readers in the interrelated elements of listening, speaking, reading and writing. i third alternative is to provide computers in the classroom for the primary grades as the first phase of the Mass Media Technology Theme. Every primary student will then have access to technology every day of the week as an integral part of instruction and learning. D. RECOMMENDATION It is our recommendation that the district implement Phase I of the Rightsell Incentive School Mass Media Technology Theme during the 1993-1994 school year. The rationale for this recommendation is that this phase of the theme provides\nFive computers in each classroom and software for grades 1~3 that supports the LRSD revised curriculum and the school's theme. The software provides for a thematic approach to learning, while emphasizing the skills of reading, writing, and speaking. E. OBJECTIVE The objective of this recommendation is to support the LRSD's Desegregation Plan by implementing Phase I of Rightsell Incentive School's Mass Media Technology Theme. Students at Rightsell need this technology to improve their literacy skills. , including communication skills providing appropriate software and hardware in the classrooms will ensure that students have the tools they need to develop a sound foundation. 52Evaluation Criteria Student progress will be monitored through the following methods: ABACUS - Mastery of the Language Arts Curriculum will be measured through the ABACUS using 1994 individual student mastery as a baseline. Stanford 8 , ~ Student performance and grade performance will be measured using 1994 test scores as a baseline. Student Education Plans (SEP'S) will be developed based on Language Arts needs of individual students. Each _ will demonstrate 85% mastery of Language Arts identified skills listed in his/her SEP. Teacher observable checklist will be used to evaluate oral communication skills. Student work portfolios will be utilized to demonstrate progress of written communication skills. Increased use of thematic teaching units and concepts measured. Using the number of thematic units taught in grades 1-3 in 1993-94 school as a baseline. Increased teacher use of instructional effectiveness curriculum will be measured. technology to in integrating the enhance core Current use of the computer lab, teacher inservice related to technology will sex^e as a baseline. Also an instrument will be in place in fall to measure teacher attitude toward the use of Technology in the Classroom, will serve as a baseline. The fall of 1994 results Increased student interest and attitude in learning related to technology and Language Arts will be measured. An instrument will be in place this fall. Parental attitude and interest toward the use of technology will be surveyed. Using Spring 1995 as a baseline. r. IMPACT Using a literature-based curriculum that is supported by technology will motivate and stimulate students as they progress through the in understanding developmental stages language. A strong foundation in literacy skills at the primary level is essential. 53Desegregation This plan totally supports the requirements set forth in the desegregation plan referencing theme implementation, academic programs (Reading Across the Curriculum, Oral Expressions Across the Curriculum and Instructional Technology) and the purpose of incentive schools. Court Order Implementation of this plan would allow the school and District to demonstrate compliance with the court order to develop a theme. \"On The 1992-93 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report states that: May 1, 1992, the Court ordered the LRSD to restore and fully implement themes at all incentive schools, but the district took nearly a full year to select themes and hire program Specialist for the six of the seven incentive schools. Thus, denying students the level of theme enhancement that the desegregation plan promised and the Court required.\" At Rightsell, we have developed a theme that will enhance the core curriculum. The program will provide students with foundational skills that acre required to be a successful student as well as skills that will allow them to compete with their peers in the future. The implementation of the theme will also help Rightsell in its recruitment efforts. Political Factors The district can receive favorable responses from the coxirt and schools if resoxirces are provided to implement this theme. Risk The equipment and software provided by implementing Phase I of this plan can be transferred if necessary. The additional funds requested for this phase and future phases will be viewed as a wise investment in technology. Should the district decide not to support this system, ah alternative plan will need to be developed for the Mass Media Technology component of Rightsell's theme. Timing In order for the Mass Media Communication component of Rightsell's theme to be in place by the beginning of the 1994-95 school year. the purchasing process must begin as soon as possible. Installation of equipment, wiring, and staff training in the use of the software will take several months. If primary students are to be positively impacted from the beginning of the school year, it is critical that the procurement of hardware and software be begun at once. 546. RESOnRCSS ANALYSIS i  of hardware and software that must be implement Phase I of Rightsell's Mass Media Technology Theme. All costs are estimates and are subject to change. 55Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Cabling $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 wiring $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 56Glossary of Terms Distance Learning Distance Learning increases instructional effectiveness through the use of interactive two way television  1  Students can receive standard curriculum and special courses the individual attention that distance with active response. with learning can provide. Teachers and staff members can actively product training sessions delivered by the most qualified presenters and instructors. Distance Learning can significantly reduce travel cost, extend the traditional classroom or training center to students at remote locations. FrEdMail - The FrEDMail Network is a growing, distributed and low- cost telecommunications network that helps teachers and students pa^'ticipate' in a wide variety of learning experiences and exchange information freely and simply, become better learners, readers, FrEDMail motivates student to and writers. It also lets teachers share experiences with student assignments, distribute teaching materials, and curriculum ideas. Implementation of this program at Rightsell would allow our students to communicate with student at Franklin Incentive School, Garland Incentive, Crystal Hill Interdistrict Magnet School, and over 150 member school districts nation-wide. IMTBRNBT - The INTERNET is a global communications network that connects computers all over the world. Education, government, business, and academic organizations participate in the network. Electronic mail between all users can be accessed, providing communications capabilities with a wide variety of people, to libraries around the world and forums for discussions about a Access variety of subjects are available. Thematic Approach - A thematic approach is a framework based on a particular topic, idea, author, or genre. Each unit has outcomes or goals that specify what you want students to accomplish as a result of the unit experiences and lessons. These themes involve a number of curricular areas, such as science, art, music, or math, even though-the focus of the unit is developing the ability to read and write. 57RIGETSEIJ, INCENTIVE SCEOOL Business Case ADDENDUM TO PEASE I We have closely reviewed the implemetation of hardware and software at each Phase of our Business Case. We believe that Phasing in the Theme over a period of six years is not the best process for implementation. However, we do understand the financial crisis of the School District and recommend further reducing our cost as illustrated below. We recommend deferring the following items in Phase I to a later phase. PEASE I Estimated Pre-Tax Total $151,578.00 OPTION #1 Phase I Pricing Only with note that placed in later phases. many of the cuts are being Reduce Printers to two $1,600.00 Reduce Teacher First Stations to one $6,000.00 Reduce Softweire to $53,732.00 Phase I Pre-tax total $125,732.00 Saving Approximately $25,846.00 OPTION #2 Same as above except eliminate final Teacher First Station Phase I Pre-tax total $115,943.00 Saving Approximately $35,635.00 58 r /-t7- I SEQ # 14 03 04 24/230 223 231 13 02 213 215 01 15 21 08/204 25/225 BUSINESS CASES Program Name TENTATIVE RECESWD JAN 1 7 1995 Office Of Desegregafion h/i^nnyiiitg Academic Progress Incentive Grant/Margaret Gremillion, Sadie Mitchell Academic Support Program/Dennis Glasgow, Gene Parker, Leon Adams Data Processing/David Beason Districtwide Facilities Study (School Closings)/Dr. Mayo Pupil Transportation Services/Mary Jane Cheatham Family Life Education/Linda Young, Rene Carson New Futures/Linda Young Four-Year-Old-Program/Pat Price Guidance Services/Jo Evelyn Elston Health Services/Gwen Efird HIPPY/Marion Shead McClellan Community School/Jodie Carter Staff Development/Marion Woods Substitute Teachers/Brady Gadberry, Dick Hurley Vocational Education/Carol Green Safety and Security/Bobby Jones Discipline Management/Sadie Mitchell, Larry Robertson, Walter Marshaleck Alternative Education/Jo Evelyn Elston, Vic Anderson, Randy Glenn/ * ^Wce 0/ oes^.- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation BUSINESS CASES FOR PROPOSED BUDGET FY 1996-97 FEBRUARY 1996EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BUSINESS CASE VOCATIONAL EDUCATION 1996 If our youth are to be afforded the best possible chance for success in the workplace, systematic and collaborative change in our educational system is imperative. Employers continue to express the fact that they want more than just the traditional academic and technical preparation. They want workers who possess general workplace competencies, can communicate effectively, solve complex problems, work in a team, understand the underlying scientific principles of technology and understand the valve of lifelong learning. Recent federal legislation, particularly the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990, and the School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 have provided the impetus for the systematic and collaborative efforts needed to meet the challenge of this change. Under the Carl D. program is funded. Perkins legislation, the Tech Prep Education Tech Prep in the State of Arkansas is mandated The Tech Prep curriculum was initially put by Act 980 by 1991. into place in the Little Rock School District during the 1993-94 The purpose of Tech Prep is to better prepare school year. students for the changing demands of the workplace through a combination of strong academic and technical skills training program for entry-mid level employment. To do so means having a strong curriculum as well as high tech equipment to\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"gsu_ajc_1465","title":"Civil rights leader, Herman Lodge, seated at his church in Waynesboro, Burke County, Georgia, 1993.","collection_id":"gsu_ajc","collection_title":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution Photographs","dcterms_contributor":["Cockerille, Ron (Photographer)"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Burke County, 33.06115, -82.00078","United States, Georgia, Burke County, Waynesboro, 33.08987, -82.01567"],"dcterms_creator":["Atlanta Journal-Constitution"],"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":["Typescript attached to print verso: \"2. Mr. Lodge in his church with the 'white only' water fountain which was at one time in the Court House.\" Newspaper caption: \"Burke commissioner Herman Lodge keeps a water fountain in his church to remind him of past days of discrimination. The downward-curved water spout required anyone wanting a drink to use a paper cup, so that whites and blacks would not have to drink after each other.\" Caption date-stamped: Sun Jan - 3 1993 J C. Verso inscribed: \"photo by Ron Cockerille / special.\""],"dc_format":["image/jp2"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Atlanta Journal-Constitution Photographic Archive"],"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights workers","Segregation"],"dcterms_title":["Civil rights leader, Herman Lodge, seated at his church in Waynesboro, Burke County, Georgia, 1993."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Georgia State University. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ajc/id/1465"],"dcterms_temporal":["1990/1999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: AJCP454-162a, Atlanta Journal Constitution Photographic Archives. Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library."],"dlg_local_right":["This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. In addition, no permission is required from the rights-holder(s) for educational uses. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s)."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic prints"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Lodge, Herman, 1928-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_48217","title":"[Coretta Scott King, head-and-shoulders portrait, facing front] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff.","\"Jo[...] St.\" and \"8/28/93\"--written on back of print."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Coretta Scott King, head-and-shoulders portrait, facing front] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.48217"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc","portrait photographs1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Coretta Scott, 1927-2006"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_341","title":"Correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/341"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"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-zZ, \u0026gt;1,//-/.,,) EIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 SOUTH BRYANT STREET JUL t 1 1993 TO: FROM: SUB J: DATE: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (501) 570-4020 72204 Offics n. :g3\nicn '3 Ms. Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent, LRSD Mr. Chris Heller, Attorney, Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark Douglas C. Eaton, Director, Plant Services Attached After Action Report - Site Selection Process for Stephens Elementary School June 25, 1993 I am forwarding to you a copy of an informal After Action Report that I wrote concerning the Site Selection Process for Stephens Elementary School. As stated in my After Action Report, I am, of course, disappointed that the site that we recommended was not selected, but fully understand that this school must tie in to our desegregation efforts. I express to you my disappointment for a ninety-day delay in selecting a new site, or another site, to be presented to the Court. The delay of the Stephens Elementary School for the sole fact that all parties could not agree 100% on the site serves no purpose whatsoever in furthering desegregation within the Little Rock School District. Our Motion to the Court closely paralleled the concerns of the Pulaski County Special School District in tying together recruitment on the part of the Pulaski County Special School District and the inter-district school concept. Pulaski County's inabilities to successfully recruit to Romine Elementary School, their concern and apparent difficulty in recruiting to King Elementary School, and their stated further concerns about having to recruit to a third inter-district school should have been sufficient evidence for the parties to realize that we should not continue with a third inter-district school in the inner city for which recruitment strategies have evaluated, or appraised. not been clearly defined. I know that the matters expressed here are not directly related to my responsibilities to the District as a Director for Plant Services and Engineering  but when I assumed the responsibility, for what it's worth, to assist in long-range planning, it brought into light matters for which I am concerned. I don't know what procedure or policies will be followed by the It parties It finding a new site, but as long as the misconception persists that the exact siting of that school is the sole factorPage Two Continued that leads to desegregation difficult time in success, we are selling our education programs. going to have a There are countless examples where site is not the determining factor, but that the education process is. I refuse to believe that Mann is a successful junior high because it is built next to an interstate in an industrial area. We must give credit to the academic program. If we don't, then how do we explain Carver Elementary or Williams Elementary? I feel that the County is running scared because they have no program from which to recruit, they've never been forced to provide a program to recruit, and now, when they may be held to task and there will be three (3) schools laid out in front of them and the Court to which they must recruit white children. other hand, On the our success in recruiting black children to County inter-district schools is a matter of record with regard to Crystal Hill. Whatever procedures we followed, I am sure we will follow again for the new elementary school. I don't know if my concerns will ever be surfaced officially, such that those that are making decisions will take these comments in the context in which they are offered. But anyway, I wrote this After Action Report to forward to you, and as may be noted below, I have forwarded a copy to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for information purposes only. DCE/rlh/mpch Info, cc: Ann Brown, Chairman, Office of Desegregation MonitoringMEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUB J: DATE: Stephens Site Selection Committee After Action Report June 25, 1993 I am writing this as a follow-up after the Court appearance on 24 June regarding the Stephens site selection process. It is unfortunate in a way that the Federal Court has extended the construction of the Stephens School after such a tremendously diligent effort was exerted to find the best possible site for this school. However, I understand that the construction of this school must lead to, and assist, the Desegregation Plan if it is to be successful. With regard to the site selection process, I feel that the process used by the Little Rock School District, even though I was a major part in drafting the plan, was as fair and as unbiased a procedure as could be, and allowed the greatest opportunity for input from all parties in the final recommendation. To clarify unasked questions, but possible concerns on the part of the Federal Judge, I must commit to writing that the selection and nomination of members by name to the Site Selection Committee was done by the various parties. When the Strategic Plan was drafted, there were nine (9) parties which would comprise the Site Selection Committee, each party having one (1) vote. When one looks at the number of persons on the Committee, when it was first formed, you will notice a large number of persons assigned from the Little Rock School District. It was made known to all members of the Committee that their presence was not as a voting member, but to provide technical assistance and answers to any Committee Member regarding the multiplicity of operations in the Little Rock School District. Those members included representatives from operations, curriculum. communications, desegregation and school administration. It was made clear to all parties up front that each organization as represented from the original nine (9) had one (1) vote. The Little Rock School District had two (2) official representatives\nmyself as Technical Advisor, and Ms. Marie Parker, as the Little Rock School District Representative. V,__1 ________ '1 , ___ -- mine was to be as objective a teclinical different reasons We each got one (1) vote for evaluation as I can render based on my construction and planning background, and Ms. Parker's was to be with the consult of the Little Rock School District Administration as the School District's vote as to the site selection. As the process advanced, certain parties refused to participate, most notable were the Joshua Intervenors. After repeatedly being notified of the meetings, telephonically and in writing, they failed to participate in any way in the selection process. The final vote that was taken on 23 February was taken by those persons that actually visited the sites and cast votes. It is unfortunate that all parties were not represented, nor did all parties vote.Page 2 Continued In the final vote, the Pulaski County School District did not submit recommended site locations. Additionally, in the final vote, the Joshua Intervenors (who had not attended any meetings) failed to vote on any of the prescribed sites. Needless to say, those two (2) critical, missing votes could have very easily changed the final recommendation to the Board of Education and the critical. Court with regard to the site. I blame myself for failing to consider party apathy with regard to siting this school. Although it was clear and evident that certain members of the Site Selection Committee were predisposed, preferred sites before all were evaluated, the process had to or continue as objectively as possible, and without outside influence. If I am involved again the site selection process, I will have no other course of action but to follow the procedures established during the first process. that 1 and equitable, and to I believe these to be fair include the widest range of concerns. aspects, and points which must be considered in the location of such a vital element in today's community. DCE/rlh/aare/e^. Attn. Ann A Brown JUL 2 1993 Little Rock School District Desegregation Office O.*\no Dei i'ega^on Mcni 201 E. Markham Heritage West Building Suite 510 Little Rock, AR. 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am writing this correspondence in behalf of the Chicot Elementary P.T.A. (representing staff and parents) We have monitored capital needs to our school for the past few years. We have tried to the best of our ability to maintain the upkeep of our facility. However it is impossible to prevent the wear and tear on certain items when serving a large number of pupils daily. Our carpet throughout the school is in desperate need of repair. We are requesting your assistance school is in desperate need of repair. We are requesting your assistance on a special project of work toward recarpeting on our entire building. We appreciate the financial commitment you have given us throughout the years. Please let us know at what capacity you can help us. We will be eagerly awaiting your ponse. ir.cerely. Tina Gatson Chicot Elementary PTA Chairman d.o.Q-^r OOa/I Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: July 6, 1993 To: Mark Milhollen, Controller Little Rock School District Froin:/^^-^olly Ramer Throi nn Brown Subject: June Payroll Reimbursement Enclosed you will find check number 584 in the amount of $4439654, payroll reimbursement for the month of June. The breakdown follows: $40359.86 3,08756 949.12 Salaries Social Seciuity Insurance $4439654 Total12 F: Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: July 6, 1993 To: Mark Milhollen, Controller Little Rock School District Fromt/^^-^Polly Ramer Throi nn Brown Subject: June Payroll Reimbursement Enclosed you will find check number 584 in the amount of $4439654, payroll reimbursement for the month of June. The breakdown follows: $40359.86 3,08756 949.12 Salaries Social Security Insurance $4439654 Total \u0026amp; '! Little Rock School District * July 12, 1993 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 1st Commercial Bank, Suite 2000 Capitol and Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1993 0ffic3 of Desegregation Mciiitoring I am sending this as an interim status report to keep you abreast of our progress with regard to the Junior High Capacity Study. As you know, the Little Rock School District's Capacity Study was submitted in September of 1992, and a subsequent request made by the Court to expand on issues identified in the Study in particular, the effect of M to M Transfers and programmatic needs\nand. to add points of consideration regarding capacities and projections in both the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts. As of this consisting of date. myself\nI have put together a Capacity Committee Ms. Marie Parker, Office of Student Assignments\nMr. Ed Hogan\nand, Mr. Billy Boles from Pulaski County School District\nMr. Jerry Massey\nand, Ms. Mabel Bynum from North Little Rock. Our Committee has met three (3) times. Our first Committee Meeting was to lay down the basics of understanding with regard to how we interpreted the May Court Order with regard to the desires of the Court in the Capacity Study. Questions were raised as to whether or not the Capacity Study had implications with regard to North Little Rock and Pulaski County, and what those implications would- be. For our second meeting. we invited members of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring who brought together the thoughts of the Court with regard to how the Capacity Study should cross district lines to show inter-relationship and dependency on schools in order to support the desegregation effort. For our third meeting, at Pulaski County, we invited members of North Little Rock and Joshua Intervenors. The Joshua Intervenors failed to attend. During that meeting, we discussed the 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (SODST-t-sdei Page Two Continued We arrived at the fact that be, methodology of calculating capacity. capacity is not calculated the same through all Districts, nor need be. It was explained that the method of calculation of capacity by the District need only be used by that District, and be explainable within the context of the Capacity Study. There is no requirement for capacity to be computed identically, as long as a parallel can be drawn between capacity and projections among the Districts. Our next meeting is scheduled for 15 July. At that meeting, both North Little Rock and Pulaski County are to have their narratives complete, explaining the methodology of calculations, their projections, at least through the year 2000, a chart aligning their projections with the capacities, and a summary as to their plans to either increase junior highs, or to retain the status quo. their information, and that which I submitted in September, w wxxi put together a .final summary specifically addressing the areas of interdependency at the junior high level of the schools to support the desegregation effort. explaining the methodology of From we will I will keep you abreast of our progress once that meeting has been completed and, hopefully, we should have a Court submission within the next sixty (60) days. Sincerely, Ddu s C. Eaton RECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/ch cc: Ms. Ann Brown., Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Estelle Mathis, Acting Superintendent Mr. Ed Hogan, Pulaski County Special School District Mr. Jerry Massey, North Little Rock School DistrictS -f'-  To: From: Re: Date: Judge Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 0**^ '753 \" n \u0026gt;.i JUL 2 2 1993 Mr. John Walker, Attorney Mr. Stephen Jones, Attorney Mr. Richard Rochelle, Attorney Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorne ,'ro Stephen Interdistrict School Site Selection Process July 21, 1993 Wright recessed the hearings in June regarding the site selection process. Our instructions were to conduct another process whereby the parties, parents from the current Stephens area, parents from the Pulaski County School District and administrators from all school districts could be involved to see whether a consensus could be reached on a site for the Stephens Interdistrict School. The Board of Directors of the LRSD has met to discuss this process and has instructed me to communicate with you to ensure that full participation is achieved. The timeframe is short, therefore, we must start immediately. Please recall that the court has already scheduled a hearing for September 30, 1993, should the parties not reach a consensus. The task of the committee to be discussed below is simple, committee must receive wide-input regarding proposed sites for the The school\nassess and evaluate each of the proposed sites\nand make a recommendation to the LRSD Board of Directors. Board will Thereafter, the LRSD have the opportunity to either accept the recommendation, reject or make appropriate modification. the opportunity to The LRSD has deterained that the committee should consist of nine (9) individuals evenly split among representatives of PCSSD, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Further, the committee should be composed of parents or patrons of the various districts who did not participate in the first site selection committee. The idea behind this criteria is that this committee should not be tainted with the determination reached by the prior committee. This is not to say that those persons who participated in the prior process should not be allowed to provide input and have appropriate involvement. Further, although the parties are free to select their own representatives as they see fit, it is strongly recommended that Attorneys July 21, 1993 Page 2 the PCSSD select parents from the target zones of recruitment and that the LRSD select at least two parents from the present Stephens School. John Riggs has agreed to serve as a non-voting chairperson of the His role will be to organize meetings, fcn_ili___ discussion and ensure that necessary resources are obtained. Mr. Billy Bowles of the PCSSD and Mr. Doug Eaton of the LRSD could committee. facilitate Mr. serve as consultants to the committee to answer questions relating to recruitment, facility construction or related areas within their fields of expertise. To allow the committee to complete its work, LRSD Board action and the a report to the court in time for the September 30 deadline, the committee must have its work completed and submitted to the LRSD Board in time for inclusion on a special agenda for a September 9 Board Meeting. Specifically, the order issued by Judge Wright on July 1, 1993, mandates that the parties must, in the event no consensus is reached, file their alternative proposals on a site no later than Wednesday, September 15, 1993. To accomplish its task under the scenario outlined above, it is suggested that the committee meet on at least three (and possibly four occasions). The tentative meeting dates and times are as follows: (1) Tuesday, July 27, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (2) Tuesday, August 10, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (3) Tuesday, August 24, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (4) Tuesday, September 7, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. It is suggested that either the 10th committee could take or 24th of August, a tour of the suggested locations, meetings themselves would take place in the LRSD Board Room, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR. the The At the initial meeting of the committee (July 27), the attorneys for all of the parties (LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, Joshua Intervenors and Knight Intervenors) would be requested to present the committee withan explanation, either in person or by written communication, stating the pui^ose of the interdistrict school and outlining the agreed upon criteria to be used to select a site for the school. The remaining time could be used to discuss the criteria and, P^lllriarily, possible sites. Time at the second meeting could also be devoted to further refinement of the criteria and further development of the list of sites. At the second or third meeting.Attorney July 21, 1993 Page 3 a field trip could also be taken to all of the possible locations identified. The final meeting should involve further discussion of sites, ranking of the various sites identified and a vote on the recommendation to be made to the LRSD Board. in the interest of time, the above process has been outlined to facilitate timely completion of our task. However, all parties and committee members are free to voice any and all concerns, make any and all recommendations and develop any and all procedures deemed reasonable and appropriate to increase the likelihood that consensus will be reached. Accordingly, I am hereby requesting that all recipients of this letter notify me within three working days of receipt of your initial concerns regarding the process as outlined. Otherwise, we will deem this process acceptable and will expect to see each of you and your selected representatives at the meeting on July 27, 1993.  Sam Jones and Joy Springer.) (I have already spoken to Mr. Walker, By copy of this letter, I am notifying Mr. Sammy Mills and Mr. Foster Strong of our plans and request that they assist in securing two parents from the current Stephens School to the committee. I am also requesting that they stand ready to provide any and all assistance desired by the committee, there are others they feel should be a part of this process, I would request they provide notification to those persons. serve on If Thank each of you in advance for your kind attention to this matter, future. I look forward to hearing from you in the very near c: Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Billy Bowles Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Samuel Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Charles Johnson Mr. Frank Baugh Mrs. Ann Brown / Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred UrseryTo: From: Re: Date: Judge .\u0026lt; \u0026gt;. t J /\n/ / Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5! W -J \" J t' JUL 2 2 J993 Mr. John Walker, Attorney Mr. Stephen Jones, Attorney Mr. Richard Rochelle, Attorney Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorne Stephen Interdistrict School Site Selection Process July 21, 1993 Wright recessed the hearings in June regarding the site selection process. Our instructions were to conduct another process whereby the parties, parents from the current Stephens area. parents from the Pulaski County School District administrators from all school districts could be involved and to see whether a consensus could be reached on a site for the Stephens Interdistrict School. The Board of Directors of the LRSD has met to discuss this process and has instructed me to communicate with you to ensure that full participation is achieved. The timeframe is short, therefore, we must start immediately. Please recall that the court has already scheduled a hearing for September 30, 1993, should the parties not reach a consensus. The task of the committee to be discussed below is simple, committee must receive wide-input regarding proposed sites for the The school\nassess and evaluate each of the proposed sites\nand make a recommendation to the LRSD Board of Directors. Board will Thereafter, the LRSD have the opportunity to either accept recommendation, reject or make appropriate modification. the The ^SD has determined that the committee should consist of nine (9) individuals evenly split among representatives of PCSSD, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Further, the committee should be composed of parents or patrons of the various districts who did not participate in the first site selection committee. The idea behind this criteria is that this committee should not be tainted with the determination reached by the prior committee. This is not to say that those persons who participated in the prior process should not be allowed to provide input and have appropriate involvement. Further, although the parties are free to select their own representatives as they see fit, it is strongly recommended that Attorneys July 21, 1993 Page 2 the PCSSD select parents from the target zones of recruitment and that the LRSD select at least two parents from the present Stephens School. John Riggs has agreed to serve as a non-voting chairperson of the His role will be to organize meetings, fa\u0026gt;_il' discussion and ensure that necessary resources are obtained. Billy Bowles of the PCSSD and Mr. Doug Eaton of the LRSD could committee. facilitate Mr. serve as consultants to the committee to answer questions relating to recruitment, facility construction or related areas within their fields of expertise. To allow the committee to complete its work, LRSD Board action and a report to the court in time for the September 30 deadline, the committee must have its work completed and submitted to the LRSD the Board in time for inclusion on a special agenda for a September 9 Board Specifically, the order issued by Judge Wright on July 1, 1993, mandates that the parties must, in the event no consensus is reached, file their alternative proposals on a site no later than Wednesday, September 15, 1993. Meeting. To accomplish its task under the scenario outlined above, it is suggested that the committee meet on at least three (and possibly four occasions). The tentative meeting dates and times are as follows: The tentative meeting dates and times (1) (2) (3) (4) Tuesday, July 27, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 10, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 24, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, September 7, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. It is suggested that either the 10th committee could take or 24 th of August, the a tour of the suggested locations, meetings themselves would take place in the LRSD Board Room, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR. The At the initial meeting of the committee (July 27), the attorneys for all of the parties (LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, Joshua Intervenors and Knight Intervenors) would be requested to present the committee with an explanation, either in person or by written communication, stating the purpose of the interdistrict school and outlining the agreed upon criteria to be used to select a site for the school. The remaining time could be used to discuss the criteria and, preliminarily, possible sites. Time at the second meeting could also be devoted to further refinement of the criteria and further development of the list of sites. At the second or third meeting.Attorney July 21, 1993 Page 3 a field trip could also be taken to all of the possible locations identified. The final meeting should involve further discussion of sites, ranking of the various sites identified and a vote on the recommendation to be made to the LRSD Board. In the interest of time, the above process has been outlined to facilitate timely completion of our task. However, all parties and committee members are free to voice any and all concerns, make any and all recommendations and develop any and all procedures deemed reasonable and appropriate to increase consensus will be reached. the likelihood that Accordingly, I am hereby requesting that all recipients of this letter notify me within three working daysof receipt of your initial concerns regarding the process as Otherwise, we will deem this process acceptable and will outlined. expect to see each of you and your selected representatives at the meeting on July 27, 1993. ' . . . Sam Jones and Joy Springer.) (I have already spoken to Mr. Walker, By copy of this letter. I am notifying Mr. Sammy Mills and Mr. Foster Strong of our plans and request that they assist in securing two parents from the current Stephens School to serve on the committee. I am also requesting that they stand ready to provide any and all assistance desired by the committee. there are others they feel should be a part of this process, I would request they provide notification to those persons. If Thank each of you in advance for your kind attention to this matter, future. I look forward to hearing from you in the very near c: Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Joy Springer Billy Bowles Doug Eaton Samuel Mills Foster Strong Charles Johnson Frank Baugh Mrs. Ann Brown \u0026lt; Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery\u0026gt; Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 IF!?., ii D 1 11 2 3 1993 To: Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney From: Re: Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet School - Recruitment Date: July 21, 1993 This letter is written to you in your capacity as the attorney for the Pulaski County Special School District. The recruitment of white students from the PCSSD to the new King School is crucial to both districts. The obligations imposed on both parties under the interdistrict plan will, hopefully, enable us to be successful in that effort. I have been advised that the PCSSD is in the process of sending letters/brochures to the parents of the PCSSD. It is my understanding that those letters/brochures will only go to targeted parents. In consultation with representatives from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, it has been concluded that if the PCSSD mailing will be so limited, the PCSSD is not taking full advantage of the opportunity available to maximize the recruitment effort. Accordingly, this letter is written to encourage the PCSSD to consider sending those letters and brochures to the parents of all eligible white students in the PCSSD. This will probably only limit those attending Fuller Elementary School. Additionally, I have been advised that the principal at each elementary school in PCSSD make a referral to the next closest school when a student cannot be accepted in his/her closest school. By encouraging those principals to familiarize themselves with the offerings at the new King school, keeping sufficient brochures on hand and making referrals to that school when appropriate, it is believed that the PCSSD could significantly improve its current recruitment results.Mr. Sam Jones July 19, 1993 Page 2 The LRSD stands ready to play an appropriate role in this process. In fact, the LRSD has already scheduled activities and is well under way in its recruitment activities. your thoughts, comments or concerns. together to resolve any major stumbling blocks. Please let us know of Hopefully, we can work Please let me hear from you after you have had an opportunity to review this matter and discuss it with your client. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to and consideration of this matter. JLM:nr c: Mrs. Estelle Matthis / Mrs. Ann Brown Mrs. Sadie Mitchell Mr. Steve Jones Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Rochelle Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery^SCBsVSD AUS 4 1993 Office of u ^'QuuGii Mcniic'ing LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: July 22, 1993 To: Board of Directors From: Sterling Ingramy'Director Planning, Research^ and Evaluation Through: Estelle MatthisS Interim Superintendent Re: Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report As requested in the agenda meeting, I am providing a progress report relative to the Desegregation Plan Audit. I am available to answer your questions. bjgNashville Mailing Address P.O. Box 121114 Nashville. Tennessee 37212-1114 Telecopier (61S) 259-4668 Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, p.a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW *11 MUSIC CIRCLE SOUTH NASHVILLE. TENNESSEE 37203 (615) 259-4664 July 27, 1993 RECEJVED Little Rock Office 3400 TC BY Tower 425 West CapHol Avenue Linie flock. Arkansas 72201-3472 (501)375-1122 Jerry L. Malone, Esq. Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUL 2 9 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring RE: Stephens' Interdistrict School Site Selection Process Dear Jerry: I am in receipt of your memorandum of July 21, 1993 regarding the new site selection process for the Stephens' Interdistrict School. In your memo, you indicate that the site selection team should be limited to representatives of the PCSSD, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. to the Stephens School, While the NLRSD will not be sending students it is a party to the litigation, settlement agreement and the District's respective plans. the As a result, the NLRSD is vitally interested in the ultimate success of the new Stephens School as an interdistrict magnet. While we will defer to the LRSD's decision as to who should serve on the Site Selection Committee, we do want the parties to be aware of the NLRSD's position. Without belaboring the obvious, the overriding purpose of LRSD interdistrict schools, including Stephens, is to attract white students to inner city Little Rock areas in order to create an integrated educational environment. Given this overriding goal, the NLRSD believes that the ability to recruit white students to the new Stephens School is of paramount importance and is. in effect. a consideration of other site selection factors. condition precedent to the This did not appear to be the case with respect to the previous site selection process. and we are pleased that a new effort is being made. the result will be a site the District is able to support. Hopefully, SWJ:tc cc: James Smith Christopher J. Heller, Ann Brown John W. Walker, Esq. Samuel Jones, Esq. Very truly yours. Stephen W. Jones Esq. Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 29 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring MEMORANDUM FAX 376-9442 U.S. MAIL To: Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney From: erry L. Malone, Attorney Re: Stephens Interdistrict School Site Selection Process Date: July 27, 1993 On Friday, July 16, 1993, I spoke to you by telephone and informed you of the meeting which would be held on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, regarding the site selection process. 1993, By a memo dated July 21, I informed you and the other interested parties of the proposed process and the planned meeting schedule. I have now received word that Billy Bowles might not be able to attend because of a conflict with the special budget meeting being held tonight. It is also my understanding that the parent repre- sentatives of the PCSSD may not be able to attend tonight's meeting either. In light of the above, I would request that the PCSSD provide written comments which can be reviewed by all of the persons who received a copy of my initial memo. By doing so, it is my hope that we can remain on schedule and be prepared to discuss those comments at the August 10 meeting. written comments are received the better. Accordingly, the earlier those Please keep in mind that the above is merely a suggestion. If you and your client have a better procedure whereby subsequent comment can be provided between now and the second meeting, please act accordingly. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.Mr. Sam Jones July 27, 1993 Page 2 c: Mr. John Walker Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Rochelle Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Sammy Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Charles Johnson Mr. Frank Baugh i/Mrs. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred UrseryTo: From: Re: Date: As per efrotStSr Little Rock School District Stephens School Site Selection Committee John Riggs, LRSD Board of Directors Site Selection Process July 28, 1993 the schedule of activities. RECBIV5D AUG 4 1993 OHice of Desegregation Monitoring the Stephens School Site Selection Committee met at the LRSD Administration Building on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, from 5:30 p.m. until 7 p.m. persons were in attendance: The following As 1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. John Riggs, LRSD Board Member Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Ms. Melanie Gibson, LRSD Parent (Rockefeller Incentive School) Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Sam Jones, PCSSD Attorney Paul Evans, PCSSD Administrator Debbie Parker, Joshua Intervenors Charles Johnson, LRSD - Stephens School Ms. Connie Hickman, Office of Desegregation Monitoring evident. the Committee is not yet Accordingly, the representatives from LRSD, fully PCSSD, formulated, and Joshua Inteirvenors were strongly encouraged to identify and recruit additional parents to serve on the committee. each party Please recall that IS requested to have three parents serve committee to allow for a total of nine (9) voting members. on the Upon opening the meeting, I served as non-voting chair, provided an overview on how this committee came to be. prior committee\nthe selection submitted I made reference to the to the court\nthe objections raised by PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua Intervenors\nand the formation of the current committee. It was clearly explained that the intent was for this committee to have as much leeway as possible and not to be improperly influenced by the work and decision of the prior committee. encouraged to avoid the tendency to think in a \"box.\" All present were Rather, each should bring his/her \"wild\" ideas so all available opportunities can be fully explored. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Stephens School Site Committee July 28, 1993 Page 2 Sam Jones and Jerry Malone both provided their thoughts concerning the interdistrict school concept and purpose. Mr. Jones stated that it was his belief that the sole purpose for the interdistrict schools was to allow for one district to send, over a period of time, close to 50 percent of the students needed to populate the interdistrict school. As such, LRSD interdistrict schools would remain slightly majority black and PCSSD interdistrict schools would remain slightly majority white. Mr. Malone commented that the interdistrict schools were also intended to be constructed in such a way to reduce the busing burden imposed on LRSD black students\ncompensate those students providing high-quality facilities\nin incentive schools by and allow incentive school children to experience desegregated educational opportunities. It was also pointed out that the busing burden on black students is of great concern to the court. Additionally, since the incentive school are far from being integrated, interdistrict schools would, hopefully, allow more incentive school students to attend the interdistrict schools, thereby, creating room for recruitment in the incentive schools. It was suggested that the committee structure this selection process whereby consensus could be gained regarding which location held the most promise for recruiting PCSSD white students. Thereafter, a determination could be made regarding the perceived impact on the present Stephen's attendance zone students. vigorous objection was raised to such a format. However, In particular, it was noted that the introduction to the interdistrict desegregation plan states that it the physical movement of bodies. \"is insufficient to establish as a single goal 11 It was also pointed out that location was not the only factor to consider when addressing recruitment strategies. highlighted as examples. Washington Magnet and Carver Magnet were The committee was also advised that the court had made very positive comments regarding the process used by the prior committee. That process took all of the critical factors into account by ranking them equally. That process took all of the critical factors A brief discussion was had regarding a vacant lot near 1-30 and Roosevelt Road (across from Mann Junior High). The PCSSD expressed its position that it would be easy to recruit to a school located at that site. However, it was pointed out that the Interdistrict Plan recognizes that both PCSSD and LRSD must engage in \"early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts.\" \"Easy\" recruitment II Easy II can not be the sole consideration, since both Carver and Washington serve as examples that people will come when the right packages are put in place. Ms. Gibson, thereafter, commented that vigorous recruitment and advertising would be of tremendous benefit in attracting parents toStephens Site Selection Committee July 28, 1993 Page 3 the school. She further noted that the \"magnet\" designation is an important draw for most parents. with quality programming, The term has become synonymous recruitment process. a very important variable in the She equated this with the quality programs available at Rockefeller Incentive School which served to recruit and retain families in the District. When asked what was the most important reason for her to remain after discovery of the school and its programs, Ms. Gibson responded that it was \"the attention given to my son.\" In other words, the staff/personnel at the school play the critical role in providing the type of environment (or package) parents are seeking. Since the interdistrict schools. like incentive schools. are to have quality programs and dedicated staff, it was suggested that marketing/recruitment would be the primary consideration once the programs and staff are put in place, becomes a secondary consideration. At that point, location Some mention was made of possible sites west of University Avenue. It was pointed out that this would bring another factor into play. Namely, there has been concern regarding the lack of adequate capacity for those black students living east of University Avenue. To build additional capacity west of University could exacerbate this concern. Prior to adjourning, those present were encouraged to consider possible sites to visit and to remember the need to fully compose the committee. As per the request, attached hereto are copies of the attendance zone for the current Stephens School. The next meeting of the committee is set for August 10, 1993, at 5:30 p.m. in the LRSD Administration Building (the Board Room may not be available). Please make every effort to attend and provide all available information and input. Those who will not be able to attend are encouraged to provide written comments and submit suggestions prior to the meeting dates. Any such comments can be sent to me for distribution to the committee members. Thanks. Enclosure - Stephens Attenda: c: Distribution List e ZoneStephens Site Selection Committee July 28, 1993 Page 4 Distribution List Ms. Debbie Parks Ms. Melanie Gibson Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Charles Johnson Ms. Connie Hickman Tanner Mr. Paul L. Evans Mr. Jerry L. Malone Mr. Billy Bowles Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Rochelle Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Sammy Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Frank Baugh \u0026gt;^Mrs. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery122 P02 SEP 03 93 13:08 DATE\nTO\nFROM\nSUBJEC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 MEMORANDUM July 29, 1993 A k Estelle Mathis, Interim Superintendent, LRSD WtA^ilala Daggett, Community Education :T:^- 93-94 Budget Cuts Thank you for requesting my input and for your willingness to negotiate regarding the amount of cuts in the Community Education 93-94 budget. As I explained over the phone, wo have planned our 93-94 programs in relation to our originally budgeted amount of $220,000. For that reason, I wanted to talk with the CE staff to determine whether or not we would need to cut progreuns if we cut $50,000 as you requested. I reported to you that we could probably make it fine if the cuts ranged from $30,000-$40,000. However, we discovered just yesterday afternoon that about $14,000 worth of purchase orders approved in 92-93 have been charged to our 93-94 budget. I have spoken with Mark Milhollen regarding these charges, and he assured me as did you that you all would cover us on these shortfalls. I appreciate your support. cc: McClellan Community High School Advisory Council Jodie Carter, McClellan PrincipalCopy filed - LRSD -Budgeting Process Report filed in library LRSD - Report FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H, SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK 5. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM IM. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS.P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 July 29, 1993 received KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. CLYDE TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H . MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M.GRAF PAMELA D. PERCEFULL CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. JUL 3 0 1993 COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. WHITER'S DIRECT NO. Office of Desegregation Monitoring (501) 370-1 553 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. .1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re : Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al\nU.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866 Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of the long-range planning program and budgeting document being submitted to the Court pursuant to its June 15, 1993 Order.I Mr. John Walker, Mr. Sam Jones, Mr. Steve Jones, Mr. Richard Roachell, Ms. Ann Brown July 29, 1993 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Jerry L. Malone JLM/lwg Enclosures cc: Ms. Estelle Matthis Mr. Sterline Ingram Mr. Mark Milhollen Ms. Marie Parkert Mr. John Walker, Mr. Sam Jones, Mr. Steve Jones, Mr. Richard Roachell, Ms. Ann Brown July 29, 1993 Page 3 bcc: CJH FSU'B'J to\nFROM\nSUBJECT\nlittle rock SCHOOL DISTRICT MARKHAM LITTI^'^OCK, ARKANSAS January 4, 1993 All Building principals and Department Mac Bernd, Super new policies find two intendent of a Lf k.f, . JAN 1 2 159,5 -i'rejaron ill j-r- Heads Schools C new policies Note also relating to that the the manner _ in Board will S?ch\"Je conduct an agenda revi committee Meeting onth (at 5 p.m. )  meeting will continue of each conduct is now eliminated. to be a-i-  P  m. on Please dispose these two insert - . .  of the policies new policies they replace. in your policy manual andEPS CODE: BDDB ADOPTED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDB  SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools. The method used by the Superintendent to establish the Board agenda must provide an opportunity for the Board members to voice objections or add items. The agenda will contain only those items introduced by the Board members and Superintendent. Only items scheduled in the agenda will be acted upon in a regular Board meeting unless a suspension of the rules is agreed to in compliance with Policy BDDEB (Suspension of the Rules of Order). The order of business at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Call to Order Roll Call Minutes Presentations A. B. C. D. Superintendent Citizens Committees Board Members Partnerships Remarks From Citizens Action Agenda Report Agenda Consent Agenda Audience with Individuals or Groups Student and/or Employee Disciplinary Recommendations Adj ournment Persons wishing to address the Board during the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section of the agenda will be required to sign up and state the subject of their remarks prior to the convening of the meeting. The Board may vote to set time limitations or require representatives to speak for large groups whose interests are similar. Persons speaking about issues on the agenda for Board action will be given priority during the \"Remarks from Citizens\" section. If additional time is required for or employee remarks or if there is a large delegation wishing to address a single issue not on the agenda, the Board may vote to defer their comments to the \"Audience with Individuals or Groups\" complete the pending agenda in a timely manner. section in order toEPS CODE: BDDC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADOPTED: 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDC PREPARATION OF SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools in the following manner: On the second Thursday of each month the Board of Directors will meet to review the agenda topics proposed by the Superintendent of Schools for that month's regular Board meeting on the fourth Thursday During the agenda review meeting Board members will have the opportunity to place items on the agenda and will decide whether items will be on the action agenda, report agenda, or consent agenda. At the conclusion of the agenda review meeting, the agenda will contain only those topics introduced by either the Superintendent or members of the Board of Directors. The Board will strive to keep its regularly scheduled meetings on the second and fourth Thursday of each month\nhowever, for good cause, the Board may move any regularly scheduled date to another date agreed to by a majority vote of the Board. The Superintendent will have the agenda and the appropriate background materials printed and delivered to the Board members at least two days prior to the regular Board meeting.John w. walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 Si \u0026amp; FEB 2 1993 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER. JR. * Also admitted to Practice in Georgia Si the District of Columbia. =1 mg February 1, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd: I would like to have the names, addresses, telephone numbers and race of all the members of the advisory committee on budget about which you spoke this afternoon. I would also like to have a copy of their minutes of each meeting held thus far along with their agenda and any reports they have made today. I would like to pick this information up by the end of business on February 2, 1993. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, John W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell /. . rOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brawn, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: February 3,1993 To: From: Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District  Bob Morgan, Associate Monitor Subject: Crystal Hill Chronology Attached is a chronology of PCSSD building Crystal Hill Elementary. I thought it might be informative. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to call. cc: Mac Bernd3/30/90 5/1/91 8/16/91 9/17/91 9/30/91 10/8/91 PCSSD CRYSTAL HILL SCHOOL MAJOR EVENT CHRONOLOGY Architects hired - Plans and specs developed May 1 revisions to plans - Biracial site selection committee formed Site selection made - Offer extended on property NLR Planning Commission recommends against site NLR City Board in special meeting approves site Board votes to issue second lien bonds for construction 11/21/91 Contractors bidding notified of time constraints and warned no customary \"act of god\" provision 12/5/91 Bids due in to PCSSD 12/9/91 Board reviewed bids - Voted to close by 12\\ 18 \u0026amp; let bid 12/18 12/18/92 Site purchase closed - Bids let for construction 1/16/92 Draft of letter on theme sent to committee 1/20/92 Committee meeting to discuss theme 2/04/92 Official public groundbreaking 2/13/92 Motion for magnet designation 2/17/92 Theme survey results compiled 2/18/92 Proposed attendance zones announced to parents at Oak Grove meeting 3/5/92 School 30 % complete - Bond sale in jeopardy because of bad credit - District court grants magnet designation 4/1/92 Principal for Crystal Hill hired 4/27/92 Asst principal hired 5/5/92 Successful millage election 5/7/92 Bonds successfully sold 5/14/92 Meeting of teachers for Crystal Hill 7/20/92 400 seats from Maumelle \u0026amp; Crystal Hill area filled 8/1/92 PCSSD assumes \"beneficial occupancy\" of buildingLittle Rock School District 7 4 S February 5, 1993 FEB 1 1 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham Suite 510 Office of Oessgr\nmg Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I have appreciated your help and support as all of us work hard to improve the Little Rock School District. I also am concerned about carrying out the orders of the desegregation plan. Court with regard to Because of my concern about this issue, our I would sincerely appreciate your sending me the instrumentation which you will be using for future monitoring activities. I am making this request so that the District can better follow the desegregation plan and maintain its focus on this vitally important issue. I would certainly appreciate receipt of these instruments as soon as possible so we may use them in conjunction with our own compliance efforts. We have appreciated your past cooperation in this regard and apologize for any possible duplication, but we would like to have a complete set of past instruments as well complete file of all of these documents. we may have a Sincerely, so Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220L  (501)324-2000 T ij e Ma r 0 2 11:54 1 = P . -s e CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A FARTNEaSHn OF INDIVIDUALS AND FHOFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAFITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Tcltphone (501) 376-2011 Fk No, (501) 375-2147 Diicet No. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR, MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a repon about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that\" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plais presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Court since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan, In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: \"(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations.\" On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2ue Mar 11 :  -i 1 : Court alsonotified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher 4^i.^u*AVt Wi4b T vv*x*-* uiau 111U.5XV UCaVAlVl positionsn^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3Mar 02 11:54 1 9 93 P a e There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review e effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 17, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mae Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1993, which I received on February 11, 1993. As you requested. Im enclosing copies of monitoring information 1 provided last fall. If you should need additional copies of any ODM monitoring reports, which I have routinely furnished all parties, please let me know. I share your concerns about the importance of the districts carrying out the desegregation plan and related court orders. Thats why I place such emphasis upon communication and understanding, and why my staff and 1 spend a great deal of time trying to promote both those processes in the spirit of helpfulness and support. As a matter of fact, since last July when you became superintendent, my staff and 1 have had more than 30 meetings with your administrators to discuss ODMs monitoring. The implications of the December 30, 1992 Court Order, which deals with the impact of the LRSD budget cuts, have been the subject of some of ose discussions. Over the months, weve also covered many other topics, including ODM monitoring priorities, instruments, methods, and findings\nthe incentive schools\nearly childhood programs\nthe Biracial Committees\nthe McClellan magnet program\nincentive school staffing needs assessment\nthe alternative school\nthe Academic Support Program\nthe Four- Year-Old Longterm Plan\ncounseling services and state counseling standards\nthe budget process and budgeting cuts\nthe aerospace magnet school and grant\nand the King assignment zones and theme selection process. In addition to the many in-person meetings, there have been countless phone calls exchanged between members of my staff and yours about these same topics and many others. You are also well aware of the numerous conversations that Chris Heller and I have engaged in, as have you and 1.Page Two February 17, 1993 Moreover, to promote accuracy and to minimize the chance of \"surprises,\" we routinely review our written monitoring reports with district administrators before filing them with the Court and releasing them to the press and the public, judge Wright has also taken steps to ensure the best use of the time and resources of us all, issuing a scheduling order prior to hearings so the parties and counsel can fully prepare for the subjects to be covered. I also try to help you and your colleagues anticipate what to expect at hearings. Prior to the last hearing, 1 repeatedly emphasized to you, Chris, and others that the Court would have many hard questions about the status of the LRSD budgeting process and junior high capacities. 1 also stressed that, since Judge Wright does not engage in ex parte communication, she would likely pose questions on other topics related to her Orders of May, November, and December 1992. There is no secret or mystery about how ODM monitors. My staff and 1 frequently discuss our monitoring priorities, methods, and findings in both formal and informal meetings with district personnel. Also, 1 recap the ODM monitoring approach in the introductory section of each ODM report. As 1 stated in my October 15, 1992 letter, which listed ODMs 1992-93 monitoring priorities, our monitoring is based on the desegregation plans, court orders and directives, and any \"unforeseen events\" related to ODMs charge. A recent order is one of those unforeseen events to which ODM is now responding. As you know from the last court date, judge Wrights December 30, 1992 Order will be the subject of a hearing to be scheduled soon. To explain ODMs response to that Order and what you can expect at the hearing, 1 will briefly summarize information that has appeared in my previous letters, memos, and reports about ODMs monitoring approach: All our monitoring relates to the districts settlement agreements, court orders, the judges directives, and state requirements. The monitoring instruments (or \"guides\" as we call them) used in long term monitoring are based directly on desegregation plan and order language. The introduction to ODMs June 5, 1992 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report details ODMs systematic approach to a long term monitoring project and the three main information sources we use: written information, interviews, and observation. In short term or \"status\" monitoring, which takes place within a short time period, we do not create a special monitoring instrument\ninstead, as explained in the introduction to the October 8,1992 McClellan Status Report, ODMs investigation is guided by plan provisions and court orders that pertain most directly to the subject being scrutinized. We also rely on the same three main information categories: written sources, interviews, and observation. (The distinction between a long term monitoring report and a short term status report is clearly defined in the McClellan report.) Given the short timeline we have for monitoring the December 30, 1992 Order, ODM is presently conducting a status type investigation, as we did with McClellan last fall, using the specific language of the Order, the desegregation plans, and state standards to guide our monitoring. Also because of the brief time period, instead of publishing a written report, we will present our findings during the hearing scheduled for that purpose.Page Three Februaiy 17, 1993 By analyzing the December 30, 1992 Order and reviewing our previous monitoring reports, you and your staff will be able to anticipate the focus of our current monitoring and how we are going about it. Heres an example that, while not exhaustive, illustrates how we are carrying out our present monitoring assignment: In the section of the Order entitled \"Counselor Positions and Elimination of the Pupil Personnel Department,\" the Court stated (on page 10) that \"if monitoring determines that the district is unable to provide the full range of required services, the Court may direct the district to restore eliminated positions.\" To monitor this part of the Order, we are looking at a variety of information that includes the requirements of the desegregation plans and state statutes\nreviewing documentation to determine the number and placement of counselors before and after the reductions\nexamining records to assess the extent of any caseload changes\nreviewing school records and interviewing counselors, principals, and other administrators to identify any changes in the number and types of counseling programs or services mandated by the plan and state standards, such as individual and group counseling, at-risk interventions, career development activities, test-taking assistance, etc. If you or your staff want to contact me or my associates for additional information about a particular aspect of our current monitoring, well be happy to answer any questions. Very truly yours. Ann S. Brown Enc. 7??^ ?'e3 Cp'J'/'** '=SX'a c Mar 1 I :5 ,/e ' CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNEMHI? OF INDIVIDUAL3 AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCLATIONS ATTCftNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 .VEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72:01-34 Telephone (501) 376-2011 Fix No. (501) 376-2147 Direct No. 370-1506 1 MEMQRAiNDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a report about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that  Li]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District V, Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistiict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Coutl since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation pl^. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: II (1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations.\" On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2P a ? Ef Court alsonotified e Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher . xxwxv x^ijuivu Uiat XU VYVUIU iqi^LUic UlUL UXUMv LcacncT positionsf^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregadon efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Coun and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared. all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3T u e Mar 11:54 0 2 199 P a e There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continning concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case.1 , Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 23, 1993 Mr. Larry Robertson Little Rock School district 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Robertson: This morning 1 received a fax copy of Ms. Joy Springers February 22, 1993 letter to you about a tour of proposed Stephens Interdistrict School sites. According to the letter, the tour is to take place this morning, February 23, 1993. The fax from Mr. Walkers office is the first information ODM has received about visits to potential school sites. Locating new schools is of such importance to the Court that Judge Wright herself participated in a well-publicized February 1992 tour of potential sights for the King Interdistrict School. The PCSSD has so closely involved ODM in the process being used to select its new interdistrict school site, the district requested that a member of my staff serve on their Site Selection Committee. While 1 am not asking you to place an ODM staff member on any LRSD committee, I do ask that you keep ODM informed of all developments in desegregation-related matters, particularly those having to do with the highly sensitive issue of locating new schools. Notification of events regarding new schools should be made to ODM and all parties well in advance. Keeping the Court and the parties amply informed will help build a positive reputation for LRSD good faith communication and cooperation. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Mac Bernd Marie Parker bcz'. JLittle Rock School District February, 25, 1993 i \u0026lt; Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FEB 2 0 1993 OS r.f :iing Dear Ann: I am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which I indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 I February 26, 1993 Hrs. Lucy Lyon Library Coordinator, LRSD Franklin School 2600 N. McKinley Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Dear Mrs. Lyon: RECEIVED MAR 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring The program, originally and funded by the desegregation plan. elementary library instruction, access to the materials greatly and research. concerned that and we library at the provided for small approved in group assistance to teachers. point of need for have been unable to We are meet the requirements of the desegregation plan ___ librarian has been required to do large group instruction as provision teacher-release time. During large group instruction, access to the library is limited. this year because the for a large large additional group hinders us time from instruction and hampers resources for our our meaningful to using hands-on support curriculum. that they these students. activities ability at-risk Furthermore, to and the The basal need and deserve in denies the which provide students, are more teachers the implementing the new new curriculum literature curriculum, textbooks materials. requires and more In order your utilization. less and less dependence and more on library on and the library program must to achieve success with this consideration of the library This revision will following be revised. plan require only for We request library the current staff (an elementary librarian and library clerk) and no additional funding. Lessons would be teacher input at each based on curriculum grade level. These objectives and emphasize literature appreciation, lessons which will skills class) will be taught to on alternate weeks. small research methods, and study heterogeneous groups (1/2 on activlties This will enable us to use hands- and to the needs of all of our With a small group in session, the library and its can remain continuously available to other students under the supervision of the clerk. students. materials better meet of These revisions are respectfully submitted in the belief they will enhance the that educational opportunities for all our students. We thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. students. Sincerely, Little Rock School District Elementary Librarians1 cc\nDr. C.M, \"Mac\" Bernd Dr. Katherine Mitchell Dorsey Jackson John Moore Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli John Riggs William Hamilton Honorable Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor -'J Little Rock School District  -I March 3, 1993 MAR 3 1993 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring West Heritage Building 201 E. Markham St., Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Office of Dssogrcgaficn fvfon.i ing Dear Ms. Brown, Attached are several reports that have been requested by your office. The first report is a summary of the activities that will be facilitated by the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment. These activities will contribute toward recruiting for the district as a whole and for the specific types of schools which we seek to promote. The second report is submitted by the Communications Office and summarizes the activities that have been completed during the 1992-93 school year in support of the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment. These activities also support the LRSD recruiting effort for the district and specific schools. In addition, the Communications Office has supplied their Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline. Information you requested about New Futures For Little Rock Youth is also attached as the third report. Reports which your office requested concerning the 4-Year-Old Program and Academic Support are forthcoming. Sincerely, Marie Parker Associate Superintendent Organizational and Learning Equity 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000C.F. W in punis 'J \u0026gt;4 ROCK SCHOOL  DISTRICT MAR 8 1993 Office cf Dosegregsiicn Morthonny Pulaski Heights Junior High School 401 North Pine Street Phone 671-6250 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 February 2571^3 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 West Heritage Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I met with Dr. Bernd on February 24, 1993, and discussed my proposal to develop a \"University School\" specialty program for Pulaski Heights Junior High for the 1993-94 school year. Please send me all of the guidelines, rules, procedures, etc., required in order to gain approval of a specialty program. It is my opinion that Pulaski Heights is the only nonmagnet junior high school to successfully achieve the main integration goals of the desegregation order, continue that success. We want to Sincerely, Principal cc: Sam Stueart Assistant Superintendent \"WHERE EXCELLENCE IS A TRADITION\" Little Rock School District March 4, 1993 ajc3 ^3 MAR 4 1993 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Off'ce of D^isgrsg, :n McJ li-.Q 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: Enclosed for your review is a draft outline of the Little Rock School District budget process and a draft of the revised budget document. Please respond in writing if these documents meet your approval. We cannot proceed with budget development until we have your approval. Sipfcerely, Ga' E Jones Manager of Resources and School Support Enclosures cc: Ms. Ann Brown (w/enclosures) c:\\budget\\drafts.wpd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 1-9  - - '  . y'  ''k': t ' \u0026gt;1 ,,, \u0026amp; 14 L ( \\ t 7)014cL Si 13 ^3 I n I ?Lt% SCkcQ I S HCxYrrT^^n Ss^VED  C!c7 f\\f i\u0026lt;a n s?._ I MAR 1 0 1955 Qj? skr 01\" ..b\u0026gt; i. 1^01'Ci Office of Desegrog. Ki j^'X, )q, IV 1'5. 'J half- .- \u0026lt; , O^Y f ttr-i c. A.\\jT5  SA 7. k /A I Vx'V4tu\u0026lt;t .stvx Kv\u0026lt;T ..A^q- rvA_^J'4 Ti A c, Cvru i m uc^t J 4, uTi't^... ,...o_fe..h..4 y ^Te.\u0026amp;.LLs _______________________ ...j'l^,.Sh\u0026amp;Ap ! CUlii Jf..'p'e.%I .Ra_____ :.ph-.Y s!M-eii'b a ll t,si,-h\u0026amp;^- ipor j)(yiT pe\u0026lt;j~-\u0026gt; fiT^AS-ki tt ff'(... .C9.ik^\u0026amp;Qi..j9k'i^sSc\u0026lt;^ l -S-c -1 ft s 7r j levy [MlYCk 5/ 1.33.3 b-Y A ' I3'!.)\\^ ..h'S.V'Sn'i-K'^i., Q.y^...'. .\\ \\ !i : I y - ...f -J iii 41 J iPk\u0026amp;ia. ppc,sA.U^-A'l^_L0(4'k [Tjci-hOeT. ^'' I  I K^, 6, L_J,  ._\\( c \u0026lt;X \\:2:S--ijT.sLL\u0026amp;J/. I I  I i 1'^ ,^(gxlCtfc- !l\u0026amp; II er / . 1'^ C-E'rEP SPRINGS PEC p.l I FAX from GEYER SPRINGS FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 5615 Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, AR 72209 Office (501) 565-3474 * FAX (501) 562-4189 FAX TO\nlOloAii'fea t ompany/Division\nFrom: 0 nr\\ 1-4\u0026gt;^k Number of Pages: (Including this cover page) Time Sent: Date Sent: IfAX Number: ST/'O/oo\n?/o/y3- COMMENTS: /)\u0026lt;/ iS, bJ U7e ,Q?n ' t^-t. u\u0026gt; UJ^siC 1 J. t/\"' \"bQ. lit Ct. \u0026gt;ZO r '1 ft jS/ oC 3 o r 3/\u0026lt; 1^^- p 'ZZ. (!. a 10 '93 09:57 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.2 A LIST OF NEEDS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH as compiled by the staff HEALTH A health room that can accommodate wheelchairs, one that has more than one cot for 650 students. Areas separate from each other for waiting, counseling and health room cots, built-in storage cabinets, racks or tables as well as cheerful walls. Our ninth grade area needs the following\na vacuum pressure pump, a free fall tube, 2 bell jars, meter sticks, pulley demonstration kit, a gyroscope, an AC geiger counter, tuning forks, a wave motion apparatus, a c'nss set of magnets a Van De Graf generator, 10 triple beam balances, a class set of alcohol burners, ar-  nomica) telescope, a class set of each of the following\nwater buckets, safety goggles, electric motors (DC) kit, linear spring scales, graduated cylinders, funnels, scissors, large test tubes, plane glass mirrors magnifying glasses, spectroscopes, a general purpose hot plate, mortar and pestles, and a parabolic reflector set. Our eight grade area needs the following\na class set of lab tables, drain tables, meter sticks, AC Geiger Counter, Magnet Set for class, Van De Graf Generator, 10 triple beam balances, class set of Bunsen burners, safety goggles and safety gloves, graduated cylinders, general purpose hot plate, large set of test tubes and racks. Class set of thermometers, specimen slides (plant and animal), refrigerator, micro projector, money for supplies to do experiments, anemometer, sling psychrometer, wind vane. Our seventh grade area needs lab tables, light microscopes, a skeleton, electrical outlets for scopes. classroom sets of each of the following\ngraduated cylinders, test tubes, thermometers, specimen slides (plant and animal), blood pressure sets, scissors, metric rulers, beakers (100ml and 400ml). magnifying glasses, lab aprons, compasses, globes. They also need a hot plate, models (cell and mitosis), refrigerator, calipers, mtcroprojecfor safety glasses, peir, W- W8M. BUSINESS EDUCATION A seven period day to facilitate course requirements, 4 computer work centers which will serve 6 computers per station, software for business applications. SPECIAL EDUCATION A seven period school day is a must, real classrooms for the Resource teachers (who roam). This area enclosed an order form for approximately $1000.00 worth of supplies that are badly needed. Our CBI students need a toilet in their classroom, their teachers need access to a telephone, as well as a set of kitchen cabinets.rWR 10 '93 09:58 GEYER SPRINGS EBC P.3 PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND ATHLETICS Seven period days with the athletic period as the last period of the day, locker space - currently our students have to carry their P. E. clothes with them each day as there are only enough lockers for students to use during their class periods, girls are required to share lockers with as many as 3 others, a class set of Fit For Life books to be used in our physical fitness unit, an exhaust fan to remove heat from the avm during the hot months, insulation and soundproofing would help make the gym warm in the winter, an intercom that works, restroom facilities that work, water fountains that work, volleyball standards that meet AAA requirements, a multipurpose room to separate all three grades in P,E..sanding and refinishing of the basketball court, charts and teaching aids for first aid and physical fitness, a budget to allow the teachers to replace broken and unsafe equipment. HEALTH EDUCATION Classrooms not shared and big enough to hold a full class, more time to teach health (nine weeks is not enough for eighth graders), current videos, funds for field trips. AMERICAN HISTORY U. S, History projection maps, land acquisition map, erasable white chalkboard with markers on a easel, a set of current encyclopedias, and dictionaries, a U,S, flag as well as an Arkansas flag, construction paper, globes, various teaching video tapes a classroom set of newspapers, student desks. READING 20 more computers are needed so our english classes can attend and use them for writing and research, 2 more computers are needed in the library, computer language arts programs, In our reading classrooms we need weekly newspapers, tape recorders,. CAFETERIA Other cafeterias have salad bars as well as potato bars, a change in the menus would be appreciated. SPANisa First and foremost, one class room or one shared with the French teacher to allow ideas and plans to be implemented, and to eliminate roaming between 3 class rooms throughout the building. The class room would need the following: a working overhead projector, adequate blackboard space, maps of Hispanic countries, bulletin boards, VCR, TV, computer, language listening center to include  earphone sets, computer, VCR and TV, a quality tape recorder to project adequate sound to the class, two oblong tables, up to date textbooks (a request that was bypassed), additional tapes, computer software, videos, games, supplementary materials (i.e. activity materials published by Foreign Languages Publishing companies) to enhance visual/listening/oral learning, set of Spanish dictionaries, monthly Spanish publications such as Scholastic and funds to provide each student with his own copy. MAR 10 '93 09:59 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.4 CHORAL MUSIC For their classroom\nseated risers, choir folios (100 at $3.95 each) piano repair this requires a cabinet maker to replace hinges on the keyboard cover, 50 music room chairs with table arms (since other courses are taught in our music room, and exploratory music requires extensive note taking), a piano cover, sight reading texts, audio-visual materials, a relatively new set of encyclopedias, and music filing boxes, gANQ Better scheduling (seventh graders only have one elective class) smaller classes (teaching 9 different instruments in one class at the same time doesn't work) instrument storage lockers, 7 field drum cases, 2 bass drum cases, sheet music, an instrument budget, new uniforms (not used handed down ones). MATH One class set of math explorer calculators, one overhead math explorer calculator, cabinets with locks to house $2000 of math manipulatives for three rooms, educational software these are all things that our teachers have asked for earlier but have not received. EmUSH One class set of Thesauruses (35 copies), a set of dictionaries for 5 classrooms, our current dictionaries are at least 20 years old, a subscription to Scholastic Press for 35 students, teaching packets for several current novels- We would have to buv 10 more sets of novels to be equal to magnet schools. COUNSELORS A conference room for support groups, parent conferences, locked storage rooms for tests (we are currently storing them on the floor of the counselors office) a small private room for testing, a direct telephone line, a long conference table. Posters, maps, work booklets, overhead transparencies, a set of current encyclopedias, a book rack.MAR 10 '93 09=59 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.5 ART ROOM The art room needs: 8 new art desks with stools, a paper cutter, a drying rack COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND TECH PREP. because of the 7 period days at the New Futures schools, students are given the option to take Keytxjarding tn the 7th and 8th grades in preparation for Computer Tech in the Sth grade. This is a vita' prerequisite to the Sth grade course, as required by State Education Department but not availabie at MJHS, 2. The New Futures schools let students taking Computer Tech have a full year's course instead of one semester. As a result of the 7 period day, 80% of each of the 9th grade classes are taking Computer Tech in these schools versus only 30% of the 9th graders at MJHS. 3. The New Futures schools have television production studios purchased by New Futures money available to the students with video editors and computer graphics generators using Amega computers for invaluable experience in video production. 4. Mabelvale only received 9 new IBM computers when new computers were purchased for the 9th grade computer labs last year as opposed to at least 16 new IBM for all of the magnet schools and New Futures school labs. Students are not getting the hands on experience of using up-to-date computers with hard drives tike they are in all the other junior highs in the Little Rock School District. 5. The computer lab at MJHS is crammed into a 20' by 22' old classroom with no room for students to move around. The lab's cabinet doors are falling off their hinges, Work orders have been ignored or refused. The electricity is wired over the floor in raised boxes which students frequently trip over. The room frequently floods and has a leaky roof which endangers the welfare of the students. 6. All of the other computer labs in the district have direct on-line network access to the Colliers Encyclopedia in the Learning lab on CD/ROM except MJHS which has not ever had access. 7. Frequent request for software to fulfil curriculum requirements for Desktop publishing and Graphics have been ignored.MAR 10 93 10:00 GEYER SPRINGS EEC F.6- February 10. 1993 Dr, Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools UtUe Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Mac, c^rhAAi of f-ittle Rock School District which included funds to do r--------- High. We understand that this work was nut nn kaw eu\" . , = laucivaie uumor the new superintendent and his staff time to bfirnmafom-r resignation to allow date, we haVe not heard of ar!v 0^ \"bs. As of this patrons of the school district. The fSSvXuXXhpt a by the resolution that states: '^^^eivaie Junior High P.T,A. Executive Board has passed a passed a milage increase for the Little Rock ,H a! construction at Mabelvale Junior We urge the school district administration \"I and Board to proceed with capital improvements which are v^al to th^l^p^e^-ng year. The proposed restructuring model would the 1993-1994 academic in day or other innovative scheduling models such interdisciplinary team teaching. Under present r be left at a disadvantage by being \" as block scheduling and court orders and district plans, our We understand that stalos\nhowever, I. you lookaX as well as other parts of the District based draw from our neighborhood We feel that the term a magnet school. We on the needs of the students. leei mat me term maonet drhnni\" ie  siuoenis. junior high school that provides them with a oualitv eduratinn allowed to go to any High. Southwest Little Rock mixed community. can no longer be viewed as primarily one race or the other. We are a provide our students wi^h^e?ra^currTulJSiX^?dh'\" '^7^ buildings. - by neglecting physical improvements in favor of these magnet schools by failing to On numerous to our TOI then. ve7 dien. We want you  VvS are doing very well so^* j^ou^donn^o construction and restructuring. our concerns about We feel that the Board and the Administration is of the opinion that all of the problems that areMAR 10 '93 10:01 GEYER SPRINGS EEC p.7 occurring m the central office are more important than the education of ____ feel neglected by the Board and Administration and want them to know that many of us our students. H oh rJ ? 1^' to Mabelvale Junior  curriculum and it's teachers. However, if the Soard and Administration fail to act on the improvement of the facilities, we are prepared to once aoain no h.nk m n.iZ St?: we are prepared to once again go back to private schools. We fool fhr,* k,, ...K r a\"\"'ya'-''w povdie scnoois. the children. neglecting to provide the kind of education needed by all mrough ******\" **  'P  school 1. 2. our^Siool^ 3. 4. 5. 6. By directing the support services staff to perform much needed repairs remodelling, and construction at our school. By allowing us to have direct control of our heating and air conditioning (recently, the District came out and turned off heat pumps which provided air conditioning to our classrooms, and as a result when the weather turned cold our students did not have heat - several rooms were 45 degrees during the school day.) By providing our teachers with equipment necessary to provide our students with a quality education (we have one microscope for an entire class yet, magnet schools have one for eve^ student). By allowing us to have a seven course school day and more teachers to support the restructuring. By adding classroom space. We have no parent conference room, limited storage space, no room for the math assistants, inadequate special education classrooms, cramped cafeteria, roving teachers using other teachers Classrooms during prep time, inadequate in-school-suspension area, poor playground facilities, and a building falling apart around us. We know the district administrators are interested in the education of our students We are Sons Mtoe?'*\"  ***' * * P' I ciOiiyi iw muv'*qQ^\u0026amp;, We are anxiously awaiting a reply from you regarding our concerns. Sincerely, Tom Brock, President Mabelvale Junior High P.T.A.:-iR 10 -93 10:01 GEYER SPRINGS FBC LIULE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mabelvale Junior High School P.8 P.O. Box 187 Phone 455-2413 Mabelvale, Arkansas 72103 February 22, 1993 To Inborn It May Concern: the en on. I joined the faculty at Mabelvale Jr. High School, I cam aboard with My vision was and is to help those to have an interest in art to to their fullest potential and also to impress upon the uninterested ty of the arts. I still have that vision. a 'TH/ T use this medium to express my concern. The classroom designated for art class does not provide adequate space to effectively conduct my class. Jiie of the most important factors in an art class is the pleasure of displaying your art work. It lends an opportunity for each student to study their own art work in addition to review and appreciate the conversation expressed through the handiwork of others, I must report that limited space prohibits us from ' ---in. .able to do so. Further, this hinderance deprives other students who are interested in of the chance to enroll in the class. I would welcome the challenge to an additional class inorder to accommodate all of those students who are T humhl. appeal to you to allow me the opportunity to fulfill my vision. 1 am asking for more space and an additonal art class. It would please me greatly if you would give serious consideration to my request. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Edgar Porchia aCME OF TBS BED BJUSSBO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: jBoard THROUGH SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, AR March 11, 1993 of Directors 72201 fGary Jones, Manager of Resources and School Support 'C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Approval of Lease Agreement on Parkin Building Attached is an agreement to lease the second floor of the Parkin Building with adjoining parking space located at 6th and Ringo Streets. The annual cost of the lease is $84,672 plus utilities. The term of the lease is sixteen months. The purpose of the lease is to relocate the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) from the former Lee School and Franklin Elementary. The administration plans to pursue a lease/purchase of the entire building during the term of the lease. We recommend that the Board approve the lease as submitted. c:\\niemos\\parkin2.upd LEASE By this agreement of lease, dated By tnis agreement ot lease, dated_____________________________ 1993, Virginia B. Hodges, Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust, Virginia L. Boyd Testamentary Trust, and Jack T. Lynn Testamentary Trust, all of Little Rock, Arkansas and for convenience herein collectively called \"Lessor,\" leases to Little Rock School District, herein called \"Lessee,\" the following described premises: Approximately 24,000 square feet, being all of the upper floor within the building located at 6th and Ringo, Little Rock, Arkansas, together with all of the parking area located on the east side of the building (legally described as part of Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 12, Block 290, Original City of Little Rock) for use as ad^^^tr^tive offices and storage area for a term of seventeen (17) months, commencing 1993 and expiring July 31, 1994, at an annual rent of $84,672.(X) payable in monthly installments of $7,056.00 in advance on the first day of each month, commencing with the first month of the term, to The Hathaway Group, 3600 Cantrell Road^ Suite 301, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202\nall on the following terms: 1. UTILITIES AND SERVICES The parties agree that each shall pay for utilities and services as indicated below: (a) (b) (c) Lessee shall pay for the natural gas, water, sewer, and electric utilities used in connection with the occupancy of the leased premises, defined as 64% of the total utility usage for the building. Such payments shall be made by Lessee to Lessor upon Lessees receipt of periodic invoices for utility consumption. Lessee shall be responsible for its own janitorial service. Lessor shall pay real estate taxes and premiums for fire and extended casualty insurance. (d) Lessor shall maintain the premises as specified in Paragraph 11. QUIET POSSESSION 2. So long as Lessee performs its obligations. Lessor covenants to it quiet and peaceful possession of the leased space. D:\\WT51\\FILESURH\\LRSD.LEA3. LESSEES OBLIGATIONS Lessee agrees as follows: (a) (b) To pay rent as due and to deliver possession of the premises to Lessor upon termination of this lease in the same condition as received, ordinary wear and tear and damage by fire, the elements or other casualty excepted\nTo use the premises in an orderly fashion and not to suffer or permit any violations of laws or ordinances therein\n4. 5. (c) Not to assign or sublet without prior consent of Lessor, which Lessor agrees will not be unreasonably withheld. LESSORS REMEDIES Lessor may terminate this lease and enter and take possession of the premises from Lessee, all without waiving any rights which it may have at law hereunder, without further notice or demand (all such notices and demands being hereby waived) following any of these events: (a) (b) (c) That Lessee should fail to pay rent due hereunder within thirty (30) days following written notice of default therein\nThat Lessee shall fail to commence curing any other violation of its covenants within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, or, having commenced to cure the same as aforesaid, should fail to carry the same to conclusion with due diligence\nUpon the adjudication of Lessee as a bankrupt or the appointment of a receiver of its property. UNTENANTABILITY If the premises, or any portion thereof, are made untenantable by fire, the elements or other casualty, rent for the entire premises or affected portion thereof shall abate from the date of such casualty to restoration of tenantability. Lessor shall restore the same with all reasonable speed, and if Lessor does not restore the premises or the affected portion to tenantability within ninety (90) days thereafter. Lessee may then terminate this lease, retroactive to the date of casualty. If the premises are more than fifty percent (50%) destroyed by casualty, either Lessor or Lessee may terminate this lease, retroactive to such date, by notice delivered within thirty (30) days thereafter\nfailing D:\\WP5l\\nLESURH\\LRSD.LEA -2-Lessor shall restore the premises to tenantability within one hundred twenty (120) days of such casualty and rent shall abate as aforesaid. LESSEES ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS 6. (a) Lessee has inspected and accepts the demised premises in their present condition. I A mU * t I A. J* _ * Lessor shall grant permission for Lessee to make such alterations and improvements and install such identification signs, furniture, fixtures and equipment in the demised premises as may be necessary. Lessee agrees to pay for the same, to indemnify, save and hold Lessor harmless from any cost, expense or liens arising in connection therewith. Any such alterations and improvements shall be subject to Lessors approval, not to be unreasonably withheld, and shall comply with all applicable national, state and municipal laws or regulations. 7. 8. 9. (b) (c) Lessor shall not unreasonably withhold consent to Lessee making further alterattons during the term of the lease, which further alternations shall be on the conditions contained in (a) above. Except as provided in paragraph 7 or as otherwise stated in Lessors consent to the making thereof. Lessees alterations and improvements shall become Lessors property at the termination of this lease. REMOVAL OF LESSEES IMPROVEMENTS Upon termination. Lessee may at its option remove office equipment, business machines manufacturing equipment and machinery, trade fixtures, if any, and signs, plus such installations as Lessee may make and may be permitted to remove under this lease provided that it restores the premises to their original condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and repairs damage done by such removal. INSPECTION Lessor has the right to enter the premises for reasonable inspections at any time and to show the same to prospective tenants during the last six (6) months of the term. LIABILITY Unless caused by the negligence or willful act or failures to act of Lessor or its agent or employees. Lessee waives all claims against Lessor for damages to the property of Lessee, resulting from the building or its equipment being out of repair, or from act or neglect of any other tenant or occupant or any accident or theft in or about the building. D:\\WP51\\FILESURH\\LRSD.LEA - 3 -LIABILITY INSURANCE 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Lessee, at its expense, shall maintain in full force and effect a comprehensive public liability insurance policy, with respect to the Leased Premises and all activities conducted thereon, with both Lessor and Lessee as named insureds with a single combined limit of liability of $1,000,000.00, such policy to contain a provision that it cannot be canceled without at least ten (10) days prior written notice to Lessor. Lessee shall at all times provide Lessor with written evidence that such insurance policy is in effect. If the terms of the issuer of blanket policy do not reasonably satisfy Lessor, Lessee shall provide a supplemental policy as described above. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR The Lessor shall, at its own cost and expense, keep in good condition and repair during the term of this lease, sidewalks, sewers, gutters, drainpipes, downspouts, driveways, window sash and frames, parking lots, air conditioning and heating systems, stairways, foundations, exterior walls, roof and structural parts of, in or about the premises and the building of which the premises are a part including gas, water, and electric pipes and conduits within the foundations, floors, walls, and structural parts thereof and all other generally accepted areas of Lessors control or responsibility of said premises. SIGNS Lessor will not unreasonably withhold consent to Lessees lettering or windows or erection of signs as are reasonably necessary to Lessees business and are in keeping with the standards maintained in the building. PARKING FACILITIES Lessee, its employees, customers, and visitors shall have the exclusive right to use the parking lot and loading area on the east side of the building. HOLDING OVER BY LESSER If Lessee shall remain in the demised premises after the expiration of this lease without having executed a new written lease or extended this lease through a modification, then Lessees monthly rent shall immediately escalate to $8,820.00 per month and Lessor shall have the option to treat Lessee as one not lawfully entitled to possession of the premises, and shall thereupon be entitled to take all lawful action for Lessees immediate removal therefrom. D:\\W51 \\FILESURH\\LRSD.LEA - 4 -15. 16. 17. 18. 19. CONDEMNATION If ^y portion of the premises or the access thereto is condemned and if, in Lessees sole opinion, the remainder is inadequate, then Lessee shall have the option (to be exercised within ninety (90) days of written notice to Lessee of the area to be condemned) to cancel this lease as of the effective date of condemnation\nin such case, any portion of a condemnation award or settlement attributable to the Lessees leasehold (including options to extend the same) shall be paid to Lessee. Lessee shall have reasonable opportunity to participate in the condemnation proceedings. If any characteristics of the premises are made less desirable by condemnation, and Lessee elects not to cancel then there shall be an equitable adjustment of rent to reflect such fact for the balance of the term. SUBORDINATION This lease and Lessees rights hereunder shall at all times be subordinate to the liens of mortgages now or hereafter placed on the building or any underlying leasehold estate. So long as Lessee performs its covenants, its right to possession hereunder shall not be disturbed under the rights or powers granted in any such mortgage. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, neither Lessor nor Lessee shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage caused by fire or any other risk insured against by fire, standard extended coverage and malicious mischief and vandalism insurance, in force at the time of such loss or damage. AMENDMENTS There are no agreements between the parties except as stated in this lease, amendments hereof shall be effective unless in writing, signed by both parties. NOTICES No The delivery of notices provided for herein shall be effective only if delivered to Lessor at the address provided for payment of rent and to Lessee at Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 D:\\WP5I\\FILES\\JRH\\LRSD.LEA - 5 -20. 21. Mailing of same so addressed, by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, shall constitute delivery. No employee of Lessee at any other address has or shall have any authority to receive notices hereunder. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Lessor represents to the best of its knowledge and belief that no hazardous or toxic materials subject to regulation by State or Federal law or regulations have been manufactured, stored, or disposed of on or about the Leased Premises. Lessee hereby covenants that it will not manufacture at or install in the Leased Premises any such hazardous or toxic materials during the term of this Lease. BROKERAGE FEES Lessor agrees to pay The Hathaway Group (Agent) professional fees as outlined in Exhibit A which is attached to Lessors and Agents copies of this lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this lease to be executed on the date first above written, hereby binding their respective successors, assigns, heirs, executors and administrators. LESSOR: LESSEE: Little Rock School District Virginia P. Hodges (50% Owner) George Prange, Trustee Virginia L. Boyd Testamentary Trust (9.705% Owner) George Prange, Trustee Jack P. Lynn Testamentary Trust (9.705% Owner) Virginia L. Boyd, Co-Trustee and Louise Parkin Lynn, Co-Trustee Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust (30.59% Owner) D:\\WP51\\F1LESURH\\LRSD.LEA -6- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI to be the person described Before me personally appeared Virginia P. Hodges to me well known and known to me who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to - - - -'O o **'^** '^**^**'^ MllU UVAJIk/ and before me that she executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. 1993. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of My Commission Expires\nNOTARY PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared George Prange, Trustee for the Virginia L, Bovd Testamentary Tryst, to me well known and known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that he executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this 1993. day of My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D.WPSnriLESURHXLRSD.LEA - 7 -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared George Prange, Trustee for the Jack P, Lynn Testamentary Tryst, to me well known and known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that he executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. 1993. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared Virginia L. Boyd and Louise Parkin Lynn Co-Trustees for the Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust, to me well known and known to me to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that they executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of 1993. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D:\\WP51\\F1LES\\JRH\\LRSD.LEA - 8 -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI On this day personally appeared before me the undersigned, a Notary Public within and for the County and State aforesaid, duly qualified, commissioned and acting, the within named ----------------------- \n----------------------------------being the ____________________________of Little Rock School District, and who has been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument, to me personally well known, who stated he is duly authorized in his capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and on behalf of Little Rock School District, and further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed and delivered said oregoing instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. this IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on day of 1993 My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D:\\WP51\\FILES\\JRH\\LRSD.LEA -9-fip. Lett) Pa r^ VA fj :^=\n? :^2C X J- /] M 1 ' CIV,co 0* ^en t^oriWnr'S Williams Magnet Staff Williams Magnet School 7301 Evergreen Street Little Rock, AR 72207 March 9, 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown, Director Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The academic year of 1992-93 has seen many dramatic changes to the curriculum and educational process in the Little Rock of 1992-93 has seen many dramatic . - -  ----------- Public Schools. As the Magnet Review Committee meets to discuss, plan, and implement new changes, the staff at Williams Magnet School respectfully requests that you read, consider, and review our professional views before implementing the current changes, staff would like to address a few concerns about the future changes. the staff at you read, address changes for the academic year 1993-94. concerns about The Williams Magnet School, successful as North Little learning environment all records innovative idea. Rock, and for hundreds indicate, has been a Because Pulaski County students. of Little of its initial witnessed the growth of all the other Magnets. to the whole child. success We are It we Rock, was an have committed to generate We need all the components of the curriculum the same degree of success achieved in the past. is our opinion that no one part of the program should be removed. It It is diligence and teachers and all enthusiasm and creative energy of magnet program a success. the specialty area teachers classroom that makes this. With economic problems in many areas of that cutbacks are inevitable in L.R.S.D. is costly cutback choice. and unproductive. society. The new we recognize We feel that ABACUS ABACUS program should be the not the established successful program in place. In closing we would respectfully remind you, that Williams has an outstanding staff is reputation reputation. proud of the hard throughout the We believe that classroom teachers but art. special area their children teachers as magnet work we have done it is the area. Williams earning our solid effort not only of the music, physical education, and other well, that Parents brochures on expect the program waiting lists for motivate patrons to and disadvantageous videos. to the that is years to enter outlined and place our school, advertised in We children. feel The the change wou Id children are our be main concern and the whole child needs all, not parts, of the program.Thank you for taking time to consider these deep felt concerns. Professionally yours. i ! - t yytha^-yli ~nu. f bV .^U^X-x 'OAl^n . iM-L 'iTua. fna^'^^nUn^ 'Ijyt^. ^j!^ ^1  IA . A '} \\y. i L \"i f a. PivUUIm'i^I^ /VlzcMol^ 17/1993 17:11 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. JOHN \\LKER RV.PH \\S abHINGTON MARK BVKNRI^..^. WILEY A. RRANToN. -JR. AtSTIN PORTER. -JR. , .. ..  A5* a'Jn'ittr*- I J * I [*! h- 'J. TO 3710100 P . 02 JOHN w. Walker. p.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LiTFLE Rock. Akkansas Telephone (-501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-418 ( DELIVERED VIA FACglMII^ March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. Little Rock School District c/o _ 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller\nWould you plan to use at know who you plan to call as kindly provide me with_ anj_ new exhibits that you the budget hearing on Friday. - ----- witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Jo^n W. Walker-^^ Jo JWW: im r. (*1 / Mb TOTAL P.0203/17/1993 17:10 FROM JOHN W.WfiLKER P.P. TO 3710100 P . 0 1 JOHN W. Walker, p.a. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72zo6 Telephone (501) 374^58 FAX (601) 374-4187 JO. WlXER RAI- d WASHINGTON MARK BURNED WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. auetin porter, JR. , ...  Alm Kimittal  i\" 4 w Datnrt ot Columbia. TO: jv\nFAX NO.: FROM: DATE: ... RE: message: I THIS FAX CONSISTS OF '3^ PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE. OUR FAX NUMBER IS: (501) 374-4187 I I I u I.A 03 .' 17/1993 16! 44 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.ft. TO 3710100 'fr iS P . 0 1 March 17, 1993 D C. Mac Bemd, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd: On March 12, the accompanying letter was faxed to you regarding the unprofessional conduct of employees at Little Rock Central High School. At the writing of this letter, 1 am still waiting for the response that has been requested. TUnfortunately, on Tuesday, March 16, conduct of a similar nature (harassment) was demonstrated by still another employee at the LRSD, this time a school bus driver. After several unsuccessful attempts to resolve this matter concerning the bus driver, I visited with the employee at the bus stop on the morning of March 17. The employee demonstrated an attitude and behavior that was very unprofessional in the presence of students. Additionally, support personnel at the LRSD bus terminal and in the office of Mr. Gary Jones also demonstrated very poor judgement and communication skills during my attempts to resolve this matter. 1 Dr, Bemd, I am responsible, much like you, to parents and students in this District, I would like very much to share with them the response that can only be provided by you, regarding the reported cases of student harassment and your efforts to resolve the matters. I I Please respond by letter at 2603 S. Brown St., Little Rock, AR 72204 or you can fax your letter to me at 374-4187. Respectfully, I i 1 I Hafeeza K Majeed Ad Hoc Committee for Fairness and Equity in Little Rock Public Schools 1 II cc: i^s. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Ms. Shirley Thomas, LRSD BAC Chairperson Mr. Brad Montgomery, Supervisor, LRSD Transportation Dept. Mr. Gary Jones, Associate Superintendent, School Support TOTAL P.ai s.-- .r \u0026lt; * P.Ol TRANSACTION REPORT NAR-17-93 WED 16:41 DATE START SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE MAR-17 16:39 501 374 4187 1'28^ 1 RECEIVE OK X )(( X  )K jSB1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 March 22, 1993 TO: Mr. Sterling Ingram FROM: THROUGH: Marie Parker SUBJECT: DESEGREGATION PLAN ISSUES The purpose of this memorandum is to direct you to address several priorities associated with the implementation of the Desegregation Plan as rapidly as possible so that we may be sure that we are making good faith effort to address the requirements of the Court with respect to these priorities. 1. Please report in writing any specific programatic assessment processes required by the Desegregation Plan and the status of the implementation of these processes. report please include any plans. As a part of this systems documents, or timelines that outline the assessment processes mentioned herein. 2. Please develop a plan and implementation schedule for any of the above assessments that have not been implemented. 3. Please develop a plan to meet the general requirement that we assess all aspects of the Desegregation plan. This assessment plan should specify each aspect of the Desegregation Plan in terms of two issues: (1) the purpose of the aspect of the plan being evaluated\nand (2) the measure which will ascertain the fulfillment of said purpose. . 4. Please prepare a report or \"audit\" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of programs outlined in the plan so that a document for the Federal Court can be developed as soon as possible. You may want to contact Diane Barksdale regarding this matter because she has done considerable work on this issue as a graduate school project. The information she has gathered may be quite useful to you as you prepare your report. In conclusion, please make an appointment with me to discuss the issues outlined in this memorandum. I believe all of them are important if we are to correctly implement o\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_363","title":"Correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/363"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["correspondence"],"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\nJohn w. Walker, p.^v. AT|(I\n|NKY At I .aw 17 B|!(),\\I)W,\\Y Liti'LE Ruck. Arkansas 722 TeI.EIIRiNE (5(11) .571-37.55 l'A.X (5111) 371-1157 MKi ED MJG i 1S93 JOHN W walker RAI.Pn WASIIINCTON MARK W'RNPITE AUSTIN IDRTEU. JR. August 3, 1993 Otiice ot Desegregation Mcnitoting Mr. John Moore President Little Rock Board of Directors 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 Re: John Hickman Dear Mr. Moore: I am in receipt of Mr. Spencer Robinson's opinion regarding continuation of the Hickman matter. Before the Board considers the matter, I wish to be heard by the full Board at a public meeting. At that time I would like to present arguments contrary to those presented by the District's counsel. I also wish to remind the Board that this matter is of great public interest, Mr. Hickman's hearing was discontinued by the Board during the school term largely due to the several month hospitalization of a board member and that Mr. Hickman has not had an opportunity to refute libelous and slanderous charges in public forum. a bias by the I also wish to remind the Board of our charges of administration, this perspective. hearing officer which favored the school Whether true or not, the opinion gives credence to Under the circumstances, to stop the hearing now and to deny further hearing on the request made pursuant to A.C.A. 6-17-1509, employer. a message is sent to other employees by allowing the hearing to be aborted. Moreover, the District's casts the District in a posture of being an unfair Moreover, stewardship of its economic resources will also be brought into issue before the District Court. more I am sending a copy of A.C.A. 6-17-1509 to you for each board member's consideration. Sincerely, dhn W. Walker Jdhn JWW:lpit. i Ij n 'll i5 Ji V fl J.' (M7-15t)9 EDUCATION with the reasons for. the reconiiiieiidal imi of tei inination in accordance wilh Ilie Teacher Fair Dismissal Act of I Dii). and the ucL rct|uired Hiat u lach(r he a slatfincul pi'nli.'il ji'unrv of ihc grounds for lenninalion hiU nul ho- ivoi- ruev.-al. lh\u0026lt;j inclusion ot Hu- v.diicli were made on the advice el Ii cni.nisel indicated that the leller .'.as .:d ill 5 \u0026lt; i 'i.' iej ijii il I. 1^' I 1 :,4  ! I ' 'I 1..1 !\nr I T r .li d 21 I- I i-J  1 id 21 ii\n'i ,1 294 ract, IIIIC III |.(.l ininadnn\nthercdoi e since dll' leller did \"\"I sdde that a henrinu was\niv iiilnhli- III dll nssist.'iiit principiil, ainl die isistanC principal did not loceive the tiiiielv hearing on I he facial ajjpearatice Ill' Ilie li'tli'i-. die aa.sislant principal did mil reci'ii'e dni' prncess. Rogers v. Maseiii, 7SS I''.2d I2.SH I,Sill Uir. 198.5) Idecision miller prim la'.vi. G-17-J.509. lleariiig. la' /\\ teacher who ri'ceivcs a iiolice ol rcconiinoiKled termination or nonrenewal may file a wrillcn request with the hoard of directors of the district for a hearing. (b) Written request for a hearing shall he sent l.iy certified or registered mail to the president of the hoard, with a copy to the supei iiiten- (leiiL, or may be dclivercti in peiKon to each of them hy Ute Lcaelier, v/ithin thirty (30) day.s alter the written notice ol prnposed termination r nonrenewal i.s received by the teacher. (c) Upon receipt of a reiiuest for a hearing, the hoard shall giant a hearing in accordance with the following provision.^\n(i) The hearing shall take place not les.s than live if.) than ten (10) days after the written rc'inest ha.s la.-en .'Served on the boaid, e.xcept that the teacher and l.ioard may, in writing, agree to a postpone- or five 15) nor more Llian ment of the hearing to a later date\n(2) The hearing shall be private unless the ti.acher or the boaid shall request that the hearing be public\n(3) The teacher and the boanl may be represented by represeiita- tives of their choosing\n(4) It shall not be necessary that a full record ol the proceedings a the hearing be made and preserved unless\n(A) The board shall elect to make and preserve a. hearing at its own expense, in which event a copy shall be furnished the teacher, upon requestj without cost to (he teacher, (B) A written request is filed with the board by the teacher at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the time set for the hearing, in which event the board shall make and preserve, at its own expense, a record of the hearing, and shall furnish a transcript to the teacher record of the I D I' R R l\n1\\ ti d c A ( t I ( I ! without cost. History. Acts 198.3, No. 936.  9\nA.S.A. 1947,  80-1266.8. IIESICARCII IIEFEIIENCES Ark. L. Kev. Watkins. Open Meetings Under the Arkansas Freednni of liiliirina- tion Act, 38 Ark. 1.. Rev. 268. 7.  S- .J l.-83 13\n00 0'01 324 2032 L R ScllC\"! Dlst ODM @001 \\ AGENDA status report - OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING August 6, 1993 - 3 p.m. 1. Closing of Ish School Staff Qosing Procedures 2. L)esegregation Plan - Overview Work Sessions (LRSD Principals) Date Time Level ^15/^3 3/6/93 3/6/9f3 8/10/93 9 ann. 8 a.in. 10 amx 11:30 8:30 Jr. High Cluster Elenu Cluster (GremiUion) Sr. High Cluster Elem. Cluster (Robertson) Incentive Schools Financial Status - Hearing (August, 1993) - Mark MihoUen LRSD Staffing 5. Length of School Day - Revised ADE Standards 6. Desegregation Audit 7. Opening of School Activities 8. Other .-X 1 / Ail i J^-29-93 THU 10:32 US DisI Ct Little Rock FAX NO. 5013246096 P.Ol IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT FAX LINE (5O1J 324-6576 DATE: 7/29/93  Ann Brown . - Barry '-MBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET  6 isagc: Here is Walker's response to the motion to close Ish, I t/y/\u0026lt;- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. light. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M, EISEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE D. SELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. 8UTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T, LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL UI. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 August 11, 1993 KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. CLYDE 'TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES OAViO 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE OAVIO M.GRAF PAMELA D. PERCEFULL CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. a.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. WRITER'S OIRECT NO. (501) 370-1553 Mr. Stephen W. Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue AUG I 6 !993 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Offisg of .n !. . j -TO! -y Re: Stephens' Interdistrict School Site Selection Process Dear Steve: This letter will acknowledge receipt of your letter to me dated July 27, 1993. In your letter, you acknowledge receipt of the memorandum from me to you, John Walker, Richard Roachelle, and Sam Jones outlining the \"suggested\" process for the new site selection committee, the memo, on page 3, states: In fact. In the interest of time, the above process has been outlined to facilitate the timely completion of our task. However, all parties . . . are free to voice any and all concerns, make any and all recommendations and develop any and all procedures deemed reasonable and appropriate to increase the likelihood that consensus will be reached. Accordingly, I am hereby requesting that all recipients of this letter notify me within three (3) working days of receipt of your initial concerns regarding the process as outlined. Otherwise, we will deem this process acceptable and will expect to see each of you and your selected representatives at the meeting on July 27, 1993. I received your letter on July 30, 1993. As the minutes from the first meeting will reflect, no one from the NLRSD appeared to voice any concerns or disagreements with the process as proposed. The minutes from that meeting were sent out by a memo dated July 28,Mr. Stephen Jones August 11, 1993 Page 2 1993, from John Riggs to the distribution list outlined on page 4. That memo, as had the first memo, reminded all recipients that the second meeting of the committee would occur on Tuesday, August 10, 1993. Again, no representative of the NLRSD appeared. Notwithstanding the lack of representation by NLRSD at the first two meetings. I take this opportunity to advise you that the PCSSD's representatives have voiced concerns on target with those raised in your July 27 letter. In addition, there are two meetings remaining on the original schedule proposed in the July 21 memo. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone JLM:nr cc: Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Samuel Jones Mr. Chris Heller Mrs. Ann Brown Mrs. Estelle Matthis (Enclosed July 27, 1993 Letter) Mr. John Riggs (Enclosed July 27, 1993 Letter) Mr. Richard Roachelle (Enclosed July 27, 1993 Letter) Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 Date: August 16, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis From: n Brown Subject King Recruitment and Assignment When you and 1 last met on Friday, August 6, 1993, 1 inquired what policy the LRSD had developed regarding which and how many LRSD white children the district would allow into King. You stated that, although there was no policy at the time of our conversation, you were aware of the importance of such a policy, and that you expected to develop one within the next few days. It has been 10 days since our meeting, and it is now exactly one week before school opens to students. I still have not received any information about your policy on admitting LRSD white children to King. 1 understand that you plan to meet this afternoon with my associate, Connie Hickman Tanner, to discuss recruitment. At at time, please give the following written information to Mrs. Tanner: 1. The policy on admitting LRSD white children to King. 2. The names of LRSD administrators, other employees, or board members who were directly involved in formulating this policy. 3. The date this policy was put into effect. 4. The date the policy was communicated to the Student Assignment Office. 5. An explanation of the basis for this policy, citing relevant desegregation plan and court order provisions by date and page number, and including specific reference to any other written LRSD assignment policies and procedures that were factored into the King assignment policy. 6. The LRSD policy for recruiting and admitting private school children into the district. 08/19/93 16:00 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 0001*002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE: TO: FROM: SENDER'S PHONS 3AI/-P-C5/6 SUATECT: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 1 Number of Pages (include cover page Speed Dial _____________ Phone Number MMmu.  . AGREEMENT The parties met on Thursday, August 19, 1993, pursuant to the instructions of the Court, to discuss initial enrollment at Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* Elementary School (\"MLK\") for 1993-94 school year. The parties are in substantial disagreement about certain matters which relate to the plan and the manner in which assignments would be made under the plan to MLK. Joshua Intervenors strongly oppose the placement, assignment or enrollment of LRSD white students, who live outside the Martin Luther King Interdistrict School assignment zone, to MLK. The PCSSD is also concerned about future year's effect of LRSD white students being assigned, enrolled or allowed to attend Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School. All parties are mindful of the admonitions of the Court regarding school district/parent cooperation and integrity as well as the other needs for both desegregation and certainty about school opening for this year at Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School. Based on these concerns and considerations, and the encouragement of Court, the parties have agreed that for the 1993- 94 school term only, LRSD white students, who have received written assignment notices to MLK from the LRSD as of the date of this agreement, shall be allowed to attend or be enrolled or assigned to MLK. Once assigned to MLK, those children shall be afforded all the rights and privileges of other students who are being assignedOS-19.93 16:02 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002 002 Page 2 to the Martin Luther King Interdistrict Magnet* School (i-e-, including continued enrollment). However, there shall be no sibling preference available to these students so assigned. The parties will seek Court approval of this Agreement. DATED THIS day of 1993. John W. Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Bobby Lester PCSSD Superintendent Dr. Henry Williams LRSD Superintendent James Smith NLRSD Superintendent Richard Roachell Knight Intervenors Attorney *ProvisionalTW?^^r^KaAU.^?C'. *   M I * )K * *  DATE START SENDER\nAUG-19 16:48 501 324 2032 I TRANSACTION REPORT RX TINE PAGES TYPE P.Ol AUG-19-93 THU 16:50 NOTE 1'50\" 2 RECEIVE OK )K X )l( :i( )K )K Little Rock School District RHCEiyEj5 To: Ms. Melissa Guldin, ODM Monitor AUG 2 0 1533 Office of Desegregaiicn Mcniionng From: telle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Re: King Interdistrict School Date: August 20, 1993 Per your request for information received at approximately 3:10 p.m. on Friday, August 20, 1993, I provide the following: 1. Total number of LRSD students enrolled in King: 432 . 2. Number by race, from the King assignment zone: 355 black\n14 white (in addition, 3 whites and 1 black received staff preferences\n2 whites received legal transfers\n2 blacks were successful on appeal of assignment\nand, we are still attempting to trace the origin of 2 blacks). 3. Number, by race, from LRSD outside King attendance zone and a list of the schools those out-of-zone students attended during the 1992-93 school year: 53 white (see attached list reflecting the 1992-93 assignments. A total of 59 students appear on the list, however, 6 of those have been transferred to other schools). 4. Total number of intra-district transfers, by race. to Romine and Washington: we are in the process of gathering this information and will provide it as soon as it becomes available. EM: nr 810 West MarRham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361To: From: Z/T?) 'T'cf -  OzM  / Little Rock School District RECEIVED AUG 2 \u0026gt;5 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor Csfca of Dsse^ \u0026gt;    -..VI Estelle Matthis, 'interim Superintendent Re: Request for Memoranda Date: August 23, 1993 I have been advised that ODM has requested copies of written directives from me to employees. In response, I enclose for your review copies of directives or memoranda regarding desegregation- related issues. Attached you will find memos dated July 14, 1993 and July 27, 1993 relating to the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program. 7 will note, the LRSD is in the process of making the evaluations required under the plan. As you You will also find a memorandum dated August 11, 1993, directive of the same date. After the hearings on June 24, ___, regarding the proposed site for the new Stephens Interdistrict 1993, and a 1993, School, Judge Wright advised Jerry Malone that the Court would not impose a requirement that ODM make requests for information only through designated channels. The Court, however, strongly encouraged the LRSD to develop some procedure to ensure that District administrators and attorneys know what infoinnation is being transmitted by the LRSD. This was discussed with you on Friday, July 9, 1993, when Jerry Malone and I met with you in your office. The attached directive attempts to put in place a process whereby ODM will get timely and accurate information, while at the same time, the District attempts to ensure that commitments, policies or procedures are not made, altered or otherwise affected by individuals without actual authority to do so. As you are aware, the LRSD has several thousand employees. Accordingly, there might be some initial growing pains as this directive becomes fully operational. Prompt notification of any concerns by your office to my office will ensure that any problems are handled expeditously. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 810 West Narkham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 11, 1993 1.# All Principals a: 72201 Central Administration Personnel Estelle Matthi's, Interim Superintendent Jerry Malone, Legal Advisor PROCEDURES FOR RESPONDING TO OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) has been very helpful to the District by providing assistance as we implement our Plan. ODM will need accurate and up-to-date information from each of us as we begin the 1993-94 school year. _____ provide the requested infonnation in a timely manner. of Desegregation Monitoring will continue to contact appropriate staff members to secure the needed information and/or assistance. However, it is necessary for the District to establish some procedures for reviewing and responding to these requests in timely manner. -   The District has committed to The Office is a reports prior to our submission. Our attorneys will also need to review critical Your assistance is needed in following the procedures listed in the enclosed administrative directive.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 11, 1993 ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE NO: 93-04S TO: FROM: IV Central Administration Personnel elle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT\nPROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION Beginning immediately, the following procedures are to be used in processing requests for information and/or assistance from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). 1. All staff members are to cooperate fully with requests from ODM manner. in a timely and cooperative 2. Upon receipt of pquests from ODM, all staff shall immediately review the request and notify the office of the Superintendent or his/her designee of the  content and scope of the request and to seek assistance in complying with the request if it is deemed appropriate by the principal or central office administrator. or 3. The requests for information are to be completed in a timely manner and forwarded to the Superintendent's Office for review. to 4. The Superintendent's Office will, in a timely review and refer this information to the manner, will. appropriate personnel in the ODM office. 5. The District's attorneys and/or other district staff who have responsibility for the area(s) will receive copies of this information from the Office of the Superintendent or his/her designee.Administrative Directive No\n93-04S Page 2 6. Following any additions and/or modifications in reports, the appropriate principal or central office administrator will be consulted and receive copies, in a timely manner, for their records of such changes and/or amendments in a timely manner. This directive is effective immediately so that all District personnel will be able to function more effectively as a team successfully implementing the Desegregation Plan. Since time is of the essence in providing prompt, accurate reports, each person in the loop must continue to monitor the status until the response is provided.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET To: From: Subj ect: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 14, 1993 72201 Ms. Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent Mr. Larry Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Academic Progress Incentive Grants The court approved Desegregation Plan describes the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the process for implementation. On Page 84, it states that the continuation of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program will be reviewed at the end of the 1992-93 school year. It is necessary for us to proceed with the final evaluation of this program in order to make a decision regarding future funding. You may wish to consult with Sterling Ingram regarding this matter.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 27, 1993 Ms. Margaret Gremillion Mr. Larry Robertson 72201 Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS Please review my requests dated July 14, 1993 and apprise me of the process as well as the date that I can expect to receive the evaluation report as stated in the Desegregation Plan, page 84. Your urgent attention to this matter is appreciated.3 Little Rock School District August 26, 1993 received AUG 2 6 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office cf Dessgrsgafion ivcniiCfing ~r Dear Mrs. Brown\nProvided is the additional information that addresses Items 15 and 16 in your request for information dated August 16, 1993, regarding King recruitment and assignment. Item 15 - Please see enclosed charts J ! Item 16 - The LRSD will adhere to the criteria established by the parties in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, as well as the latest filing to the Court, No. LR-C-82-866, Item 16, dated August 20, 1993. The District will finalize its criteria for placement of students in the Martin Luther King Interdistrict Elementary Magnet* School as soon as additional clarification is provided by the Court. See August 20, 1993, filing. Conferences were held with recruitment staff on August 13, 1993, and they have been directed to use the language in the interdistrict plan when recruiting students to the new King School. Staff activities are being closely supervised by appropriate administrator, Your assistance to and patience with the District in this sensitive matter are appreciated. Please contact me if additional clarification is needed\nSincerely, istelle Matthis Interim Superintendent EM/lks Provisional 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-20000^ Little liock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RECSWo AUG 2 1 1993 To: Fromr Stephens Site Selection Committee of Deaegrosaiicn Imicring Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Re: Next Meeting Date Date: August 26, 1993 Please recall that Judge Susan Weber Wright offered to attend a second tour of the proposed sites. Tuesday, August 31, 1993, at 5:30 That tour will take place on p.m. Please be at the Administration Building at 810 West Markham Street to board the bus. All parties (Joshua Intervenors, NLRSD, PCSSD and Knight Intervenors) are requested to have representatives present if they desire to participate. By copy of this memo, I am requesting that Doug Eaton make the arrangements to have a larger bus available for this tour. To give the earliest possible notice, this memo is being faxed to John Walker, Steve Jones, Sam Jones and Richard Roachelle. JLM:nr Copy to Distribution ListMl'- ZA'fAi Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 August 30, 1993 Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Estelle: As a follow-up to some of our monitoring activities and reports last year, ODM niade informal visits to certain LRSD schools during the first days of this school year.,-We visited the two schools that had undergone new construction. King and Forest Heights, and two schools where we had previously expressed concerns about the condition of the facilities, Romine and McClellan. Because the impressions that students, staff, and parents gain during the first few days of school are so important and lasting, we paid close attention to the appearance, maintenance, and condition of the four buildings and their grounds. A short summary of our observations about each school is enclosed. Although we will not formally file or publish these observations at this time, we may eventually include them in a monitoring report. Our primary aim in this early and informal summary was to give you and the principals of the schools we visited the benefit of our first-of-school impressions. We were pleased to note many improvements at all the schools we visited. I hope the enclosed information will be helpful as the district continues to work toward making every LRSD school the best it can be. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Jodie Carter Richard Maple Sadie Mitchell Lionel WardLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 30, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: .Board of Directors FROM: 'Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Associate Superintendent Pay Rate Effective August 3, 1993, Dr. Henry Williams directed me to administratively assign Sterling Ingram to assume temporary responsibilities for the Desegregation offices. He is perforaing the responsibilities left vacant by the resignation of Marie Parker. By means of this memorandum. Sterling Ingram should be paid in accordance with the position of Superintendent for Desegregation. Associate Dr. Williams has approved the increased rate of pay for Sterling Ingram. /bjf cc: Mark Milhollen6G Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 2, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis From n Brown Subject: Enrollment figures for Romine and Washington Interdistrict Schools On the morning of August 20,1993, ODMs Office Manager, Polly Ramer, called Sue Pederson in the LRSD Student Assignment Office (SAO) to request the total number of intradistrict transfers, by race, to both Romine and Washington Interdistrict School for the last school year, 1992-93. An Associate Monitor, Melissa Guldin, followed up this initial phone contact later the same day when she drove to the SAO and talked with Sue Pederson about the information we needed. (Melissa made the personal visit because we were unable to get through to the Assignment Office due to SAOs busy phone lines.) During that visit, Melissa also requested King enrollment information and once again explained exactly which Romine and Washington data we were asking for. You provided the King figures by memo to Melissa Guldin that afternoon and promised to provide the data for Romine and King, saying that you were \"in the process of gathering this information and will provide it as soon as it becomes available.\" A copy of your August 20 memo is attached. Since August 20, Polly has again called SAO seeking the Romine and Washington information, because we still have not received it. During that third request for information, Polly reminded SAO personnel that ODM is only asking for 1992-93 figures, data which the district should have on file. 1 know that the beginning of school is a particularly hectic time for the SAO, but it seems that the 1992-93 information on Romine and Washington should be relatively easy to locate. It has now been almost two weeks since our initial request. Please forward the figures immediately or let me know how much additional delay 1 should expect. Thank you. Enc. cc: Sterling Ingram Jeriy Malone 2 To: Little Rock School District RSCEJVgp .*rw JI AUG 2 0 IS95 Ms. Melissa Guldin, ODM Monitor Offica of Dasegregahon Mcmtonr, '9 From: telle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Re: King Interdistrict School Date: August 20, 1993 Per your request for information received at approximately 3:10 p.m. on Friday, August 20, 1993, I provide the following: 1. Total number of LRSD students enrolled in King: 432 . 2. Number by race, from the King assignment zone: 355 black\n14 white (in addition, 3 whites and 1 black received staff preferences\n2 whites received legal transfers\n2 blacks were successful on appeal of assignment\nand, we are still attempting to trace the origin of 2 blacks). 3. Number, by race, from LRSD outside King attendance zone and a list of the schools those out-of-zone students attended during the 1992-93 school year: 53 white (see attached list reflecting the 1992-93 assignments. A total of 59 students appear on the list, however, 6 of those have been transferred to other schools). 4. Total number of intra-district transfers, by race. to Romine and Washington: we are in the process of gathering this information and will provide it as soon as it becomes available. EM: nr 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361\u0026lt;5 /-  e' Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 3,1993 From: Melissa Guldin To: Subject: Sterling Ingram, Director of Planning, Research and Evaluation School Assignments for Residents of the Battered Womens Shelter This memo is to confirm our phone conversation held this morning. As you will recall, we discussed enrollment figures and I inquired about the status of school assignments for the children living at the Battered Womens Shelter located at 12th and Battery Streets. The Shelter is in the King attendance zone, a fact confirmed by Sue Pederson on September 2, 1993, when she drove by the center. I do not quite understand what caused the district to question the right of these children to attend their assigned school, since the population at King is significantly below the capacity of the school. Despite the original misunderstanding, I am pleased that you have now agreed to abide by the districts assignment plan and assign all children residing in the King zone to that school. If you recall the August 19 meeting we attended to discuss King assignments, the fate of assignment zone students was never debated. The group even discussed the fact the students from within the zone, regardless of race, would always receive an assignment to King. This entire assignment issue has been a great concern for the staff at the Battered Womens Shelter. I plan to call the Shelter and report our conversation. Perhaps a district representative could also contact the Shelter and confirm the residents right to go to their assigned school. Im sure the staff there would really appreciate hearing from the district. Thank you for dealing with this issue promptly, and please thank Sue Pederson for working so diligently to help track down the correct zone assignment for the Shelter. cc: Ann Brown Estelle Matthis^8:49 LRSD 501 324 2146 P.002/002 KttBBBS J 'ilfHtak y Little Rock School District September 3, 1993 ^HCEfVso SEP 3 I9 Of Decegregstj.f, Woniioring To\nFrom: Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor /Stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Subject: Enrollment Figures for Romine and Washington Interdistrict Schools Per your request, the following information is provided by the District's Student Assignment Office: INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS - 1992-93 School: Romine Interdistrict Elementary School Students: Black 144 White 59 Total Enrollment 203 School: VJashington Elementary Interdistrict School Students: Black 176 White 186 Total Enrollment 362 I regret the delay in responding to your request, an extra effort to be more timely. We will make information is needed. Please call if additional EM: nr 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)524-2000HF: /-^SO 09 'OS '93 13:08 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001 004 ( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE: TO: \u0026lt;3  FROM: SENDER'S PHONEff\n6 3^^ \" \u0026lt;2./3^^ SUBJECT: - 7- ^.3 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Number of Pages (include cover page Speed Dial__ ___________ Fax Phone Number S-7j\" F) IQO 09/08.-93 13:09 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date\nSeptember 8, 1993 To: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor From\nSterling Ingramr^Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Re\nEnrollment Data Attached you will find the eleventh day enrollment data, as requested. Official October 1, 1993 information will be forwarded as soon as the report is completed. If additional information is needed, please let me know. bjg( 09 - 08 93 13:09 Q501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM bep 08,33 @003-004 11:05 Nc.'002 P.02 LRSD School Checklist ' [5] Grod., IQ.12 - Everett Howks - 1500 Park, 72202 - 376-4757 - 3om stueori  'sioi 'Oevid 6. Dadd, 722177 _Holl . Bill 8grnhouse_-_6700 'H'', 72205 - 'ZThTbob'  '^'-dolph Howard - 5417 Geyer 224*660? Porkview Hi A ----------\n- 555.0314 .ijyp.'g'-'i Bobbs - 2SQ1 fiarro7^?'7n4' 225-6440 aai Vocoiono|.Tchnict,| Center [ffGradw 1(^12 . \u0026gt;701' Scon Hom\nHo,, Junior High School fS} Gra'des ------ -------Booth . 6300~hfaiApn Rd., 7220? -?,63^ ----- 'l wb Wright Ave,, 72206\u0026gt;3^,75^  f.6S.8426 f\u0026amp;rsst Height\n. jornes Wisi iC 5?01 Evergreen, 72205 - 663-3391 Grodberry  401 Borrow R(i7^205  223-994^-------- ___Mobelvole  ae\n Wall\n.'I'gg\" ] Mabelvgle W., PO Sax 187, Mabelvale, 72103 . 455-2413 ~ .................. ............. .....- Pulcsxi rtsights - Dr, Jim |-|Q(ey . 401 'n. Pine,\u0026gt;2205 - dtJ^TzOTG ---------- Seylhwest - Gail McLougbiin -'3301 ,5. Bryoy, 7?2o7.\"565-44t6 '------------------------ EUmantory Srhoolt [gy] Gr'odes K.6 ' w it' . Uc j33WJ, 5vn' (oi-i ...1.:5| (.3 ts 'ill 'J 1 r-1 T, !-I yTXjW '/.a IM  i- A\u0026lt; I 0 J. L I n\nI I f I UJ5iy.'U :S:\u0026gt;...L.^l3',). , L/ .'27g\" Boagaii - Mgry .Gobton Bole-levonnci Wilson . 6900 Pc-con Rood, 72206  490.1 se?\" nsW\u0026gt;i3 'T^r 59%'! 6a 6501 W. 32nd, 722S4.56S66rf 4\n\u0026gt;rj\u0026lt; ___\n.Boseline  Anno Tqtum  3623\"Baseline Rd.. Booitei' Arli^Mognei - Williom 72209.565-5589 I __Qi Brady  Helen Thomas School Finn - 2016 Berber, 72206 - 37'6-3315 -7915 W. Markham. 72205  225-1815 CCii 7 '\u0026gt; --------------  800 Apperson, 72202 - 374'.'3783 , Chjcol- Olis'Praslcr - 11100 Chicot Rd., ~ ------------------------------- PO Box 405, Mabefvole. 72103.568-755, ,4 ------^gr^-':.S.l..:.{?4quo7\ne Dedman - dSOOHiTToirPrl. 72209 Sd'Tb?^ -------N^tban - 6423 Stagecoach Rd.. 72204 - 455.31 ig  - Colherine Gill - 616 N. T-iorrison, 72205 - 6670359 -------Ashley  1600 N. Tylar, 72207^^^^5415 --------------------------------------- 72204 . 455-3110 frrjnklin  Connie A\n-ton 1701 S. Ha,n\\ori. 722C4 - 666-0348 -------Huffmon . 30b\"Pieascnt Volley Dr. 722'{2 22f  Or. c'hfiTrTsTTTTAM^ ' Cox - S24b~M\u0026lt;^belvnfe r:. ::::. ------Gibb\nMagnet - Donna Davis - 11 IS W. - 372-02.81 iiTion\u0026lt;\n 3615 W, 2Sih. 72204 . 666-9436 Pike, 722C9 - 565-QT87 -------212 -.3001 5. Pulaski, 72206 - ......... -------- i^orgoret Gremillicn . -2600 N. MeKinlA^ASyr? . 663-9472 -------Goodwin - 4S0O W. 26th, 72204 - 663-6.397 ' -------A'^^!g.:..^'=.|-glhy Fou\"ikner-\"94b\"l Mobelvole Cul-o7f ______Box 207, Mobelvole, '72103.45.4.7727 ..................... 11 ynn Moor'c.' 1200 .....- . Meodowciiff  larry Warm'. 25 Sheroton Dr., 722Q9'G565.Q3\n4------ I -  OtJnilo .Hudspeth - 24~lb'Battery^^72206 - 37.5.69.31 ' ' Qner Crock - Pg'\npricc  16000 Oher Creek Pkwy 7?9nq 455-3320 77 .WJLjlLMa 7' -J-1 3.U,-f^S6 ! I I i J41 11 : r.-rs m ....i^\u0026lt;r? :7....|Sviri$ i -irA'/Zi- i C?4 ' ---------- 3H \u0026lt;3,73 Hjl AS i46'S H5 jsTo'\n\"6% j AM 1 6'4/ -k'i. 5'1 i -JU J..3H. -^ '7 i (f'[ ) i i3.S. --if -As,3.. ff, ?' iia-!?- A3.I ..S\" D .t5.' 'll09. 08. 93 15:10 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @004.'004 LRSD School Checklist Elementary Sehoot* (37) Gradel K-4 (contlnutd) Puloiki Heights - Eddie McCoy - flR N. fine, 72205  6639469 ~'~Rights8ll - Koy Lost - 911 W. 19th, 72206 - 374-7448_________ f Rockefeller - Anne Moogon  700 E. 17th, 72206  374-1226 Romine  Lionel Word - 340'o Romine Rd'., 72204 - 22S-8033  Stephens - Ston Stroust - 3700 W. 18th, 72204 - 663-8374 Terry - Noncy Volsen - 10800 Moro Lynn Dr., 72211 - 225-1215________ Wokatield - LToydei^k - 75 Westminster, 72209 - 568-3S74 Wothinglon - Lonnie Sue Deon - 115 W, 37th, 72206 375-_g275__ J'.J._ Wotton - Dr. Piano Glaze - 7000 Valley Dr., 72209 - 565-1577 Westarn Hills - Morgia Puckett - 4901 Western Hills, 72204 - 562-2247 Williams Mognet - Dr. Ed Jackson  7301 Evergreen, 72207 - 666-0346 Wilson  Seine Price ' 4015 Stonnus Rd.. 72204 - 565-0924 Woodrirff - Keren Suchonan - 3010 W. 7tli, 72205 663-4149 _ia_ . w... w An. m. _____ jsK tekiJU-. - y-D - ij. . .zJ. Am pm. A^ Aik 31 o _AA. .A\"?) _A jiiSIk I I I 4______ j______ I ' I 7 u- I i --- 315' .13.^. AIH ..:uL. -3^ ..hki.. 35 4 I I iMj u. 1 I r ! I I I i I I  I i 1 I i I I .. i I \u0026lt; I I i f T 4 1 I i' 1 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date\nSeptember 9, 1993 To: Lionel Ward From: Connie Hickman Tanner Subject: Request for Romine Recruitment Information Thank you for sharing your ideas, plans, and concerns regarding Romines ability to recruit white students. As promised, I pulled together copies of relevant motions, briefs, and court orders regarding \"magnet\" designation for schools and programs. I will mail those to you, since the information is too lengthy to fax. The following is a list of the data I requested at our meeting on September 8,1993:  The school plan you received when you came to Romine  A copy of your board proposal on satellite technology  Copies of all the business cases you submitted to the LRSD  The Romine Recruitment Plan you referred to in our meeting and copies of any recruitment materials that you use  Recruitment committee and/or planning meeting(s) documentation, including a committee roster by race, gender, and position, agenda, minutes, and a list of recommended recruitment strategies developed and implemented  Speakers Bureau data, including a bureau roster by race, gender, and position and a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and parent sign-in sheets. Please forward this information to me by Wednesday, September 15,1993. If you have any questions and/ or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me at 376-6200.Date: September 10, 1993 From: Connie Hickman Tanner To: Lionel Ward Subject: Magnet Information Enclosed you will find the following information you requested regarding magnet designation for schools and programs: February 11,1992: The district court order approving the LRSDs motion to establish magnet programs at Henderson Junior High School and McClellan Community High School February 13, 1992: The parties joint motion and supporting brief requesting that the term \"magnet\" be used in naming all future interdistrict schools March 5,1992: The district court order approving the designation of the Crystal Hill Interdistrict School as a magnet, but deferring a ruling for King and Stephens June 23, 1993: designate King as a magnet school The LRSDs motion and brief asking the court to July 9, 1993: The district court order granting the LRSD provisional magnet status for King Interdistrict School. If you have any questions and/or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 376-6200.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 9, 1993 To: Lionel Ward From: Connie Hickman Tanner Subject: Request for Romine Recruitment Information Thank you for sharing your ideas, plans, and concerns regarding Romines ability to recruit white students. As promised, I pulled together copies of relevant motions, briefs, and court orders regarding \"magnet\" designation for schools and programs. I will mail those to you, since the information is too lengthy to fax. The following is a list of the data I requested at our meeting on September 8,1993:  The school plan you received when you came to Romine  A copy of your board proposal on satellite technology  Copies of all the business cases you submitted to the LRSD  The Romine Recruitment Plan you referred to in our meeting and copies of any recruitment materials that you use  Recruitment committee and/or planning meeting(s) documentation, including a committee roster by race, gender, and position, agenda, minutes, and a list of recommended recruitment strategies developed and implemented  Speakers Bureau data, including a bureau roster by race, gender, and position and a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and parent sign-in sheets. Please forward this information to me by Wednesday, September 15,1993. If you have any questions and/or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me at 376-6200.Date: September 10, 1993 From: Connie Hickman Tanner To: Lionel Ward Subject: Magnet Information Enclosed you will find the following information you requested regarding magnet designation for schools and programs: February 11,1992: The district court order approving the LRSDs motion to establish magnet programs at Henderson Junior High School and McClellan Community High School February 13, 1992: The parties joint motion and supporting brief requesting that the term \"magnet\" be used in naming all future interdistrict schools March 5,1992: The district court order approving the designation of the Crystal Hill Interdistrict School as a magnet, but deferring a ruling for King and Stephens June 23, 1993: designate King as a magnet school The LRSDs motion and brief asking the court to July 9, 1993\nThe district court order granting the LRSD provisional magnet status for King Interdistrict School. If you have any questions and/ or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 376-^200.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 9,1993 To: Lionel Ward From: Connie Hickman Tanner Subject: Request for Romine Recruitment Information Thank you for sharing your ideas, plans, and concerns regarding Romines ability to recruit white students. As promised, I pulled together copies of relevant motions, briefs, and court orders regarding \"magnet\" designation for schools and programs. I win mail those to you, since the information is too lengthy to fax. The following is a list of the data I requested at our meeting on September 8,1993:  The school plan you received when you came to Romine  A copy of your board proposal on satellite technology  Copies of all the business cases you submitted to the LRSD  The Romine Recruitment Plan you referred to in our meeting and copies of any recruitment materials that you use  Recruitment committee and/or planning meeting(s) documentation, including a committee roster by race, gender, and position, agenda, minutes, and a list of recommended recruitment strategies developed and implemented  Speakers Bureau data, including a bureau roster by race, gender, and position and a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and parent sign-in sheets. Please forward this information to me by Wednesday, September 15,1993. If you have any questions and/or concerns, please do not hesitate to call me at 376-6200.Cr //t/t. e('- Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 9, 1993 Ms. Gayle Bradford Cloverdale Junior High School 6300 Hinkson Road Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Gayle: It was so good to hear from you. I applaud your efforts to promote your school and 1 cant think of a better promoter an you! I hope some of the ideas we discussed will be helpful as you develop a plan for marketing Cloverdale. As promised. Ive gone through my files but was unable to find an example of the sort of school brochure at had impressed me several years ago. So I called Debbie Milam at VIPS to ask her to go through the VIPS \"archives\" (since I never threw much away when I was there) to see if she could find the example, since Im sure I stashed it somewhere. She will look and send you the sample if she can locate it. Meanwhile 1 came across the enclosed information that is mostly from NSPRA (the National School Public Relations Association). 1 belong to our local NSPRA chapter here in Arkansas and have picked up lots of their stuff through the years. Some of this will be old hat to you but there may also be some new ideas here too. You are free to call on my associate, Connie Hickman Tanner, for suggestions. She is very energetic and creative and will be happy to brainstorm with you, as Im sure Jeanette Wagner would too. Best of luck in your endeavors. Please keep me posted on your progress and let me know how I can help. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Enc.FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T, LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BAHRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 September 10, 1993 RECEIVED Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway SEP 1 3 1993 Little Rock, AR 72206 Offico of Dossgragaucn iV.onitoring Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 KEVIN A. CRASS, P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P.A. CLYDE TAB* TURNER, P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT 8. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES OAVIO 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M.GRAP PAMELA 0. PERCEFULL CARLA Q. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. PENDLEY. JR. couNsei WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (5011 370-1553 Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find the Notice of Filing regarding the LRSD Desegregation Plan audit submitted to the Court.Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney JLM:nr cc: Mrs. Estelle Matthis Dr. Henry P. Williams Sterling Ingram Mark Milhollen1992-93 LRSD Desegregation Audit Report filed in Library COMPLETED PRIOR TO 92-93 PROGRAM: COMMITMENT OF DESEGREGATION 1. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other staff with the skills needed to achieve quality desegregated education. Comment: From the Narrative-Si - acenes Little Rock School District September 10, 1993 9 SEP 1 5 1593 Ri^, \\  Pct .\nV n Mrs. Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office o! DosegregauC!'. f\n'.I Dear Ann: This communication is a response to your letter dated August 30, 1993, and received in my office on September 2, 1993. My tour of the schools on August 23, 1993, was very similar to yours. As we visited the same schools, except Romine, I was probably 15 minutes behind you and your staff. Our observations had some similarities, but my focus was a bit broader as I viewed some aspects of instructional programs. I have discussed and distributed copies of your letter to our support managers so that they may assist staff in addressing various concerns and issues. We were aware that some equipment would not arrive until September, but we do believe that, instructionally, youngsters needs were appropriately addressed by staff. The new constructions are becoming more physically appealing and attractive. Within the next few weeks, everything should be in place. Mrs. Mitchell and her interview team identified more than an adequate number of qualified teachers. The additional applicants were on standby, and we are able to employ capable teachers as the enrollment increased at King. We wall continue to focus on and devote our energies to supporting the schools to have a successful school year. Information provided from a number of different perspectives is deemed helpful by me. I continue to believe that \"none of us is as smart as all of us.\" Thanks for your continued support. Sincerely, Estelle Matthis Interim Superintendent EM/lks 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RS CSIVSD September 13, 1993 SEP 1 5 IKW Office of Dosegrogaiicn Mcnilcfing MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring .stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent SUBJECT: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Software Following a discussion with Bob Morgan regarding the capabilities of your offices PC software, I checked with Dave Kingsella to verify the existence of such software in our district. Dave informed me that we have capabilities in his department as evidenced by the 1993-94 budget document that was produced this summer. I have requested that he secure such software for the Student Assignment Office\nhe is in the process of taking care of this matter. We are also verifying our preliminary enrollment data. Additional efforts are being made to ensure an accurate October 1 count. c: Board of DirectorsNew Stephens Interdist. Court Filings FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A, JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M, EISEMAN. JR.. P.A, JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A . JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A . FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVtS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT, P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN Hi, P,A. THOMAS N . ROSE, P A . MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Nt, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-21 47 KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P A. CLYDE TAB* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J . L EE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWE/\u0026lt;0, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A . SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D . WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE OAVIO M. GRAF PAMELA 0. PERCEFULL CARLA G. SPA INHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR.. P A. WRITER'S OIRECT MU. 1501 1 370- 1 553 September 15, 1993 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of the LRSD's Site Proposal for Stephens Interdistrict School pursuant to the order of this Court.Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone JLM:nr cc: Mrs. Estelle Matthis Dr. Henry P. WilliamsIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL RECEIVED SEP 1 6 1993 LRSD'S SITE PROPOSAL FOR STEPHENS INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL Office of Dssegregaiion Mcnitcring The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, for its Site Proposal for Stephens Interdistrict School, states: 1. The hearing before this Court on Thursday, June 24, 1993, was recessed prior to completion to allow for the parties to have ninety (90) additional days within which efforts could be made to obtain a consensus regarding the location for the proposed Stephens Interdistrict School. As the Court noted during those proceedings, the process which had been used by the LRSD during a prior site selection process was acceptable. In fact, the Court stated: \"First of all, let me say that I think that [the] criteria, the subjective and objective criteria, in [LRSD's] methodology are to be commended. I think the [LRSD] worked hard putting this together, and the Court sees no flaws in that methodology. don't see them. There might be some, but I certainly And I know [the LRSD] worked hard to be as objective and fair as [it] could. that.\" I have no difficulty with Hearing transcript, p. 86, L. 19-25. The Court went on to note: \"My problem is principally the composition of the committee and the lack of consensus that we are facing here today. Hearing transcript, p. 88, L. 18-20.book er I . Washington Math/Science Magnet i 115 West z7th Street Little Rock , Ark ansas 7 J' Judge busan Webber Wright United States District Court Post u-f-fice box 3310 E* iVEO Little Pock, September 21, Ark ansas 1993 SEP 2 1 1593 Offica oi Cessgraa\nbear .Judge Webber Wright: We are deeply concerned by the over!cad students the ssigned to f1rst , Magnet school. third, and +i-fth grade 1evels based on state maximum cla= a surplus o-f two students our third students, and our +i+th grade has gra. Was\n1 z e , has \nington Math/ 1 snce Ct As an r first surp1 us grade has OT seven surplus oi t^^^o students. interdistrict magnet school , was our we were to recruit throughout the understanding that when our cl asses are at max imum received two new students: grade. feel the school year. How can this continue capac i ty In tact , 1 ast one in the third grade and one hriday we in the +i+th Both grades were already over the state class size limit. administration desegregat ion Surely, p 1 an without may be considering tol 1 owing the the intent 1etter o-r We the at the it was never the intent ot the court to permit c 1 ass discourage new students at Washington Math/Science Magnet penalize incentive school students as igned to Washington Magnet school. It has been our Magnet school understanding that the Washington program, wh ich IS school comprised o-f SOX to our school children, would not reach the maximum class size plan. size to school or to Math/Science Math/Science 607. incentive 1 i m 115 . bl nee so 1arge, we have a 1arge \u0026lt;22-44 students per grade 1evel). numaer o-f high risk students spec ial program) programs (i.e . , science It labs, 1 s i our math understanding that 1 aos , young our astronaut children and to were mandated by the court to help meet the needs o+ these increase academic achievement. LoD situations should not be overcrowded. school Recently, district we noticed in the newspaper that each Pulaski was asked to better educate its teachers about Count'/ demands and requirements o-f the courtordered desegregation plan. the We are concerned that we will be cut o-f compl iance with the desegregation plan if our class sizes are at the maximum or above the state limits. We -fear that we are not meeting the needs o-f our incentive school populat ion. must ' have cannot be It is twenty  our understanding that cl asses -for these students or 1 ess in the best per u 1 ass or el se a -f ul 1 -t ime aide. It interests o-f these at-risk students to havetwenty-eight or twenty-nine students by 'I aw , in u1ass , even i t It IS all owed + roiTi The pos5lb i1 ity or forming sp I It cI asses two grade 1evel5 has been ment i oned. combined with a maximum class size will students. We have heard that some area cornpr1sed Surely, oT this students sol ution not best meet the needs OT our enough students. is it true that elementary schoo l 5 do some area school c1asses then ten students? Coul dn ' t not have some OT these smal1 er cI asses have 1 es-s be consol idated and the Math/bcience Magnet school'.-' surplus teacher(s) be reassigned to Wash 1ngton This by large class size. is a timely concern. Each day students-' 1ives are impacted October J possible . 1st dead line. Thank you. Decisions must be made before the state imposed F'l ease respond to this concern soon 3 Sincerely, MMaarryy Lott Kahler,, Curriculum 3Specialist Alisa Ford, First Grade Level Chairperson Eric Coleman, Third Grade Level Chairperson Tommy Wal ker, Fi-f th Grade Level Chairperson Susan Schoessel, Fourtth GGrraade Teacher Nettie Epp Katherine Snyder, , Primary Science Specialist ntermediate Science Specialist P(jsee Barnes, Primary fMath Specialist Paula Smith, l^ntermediate Math Specialist Nava Gazitt, Young Astronaut Specialist Ginny ^lotti. Media Specialist Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Joshua Interveners c/o John Wal ker Frank Martin, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Larry Robinson, Assistant Superintendent Karen Buchanan, PrincipalC.F. !D Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: September 22, 1993 To: From: Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent in Brown, Federal Monitor Subject: Construction at Chicot Last April 30, 1993, the Court approved LRSDs motion to build a cafetorium at Chicot Elementary School. 1 was pleased to learn of the districts intention to add a cafeteria to Chicot, and the Courts approval, because my staff and 1 had been concerned about conditions we observed at Chicot when we visited the school last spring. You will recall that Associate Monitor Melissa Guldin testified about Chicot during a March 19, 1993 hearing on the impact of LRSD 1992-93 budget cuts. In her testimony, Melissa pointed out that Chicot is the only school in the district without a cafeteria, meaning that the children must eat in their classrooms, thereby creating additional demands on the schools custodians. On September 9,1993, members of my staff made an informal visit to Chicot to look over the new cafetorium, only to find that construction on the facility had not even begun. Yet, in its motion for approval of construction projects that included the Chicot cafetorium, the LRSD stressed that the project was part of promises made to the public in exchange for approval of a millage increase in April 1990. The motion also states that the district \"plans to have the [Chicot) cafetorium constructed in time for the beginning of the 1993-94 school year.\" The Court has repeatedly admonished the district about the importance of keeping its commitments to the community. If we ever again expect to ask the public to approve a millage increase, we must be able to point to promises kept as evidence that the district can be trusted to keep its word and act quickly on its pledges. 1 would appreciate your answering the following questions so 1 can report to the Court as a follow-up to the April order on Chicot: 1. When is construction of the Chicot cafetorium scheduled to begin? 2. When is the construction scheduled for completion? 3. Why was the Chicot project not completed before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year? 4. How has the district determined the construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium? 5. If Chicots construction is undertaken during the school year, how does the district plan to minimize the disruption the building project will have on the academic day?MEMORANDUM Date: September 16, 1993 From: Melissa To: Ann Subject: Chicot Construction Due to the brevity of our visit to Chicot Elementary School, it was not included in the summary of our September 9,1993 site visits. Upon arriving at Chicot, we asked to see the new cafeteria. The secretary told us that the cafeteria construction had not begun. We also spoke to the principal and he said that Doug Eaton informed him that construction would probably begin in January 1994. Since we travelled to the school only to look at the new construction, we left immediately after talking to the principal. After returning to the office, I checked the court record and noted that the Chicot construction project received court approval on April 30, 1993.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371^3100 Date: September 28, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis From: Brown Subject: Documentation of Administrative Directive Revocation As you know, on September 8,1993, judge Wright ordered that LRSD Administrative Directive No: 93-04S be immediately revoked. She also required the district to distribute immediately a complete copy of this Order and its revocation of Administrative Directive No: 93-04S to all personnel who received Administrative Directive No: 934)45.\" Im concerned that the district has failed to follow the Order because some LRSD administrators are evidently not aware of the September 8, 1993 Order. For example, last weeks Daily Bulletin at Central High School contained the' following paragraph: EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, all information requested of any staff member by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring is to be submitted to the Principal prior to forwarding to ODM. The Principal will then forward a copy of the information to the Superintendents Office as per Administrative Directive 93-04S. As soon as possible, please send me the following information so 1 can assure the Court that the district has complied with the September 8, 1993 Order: 1. A copy of the communication which revoked Administrative Directive No: 93-04S. 2. A list of the personnel to whom this communication was sent. 3. The date that each of these communications was sent. 4. Evidence that each administrator has communicated the revocation of Administrative Directive No: 93-04S to his or her staff. Thank you very much.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: September 22, 1993 To: From: Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent in Brown, Federal Monitor Subject: Construction at Chicot Last April 30, 1993, the Court approved LRSDs motion to build a cafetorium at Chicot Elementary School. 1 was pleased to learn of e districts intention to add a cafeteria to Chicot, and the Courts approval, because my staff and 1 had been concerned about conditions we observed at Chicot when we visited the school last spring. You will recall that Associate Monitor Melissa Guldin testified about Chicot during a March 19, 1993 hearing on the impact of LRSD 1992-93 budget cuts. In her testimony, Melissa pointed out that Chicot is the only school in the district without a cafeteria, meaning that the children must eat in their classrooms, thereby creating additional demands on the schools custodians. On September 9,1993, members of my staff made an informal visit to Chicot to look over the new cafetorium, only to find that construction on the facility had not even begun. Yet, in its motion for approval of construction projects that included the Chicot cafetorium, the LRSD stressed that the project was part of promises made to the public in exchange for approval of a millage increase in April 1990. The motion also states that the district \"plans to have the [Chicot] cafetorium constructed in time for the beginning of the 1993-94 school year.\" The Court has repeatedly admonished the district about the importance of keeping its commitments to the community. If we ever again expect to ask the public to approve a millage increase, we must be able to point to promises kept as evidence that the district can be trusted to keep its word and act quickly on its pledges. 1 would appreciate your answering the following questions so 1 can report to the Court as a follow-up to the April order on Chicot: 1. When is construction of the Chicot cafetorium scheduled to begin? 2. When is the construction scheduled for completion? 3. Why was the Chicot project not completed before the beginning of the 1993-94 school year? 4. How has the district determined the construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium? 5. If Chicots construction is undertaken during the school year, how does the district plan to minimize the disruption the building project will have on the academic day?RECESVPP LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SEP 2 9 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Date: September 23, 1993 To: LRSD Board of Directors Interim Superintendent Estelle Matthis From: -^D Dr. Selma Hobby 1993-94 LRSD United Way Campaign Coordinator Re: Final Report, 1993-94 LRSD United Way Campaign Attached is a copy of the final report I made to the United Way of Pulaski County regarding the 1993-94 campaign. Our goal for this year was $46,599, which was five percent more than our contribution last year and set by Frank White, Campaign Chairman. I am happy to report that we exceeded this goal by a substantial amount\nLRSD employees contributed $52,072.26 during this year's campaign, the largest amount ever contributed by district employees. Hall High School contributed $3,571, the largest amount of any school in the district, and Gibbs Magnet School contributed $2,391, the largest amount of any of the elementary schools. The following schools had 100% participation of both certified and support staff: Cloverdale Jr. High School, Forest Park, Geyer Springs, Meadowcliff, Mitchell, Stephens, and Woodruff. Brady, Gibbs, and Wilson had 100% participation among the certified staff. I am proud of all our employees who participated in the campaign and want to thank the principals and site coordinators for their hard work and cooperation. Support of this campaign is a chance for all LRSD employees to give something back to the community which supports us in so many ways every day.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN REPORT 23 September 1993 Sxibmitted by Dr. Selma Hobby, LRSD United Way Campaign Coordinator A B C D 1993-04 1992-93 1993-94 SCHOOLS and SITES ^CONTRIBUTING/ CONTRIBUTION CONTRIBUTION EMPLOYEES *100% Participation, Certified and Support SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Central 67/162 JA Fair Hall McCleBan Magnet Parkview Magnet VOCATIONAL TECH. CENTER Metropolian JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS Cloverdale* Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Henderson Magnet Mabelvale Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Southwest ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Basefine Booker Magnet Brady** Carver Magnet Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park* Frankfin Incentive Futoright Garland Incentive Geyer Springs* Gibbs Magnet** 35/91 65/102 25/86 28/95 5/33 74/74 11/75 43/76 26/100 8/65 47/89 8/87 34/68 9/26 23/44 18/48 15/70 31/48 12/68 11/70 11/41 13/39 12/37 39/39 19/72 28/47 10/55 31/31 38/40 TOTALS TOTALS 100% Participation, Certified $2,327.00 2,765.15 2,081.00 1,728.48 1,298.00 $2,716.00 2,516.00 3,571.00 1,679.13 1,282.00 607.00 283,25 369.00 1,295.94 939.20 748.24 1,341.00 334.00 1,135.76 268.00 749.00 479.18 407.00 652.50 524.00 270.00 185.00 459.00 520.00 651.00 451.00 964.00 215.00 265.00 1,638.50 199.00 1390.01 642.08 953.00 1880.24 476.00 1,676.00 229.00 693.00 260.00 1197.78 618.22 362.00 694.10 542.00 459.28 269.74 625.40 1,369.70 927.00 1258.18 1058.42 623.06 418.40 2391.32Page 2 United Way Report A B C D 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Jefferson King Interdistrict Magnet Mabelvale McDermott MeadovvcBff* IvfilcheB Incentive* Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsei Incentive Rockefeler Incentive Romine Interdistrict Stephens* Terry Wakefield Washington Magnet Watson Western Hills Williams Magnet Wilson** Woodruff* Alternative Learning Center SUPPORT/ALLIED SITES Administration Building Aduft Education Annex CARE Food Service IRC KLRE/KUAR_____________ Office of Deseg. Monitoring Plant Services Purchasing Safety and Security Student Assignment Bldg. Transportation GRAND TOTAL 34/52 35/61 15/50 8/47 43/43 56/56 10/36 19/37 21/46 36/81 14/50 48/48 18/51 9/43 23/103 32/43 16/36 16/54 31/48 31/31 0/15 33/71 13/25 8/25 2/5 3/21 36/45 5/11 5/10 2/67 2/6 2/4 14/15 8/300 1444/3814 567.00 N/A 970.18 364.00 717.24 907.00 417.00 683.00 355.00 1449.24 242.00 274.35 605.00 50.00 323.41 358.00 871.00 815.00 859.24 823.04 75.00 2077.96 450.00 486.00 88.00 20.00 497.00 381.62 594.00 310.00 69.00 120.00 301.00 648.00 $44,068.18 702.38 1671.34 422.00 442.00 502.00 900.50 390.00 506.00 344.00 1,574.00 442.34 664.00 869.00 227.00 399.00 292.00 513.18 745.00 781.50 917.36 0.00 1381.02 628.48 598.00 44.00 20.00 900.00 367.10 814.00 330.00 80.00 32.00 244.00 396.00 $52,072.26LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas RECEIVED Kanra * September 24,1993 SEP 2 9 1993 Office of Desegrsgation Moni\nTq From: Re Anne Brown, Of fits of Desegregation Monitoring Jeanette WagneqOrector of Communications Incentive Schod Brodiures In answer to your request, attached are the two incentive schod brochures produced ty the LRSD. At this time\nnew individual incentive schod brochures are in the conceptual stage Nelda Bromberg, who designed the other two brochures, is working on a new concept which is designed to address the varied issues of incentive siod recruitment needs. The individual brochures will also allow mere complete information on each incentive schod them\u0026amp;booker 1 Washington Hatn/Science Hagnet School 115 West 27th street Little Kock, Arkansas 72206 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Kock School uistrict 610 West Markham Street Little Kock, Arkansas 7\n:0: Dear Dr. Willi ams, recewsd SEP ? 8 Office ef .Desegregation LWiOfing  We are pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you and discuss our building concerns. month is our district scheduled faculty meeting. As you know, the -first Monday of each Many of us are involved in the presentation of the meeting on October 4, 199S. Therefore, we suggest a meeting time of 4:00 p.m. 1st is the state deadline for reporting student attendance, meeting before that date can better facilitate a solution, willing to meet at an earlier date. However, October If we are most Please consider inviting those individuals who received copies of our letter of September 21, 1993. interest and insight into these Each of these people has particular i ssues. We want you to understand that this group of teachers represents a building 1 evei concern . We appreciate your concern for the needs of our students and look forward to our meeting. Sincere I y ,y Mary f^u k.aahhler. Curriculum Specialist Al isa Ford, First Grade Level Chairperson WUMA-Eric Col eman , Third Grade Level Chairperson Tommy Walker, Fifth Grade Level Chairperson Susan bchoessel, Fourth Grade Teacher rimary Science Specialist CCaatthheerriinnee tt\u0026gt;\u0026gt;nnyyddeerr ,, intdrmmeeddiaialte bcience Specialist Rose Barnes, Primary Math Specialist Paula Smith, Intermed late Math Specialist Nava Gazitt ,^YdU:nngg Astronaut Specialist Ginny le Media Specialist cc\nEstelle Mathis, Deputy Superintendent Judge Susan Webber Wright, Eight District Court Ann Brown, O-f+ice ot Desegregation Joshua Intervenors c/o -John Walker Prank Martin, Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association Larry Robinson, Assistant Superintendent Karen Buchanan, Principal CJ\u0026gt;/CO mv LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEH, .V M SEP 2 5  TO\nFROM: SUBJECT: September 28, 1993 Oifica of DsssgresaS' H.\noi' !i\nng Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent 1. Construction at Chicot 2. State Standards - Class Sizes This communication is a follow-up of your letter dated September 22, 1993, in which you requested information regarding the construction of the cafeteria at Chicot Elementary School. I have visited with Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services, and Larry Robertson, Associate Superintendent for Chicot, in order to provide the requested information. Doug Eaton has a previously-scheduled meeting with the architects for this project on September 29, 1993, at 9 a.m. I will have a more accurate schedule for the completion of the project tomorrow. A communication that includes responses to your letter will then be forwarded to you. On September 24, 1993, a meeting was held to re-assess staff needs of our elementary schools as we are aware of several classrooms that exceed state standards. Brady Gadberry is meeting today with Frank Martin, Executive Director of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers .Association, to review the process used to move existing teachers to schools where the student enrollment indicates a need for additional staff. All schools will be staffed in compliance with Arkansas State Standards for Accreditation as of October 1, 1993. Your assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated. /IksF.Y.I. Date: Ann  Bill Bob z  / Connie 7 Horace  Linda Margie Melissa  Polly Return to: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECFJV\"P SEP 2 9 Wi TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 28, 1993 Oifica of Desegres iicn soiiioiing Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent 1. Construction at Chicot 2. State Standards - Class Sizes This communication is a follow-up of your letter dated September 22, 1993, in which you requested information regarding the construction of the c^eteria at Chicot Elementary School. I have visited with Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services, and Larry Robertson, Associate Superintendent for Chicot, in order to provide the requested information. Doug Eaton has a previously-scheduled meeting with the architects for this project on September 29, 1993, at 9 a.m. I will have a more accurate schedule for the completion of the project tomorrow. A communication that includes responses to your letter will then be forwarded to you. On September 24, 1993, a meeting was held to re-assess staff needs of our elementary schools as we are aware of several classrooms that exceed state standards. Brady Gadberry is meeting today with Frank Martin, Executive Director of the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association, to review the process used to move existing teachers to schools where the student enrollment indicates a need for additional staff. All schools will be staffed in compliance with .Arkansas State Standards for Accreditation as of October 1, 1993. Your assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated. /IksOffice of Desegregation Monitoring. m /) United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor //I\" 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 28, 1993 To: From: Subject: Sterling Engram, Director of Planning, Research and Development Melissa Guldin and Connie Hickman Tanner Recruitment and Enrollment for the Rockefeller Child Care Program We understand that 1993-94 enrollment in the infant and toddler program at Rockefeller School has fallen far below the schools capacity. Apparently, enrollment in the classes for infants and two-year-olds is at only 50% of capacity. Since these early childhood classes are unique to Rockefeller, and are designed to help desegregate the school, we are very interested in the programs success. An ODM representative will contact you today so that we may set up a meeting to discuss our concerns. At that meeting we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding the Rockefeller early childhood program, its enrollment, and recruitment to the school. A preliminary list of questions follows. What is the current enrollment in the classes for infants, toddlers, and three-year- olds? (Please provide data that lists enrollment by class, race, and gender.) What is the capacity for each age level? What caused the drop in enrollment between 1992-93 and 1993-94? What process does the Student Assignment Office (SAO) follow in enrolling children in the classes serving infant to three-year-olds? How does SAO decide who is eligible to enroll, and when does enrollment begin? When did you inform parents of children new to the program that their children had been accepted (specific dates)? Who at SAO is primarily responsible for promoting the early childhood program and assigning early childhood students to the school? What is the current weekly charge for paying clients? How many childrens fees are paid by Title XX or other voucher programs? Does the SAO reserve spots for children funded through vouchers? If so, how many spaces are reserved, and what is your procedure? What is the recruitment plan for the Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet? Who is responsible for implementing the recruitment plan? To whom is recruitment being targeted? What marketing tools are you using to promote the program? On what dates have you conducted recruitment activities? What types of activities have been conducted thus far? What specific plans does the district have to increase enrollment in any underenrolled early childhood classes at Rockefeller?Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services From: Subject: Melissa Guldin Current Capacity Figures During a district court hearing held on June 8,1993, Judge Wright instructed the LRSD to provide current capacity figures for each district school. I realize that many schools capacity figures may be unchanged from those previously filed with the court, but the district has completed two new school buildings and modified others since you last furnished ODM with capacity figures. Please provide the current capacity for each elementary and secondary school in the district. Thank you for your cooperation. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 received TO: September 28, 1993 OCT 1 1993 Budget Managers Oliice of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Mark D. Milhollen, Controlle SUBJECT: Cafeteria Plan Please distribute the enclosed summary plan documents to the people indent!Tied at your site as being enrolled in the cafeteria plan. Employees not receiving documents who feel they are enrolled should call 324-2066 for additional information. r' 0m2-93 TUE 11:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 02 I? 55 September 28, 1993 OCT 1 3 W3 Oftice of Dessgregaticn Monitoring RECJV\u0026gt;=-o SEP 3 0 1993 Judge Susan Webber Wright Federal Building Fifth and Gaines Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 u. S. district judge Dear Judge Wright\nThis letter expresses the sentiments of numerous LRSD employees....Even\"though'we feel it would'be unwise to sign our names, please do not let the lack of signatures lessen the attention that you give to the matter. We are aware that you conducted budget hearings and directed the LRSD Board of Directors to review its proposal and determine if additional cuts could be made, which indeed was possible. However, we are not aware if you have given your approval to a final budget for 1993-94, thus the basis for this letter. In the spring of 1993, teachers and all administrators except 12 month administrators, were given three percent raises. Twelve month administrators received the following package: 1, 2. 3, 4. 5. Contract days per year extended from 240 days to 250 days Pay raise set at 1 1/2% instead of 3% Paid vacation days granted on the basis of: 0-7 years experience - 15 paid vacation days per year 8-14 years experience  20 paid vacation days per year 15+ years experience  25 paid vacation days per year Sick leave days may be accumulated equivalent to the total number of contract days. When/if the 12 month administrator leaves the district, he/she will be compensated for any accumulated vacation days. We think that you should know that by granting the above package to 12 month administrators, they become the only employee group in the LRSD to receive even one paid hoiiday/vacation. Every other group is paid solely on the basis of days worked - NO PAID HOLIDAYS, NO PAID VACATION DAYS. Furthermore, the fact that they received a 1 1/2% raise instead of a 3% raise was almost immediately made up for by the provision for paid vacation days\nbecause, with the high salaries they receive, it will only take three orOCT-12-93 TUE 11:27 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 four days for most of them to recoup the other one and one-half percent. We strongly feel that the package granted to 12 month administrators is grossly unfair to the remainder of the LRSD employees and bears a total lack of equity. It is also completely unwise, monetarily speaking, for the financial well-being of the district. How can this district, in good conscience, grant such a costly benefit to these administrators. Please investigate this package and question publicly the fairness and financial intelligence of such a decision. We would be indebted to you for your assistance in this matter.- Sincerely, A CONCERNED GROUP OF EMPLOYEESOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Rudolph Howard and Dorthy McDonald Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors Central Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Friday, October 8,1993 at 1:40 p.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Central. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the Sth. Enrollment Data:  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1990- 91 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1991- 92 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of LRSD students recruited by grade, including race, gender and where they were recruited, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (all white PCSSD junior high students, private school students, and LRSD junior high students), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results.Qf \u0026gt; /4-fh Jfritr Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Clell Watts and Joyce Stiedle Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors Henderson Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Thursday, October 7,1993 at 10:00 a.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Henderson. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the 7th. Enrollment Data:  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992-93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of students recruited who live in Hendersons attendance zone by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (ie. white sixth grade PCSSD students at Lawson, Baker, Romine), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S, Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date\nSeptember 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Clell Watts and Joyce S tie die Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors Henderson Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Thursday, October 7,1993 at 10:00 a.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Henderson. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the 7th. Enrollment Data:  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992-93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of students recruited who live in Hendersons attendance zone by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender durin\u0026lt; the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (ie. white sixth grade PCSSD students at Lawson, Baker, Romine), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results./eis- A, Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Stales District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Nancy Acre, Faith Donovan, and Joyce Underwood Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors Dunbar Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Friday, October 8,1993 at 10:00 a.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Dunbar. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the Sth. Enrollment Data:  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1990- 91 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1991- 92 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of LRSD students recruited by grade, including race, gender and where they were recruited, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (ie. white sixth grade PCSSD students at Lawson, Baker, Romine), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Jodi Carter and Steve Garrett Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors McClellan Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Thursday, October 7, 1993 at 1:30 p.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate McClellan. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the 7th. Enrollment Data:  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992-93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The recruitment committee roster by race, gender, and position  Recruitment committee agenda and minutes  A list of all recommended recruitment strategies developed and implemented by the recruitment committee  Recruitment training documentation, including the person(s) responsible, topic, location, time, sign-in sheets, and evaluation criteria  The number of students recruited who live in McClellans attendance zone by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (all white PCSSD junior high students, private school students, and LRSD junior high students), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results. IRC .  TEL:501-524-0504 Oct 0193 15:11 No.004 P.Ol LITTLE BOCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIjANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date: September 30, 1993 To: All principals From: Sterling Ingram, Director Subject: Instructions for Completing Program Budget Document In order to standardize procedures for reporting achievements (evidence) of the strategies on the Program Budget Document, following instructions are provided. the Responsibilities of Principals Principals are expected to document the achieve of strateaies onlv where \"Principal\" or \"Distri ment strategies only -- is stipulated in the \"Responsibility\" Principals are Staff II columi of the Program Budget Document, responsible for inputting information in only three (3) columns: Strategies, Beginning Date and Complet. The diagram below shows the relative columns Date. for inputting information by principals. strategies Beginning Date Completion Date. 1. 2. submission to Assistant superintendents Your diskette should be forwarded to the assigned assistant superintendents on or before the second Thursday following the end of the quarter (i.e. Thursday, October 14, 1993, for this quarter). The assistant superintendents will compile the informa on to form a district-wide report that will be keyed a master School Operations diskette. 3 . Return to Schools I Your diskette will be returned to you after a paper copy has been extracted fop office use.IRC TEL:501-324-0504 Oct 0193 15:11 No.004 P.02 Memo to Principals September 30, 1993 Page 2 4. Placement of Achievements (Evidence) on the Program Budget Documents Evidence of the achievements should be placed underneath the \"Strategies\" column. Use alpha order to list achievements underneath strategies (A.______\n3, , etc.) where the principal or district staff has been specified as the responsible person. REMEMBER\nThe achievements will continue to grow underneath each strategy until the information for that particular strategy is completed. See the Sample of Achievements Documentation below for selected objectives and selected corresponding strategies for further clarification. Sample of Achievements Documentation OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES i 1. To ensure an organizational structure which provides equal opportunity and access for parents,students and staff. 1. To review organizational I structure in schools and [ central office to ensure sufficient support for students and staff success and for the implementation of the desegregation plan. 5. 3.1 Mini-seminars at PTA meetings and in the community. A. PTA Mini-Seminars Agenda, October 10 Beginning Date Each achievement should have a corresponding beginning date (MM/DD/YY), example: 09/28/93. IPC TEL:501-324-0504 Oct 0193 15:12 No.004 P.O S: Memo to Principals September 30, 1993 page 3 i 6. 1. 8 . Completion Date An actual date (MM/DD/YY), example: 11/14/93, will document when an achievement was completed. If an achievement has been started but not completed, give an approximate guess for the percent of completion, example: 75%. Limited Achievements for This Reporting Quarter Identify only achievements which have been completed during this quarter (July 1 - September 30). Every strategy is not expected to show achievements at this early date. Laser Printers Are Required for Hard Copies I Only laser printers are capable of producing hard copies (photocopies) of the information entered onto However, some laser printers in the the diskettes. schools are not capable of printing the WordPerfect program Budget Document. For those schools not having printing capabilities for this document. Planning Research and Evaluation will provide a hard copy upon request. REMINDER:\nIf you are confused, do not forget to refer to the three (3) sets of definitions for the Program Budget Document given you at the inservice. As a final note, schools are expected to present only, achieve- Kie which are succinct and meaningful. Blank forms of the Program Budget Document are enclosed. contact Marjorie Bassa at 324-2120. Tf vou have content questions concerning this memorandum, ',^.u 1.^ L_-L  fill. If you have technical questions concerning the Program Budget Document, contact Dennis Glasgow at 324-0518, drg Enclosures cc: Assistant Superintendents I-f / r 7\\ . ^. .. A . TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS received OCT 1 1993 October 1, 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Documentation of Administrative Directive Revocation 1. The district received Judge Wrights order dated September 8, 1993, and we complied with her order fully by September 10, 1993. The revocation of the directive took place immediately. See Attachment A 2. Provided is a listing of district personnel to whom this communication was sent. See Attachment B 3. The communication was sent September 10, 1993 (see date on Attachment A). 4. Each administrator will be contacted by means of the attached memorandum to apprise their staff of the revocation of Administrative Directive 93-04S, providing they have not previously contacted staff. This information should serve to establish that the directive was timely revoked. /Iks EnclosuresTo: From: Ma] W- Subject: ATTACHMENT A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 September 10, 1993 All Principals, Directors, Supervisors and Program Ma.nagers stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent LRSD Administrative Directive No. 93-04S The District employs over 4000 employees, and we believe that it is critical for the administration to put in place a procedure that will allow us to keep track of information that is sent to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). Administrative Directive 93-04S was an attempt to help us achieve this No. task. Judge Susan Webber Wright has reviewed this directive and has directed the District to immediately revoke the document and to distribute a copy of her order to personnel who received the directive. The District will put into effect a procedure that meets the Court's approval and our needs in the very near future. all We continue to encourage staff to respond to ODM in a timely manner. Effective immediately until a new directive is developed, each staff member is to submit to the Office of the Superintendent copy of all reports, data, etc. that is forwarded to ODM. new directive developed a Your assistance in this matter is appreciated. EM: nrATTACHMENT B DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR POLICIES \u0026amp; ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVES All Building Principals Superintendent Assoc. Supt., School Operations Associate Supt. for Curriculum Assoc. Supt. for Support Services Assoc. Supt. for Equity (OLE) Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation Jo Evelyn Elston (Drug Education) Mark Milhollen (Financial Services) Charlie Neal (Director) Purchasing Doug Eaton (Director) Plant Services Brad Montgomery (Director) Transportation Patty Kohler (Director) Exceptional Children Dave Kingsella (Director) Data Processing Jackie Boykin (Director) Food Services Asst. Supt. Elem. (Gremillion) Asst. Supt. Elem. (Robertson) Asst. Supt. - Secondary Director (Reading Dept.) Director (Barnhouse) Safety and Security Director (Leon Adams) Federal Programs Director (Gadberry) Human Resources Director (Jeanette Wagner) Communications Director (Carol Green) Vocational Educational Metropolitan Director (Donita Hudspeth) Staff Development Liaison (L. Young) New FuturesPage 2 Office of Deseg. (Ann Brown) Rita White Adm. Asst. (Human Resources) Linda Swain - Student Hearing Officer Othello Faison (Director) - Alternative Learning Center Arma Hart Facilitator Incentive Schools Paulette Martin Adult Ed. Director Ouida Carter - Quigley Stadium - Athletics Marie McNeal, Supeirvisor - Social Studies Lucy Lyon (Coordinator) - Instructional Technology Dennis Glasgow (Supervisor) - Science Dept. Debbie Milam (Coordinator) VIPS Supervisor - Math Department Mabel Donaldson - Gifted and Talented Catherine Gill PAC Coordinator Marie McNeal, Supervisor - Social Studies Pat Price, Coordinator - Early Childhood Marian Shead HIPPY Martha Rodgers - CARE Mala Daggett - McClellan - Community Education Gene Parker (Supervisor) - English Dept.SCHOOL/SCHQOL CODE  Central High (01) J. A. Fair 08) Hall (02) McClellan (12) Parkview Magnet (05) Metropolitan Vo-Tech (04) Cloverdale Jr. (15) Hiqh Dunbar Magnet (07) Forest Heights (09) Henderson (13)' Mabelvale (16) Mann Magnet (03) Pulaski Heights (10) Southwest (11) Badgett Elementary (19) Bale (17) Baseline (22) Booker Magnet (06) Brady (18) Carver Magnet (21) Chicot (28) Cloverdale (31) Dodd (32) Fair Park (23) Forest Park ^4) Franklin (25)^ Fulbright (48) Garland (26)^ Geyer Sorings (37) Gibbs Magnet (27) King (351 Jefferson (30) Mabelvale (46) McDermott (20) Meadowcliff (33) Mitchell (34) Otter Creek * Pulaski Heil leJ^Ls^SS) e^ (36)* Rightsell Rockefeller (36) Romine (40) Stephens (41) Terry (47) Wakefielo (51) Washington Magnet (42) Watson (52) Western Hill\nIs (29) Williams Magnet (43) Wilson (44) Wood run (45) *lncentive Schools LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOLS/PRINCIPALS 1993-94 PRINCIPAL Rudolph Howard Al Niven Dr. Vic Anderson Jodie Carter Junious Babbs Dr. Doyle Dillahunty Gayle Bradford Nancy Acre Richard Maple Clell Watts Walter Marshaleck Marian Lacey Ralph Hoffman Charity Smith Mary Golston Levanna Wilson Dr. Mary Jane Cheatham Dr. Cheryl Simmons Mary Menking Mary Guinn Otis Preslar Frederick Fields Patricia McNeil Barbara Means Virginia Ashley Franklin Davis Mac Huffman Robert Brown Eleanor Cox Donna Davis Sadie Mitchell Frances Cawthon Julie Davenport Mike Oliver Jerry Worm Dr. Samuel Branch Carolyn Teeter Lillie Carter Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Lionel Ward Lonnie Dean June Looper Willie Morris Karen Buchanan Theresa Courtney Scott Morgan Dr. Ed Jackson Gwen Zieg er Pat HigginbothamLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 1, 1993 TO: All Principal^ Directors, Supervisors, and Program Managers FROM: fed this. Di Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Revocation of LRSD Administrative Directive 93-04S The district has been advised that some administrators may not have promptly apprised their staff of the revocation of Administrative Directive 93-04S. PLEASE COMMUNICATE TO YOUR STAFF THAT THIS DIRECTIVE WAS REVOKED AS OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1993. As always, your assistance in this matter is appreciated. /Iks1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVE OCT October 1, 1993 t 1993, a t Office oi pesegre'^jaion TO: FROM: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ^^llle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Construction at Chicot This communication is a response to your memorandum dated September 22, 1993, and received in our office on September 24, 1993. 1. When is construction of the Chicot cafetorium scheduled to begin? The actual construction of the cafetorium is scheduled to begin February 1, 1994. The decision was reached with the architect/engineer and our director of plant services. 2. When is construction scheduled for completion? The Chicot cafetorium is scheduled to be completed by July, 1994. 3. Why was the Chicot project not completed before the beginning of the school year? Following the districts March, 1993, filing, the district began to advertise for an architectural/engineering firm to do the bond work for the next school year. This process was completed in April and assignments were initiated in May. On May 14, 1993, the director of Plant Services, Doug Eaton, identified and contracted an architectural/engineering firm to do the Chicot project. The preliminary Scope of Work was completed on or about June 15, 1993. During the summer of 1993, theConstruction at Chicot Page 2 readjustments to the budget, scheduling the completion of ongoing projects, and the preparation for the start of the school year caused certain projects to be delayed. Plant Services accelerated its activities and covered projects necessary for the opening of schools. Delays due to the lengthy budgetary process and other projects caused the Chicot project not to proceed on its originally-intended schedule. 4. 5. How has the district determined the construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium? The construction schedule for the Chicot cafetorium is done in concert with the architectural/engineering firms by analyzing the size of the project, the anticipated duration to construct a project of this size, and by allowing for design time and contractual advertising. If Chicots cafetorium construction is undertaken during the school year, how does the district plan to minimize the disruption during the academic day? The Chicot cafeteria expansion will be a stand-alone building which will be connected to the new building with a hallway. By working closely with the principal, there should be no disruption to the academic day. During the latter part of July, I instructed Larry Robertson to secure from Otis Preslar, principal of Chicot, and Doug Eaton a status report regarding this project. From this point, we have been closely attuned to getting this project back on schedule. The district is committed to completing this project in a manner that provides for the needs of our students and our community. Please contact me if further information is needed.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 October 5, 1993 Mrs. Mary Beth Greenway Parkview Magnet High School 2501 Barrow Road Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Beth: Hooray for you! I want to add my voice to the many who are singing your praises and congratulating you on your latest achievement, the Milken Award. What a wonderful surprise, and yet its really not at all surprising that someone as fine as you would rate such a distinguished honor. You never flag in your devotion to children, intense interest in education issues, and energetic leadership for positive change. Were all very proud of you, Beth. Thanks for all you continue to do to make our world a better place. Sincerely yours, CX- \" Anh S. Brown- 7'dr^T~ 12''93 08:58 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst a 001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 /^? -/^ -^3 TO: -fa. FROM: SENDER'S PHONE#: SUBJECT: 3^  -_____ _ SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Number of Pages (include cover page Speed. Dial Fax Phone Number OIDO GRAnn/nz.cr J Tf^nV.T. W 0 2 TOTAL II 0 1 TOI'Al, h W o 1 TWL'Al. n w 0 5 TOTAL n M 0 6 TOI-A I- R W 0 7 'JVJ7.J, II w 0  TOTM. A 0 9 7W.M. n 0 $0 TOTAL II 0 JI 7'OTAI. n w 0 trUHUUIl TES'l'KO 369 4 1330 697 24 lisfJl 1 171 r.?2 2fl 1783 1131 612 10 1067 L 3 11 032 23 1922 1280 61? 2 2 1414 1 1209 609 25 1094 1122  50 21 J 57,1 JOflO 493 19 1554 995 53 6 23 1602 949 009 4 1 ,14 72 1125 612 35 LITJ^E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PTAWflKG, REse?iRC[( AND EV^LVZlTI0N STANFORD ACftlBVEMEHl' EIGliTlC EDITION HATIONAI. pr^CErfTILK RARK/NaRMAL CUIIVR IIQUIVALEHT SCORES (FR/NCR) DlSTRICWrOE aOHMARY 199? 7017. L llErtDlHG 42/45.a .3 5/4 1.9 63/57.(1 fi6/5fl-0 30/44.1 20/33.1 62/56. ?. 61/56.9 39/44.2 27/36-9 63/57.0 57/53.0 44/47.0 33/40.9 67/59.2 60/95.4 3n/-l3-3 26/3G.6 ru/5G, 1$ 50/54.1 50/49,9 37/42,0 74/03.6 67/59,2 4 2/'l!..5 li/39.1 7n/6i.0 72/62.2 41/45.2 29/:ia.s 67/59.4 73/62.6 44/40.6 10/39.? 60/60.1 63/57.2 49/49,2 3!5/-U.O 72/62.3 64/57.4 50/49.0 34/41.4 6\u0026lt;\u0026gt;/6O,7 r\u0026gt;6/Sfl,4 TOTAL MA'l'HEMATlCS LArrOtJAOE (1 2HVJnOMMEI?T* SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENC.: hz^sic RATl'EnV cqmpli:te ' n?tTPEftV CD 40/49.0 4(1/44.6 70/03,1 74/63.3 57/53.fl 46/47,7 77/65.6 07/73.6 50/54.1 46/47,0 76/65,1 flO/641.0 57/53,9 49/49.2 73/63.0 7C/CG,1 53/51,7 43/46.5 71/61,9 03/69-9 57/53.0 40/40.7 74/63.3 75/64.3 45/47.4 36/42.2 64/57,3 75/64.3 39/4't.O 3CI/3Q.U 9/54.7 87/73.6 34/41.2 23/34.1 57/53.9 6fl /59.6 37/'\u0026lt;3.2 26/36.7 56/53.1 50/54.R 43/46.0 32/40.1 59 /54,6 62/56,4 4.1/45.1 12/40.2 61/57.2 60/60.1 \u0026lt;''/49,7 39/43,9 70/60.9 61/57.4 tSD/SO. D .fl 70/60.\u0026lt;l .6 46/47.6 35/42,1 C5/G0.O 64/57.4 4n/.l. ? 341 / 4 3. 3 67/.69.1 66/150,7 51/50.3 41/45.4 60/59.9 64/57.7 43/46.1 33/40.7 64/57.7 70/01-1 40/40.1 30/43.6 6D/G0.7 R1/6U.5 54/51.9 ^2/45.9 73/63,0 09/60.6 47/40.6 34/41.5 60/60.0 59/54.6 4fl/49.1 5/41.9 66/50,S 61/56,1 37/42.9* 27/37,3 su/ss.o 49/49.5 43/46.3* 32/40.0 66/50.0 67/59.3 43/46.1 30/30.0 67/59,1 63/57.1 46/47.6 34/41.6 60/60.0 6(3/50.7 45/47.4 33/40.6 70/61,2 74/63.6 34/52.0 43/46.0 74/63,5 75/64,0 42/45.6 31/39.7 65/57.9 75/64.5 45/47.4 14/'n . 1 60/00.I 77/65.7 50/50,2 38/43,4 72/62.5 69/00.7 15/47.1 12/39,9 67/50.0 64/57.3 4?/4JI,6 32/40,2 fiO/Q9.7 50/54.'$ O Oo 45/47.5 36/42.4 67/ 59,5 74/63.5 39/44.0 31/39.5 64/5?.fl 67/5$ . I Ol 00 4S/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/62.6 45/47.3 33/40.0 70/61,2 74/63.5 I 46/40.0 35/43,6 67/59,2 61/55.9 4fl/4j.O 30/43.5 60/59.7 69/60.3 46/40,1 37/43.1 65/50,2 70/60.0 59/54.S 49/49,0 76/S5.0 72/62.0 35/42.1 72/ft2-0 B0/s?,a 46/40,0 34/41.3 72/62.I fl3/7O.O 49/49.6 36/42,5 73/62,6 71/61.4 43/46.2 30/3fl.7 66/5fl,4 57/53.fl Sl/50,6 3^/42,7 \u0026lt;59/60.7 72/62.3 * At Cr.idoB I nn\u0026lt;l 2 tlio .SCIENCE aivI SOCIAL SCIENCE ob'jocUtvos aro combload nmi rnrioctne] ein\u0026lt;. n\u0026lt;*oro uinlcr ENVinONHEMT, J). 49/49.2 36/42,4 70/61.1 69/60.4 ie/49,0 3A/43.6 60/59.7 67/53.0 44/46.0 34/41.1 65/5B.3 71/ei,5 54/52.1 43/46.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 46/47.9 35/41.7 69/60. 75/64,5 43/46.2 32/40,0 66/5B.6 H4/71.2 47/40.2 34/41,I 70/61,0 71/61,7 47/48.4 34/41.7 60/60.1 64/57.7 51/50.4 36/42.3  70/60,a 69/60,5 47/40.2 34/41.0 70/61.0 68/51. .7 47/4C.2 36/42.2 60/60.0 67/59.0 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/52.4 54/52.1 43/46,0 7S/64.0 71/62.6 46/47.7 32/40.9 71/fl1.5 7B/G6.O 43/46.1 30/39.2 50/59.0 06/72,6 48/441 .fl 34/41,1 73/62.6 73/62.9 47/40.5 32/40.4 VO/61.2 6G/5JI .2 51/50,4 34/41.3 72/62.1 ZO/eiiO  SO to o t-41 w a cr o 0 cn IS.k GRADE SUBJECT '89 ijj-i iiiis KULA uisiKiur PLAHNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING FIVE YEAR COMPARISON 1909-1993 ALL STUDEHTS__ '30 '91 '92 '93 ' 39 BLACK STUDENTS, '30 '31 92 ' 93 ' 09 WniTTLJiTUDENTS___ ' 90 '91 '92 9 3 1 I 3 6 8 READING MATH READING MATH LANGUAGE ARTS CIEMCE SOCIAL STUDIES READING MATH 86 89 88 09 7 5 66 70 90 89 07 8 7 90 90 77 7 2 \\ 7 7 09 8 7 8? 87 94 90 70 73 73 07 0 4 88 91 92 89 7 7 75 74 05 06 86 80 91 80 7 6 30 76 86 03 02 06 04 86 60 56 60 06 06 83 02 07 00 7 0 62 69 05 83 02 03 92 00 71 64 65 82 79 82 0? 89 86 70 67 66 79 81 81 83 07 84 70 73 69 82 70 96 97 96 95 89 06 89 90 97 95 95 97 96 92 92 94 90 97 95 94 90 95 90 90 09 9 7 95 90 9 6 97 9 8 95 30 90 09 97 95 96 99 94 90 95 91 95 92 EXHIBIT 2 t OTHER STUDENTS '09 '90 '91 '92 '93 70 03 96 96 80 85 00 90 00 95 90 95 95 86 02 35 88 93 96 91 ICO 97 90 87 90 9 0 90 96 96 94 91 85 00 05 97 92 06 91  95 9 2 92 02 02 02 7 7 1 I I 0 lANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES TOTAL TEST * 85 67 74 91 84 74 7 5 91 02 63 63 92 01 62 66 80 80 63 67 7 9 55 65 79 7 6 75 75 97 93 9 4 92 91 70 80 02 06 79 64 68 50 54 52 57 51 50 * TOTAL TEST SCORE AFTER THIRD ADMINISTRATION EACH YEAR. 09 91 93 91 08 01 05 84 07 85 7 0 83 03 01 70 7 0 01 01 69 74 i! II ih I rc co Ol co CS OI o to to ro i/i Ci cr o o o tn1 LIWLB HOCK SCliOOI, Orsi'RjcT PUlWIIHB, lil!SEf,RCIl, AND EVAI.UATlOH ARKAHSA3 HINIMfiK rEKFOHMAHCB 3'EflT OJIADE EIOHT SUMHARy AND KVALUATLOH I.TTT'LK ROCK SCHOOL BISl'HIC-r PMUHIHG, RESEAIICFI, AKU EVAHJA'TIOH ARKAHS/iS_MIKIMUM PEREOHKAtfCE TEST to 1 It SglKX\u0026gt;L/MO. JflSlED* 2IjQ2EBiJAIiEZlSS Jfiimhsr -------rcroont 9119iSZ22a Kumhor - faroant aBF5TJ]SlST3/22? Humbor yoroent llllfiEBS9HZ,2U Numbor -------PqgQont HilBEIiViliEZlla Miinbor ----------tsr9iil_. H4M1IZ259 Kuobar -----------ggroant ITUAEMJISISJOSZU1 Hunber ----------Ssroent_________ acuimaazifii irumber ---------Jscsunli. iIl._llITaiEl![Z2 HiiTTiber ----------laisfint_____ 11 tUliCLE POTHTni WumLor -------KsrafiiLt___ Wumljor ----far\u0026lt;?BS_ TiriRb ADHlMlSTRZiTtOH 19 9 3 CRAOE KIGHT SUMMARV co STl/DENTa PAaSiHG__ ISA 3!*mLu^fP5T flWCK 22  3S_ 11 Ji .StW\u0026gt;EKTS_PATMHQ WFITTK li . 6 JI OTFIBR F _TOTA|, \u0026amp;gltaQL/MO. TRSTBD* _a ----.2_____fi. 33 12. CLSYBliEAlEZlia Humller ______percont___ I 222 _!15_ 115 -fit 214 -89. 151 _S 214 _21- 12 6 li .2 12. _n 0 e. _o _jL 29 11. JlUHflAHZlll llunhciv ---------feroont 21 .15_. 1.4 IS.. 12. -----il J _a IS^0. 0 ___________0,, 12 A3 12 -2 . . _o 0 11_____ -1 _a 0 IL _2 _a. !2 E!]iESl!.irETni]T.q/\niA Hunbor -------Efltflont__ _Q .J?. 21. -5 22 -9- 32 fiEiiioaotiziix Wpubor -------Earooiit_ THIRD ADHIKISTRATIOH 19 9 2 liTUOJilJTS ASaiHQ_ m 40 222 9a 151 03 122 .J5. .'lQTAli-3^11J\u0026amp;9Sllfg_5.\u0026lt;XiRrir7a^ 1-tl nwcK K WiriTE Ji O'fHKR -.iCSlAk. co o o 1-Q IS 99. 21 is. 21 0 -j 0 0 21 14. 0 oi Ik 11 35 U ik 0 0 __ik_  0  0 LC .a. hi 0 0 .12 1.2. 0 G 21.fi ----59___ 11 sc -2 Lk --------02_____12. . 1 iS. _1 __12. ___ai * iiio numbor o/ atuUants __10____ -j6 28, 0 k G __.s_. X5. 3 _2 0 0 -fi .. 0____iftfi______g._ -I -ll_ 12 11 _9 a U 0 ,2 _i9_ -12. 121 _52_ SI _3S_I IS jL 19 -. J. 1 _l. tented lias been rovlseit U -C.. .-9 IL Q k 21. 0 0 _0 _i 29 i{ 12 _2 24 30 21 2B_.. -54. -S .21. 35 2. Into ad out of tiia district sllicu^t)icscuond^adi ctudonta rnovtiig ^tPlents vbo ,ay Have boon Inc^idod Jo the sot^J atlmiidatratioFb sujftwiary, BaflELV4LBZ125 Humber Varofenfc_ MAljH/g73 Humber 191 _____SI. _____Pqtoeht_______ PlltJUKT HEIGfITS/aijn Hiuftber  fiernaiit_________ ggTjTin?RaT/i99 Huinbor ----Earepaid F LI2.R-JirLCirKT,b/9 Humber -------Pktaaaifc____ . EIUHaIJl_EOlnxZ5_ Humber ----------tflroent_______ EISlBICIZlX'-fi Kumboa: ____^roent _ 2SZ 12 ,56 c -li. 1 5 G 0 --------4k 292 _5___ 152 111 _5 19. 1552 __M, _a sc 0 0 0 0 19 .JB 29 il G 1S -52. 19 92. 19 jl 15. as -A9_ 0 0 0 Q 2 0 G 24. _1 -25. 0 0 22 J5. 22 ----il_. 19 c 29 11 22 15. W o 5 O cn a _44_ _1 JiL __B 1944. \u0026gt;1 5 12 5 0 0 229 _12. Unto^irLut' Of the'd?o?,dat':ioo\\h ?* students moving J1E13 boon revised to reCiwot i abieo tho seoand RdmlnJstvatlon the aocond iSOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building LtUe Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: October 14, 1993 To: Bobby Lester, James Smith, Hank Williams From: i\n- in Brown Subject ODM 1993-94 Monitoring Priorities and Procedures My staff and I have identified our monitoring priorities for the 1993-94 school year. We plan to closely examine the desegregation areas that are listed below and summarize our findings to the Court in a written report. It is possible that some of the topics will be subject to change depending upon unforeseen events such as new court orders. As in previous years, we identified our monitoring emphasis by reviewing the desegregation plans and court mandates. We paid close attention to those plan areas the Circuit Court has termed u 'crucial.\" We also noted District Court orders and directives issued during hearings that require ODM to review certain desegregation activities or scrutinize specific provisions of the plans or court orders. Some of our monitoring will be in the nature of a follow-up on previous reports, such as those on the LRSD incentive schools and racial balance in the PCSSD schools. Other monitoring will be in areas we have not previously reviewed as a discrete topic, such-as recruitment and the interdistrict schools. /Mthough we will not monitor all three districts in every area, we will review the activities of all districts in most of the subjects and monitor the district to which a topic specifically refers, such as Academic Progress Incentive Grants in the LRSD area schools. Well also likely visit some schools to assess their general compliance with the desegregation plans in addition to the emphasized areas. You can expect our monitoring procedures to remain essentially unchanged from last year, continuing to include both announced and unannounced visits to schools. Our observations will be guided by a written monitoring guide, the same type of instrument weve used in previous years. We will review the guide with your staff before beginning a formal monitoring project so youll loiow what were looking for. As you know, some guides include charts to reflect various data, such as school enrollment and staffing. Because ODM monitors gather this data from the annual school profiles, rather than asking school staff to fill out forms\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":656,"next_page":657,"prev_page":655,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":7860,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}