{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"umc_awr_50582","title":"Correspondence and General National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1993","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1956-1999\" series from the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department records"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Labor movement","Civil rights"],"dcterms_title":["Correspondence and General National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1993"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/50582"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1539","title":"Court filings concerning District planning and finance, Magnet schools, junior high schools","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1993-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School boards","Magnet schools","Education, Secondary"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning District planning and finance, Magnet schools, junior high schools"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1539"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["126 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_379","title":"Data","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":["1993/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational statistics","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Data"],"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/379"],"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\ns C H o O Learn a little about vour schools All three districts in Pulaski County have plenty to be proud of.  ARKANSAS TIMES  MARCH 27, I998_ w,hen you choose a neighborhood, you're also choosing a school system. The two are inevitably interlinked, and schools often are the determming factor when families are relocating. There are plenty of good-news stories in all three Pulaski County school districts, inspirational tales that help illuminate what is right about public education today. Here are brief looks at the three districts: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The largest school district in the state, the Little Rock School District includes 35 elementary schools, eight j unior high schools, five senior high schools, one alternative learning center and one vocational-technical school. Many are incentive or magnet schools that specialize in a particular educational theme, and plenty of other are area schools in which students from particular nearby neighborhoods attend them. The Little Rock School District has much to boast about  Thirteen LRSD students were named National Merit Scholarship Semifinalists during the 1997-98 school year. Twelve of those honored students attend Central High School, and the other goes to Parkview.  Six students were selected as National Achievement Scholarship Semifinalists four from Central, one from Parkview and one from J.A. Fair.  The 1996-97graduating class of the Little Rock School District received more than $5.1 million in scholarships.  The district offers more courses than any other district or private school in the state. There are computer labs in every elementary school in the district.  More than 160 businesses in the city participate with schools in the Partners in Education program. . \"The variety of programs offered through the district are attractive to parents because there's something for everyone,\" says Suellen Vann, head of communications for  the District. \"Parents whose children are interested in math, science, health sciences L s award-winning teachers and award-winning students.\" There are approximately 25,000 students in the district, with an average expenditure of $5,822. The average teachersalary in 1997- 98 is $33,8789, excluding fringebenefits. More than 53 percent of the teaching staff holds either master's degrees or doctorates. NORTH Little rock school District Parents who want a small-town school environment for their children but who still want to live smack-dab in the middle of bustling Pulaski County might want to take a long look at the North Little Rock School District. 'The district is approximately one-third the size of the Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts with about 9,000 total Computers have become an educational way of life In public schools. students attending the 14 elementaries, four middle schools and one high school, which issplitintotwocampusesthe Eastcampus for 9lh and 10th graders and the West campus for 11th and 12th graders. There are also three specialty programs and an alternative learning center. \"One of the strongest points for us,\" says Shara Brazear, communications head for the district, \"is that we can be a smaller-town school in a metropolitan area. We're exactly right for many people. Most teachers and employees have worked here for years. Once they work for the North Little Rock district they don't want to leave.\" students and recently lauiwhed several new projects. Poplar Street Middle School is an outrageously successful all sixth-grade school. Adolescents have a chance to mature and learn in an environment with their true peers. All 650 sixth-grade students in the district attend this school and are divided into seven teams. Approximately 90 students are in each team of four core teachers: math, English, science and social studies. Redwood Early Childhood Center is another exciting endeavor the North Little Rock School District undertook last year. This preschool program identifies at-risk students in North Little Rock and offers outstanding instruction as well as an exciting curriculum ' ride the bus long distances to take part in the for ail 135 students including 25 kindergarten students. Pulaski county special school DISTRICT A far-flung district of 729 square miles that covers every area of the county that doesn't fall within the Little Rock or North Little Rock city limits, the Pulaski County Special School District includes a total of 38 schools25 elementaries, one middle school, five juruor high schools, six high schools and an alternative learning center for grades 7-12. The district maintains a down-home, smalltown feel by operating under the neighborhood concept. \"As long as seate are still available in your neighborhood school, then that's where you go,\" says Susie Roberts, a district spokeswoman. All the elementaries feed to a particular junior high, and then to a particular high school so \"a majority of students end up going to school with the same kids their whole lives,\" Roberts notes. With 20,000 students and 2,700 employees, the Pulaski County Special School District is the count/s second largest. And there are plenty of good things happening in its schools, some of which Roberts proudly points out:  There is an average of only 20 students per classroom.  Several elementary schools offer a prekindergarten program for 4-year-olds, and others havean extended-day program, which supplies before- and after-school care for  children to better fit parents' schedules.  Five specialty theme schools offer attendance options for qualifying students. Baker Interdistrict Elementary offers an economics specialty theme, while students at College Station Elementary are offered specialized instruction in talented and gifted education. Students at Fuller Elementarv* ran elect tn program, while students at Landmark E. ementary enjoy the fine arts specialty pre gram. Fuller Junior High and Mills Univer sity Studies High School also feature a tai ented and gifted instruction specialty.  About 1300 students take advantage o the many opportunities presented by thi Talented and Gifted (TAG) program, whicl encourages critical thinking and creativih as well as specific subject skills.  Wilbur D. Mills University Studies High School offers a logical progression for students who have participated in the TAG specialty programs offered at College Station Elementary and Fuller Junior High. Roberts reports that many students elect tc unique program, through which they can get a head start on their college careers. That allows many to . enter college as first- or second-semester sophomores rather than as freshmen. Mills offers a more comprehensive selections of advanced placement (AP) courses and more upper-level electives to facilitate this early jump on college. The first class to graduate from the Mills University Studies program netted almost $3 million in scholarship offere.  All secondary schools offer a standard core curriculum in workforce education, and about 90 percent of students get some sort of this type training.  Pulaski County Special School District students, teachers and administrators are coT^sistently recognized with numerous local, state and national awards for excellence in education. Magnet schools Students who live in any school district in Pulaski County are eligible to apply for admission to magnet schools, which offer themed subject areas. Elementary magnet schools:  Booker Arts  Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science  Clinton Interdistrict (technology/speech)  Crystal Hill Communications  Gibbs International Studies/Foreign Language   King High-Intensity  Rockefeller Early Childhood  Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science  Williams Basic Skills Secondary schools:  Central International Studies  Dunbar International Student/Talenled and Gifted  Henderson Health Science  Horace Mann Arts and Science  McClellan Business/Communications  Pirkvipw .Art'^ and Sciences L. PURSUE fRE PUSSHitiiLmES Uf MAGIMET SCHOOL EIVROLLIUEIMT ir NOT TOO IBT!I \u0026gt; .\u0026gt; %\n. L - * I  .X  ,jr. /\u0026gt; \u0026amp; :t h \u0026gt;' I i\nr\nCheck Us Ootl i [^^^C/ioosefrom !5 II Schools or Programs i Pre-K through t2th Crude High Degree of Parental Involvement Test Scores, Low Student Disciplinary Referrals si^\nUMITCD SeRTING flVRILRBLCll Transportation Provided Call the Magnet Review Committee office at 75B-O1SE far enrollment information I Then I shared my knowledge with others. I Global Education in the Little Rock School District 324-2000 Town Hall Meeting October 11, 1994 7 p.m. .7 Fulbright Elementary School 300 Pleasant Valley Drive OCT V 1 W OUice Ct Oasaursoa^' RC*^ iujolWK Zone 4 AGENDA Introduction and Purpose of Meeting Leon Modeste Special Assistant to the Superintendent Opening Remarks John A. Riggs, IV Board Representative, Zone 4 Dr. Heiuy P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 1. Budget Configurations n. Goals and Mission Statement Questions and Suggestions from Citizens Closing RemarksOur Pride is Showing at the Little Rock School District  The Little Rock School District has more course offerings than any other district or private school in the state.  There are 125 businesses that are Partners in Education with the LRSD.  LRSD leads the state with 84 counselors for its 50 schools.  LRSD offers 21 advanced placement courses in its high schools.  LRSD is an educational partner in the New Futures for Little Rock Youth initiative which is a $15 million grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Little Rock is one of only five cities to receive this honor.  LRSD has more that 489,925 books in its school libraries\nthat's twice the state standard.  LRSD offers courses in five foreign languages: Spanish, French, German, Latin and Greek.  In 1994, LRSD seniors were awarded more than $3.3 million in college scholarships.  LRSD traditionally has more National Merit Scholars than any other district in the state.  LRSD offers an educational program for four-year-olds, allowing parents to begin their child's learning very early.  The LRSD has an Instructional Resource Center for teachers and parents with materials and services available to enhance the educational experiences of all LRSD students.  In 1994 LRSD identified 1,856 seventh graders to take the SAT and ACT college entrance exams as part of the Duke University Talent Identification Program.  LRSD offers many educational options such as incentive, area, magnet, and interdistrict schools, each with specialties unique and different.  LRSD has a strong gifted and talented program.  LRSD students have access to the electronic encyclopedia through the library media centers and computer labs.  LRSD offers an extensive program of adult education to meet the needs of people in Central Arkansas with morning, afternoon, evening and siunmer programs.  More than 53% of LRSD teachers hold Master's Degrees or have more than 30 hours towards advanced degrees. Little Rock School District Mission Statement The mission of the Little Rock School District i educational program which encouraoes all childranT v quality, integrated social, and emotional development To that end ,h a academic. '0 iitat end. the students in the Little RncU Oni, apprec.at.on for ethnic and cultural diversity, d vetp - resolut.on. and demonstrate program which District will develop an problem solving and conflict curriculum. mastery of the District', This will be achieved throu s Ji the collaborative efforts of a Board, of a dedicated . purents, and cttizens committed to fairness, racial and competent staff, and of smdems, p-- equity, and adequate support for education. Little Rock School District Goals 1. Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that aU academically sociallv and Pmnf \" ensure that all -  academic enrichment while  students grow 1. disparities in achievement. 3. Develop and maintain a staff that is well-trained and motivated. will valued contributor to and thp cultural diversity and the community as a valued that they accept each individual as a can draw as we resource upon which among students, staff, prepare for the 21st Centuiy. our community and nation Solicit and secure financial and other our schools, including resources that are our desegregation plan. necessary to fuUy support Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to leamin asnre that equity occurs in all phases of school g for all students. activities and operations.1994-95 LRSD Board Priorities Compiled at the Board Work Session on September 14, 1994  Safety \u0026amp; Security  Problem Solving at the Building Level  Quality Nursing Services  Alternative Means of Assessment  Alignment of Curriculum with Assessment  Staff Development  Parent Involvement  Collaboration between LRSD and City of Little Rock  Alternative Schools, including Alternative Learning Center (ALC)  Positive Discipline (Alternative Discipline Procedures)  Improved Relationship with MediaSchool Enroll -ment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area Gadget Elem Bale Elem Baseline Elem Booker Elem Brady Elem Carver Elem Chicot Elem Cloverdale pddd Elem Fair Park Elem Fdre^ P^ Franklin Elem Fulbright Elem Garland Elem Geyer SprkigE Gibbs Elem Ish Elem Jefferson Elem Kwg Elam Mabelvale McDarmotl Meadowcliff Mitchel! Elem Otter Creek Pdl Heights 202 321 339 621 398 598 535 366 304 243 444 411 530 256 282 336 187 483 500 509 440 264 353 379 76 77 77 56 69 55 65 80 60 79 45:s 86 42 91 63 57 97 42 56 54 66 88 41 52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-93 Incen tive X X X X Magnet Inter- dist Magne t X X X Inter -dist Mag -net Prog 4-Year- Olds Prog X X X X X X X X Annex -ed X X X X X X X X CommentsSchool Enroll -ment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area Incen tive Rightsell Elem 249 96 X X Ftoctefelter 361 69 X X Romine Elem 361 77 X Stephens Elem 209 97 X X Terry Elem 541 44 X X Wakefield Elem 500 69 X X Washington 822 59 X Watson Etem 4S1 74 X X Western Hills 335 62 X X Williams Etem 502 55 X Wilson Elem 355 75 X X Woodruff Elem 234 63 X X Cloverdale Jr^ 775 74 X X Dunbar Jr. 705 58 X X Forest Heights Henderson Jr. Mabelvale Jr. Mann Jr. Pulaski Heights Southwest Jr. Central High Fair High Hall High McClellan High Parkview High High Sch Kind 787 914 BV 667^ 849 774 695 1.950 886 976 966 854 122 70 75 166 59 561 75 56 63 57 66 i:57i 89 X X X X X X X X X X X X ......... X 1X\nX 11\u0026gt;1-X::1 X Magnet X X 1B1'X Inter- diSt Magne t X X Inter -dist X Mag -net Prog X X X X 4-Year- Olds Prog X X X X X X X X Annex -ed X X X X X X CommentsNote: 1. Baker Elementary is an interdistrict school in the Pulaski County Special School District. For the 1992-93 school year, the extended care theme has drawn 63 LRSD students on M-to-M transfers. 2. Crystal Hill Elementary is an interdistrict magnet school in the Pulaski County Special School District. For the 1992-93 school year, it has drawn 278 LRSD students on M-to-M transfers. 3. Rockefeller is an incentive school with an early childhood magnet program serving children beginning at 6-weeks old. 4. Henderson Jr., Central High, and McClellan High are area schools with magnet programs. 5. All high schools house one to two kindergarten classes. The enrollment figures reflect high school enrollment. 6. The King Elementary Interdistrict School to open 1993-94 will probably be an interdistrict magnet school, as will the Stephens Elementary Interdistrict School opening in 1994-95.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent: Dr. Ruth Steele Finance Office: Jim Ivey Desegregation Officer: James Jennings Mileage Size of District: Millage Rate: 43.9 Annual Budget Operating Salary Desegregation Cost per Child Number of Employees Certified Support Enrollment 26,254 Elementary Secondary 14,683 11,571 49 Schools 36 Elementary Schools 8 Junior Highs 5 Senior HighsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT COMPARISON SCHOOLS 1988-89 Enrollment % BLK 1989-90 Enrollment % BLK 1990-91 Enrollment % BLK 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK Badgett 279 72% 237 76% 222 75% 220 73% Bale 414 72% 385 76% 375 81% 360 82% Baseline 400 73% 389 72% 370 74% 337 77% Booker 647 55% 610 53% 614 56% 634 55% Brady 447 64% 442 66% 456 72% 420 68% Carver 446 50% 589 46% 603 54% 601 54% Chicot 560 65% 531 64% 544 67% 531 64% Cloverdale 446 63% 419 70% 389 74% 392 78% Dodd 414 66% 394 64% 331 59% 303 55% Fair Park 341 72% 332 72% 345 81% 320 80% Forest Park 423 59% 392 57% 387 53% 402 48% Franklin 442 74% 448 81% 411 83% 507 84% Fulbright 598 55% 576 56% 559 52% 506 46% Garland 299 92% 285 94% 240 88% 279 94% Geyer Springs 239 66% 205 66% 201 72% 254 71% Gibbs 335 51% 338 51% 333 56% 339 56% Ish 197 90% 164 96% 146 97% 200 94% Jefferson 488 56% 479 50% 469 51% 484 43% King 94 94% Mabelvale Elem 586 63% 535 58% 559 57% 505 53% McDermott 506 59% 514 61% 524 62% 511 57% Meadowcliff 456 69% 432 62% 444 65% 427 59% Mitchell 261 84% 239 92% 207 88% 312 91% Otter Creek 361 58% 342 50% 359 50% 356 45% Pul. Heights 326 70% 307 71% 325 65% 342 54% Rightsell 241 81% 211 92% 193 99% 289 98% Rockefeller 300 85% 250 86% 271 72% 403 70% Romine 472 76% 425 80% 392 82% 357 84%SCHOOLS 1988-89 Enrollment % BLK 1989-90 Enrollment % BLK 1990-91 Enrollment % BLK 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK Stephens 233 97% 226 100% 202 94% 245 96% Terry 522 59% 513 61% 522 55% 512 47% Wakefield 501 63% 464 65% 502 65% 479 69% Washington 519 98% 762 57% 841 57% Watson 465 65% 456 64% 518 67% 467 72% Western Hills 332 64% 337 59% 339 60% 323 59% Williams 475 52% 501 51% 505 56% 495 55% Wilson 412 70% 397 66% 418 71% 394 73% Woodruff 221 74% 193 71% 186 65% 225 64% High Sch Kind 119 76% 113 87% 111 84% SUB TOTAL 14,179 66% 14,195 67% 14,336 66% 14,683 65% Cloverdale Jr. 712 60% 731 64% 764 70% 745 71% Dunbar 741 81% 576 79% 663 64% 691 61% Forest Heights 770 64% 808 67% 772 69% 765 71% Henderson 954 64% 956 71% 902 75% 859 83% Mabelvale Jr. 581 56% 609 61% 620 65% 665 65% Mann 882 59% 877 54% 886 58% 872 56% Pul. Heights 694 62% 721 63% 722 63% 761 62% Southwest 734 70% 700 70% 655 75% 704 74% SUBTOTAL 6,068 64% 5,978 66% 5,984 67% 6,062 68% Central High 2,070 57% 1,813 58% 1,580 59% 1,721 60% Fair 920 51% 911 56% 866 58% 882 61% Hall 1,268 50% 1,192 53% 1,212 57% 1,082 54% MeClellan 1,191 52% 1,081 59% 1,003 61% 980 65% Parkview 847 58% 805 54% 804 54% 844 53% SUBTOTAL s GRAND TOTAL 6,296 54% aie 5,802 56% 5,465 58% 5,509 59% 26,543 63% 25,975 64% 25,785 65% 26,254 64%SCHOOLS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pul. Heights Rightsell LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS 220 360 337 634 420 601 531 392 303 320 402 507 506 279 254 339 200 484 505 511 427 312 356 342 289 73% 82% 77% 55% 68% 54% 64% 78% 55% 80% 48% 84% 46% 94% 71% 56% 94% 43% 53% 57% 59% 91% 45% 54% 98% 237 396 390 656 492 613 558 492 328 348 396 510 515 340 328 353 245 486 515 492 442 340 351 351 340 93% 91% 86% 97% 85% 98% 95% 80% 92% 92% 102% 99% 98% 82% 77% 96% 82% 99% 98% 104% 97% 92% 101% 97% 85% 17 36 53 22 72 12 27 100 25 28 0 3 9 61 74 14 45 2 10 0 15 28 0 9 51SCHOOLS 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS Rockefeller 403 70% 385 105% 0 Romine 357 84% 467 76% 110 Stephens 245 96% 315 78% 70 Terry 512 47% 492 104% 0 Wakefield 479 69% 492 97% 13 Washington 841 57% 939 90% 98 Watson 467 72% 492 95% 25 Western Hills 323 59% 328 98% 5 Williams 495 55% 517 96% 22 Wilson 394 73% 394 100% 0 Woodruff 225 64% 304 74% 79 siOB TOTAL 14.683 65% Cloverdale Jr. 745 71% 857 87% 112 Dunbar 691 61% 751 92% 60 Forest Heights 765 71% 733 104% 0 Henderson 859 83% 959 90% 100 Mabelvale Jr. 665 65% 594 112% 0 Mann 872 56% 935 93% 63 Pul. Heights 761 62% 692 110% 0 Southwest 704 74% 702 100% 0 SUBTOTAL 6,062 68% Central High 1,721 60% 1,891 91% 170 Fair 882 61% 904 98% 22 Hall 1,082 54% 1,216 89% 134 McClellan 980 65% 1,085 90% 105 Parkview 844 53% 991 85% 147 SUBTOTAL 5,509 59% GRAND TOTAL 26,254 64%LRSD EMPLOYEE COUNT 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Certified 1,972 2,048 2,043 2,056 Non-certified 1,359 1,465 1,651 1,859 TOTAL 3,331 3,513 3,694 3,915BAKER EXTENDED DAY ENROLLMENT December, 1991 Morning Program Afternoon Program LRSD Students Black Males 8 6 5 Black Females 6 4 1 White Males 7 18 White Females 5 6 Percent Black 54% 29% Total 26 34 6GENERAL INFORMATION Pulaski County Schools 1992-93 LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL Enrollment 26,141 9,251 21,633 57,025 % Black 64% 48% 28% 48% # of Schools 51 25 37 113 # of Employees 4,306 1,292 2,724 .Annual Budget Per Pupil Expenditure Millage Rate Size/Square Miles $120 million $36 million $85 million $241 million $4,400 $3,400 $3,896 43.9 36.3 43.9 100 30 729 859 Incentive Schools (located within the LRSD) Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Ish Elementary Mitchell Elementary Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Magnet Schools - the orginial six (located within LRSD) Booker Arts Magnet (Elementary) Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet (Elementary) Gibbs Foreign Language/Intemational Studies Magnet (Elementary) Williams Basic Skills Magnet (Elementary) Mann Arts and Science Magnet (Junior High) Parkview Arts and Science Magnet (Senior High)Additional Magnet Schools Crystal Hill Communications Magnet (Elementary) (located within PCSSD) Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet (Elementary) Washington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet (Elementary) Dunbar International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Magnet (Junior High) Additional Magnet Programs Henderson Health Science (Junior High) Central International Studies (Senior High) McClellan Business/Communications (Senior High) Interdistrict Schools Romine Elementary (LRSD) Baker Elementary (PCSSD) PCSSD Specialty Programs College Station Elementary TAG Specialty (Talented and Gifted) Bates Elementary Project MAST (Mathematics and Science Together) Fuller Elementary Orchestra Specialty Landmark Elementay Fine Arts Specialty Fuller Junior High TAG SpecialtyLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for racial and cultural diversity. develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of specific skills. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff. and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education.1. 2. 3. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GOALS Implement integrated educational programs that will ensure that all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. Developing and maintaining staff that is well-trained and motivated. (Communicating with colleges and universities about teacher training will be a strategy for this goal). The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff, and students will demonstrate behavior and human relations skills that value people as human beings and that are consistent with an appreciation and understanding of multicultural diversity. 4. Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. 5. 6. Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. Ensure that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations.These were goals that were considered but were not chosen as being the most important. * Help students be productive in the 21st century by developing a capacity for life-long learning, problem solving skills, positive self-concept and a responsibility for learning. * Provide a disciplined environment that promotes citizenship. responsible  By the year 1996: (1) reduce by 50% the number of grades 3 and 6 below the 50th percentile\nstudents at increase by and (2) 50% the students scoring at the 90% percentile (on standardized tests)  strongly promote parental involvement in the education of their children through home and school activities and encourage community involvement through partnerships and volunteerism. * Development and infusion of multicultural education in all areas of the curriculum. * Develop and maintain a system of accountability to the public of the District (achievement and resources).Note - The issues related to each goal which are listed on the following pages are stated subcommittees. problems (e.g., exactly as They are not in parallel form. reported by the Sone are stated as behavior.), Adults not modeling appropriate interpersonal others are stated overcome problems (e.g., as strategies or activities Encourage student participation in to a cross-section of extracurricular activities.), while others are stated as programs). needs All, (e.g., however, parental involvement in all school involve areas which were viewed as impediments to achieving the goals of the District.Issues related to Goal #1 Goal #1 ensure that Implement integrated educational programs that will all students grow academically, socially and emotionally with emphasis on basic skills and academic enrichment while closing disparities in achievement. 1) Program development in areas where needs of all children are not met 2) Accountability (Staff,student, parents, and programs) 3) Objective criteria for determining program effectiveness 4) growth Measurement system to measure academic, social, and emotional 5) Needs assessment (local and District) 6) Adeguate resources (human and financial) 7) Environment conducive to learningIssues related to Goal #2 Goal #2 - Developing and maintaining staff that is well-trained and motivated. (Communication with colleges and universities about teacher training will be a strategy for this goal.) 1) Accountability/change how do we deal with staff, i. e. teachers, principals, etc. who have not been held accountable in past (i.e. principal, etc.) 2) Monitor, evaluate, reinforce, and replicate 3) Recruitment and retention of quality staff and issuance of contracts in a timely manner 4) Quality inservice learning and trainers 5) Needs assessment, i.e., building level and district-wide 6) Adequate resources (financial and human)Issues related to Goal #3 Goal #3 - The Little Rock School Board, administration, staff and students will demonstrate behavior and human relations skills that value people as human beings and that are consistent with an appreciation and understanding of multicultural diversity. 1) Provide financial resources 2) Practices and procedures which will be used strategies relating to positive interpersonal relationships in teaching 3) Training in human relations (job performance related) 4) Lack of understanding of cultural differences 5) promote Communications to parents concerning teaching strategies that enhanced achievement and relationships positive interpersonal 6) Parental involvement in all school programs 7) Provide adequate time for staff development 8) The biases and practices that all of the players bring to the setting (i.e., segregated lounges, cafeteria) 9) Racial sensitivity programs for students, staff, and parents 10) Adults not modeling appropriate interpersonal behavior 11) Encourage student participation in a cross-section of extra curriculum activities 12) Lack of understanding of the desegregation plan 13) Need for a different type of staff development delivery system, other that the current five member staff 14) Employment practices at all levels 15) Effective monitoring of diversity in all programsIssues related to Goal #4 Goal #4 - Solicit and secure financial and other resources that are necessary to fully support our schools, including our desegregation plan. 1) Lack of knowledge and commitment by public and District personnel to desegregation plan commitments. 2) Need hard data to evaluate programs in District and desegregation plan - - remove those that don't work. 3) More focused effort by all District personnel to promote school District. 4) Change in attitude in marketing (We have a lot to sell) progress in meeting LRSD goals. 5) Lack of knowledge of funding sources private) - such as Wal-Mart, Tyson (federal, state, 6) News coverage of schools needs to be more positive 7) Review and audit of personnel needs 8) Level of confidence of public in system Instability in staff and staff changes promotes confusion. distrust, and lack of support to pass a school millage 10) Securing partners for all schools 11) State funding processes 9) .Issues related to Goal /5 Goal #5 - Provide a safe and orderly climate that is conducive to learning for all students. 1) Promote parent participation that includes parents and students helping to establish and support classroom/school rules 2) Identify community problems/conflicts that spill over into the school setting 3) Lack of commitment of staff for inservice training 4) Cost of purchasing materials/equipment to maintain attraction facilities and grounds 5) Cost of adding custodial staff and security personnel to maintain clean, attractive, and safe buildings 6) Teachers need to be trained to be effective in controlling student behavior 7) Role models (especially male) are needed for students at the elementary and secondary level 8) A planned program for citizenship, personal responsibility, and moral/ethical behavior is needed. 9) Expense and space for In-School Suspension Program Kids don't need to be on the street 10) Difficulty in getting parents to come to school for conferences and training 11) Physical structure of some buildings create safety problems (Too many doors, etc.) 12) Changing staff expectations about student behavior 13) Training of students/staff on the Rights and Responsibility handbooks to ensure consistent enforcement.Issues related to Goal #6 Goal #6 Ensure that equity occurs activities and operations. in all phases of school 1) What is equity? 2) The lack of a definition of site-based management in the LRSD 3) Provide financial resources 4) Practices and procedures which will be used in teaching strategies relating to positive interpersonal relationships 5) setting The biases and practices that all of the players bring to the 6) Racial sensitivity programs for students, staff and parents 7) Encourage student participation in a cross-section of extra curriculum activities 8) 9) Lack of understanding of the desegregation plan Employment practices at all levels 10) Effective monitoring of diversity in all programsLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: REVISED ADA LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality, integrated educational program which encourages all children to achieve their optimum academic, social, and emotional development. To that end, the students in the Little Rock School District will develop an appreciation for ethnic and cultural diversity, develop skills in problem solving and conflict resolution, and demonstrate mastery of the District's curriculum. This will be achieved through the collaborative efforts of a Board, a dedicated and competent staff, and of parents and citizens committed to fairness, racial equity and adequate support for education. Adopted 11-18-93LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Total of 50 schools 36 elementary K-6 8 junior high 7-9 5 senior high 10-12, plus K 1 vocational/technical high school Total enrollment 3rd quarter 25,415 with 64% black 14,137 elementary 67% 5,792 junior high 66% 5,414 senior high 56% 72 special schools Magnet Schools for 1990-91 ELEMENTARY Booker Arts Magnet Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Gibbs Foreign Language/International Studies Rockefeller Cooperative Early Childhood Education Washington Basic Skills/Math and Science Williams Basic Skills JUNIOR HIGH Dunbar International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Mann Arts and Math/Sciences SENIOR HIGH Central High International Studies Parkview Arts/Sciences LRSD has six incentive schools which are elementary schools which offer enriched programs as well as standard academic curriculum in order to ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens Incentive schools: Millage rate: 43.9 Total Budget 89-90: 104 millionLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Central High School 1500 Park Street LR International Studies Interdistrict Magnet Program beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 1796 59.74% black enrollment **** Fair High School 5201 David 0. Dodd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in west, southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 876 56.62% black enrollment * *   Hall High School 6700 \"H\" Street LR located in west LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 1203 52.45% black enrollment  * *  McClellan High School 9417 Geyer Springs LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 1045 58.27% black enrollmentParkview Magnet High School 2501 Barrow Road LR located in west LR, south of 1-630 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 757 54.55% black enrollment  * *  Cloverdale Jr. High 6300 Hinkson LR annexed school from PCSSD adjacent to Cloverdale Elem located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 711 65.96% black enrollment * * * * Dunbar Jr. High School 1100 Wright Avenue LR International Studies/Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Magnet School beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 555 79.81% black enrollment * *   Forest Heights Jr. High 5901 Evergreen LR located north of Markham St, east of University predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 780 66.53% black enrollmentHenderson Jr. High 401 Barrow Rd LR located west of University, south of Markham, north of 1-630 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 924 70.88% black **** Mabelvale Jr. High 10811 Mabelvale West Mabelvale annexed school from PCSSD predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 572 59.79% black enrollment Mann Magnet Jr. High School 1000 East Roosevelt LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 890 53.16% black enrollment **** Pulaski Heights Jr. High School 401 North Pine LR located north of Markham, east of University predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 709 61.63% black enrollment ****Southwest Jr. High School 3301 Bryant LR University Lab Magnet School in conjunction with Bale Elementary beginning 91-92 located across from UALR, west of University, south of 1-630, property adjoins Bale predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 660 70.75% black enrollment **** * * * * Badgett Elementary 6900 Pecan Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in east LR, east of airport, north of 1-440 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 222 75.67% black enrollment **** Bale Elementary 6501 32nd LR University Lab Magnet School in conjunction with Southwest Jr. High beginning 91-92 located across from UALR, west of university, south of 1-630, property adjoins Southwest predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 371 74.12% black enrollment    Baseline Elementary 3623 Baseline Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 393 74.55% black enrollment     Booker Magnet Elementary 2016 Barber LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 629 52.46 black enrollment  * *  Brady Elementary 7915 W. Markham LR located west of University on Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 436 65.82% black enrollment  *   Carver Magnet Elementary 800 Apperson LR located in east LR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 605 48.26% black enrollment ****Chicot Elementary 11100 Chicot Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 501 65.26% black enrollment     Cloverdale Elementary 6500 Hinkson Rd LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR, adjacent to Cloverdale Jr. High racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 416 70.43% black enrollment  * * * Dodd Elementary 6423 Stagecoach Rd LR located west, southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 389 63.75% black enrollment Fair Park Elementary 616 North Harrison LR located east of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 346 71.67% black enrollmentForest Park Elementary 1600 North Tyler LR located in the Heights area, east of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 390 55.12% black enrollment  * * * Franklin Elementary 1701 South Harrison LR Early Childhood Environmental Science/Basic Skills Magnet beginning 91-92 located east of university, south of 1-630 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 455 80.87% black enrollment Fulbright Elementary 300 Pleasant Valley LR located in Pleasant Valley, west of 1-430, north of Markham, south of Cantrell predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 563 55.41% black enrollment *    Garland Elementary (Incentive School) 3615 West 25th LR Montessori Magnet beginning 92-93 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 260 95.00% black enrollmentGeyer Springs Elementary 5240 Mabelvale Pike LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR, north of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 205 64.87% black enrollment Gibbs Magnet School 1115 West 16th LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 345 51.01% black enrollment  * * * Ish Elementary (Incentive School) 3001 Pulaski LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 161 96.89% black enrollment    * Jefferson Elementary 2600 North McKinley LR located in Cammack Village, west of university, north of Cantrell predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 465 50.10% black enrollmentMabelvale Elementary 9401 Mabelvale Cutoff Mabelvale annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 533 56.84% black enrollment McDermott Elementary 1299 Reservoir Rd LR located west of University, north of 1-630 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 499 61.12% black enrollment Meadowcliff Elementary 25 Sheraton Dr LR located in southwest LR, north of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 430 62.55% black enrollment *   * Mitchell Elementary (Incentive School) 2410 Battery LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 225 89.77% black enrollment ****Otter Creek Elementary 16000 Otter Creek Parkway LR annexed school from PCSSD located in west, southwest LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 349 49.28% black enrollment     Pulaski Heights Elementary 319 North Pine LR located in Heights, east of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 308 70.77% black enrollment  *   Rightsell Elementary (Incentive School) 911 West 19 LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enro1Iment of 211 91.94% black enrollment if ie \"k it Rockefeller Elementary (Incentive School) 700 East 17th LR Early Childhood Magnet Program beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 257 84.82% black enrollment ****Romine Elementary 3400 Romine Rd LR Gifted/Talented and Basic Skills Magnet beginning 91-92 located west of University, south of 1-630 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 410 80.97% black enrollment  * w * Stephens Elementary (Incentive School) 3700 West 18th LR inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 206 98.54% black enrollment     Terry Elementary 10800 Mara Lynn Dr LR located west of 1-430, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 510 59.01% black enrollment Wakefield Elementary 75 Westminster LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR, north of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 454 65.19% black enrollment *   Washington Elementary (Incentive School) 115 W. 27th LR Basic Skills/Math \u0026amp; Science Magnet beginning 90-91 inter-city school predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 492 96.74% black enrollment     Watson Elementary 7000 Valley Dr LR annexed school from PCSSD located in southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 450 63.33% black enrollment **** Western Hills Elementary 4901 Western Hills LR located in west, southwest LR predominately white neighborhood enrollment of 326 58.28% black enrollment *    Williams Magnet Elementary 7301 Evergreen LR located west of University, north of Markham predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 505 51.88% black enrollmentWilson Elementary 4015 Stannus LR located in west, southwest LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 384 66.66% black enrollment     Woodruff Elementary 3010 West 7th LR inter-city school, north of 1-630 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 192 67.18% black enrollmentNORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (EXCLUDING KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS) Northeast High School 2400 Lakeview Rd NLR Beginning in 90-91 will house all 9th \u0026amp; 10th grades located in McCain Mall area predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 990 30.7% black enrollment **** Ole Main High School 22nd \u0026amp; Main NLR Beginning in 90-91 will house all 11th \u0026amp; 12th grades Located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 968 45.5% black enrollment Lakewood Jr. High 2300 Lakeview Rd NLR located in McCain Mall area predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 488 34.0% black enrollment *  *  Ridgeroad Jr. High 4601 Ridge Road NLR located north of 1-40, west of JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment 626 46.8% black enrollmentRose City Jr. High 5500 Lynch Drive NLR located in southeast NLR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 415 47.5% black enrollment Central Jr. High 23rd \u0026amp; Poplar NLR Beginning in 90-91 this building will be closed for Jr. High. 7th \u0026amp; Sth grades will go to the other three jr highs and 9th grade will go to Northeast High. (Proposed to house elementary students from Argenta \u0026amp; Pine Elem) located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 701 43.5% black enrollment **** **** Amboy Elementary 2400 W. 58th NLR located in west NLR, north of 1-40 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 414 45.9% black enrollment   * * Argenta Elementary 13th \u0026amp; Main NLR (Proposed closing in 90-91 and house students in Central Jr.) located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 220 50.5% black enrollmentBelwood Elementary 3902 Virginia Lane NLR located in east NLR, north of 1-40 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 148 46.6% black enrollment  * *  Boone Park Elementary 14th \u0026amp; Crutcher NLR located south of 1-40, west of 1-30 predominately white neighborhood enrollment of 463 57.5 black enrollment Crestwood Elementary 1901 Crestwood Dr NLR located north of 1-40, east of JFK predominately white neighborhood enrollment of 207 43.5% black enrollment k'k ifie Glenview Elementary 4841 Edmond NLR located in southeast NLR, south of 1-40, east of 1-30 (north of Rose City) predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 233 41.2% black enrollmentIndian Hills Elementary 6800 India Hills Dr NLR located in north NLR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 448 36.4% black enrollment  * *  Lakewood Elementary 1800 Fairway Ave NLR located north of 1-40, between JFK and 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 240 42.5% black enrollment Lynch Drive Elementary 5800 Alpha Street NLR located in southeast NLR, in Rose City racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 268 49.0% black enrollment     Meadow Park Elementary 2300 Eureka Gardens NLR located in east NLR, south of 1-40, past Protho Junction racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 265 51.3% black enrollmentNorth Heights Elementary 4901 N. Allen NLR located north of 1-40, east of JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 385 50.6% black enrollment *  *  Park Hill Elementary 3801 JFK NLR located north of 1-40 on JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 221 38.9% black enrollment Pike View Elementary 441 McCain Blvd NLR located north of 1-40, west of JFK predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 424 46.7% black enrollment   *  Pine Elementary 19th \u0026amp; Pine NLR (Proposed closing in 90-91 and house students in Central Jr.) located south of 1-40, east of 1-30 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 194 46.9% black enrollment    Redwood Elementary 4th \u0026amp; Redwood NLR located south of 1-40, east of 1-30 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 251 53.4% black enrollment Rose City Elementary Early \u0026amp; School Streets NLR located in southeast NLR, in Rose City racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 198 43.4% black enrollment Jr    Seventh Street Elementary 7th \u0026amp; Beech NLR located south of 1-40, east of 1-30 predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 315 41.9% black enrollment k it \"k ie Baring Cross Center 10th \u0026amp; Parker NLR (For Students with Special Needs) located in south NLR, west of 1-30 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 21 52.4% black enrollment  *  *PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHCX)L DISTRICT Jacksonville High School 2400 Linda Lane Jacksonville located in Jacksonville, east of 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 1,067 22% black enrollment Mills High 1300 Dixon Rd LR located in southeast LR, south of 1-440, east of 1-65 racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 690 43% black enrollment North Pulaski High 718 Harris Rd Jacksonville located northwest of Jacksonville, south of Air Base predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 816 19% black enrollment * w * * Robinson High 21501 Highway 10 LR located west of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 454 20% black enrollment ick-kieSylvan Hills High 403 Forest Ridge Rd Sherwood located north of NLR (inside city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 892 19% black enrollment     Fuller Jr. High 1700 Dixon Rd LR located east, southeast of LR racially balanced neighborhood enrollment of 864 46% black enrollment * * *  Jacksonville North Jr, High 1320 School Drive Jacksonville located in Jacksonville, east of 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 604 24% black enrollment Jacksonville South Jr. High 1329 School Drive Jacksonville located in Jacksonville, east of 1-67 predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 627 27% black enrollmentNorthwood Jr. High 422 Bamboo Ln NLR located east, northeast of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 914 19% black enrollment  *** Oak Grove Jr. High 100 Oakland Dr NLR located east, northeast of NLR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 982 16% black enrollment * * * * Robinson Jr. High 21001 Highway 10 LR located east of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 489 24% black enrollment Sylvan Hills Jr. High 401 Forest Ridge Rd Sherwood located north of NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 977 22% black enrollment  *  Adkins Elementary 500 Cloverdale Rd Jacksonville located south of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 381 40% black enrollment * * *  Arnold Drive Elementary 798 Arnold Drive Jacksonville located on Air Force Base predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 392 18% black enrollment Baker Elem 15001 W 12th LR located west of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 290 27% black enrollment \"kir is'k Bates Elementary 7000 Murray LR located in southwest LR (temporary site) racially balanced neighborhood (mostly industrial area) enrollment of 708 48% black enrollment k k k kBayou Meto Elem Rt 2, Box 200 Jacksonville located north of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 598 2% black enrollment Cato Elem 2901 Cato Rd NLR located east, northeast of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 663 21% black enrollment  *  * College Station Elem Box 428 College Station located east, southeast of LR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 257 46% black enrollment kit it -k Dupree Elem Gregory St Jacksonville located in Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 487 20% black enrollment kkkkFuller Elem 1702 Dixon Rd LR located east, southeast of LR racially balance neighborhood enrollment of 578 58% black enrollment 'k'k'k'ie Harris Elem 4424 Jacksonville Hwy NLR located east of NLR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 653 31% black enrollment kit-kit Jacksonville Elem 108 South Oak Jacksonville located in Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 795 33% black enrollment Landmark Elem 19824 Arch Street Pike LR located south of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 561 47% black enrollmentLawson Elem 19901 Lawson Rd LR located west, southwest of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 327 20% black enrollment **** Oak Grove Elem Rt 5, Box 158 NLR located west, northwest of NLR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 565 12% black enrollment **** Oakbrooke Elementary 2200 Thornhill Shearwood located north, northeast of NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 637 23% black enrollment Pine Forest Elem 400 Pine Forest Dr Maumelle located in Maumelle predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 602 15% black enrollment * *  *Pinewood Elem 1919 Northeastern Ave Jacksonville located north, northeast in Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 594 29% black enrollment Robinson Elem 21600 Highway 10 LR located west of LR predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 451 23% black enrollment Scott Elem Rt 1, Box 300 Scott located east, southeast of LR predominantly black neighborhood enrollment of 201 40% black * * *  Sherwood Elem 307 Verona Avenue Sherwood located in northeast NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 526 24% black enrollment   * Sylvan Hills Elem 402 Forest Ridge Rd Sherwood located north of NLR (within city limits) predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 776 18% black enrollment Taylor Elem Rt 1, Box 43-A Jacksonville located east of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 430 23% black enrollment Tolleson Elem 601 Harris Rd Jacksonville located west, northwest of Jacksonville predominantly white neighborhood enrollment of 555 15% black enrollmentPULASKI COUNTY 1989-1990 School Year School District LITTLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK PULASKI CO. SP. Expense oer A.DA STATE RAIIK % Change 5 Years in Last $3,227 23 +15 $3,124 28 -3 $4,409 6 -30 Kills Voted State average 26.8 35.50 36.30 35.90 ADr4 STATE RANK 22,374 1 9,363 4 21,229 2 # Teachers K-12 STATE RAJ4K 1,840.5 1 615.0 4 1,288.0 2 Avg. Teacher Salary K-12 STATS RANK $25,385 $22,955 $26,395 3 36 2 # Certified Personnel STATE sank 1,991.1 668.0 1,407.0 1 4 2 Avg. Salary Cert. Pers. STATE RANK $26,531 $24,083 $27,511 4 34 3 Superintendent Salary $88,000 $69,310 $79,272OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 DATA SHEET LRSD PCSSD NLRSD TOTAL Enrollment Black 16,634 5,755 4,279 26,668 Non-black 9,151 16,005 4,915 30,071 Total Enrollment 25,785 21,760 9,194 56,739 Black 65% 26% 47% 47% Number of Schools Elementary 36 23 19 78 Secondary 14 13 7 34 Total 50 36 26 112 Employees Certified Teachers 3,300 (2,000) 3,000 (1,346) (681) (4,027) Annual Budget (million) +104 +74 30 +208 Square Miles of Districts city limits 729 30 Millage Rate 43.9 35.9 36.3 Magnet Schools: Located within the LRSD: 6 elementary magnet schools 2 junior high magnet schools 2 senior high magnet schools Incentive Schools: Located within the LRSD 6 elementary schools\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":"loc_rosaparks_49241","title":"Dear Ms. Rosa Parks [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Japan, 35.68536, 139.75309"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":["Portrait drawing of Rosa Parks with inscriptions, possibly from Soka Gakkai members who met Parks during her visit to Japan in the early 1990s.","Title from item."],"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":["Drawing"],"dcterms_title":["Dear Ms. Rosa Parks [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.49241"],"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":["drawingscolor1990-2000.gmgpc","portrait drawings1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_390","title":"Discipline, management report","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"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","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, management report"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/390"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRecidivism Report - Black/White Fea/-\n94 Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BF WM WF Senior High ^CENTRAL FAiR T? 70 80')*' 50 37 23 29 6 9 Junior High .V\" Elementary RECEIVED AUG 8 1999 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITOfllNS OM OF Total 0 0 149 V\u0026gt;7 2 0 157 ^HALL MCCLELLA METRO ^PARKVIEW .z6lOVR JR ,DUNBAR /forst HT / HENDERSN ^MABEL JR y MANN M/S J PULHTJ SOUTHWST i/BALE BASELINE / BOOKER -'^RADY ?CHICOT CLOVR EL ^DODD FAIR PRK J FORST PK FRANKLIN FULBRIGH 7,garland GEYER SP Wednesday, July 28,1999 Cleas'I 179' 45 29 16 1 1 185 24 6 3 0 0 112 irr (-V toy -------11 33 ' 39 0 3 4 - 0 0 36_ 13 2J Iff 96- ,io112 - ,nxii3'' I'E 101-1 61 ^0 81 0 1 12 I a 67 ^^1 64 5' 58-') 51 43 \u0026lt; i2o\n} Qi'i'j II 21 28 23 10 18 17 26 0 \"23 It?\"iCV 1 0 \u0026lt;70 1 3 0 0 16 3 7 2 2 17 5 9 0 10 1 51^ 1 2 0 4 0 1 2 2 1 2 4 0 n 1 2 0 3 2 3 0 0 0 2 //12 ~l 10 2 7 11 5 Senior High b 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Junior High 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sets 444-67J /iff 205 213 2^0 189 184 140 iSirC'J 155 \u0026gt;^7 199 ' 1457 IM? r 2 3 21 4 . 13 2 6 22 11 10 2 14 3 iBssa Page 1 of 2Recidivism Report - Black/White Year: 9^ Quarter: 1 Quarter: 4 Counts Each Student Once LEVEL SCHOOL BM BE WM WF OM OF Total Elementary JEFFRSN 12 14 VMABEL EL i/mcdermot 13 'f^lEADCLIF 14 / MITCHELL 12 y PULHTE 10 18 RIGHTSEL ROCKFELR 16 d ROMINE 'K STEPHENS yiERRY yX/VAKEFIEL v^VASHNGTN 12 15 WATSON 13 18 / \u0026gt;/m LKING 2 3 5 5 7 9 4 8 0 6 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 2 4 1 0 0 - I 2 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 6 5 WEST HIL 5 3 1 0 0 0 9 - WILLIAMS ^ywlLSON 4 0 1 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Elementary 288 fVednesday, July 2S, 1999 4 Grand Total 2456 + I Page 2 of 2little rock school district ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT SCHOOL district WUAL OISCIFLiNARr KAMJ SCHOOL SHORT TERH SUSPKNSIOH Population and % Blk Central 1879 65% J.A. Fair 918 65% Hall 976 60% McClallan 886 75% BM BP WH HP 68 56 27 5 Metropolitan Farkvlaw Magnet 788 59% ALC Cloverdale Jr. 701 81% Dunbar Magnet Jr. 701 63% Foreata Heights Jr. 788 73% Henderson Jr. 915 74% Mabelvale Jr. 654 69% Mann Magnet Jr. 8S1 set Pulaski Haights Jr. 790 55 Southwest Jr. 790 77% TOTALS 118 163 96 18 45 17 140 179 188 197 167 103 147 213 1,859 41 55 22 10 14 12 106 97 86 79 71 n 58 848 16 43 6 3 34 3 28 32 29 13 24 28 31 33 378 15 3 4 7 1 6 12 12 2 11 17 5 11 127 little rock school district ANNUAL DISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT REPORT 1993-94 SCHOOL YEAR - TOTAL SANCTIONS SECONDARY LEVEL LONG TERM 8USP1WSlOM EXPULSION TOTXL TOTAL 156 219 276 127 12 100 25 246 329 326 298 281 219 260 315 3,212 BH 12 10 12 16 1 2 6 9 14 29 16 15 0 8 17 167 BP 8 5 1 3 1 0 0 0 7 15 5 9 2 4 3 69 HM 0 3 9 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 1 '3 16 HP 1 1. I 1 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 11 TOTAL 21 19 22 20 2 6 15 22 49 21 26 ' 2 13 23 263 BK 12 2 1 8 n. 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 5 38 BP 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 q 0 1 4 HH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 HP 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 TOTAL 11 2 1 8 Il 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 0 1 7 45 IBUC 152. 240 299 155 21 104 32 264 353 378 320 309 221 274 345 3,520 51 73 80 93 51 60 87 84 86 87 95 88 79 86 86 85LITTIX ROCK SCHOOL WmUAL DISCIFLIMARI HMJ DISTRICT\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eLittle Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_70046350","title":"Employment discrimination and women in South Dakota : a legislative handbook","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, South Dakota, 44.50026, -100.25069"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. South Dakota Advisory Committee"],"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":null,"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":null,"dcterms_subject":["Sex discrimination in employment--Law and legislation--United States--Handbooks, manuals, etc.","Sex discrimination in employment--Law and legislation--South Dakota--Handbooks, manuals, etc.","Women--Employment--Law and legislation--United States--Handbooks, manuals, etc.","Women--Employment--Law and legislation--South Dakota--Handbooks, manuals, etc."],"dcterms_title":["Employment discrimination and women in South Dakota : a legislative handbook"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr162em72z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_70046350"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["27 p. ; 23 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_69144727","title":"Enforcement of equal employment and economic opportunity laws and programs relating to federally assisted transportation projects : a report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights"],"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":null,"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":null,"dcterms_subject":["United States. Dept. of Transportation","United States. Dept. of Labor","Discrimination in employment--Law and legislation--United States","Affirmative action programs--United States--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Enforcement of equal employment and economic opportunity laws and programs relating to federally assisted transportation projects : a report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr12en1z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_69144727"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["15 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_48327","title":"[Everee McCauley Ward wearing corsage and sitting at a dining table] [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."],"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":["African American women"],"dcterms_title":["[Everee McCauley Ward wearing corsage and sitting at a dining table] [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.48327"],"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":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1100","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case","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--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case"],"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/1100"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nLR-C-82-866\nexhibit numbers 203-280\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\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_1181","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case (court exhibits)","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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case (court exhibits)"],"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/1181"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"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\nLR-C -82-866\nexhibit numbers 390-415\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\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_456","title":"Focused activities","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":["1993/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Focused activities"],"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/456"],"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\nLRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Jun 8 95 8:43 P.02/02 3j T-: n Little Rock School District News Release June 8, 1995 For more information: Suellen Vann. 324-2020 The Littie Rock School District received a $233,992 grant from the Arkansas Early Childhood Commission to fund early childhood education programs. The Arkansas Better Chance grant will help to fund programs which identify and assist educationally-deprived children ages three to five. Approximately 378 children will be served at 13 sites by programs funded through this grant. ### aiO-WP-^ Markham Street  Uttle Rock. Arkansas 72201 ^(501)324^2000FOUR-YEAR-OLD PROGRAM Notice The Little Rock School District is pleased that we have been able to offer a Four-Year-Old program in our schools for the past seven years at no charge to parents. Due to projected budget cuts the program may not be available in as many of our schools for the 1995-1996 school year. The final decision will be made by the LRSD Board of Directors in the near future. We will continue to accept applications for the Four-Year- Old program in hopes that we can offer the program at all current locations. However, please be reminded, your application does not guarantee a seat in the program. Final assignment letters are scheduled to be mailed the week of April 3,1995.BUSINESS CASE FOCUSED ACnVITIES/ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS May 25, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I  I i In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons and equity issues regarding adequate resources, the Little Rock School District proposed in the TriDistrict Plan to implement a program entitled Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG). The grants, which were not to exceed $25,000, were to be offered for one year with an opportunity to continue for two more years. Prior to the May 1, 1992 Court order, the District proposed to modify the Settlement Plan by requesting to substitute APIG for Focused Activities. The Court approved the continuation of the APIG program, which the District was to evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognized the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of, the original Focused Activities feature of the plan. The APIG has been offered to area schools for application the last five years. {? r i At the conclusion of each school year, the principals submitted a narrative which included a summary of the project activities, a list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. Most of the reporting schools used their funds to provide activities interrelated to the core curriculum. However, data did not reflect that the grants led to a disparity reduction or achievement improvements as had been expected. The intent of Focused Activities was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, enriched learning activities at each elementary area school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through a voluntary assignment plan. The District did not begin to implement this component of the plan until the 1994-95 school year. Plans were developed during the spring of the 1993-94 year. Elementary area schools submitted grant proposals that requested a maximum of $5,000 to implement these activities. The severity of our financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have forced the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. 1The implementation of these two programs has presented some positive results in spite of delayed funding. Some of the submitted proposals did not specifically relate to the goals of APIG and Focused Activities. The grant application process is perceived by some to be burdensome and too restrictive in terms of how funds may be utilized. At least six alternatives were examined as the District looked for solutions that would continue to provide support to our area schools and allow us to operate our schools within our annual revenue. Alternative number three appears to be the most viable option at this time. The recommendation is to provide equitable opportunities to all area schools by eliminating the application process and providing additional funds through an armual appropriation in each area schools operating budget. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (COE) and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two proposals would be maintained. This would allow the District to concentrate obligations identified in multiple locations. Schools would be able to clearly focus, implement, monitor and evaluate these activities in a comprehensive manner. The objective of this recommendation is to provide equitable quality educational experiences so that all students have the opportunity to succeed. Successful implementation will enhance student achievement and ensure that area schools become communities of learning among parents, staff and students. The impact of this recommendation will be positive as the District will be able to continue to meet its obligation as specified in the Desegregation Plan, recommendation will require a plan modification as the District wishes to obligations located in multiple places to one central area of the plan. This move Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as schools will focus their energy on implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. This recommendation will provide $183,900 to area schools and result in a $261,100 savings for the District. We have the opportunity to regain the support of our area schools staff, students, parents and other District patrons. This could pave the way for a productive and positive relationship with the Area School Advisory Committee. There will be minimum primary detractors if we keep our word to our area schools. It will be extremely important that the suggested implementation plan timeline be followed so as to provide our area schools the time, opportunity, and resources needed to provide equitable quality educational experiences. 2B. BACKGROUND The Districts Desegregation Plan initially included provisions for Focused Activities. The purpose was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, enriched learning opportunities at each area elementary school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. Specific details, including individual school allocations were not defined by the District until the 1993-94 school year. Implementation of Focused Activities began as of the 1994-95 school year. Area schools serve approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Many students whose attendance zones were within the area of the Incentive Schools were not able to attend these schools given the lack of space and provisions in the Incentive School Assignment Plan. The Tri-District Plan included a section, APIG, to improve the quality of education through increased achievement for all students which will result in the reduction of disparity among various races, socio-economic, and gender groups. This component was included in the May 1992 Desegregation Plan. The area, elementary and secondary schools, were provided e opportunity to develop non-competitive proposals for grants up to 525,000 for one year, with an opportunity to continue two more years at the same level of funding. The grants level of funding was reduced the third year to 510,000 as the district began to encounter very serious financial problems. Expected academic gains have not been established and/or sustained for this period of time. During the 1994-95 school year, secondary APIG grants were 510,000 and elementary grants were funded at 55,000. Uncertainty about whether and when funding would be available from year to year has hindered the area schools ability to plan and implement APIG and Focused Activities. Some schools have been slow and reluctant in submitting proposals for funding. The assistant superintendents for elementary and secondary schools conducted Fast Track Evaluations and Extended Evaluations of APIG grants during the 1993-94 school year. This information was used to determine the effectiveness of these programs in meeting their identified goals. It is important that all parties are informed and reminded of the trade-offs and benefits that area, incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools received through the Settlement Plan. Area schools were able to have attendance zone schools under a voluntary desegregation plan. At that time, it was clear that the District would need to find other means to support area schools, as provisions were made in the plan to provide additional support to incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools. 3c. PROBLEM definition Current implementation has or a reduction in not resulted in either expected improved achievement , -t uupiuvcu ttWUCA me oispanty m achievement among students of different racial, uffiaaS -feV an?\n financial nrnhipmc  buildings, and financial issues. The severity of the have TausS ,hT n- ! =ff,iveness of existing program feTth Te:rabr: Sis' ~ not Deen able to identify any sustained academic improvement are far, the District has relative to APIG. cope with many of the rfouTXams if\"nn=etivity the District has ^Tck E Kf\". pemussion to implement Focused Activities and meaningful way. APIG in a more focused and intplentented Focused Activities prior to the activities or DlaS fo?T ? adnnnts,ration had not defined focused 1994 did theW, \" iti Prins of not implemented 1994 did the District begin Activities. to study various approaches to implementing Focused On April 21, 1994, the LRSD convened responsibility of defim^ FoS Acti^^^T^ \"\" develop both a gran, proUSp^^Sal committee was comoosed nf cV ^ixteen-member steenng adnnrustrators, two magnet school cuniSmspeZlfaU Three T office Teachers Asso^atta parents appointed by the PTA Council. Grants however. (LRCTA), and three were made available in June of 1994, no proposals were submitted for funding until the fall of 1994 w, were provided .n the sprtag. Grant proposals werf not ubm  d or vio^s Ponjons of the grants were approved in order to allow IT, . 7 . Workshops reasons. programs. to allow schools to start their The steering committee adopted the following goals for based on the goals in .............. Plan: the Focused Activities focused activities which are section of the LRSD Desegregation 41. Each elementary area school will provide focused activities for the total school population. 2. Each elementary area school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive. 3. Each elementary area school will integrate focused activities into the core curriculum and will reflect the focused activities in the schools enrichment and day-to-day activities. 4. All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that compliment and extend the core curriculum activities. 5. Each elementary area school will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. In spite of the interaction with schools, problems still existed with timelines, stable funding, quality inservice, inadequate grant proposals, partial approval of grants, etc.. Several changes in the leadership of the District have not aided continuity in the implementation of these programs. Although the LRSD has been committed to Focused Activities and APIG, problems with the implementation of the programs were evident. Schools have viewed the grant application process as burdensome which has caused the number of applications to decline. Given several opportunities to apply for grants early in the school year, schools in some cases chose not to respond to a timely submittal of the grants. D. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Change Nothing This alternative would continue to offer the Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants to the area schools in their present form. Based on past performance, we can expect to receive the same results. A review of the evaluation reveals that the goals of APIG were not achieved at a level that warrants continuation. To continue operating in this manner suggest that schools would continue to yield the same results. 2. Eliminate Focused Activities and APIG for the 95-96 school year. This course of action would not provide any support for area schools. 53. 4. ^rpbine the goals of APIG, Focused Activities. Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation fCOE'), and the Desegregation Plan fSchool Operations) so that obligations that appear in multiple places and documents would be moved to the most appropriate place in the Desegregation Plan. All area schools will focus on Extended COE process based on quality education through the use of the Learner Outcomes, Curriculum Framework, that guide the development of an enriched multicultural curriculum and Arkansas Goals 2000. The guiding decision throughout this process should direct each school to establish a vision and develop an action plan based upon needs and critical indicators of success. The action plan would contain specific measurable objectives and an evaluation component as to what it implements and how well it is implemented. The action plan would allow area schools to become educationally effective as obligations in multiple places would be moved to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan, under School Operations. Such movement would increase the opportunity for schools to organize these activities in a more focused and comprehensive manner. The action plan would provide the opportunity for meaningful parent involvement in a broader range of activities. Parents would also participate in the development of this plan. The action plan would focus on what schools hope to achieve, not what they plan to buy. If obligations are specific, measurable, monitored, and evaluated, the LRSD will increase its ability to make this plan work. Therefore, this alternative allows the District to eliminate the application process and provide additional funds through an armual appropriation in each area schools operating budget\nthus placing the emphasis on site based decision making involving principals, staff, parents and students. Implement Extended Day Programs for students who need assistance is provided through the Districts Academic Support Program. This program is supplemented by federal funds. Many of the Focused Activities and APIG proposals included extended day activities which are a duplication of services. This alternative was rejected because of its narrow focus. 65. Secure Outside Funding grant The District could aggressively request assistance from the Parent Teacher Association, Partners In Education, City of Little Rock and private resources. Each school can seek assistance from the Little Rock School District grant writer for technical support. Funding would be inconsistent and unreliable as well as inequitable. 6. K-4 Special Summer School Act 348 of 1995 provides for a supplemental summer school program established for students who are performing below grade level and at-risk of failing. Instruction is delivered by teachers who receive state-approved training. Students who are usually served by Focused Activities and APIG are also eligible for the K-4 Summer School. Participation in both programs appears to be a duplication of services. At the time the Desegregation Plan was written, this comprehensive state-mandated program was not available. The K-4 Special Summer School Program is funded by the State of Arkansas. The K-4 Initiative is very effective, however, it serves a limited number of students. E. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the LRSD redirect its effort to provide equitable opportunities to elementary area schools by eliminating the grant writing process and providing additional funds through annual appropriations in each area schools operating budget. Annually each elementary area school will be funded $20 per student as of the October 1 enrollment. Funds will be allocated at the beginning of the new school year and adjustments will be made after enrollments are verified later in the year. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two grant proposals would be maintained. Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curriculum. The regular operating budget in 7twenty-three (23) area elementary schools will be supplemented with an allocation of $20 per student This recommended alternative will cost the District a total of $183,900 while yielding a saving of $261,100. Using the expertise of the grant writer, efforts will be continued to increase this amount through private and public funding, This recommendation wUl allow the District to show continued support for the area schools. The following chart depicts how the goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE, and the Desegregation Plan complement and/or support each other. 8ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCRVTTVE GRANTS, FOCUSED AC^i^rDKEG'k'EcXlIGN PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS), AND EXTENDED COE lac'anve Gnats, Focused Activities, Desejiesation Pisa (School Opentioas), sad Extended COE ire comparable u well u ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS A,. The focused activities of each area school wfll be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the school's environment and dav-to-dav acavides. ' 3  The academic performance of area school students will indicatei tchievemeat gained partiaUy as a result of enrichment experiences provided V the core ororam an\u0026lt;4 by the core projraa' and carichmeat activities. psredpate ia OBjoiag, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core canicular activities. D. Ail area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equiable and excellent educaaonai prngrawn FOCUSED ACTrvrriES The purpose of the Focused Activities' shall be threefold: 1. To promote the school as a 'community of learning* among parents, staff and students\n1 To provide earichmcat opportunities ic the building levcb md 3. To ensure cquiuble opportuniaes for partidpaaoa ia the eletaeaurv schools. vea Each non-magnet and aon-incentive elementary school will provide focnsed actmties (or the total school population including attention to gender, race, and socio-economic issues. B* Each school will be recognized as a community of learning ia which all^ students, suff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive.  The focused activiries of each non-magnet and non-incenove elementary school will be integrated into the core curricalum or reflected in the school's environment and day-to-day aeovities. A* All elementary area school students will parddpate In ongoing, meaningful enrichment actMtlcs that complement and extend the core cunicubr acevides. DESEGREGATION PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS) C. To provide  climate in each jchool which is based on the beUef and crpectaaon that ail children can learn and to provide resources support that belief. necessary to C ?M1 elementary area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and ezeedest educational programs. EXTENDED COE (COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EV.M.UATION) Quality of Education Indicators included in this area are: D  i o monitor student class ratios and iastrucnonai epportunides for all students. practices to ensure equal B  An increase in overall student achievement and the reduction of racial academic disoarides. C. to provide and ensure oppormnities and encouragemeat to aU students to participate in extracurricular and ccxurricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minoritv and disadvanmged srudeais. to assess the raciusioa of muldculturai matenals and aondiscrimiaatory instnrcdooal materials. B 3. To revic'w and assess testing practices, formats, sad results in order to better address the needs of sU students while providing special intervention for disadvaaiajed students.  Staff development during designated staff development days which is used to faciliute the desegregation process in such areas as cross-cultural teaching and learning styles, dealing with diversity, cross-culturai ccunseling, and minority achievement strategies. D. To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and Eoval Access advocate for students and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all smdenis. to Indicators included in this area are: 3 To ensure school-wide planning and individual academic achievement: to address dispariries, individual needs, and student success\nand to provide staff ID * Equal access to classrooms, programs, and subjects. Student Achievement development on an ongoing basis. Indicators included in this area are: ii To provide infonnation to parents ia regard to topics relevant to increasing \u0026lt; A . AM . __t___ ___ 1 r  student access to educational and extyacurricalar opportunities. B* A continuous increase ia overall student achieveaenL *Same leiiering (AS) denota chat spedpc goaia other are comparable, complement, anhior support each others B  A reduction in the numbers of students retained (non promotes) by race, gender, grade, school, and teacher. E An increase in diverse parental participanon in parent groups, parent functions, and school functions (including school and district committees). 8AF. Objective The objective of is recommendation is to provide quality educational experiences so that students have the opportunity to succeed. The focus of this objective is to combine goals of the Desegregation Plan with Extended COE in order to enhance student achievement and reduce disparities in academic achievement among groups fnrmpH rvn ___ , , . . o o r Successful -------p  -  VillV XzlXAWAXk U tormed on the basis of race, gender, and socio-economic status. sJvZvoofui implementation of this objective will ensure that area schools become communities of learmng among parents, staff, and students. Evaluation Criteria Identified programs will be determined successful if there is: o Increased student achievement based upon results of pre and post tests (local, state, and national assessments). o Improvement on standardized test scores. Increased number of o o o o students moving from bottom quartile to the next quartile. Increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile as well as the sustaining of students growth in the upper quartile. Targeted Areas/Extended COE as defined in each schools study. Grade distribution reports reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C or better in the core areas for each student. Program Budget Document (evidence of achievement). Parent Surveys The District will design an evaluation instrument that will specifically identify factors which may have an impact on student outcome and successful implementation of programs. This evaluation instrument would be used to help schools establish a solid relationship between what it implements and how well it is implemented, and then use that link to shape what it does next. In addition, results from the instrument Should improve use of resources, reduce wasteful activities, and provide data that would give the schools and District good information in which to make sound decisions regarding replication of successful effective strategies and programs as well as modification and termination of ineffective programs. 9Expected Benefits The District will be able to continue to make efforts toward increasing achievement tor all students, and reducing disparities among different racial, socio-economic, and gender ^oups. These benefits will be derived from the establishment of ? J . \"lu uc uciivcu irom tne estaonsnment ot a co^umty of learning that has school/community support as well as a stronger focus and connection between teaching, learning and support programs. The District will make a solid philosophical, management, and material commitment to the continuation and support of area schools as obligations are retained in the Desegregation Plan. TTie implementation of this recommendation will enable the district to operate within Its existing annual revenue. G. IMPACT ANALYSIS The District will be able to continue its efforts to meet its obligation of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity among ditterent racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. The area schools will be viewed as communities of learning,\" through the District implementation of enriched programs that are comprehensive, effective and efficient. The results of the implementation of this recommendation must be clearly communicated to the area schools staff and patrons so that they may understand that the Distnct has not abandoned its efforts to assist them in the achievement of their goals. The results and support must be comparable to the expected benefits derived from resources allocated to the magnet and incentive schools. This recommendation will require the District to seek approval, from the parties and the court, to move obligations located in multiple places to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan. This movement provides for schools to implement obligations more effectively by using a more focused and comprehensive approach. If every obligation is more focused and v/q are dnven toward these obligations, we increase our chance of being successful. Successful implementation will assure that the District will meet its obligation. With over 80% of our students attending area schools, it is likely that the patrons may perceive that the District is committing to equitable opportunities to all area schools. This recommendation could pave the way for the District and the Area Schools Advisory Committee to form a partnership and provide additional support for our area schools. 10The District must utilize available opportunities to inform and remind area school patrons of the trade offs that were agreed upon in the Settlement Plan that allowed differential funding for area schools. This decision paved the way for a voluntary Desegregation Plan that was court approved. H. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as staff will focus their energy on the implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. Staff, students, and the community can benefit greatly from a more focused and interrelated program. The District will continue its efforts to fund and support area schools. Quality staff development will be provided so that instructional leadership, teacher effectiveness and parent involvement continue to enhance and expand the attainment of the area schools goals. Financial Analysis The District budgeted $445,000 for implementing APIG and Focused Activities for the 1994-95 school year. By effectively utilizing existing federal, state, local operating and dese^egation funds, a total saving of $261,100 will enable the District within existing revenues. to operate FY 1995-96 Proposed Level of Funding School Operations Elementary Area Schools (23) APIG/Focused Activities $20 per student TOTAL $183,900 $183,900 111. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administration schools and patrons who want to existing revenues. I, area see the District implement effective programs within TTie primary detractors may be schools and patrons of the area schools who perceive that the district has minimized the effectiveness of this initiative for area schools. General Implementation Plan Provided this recommendation is implemented. If plans are approved, the following timeline will be QOt approved by May 15, it becomes more difficult to successfully implement this recommendation. Activity Completion Date Responsible Person(s) Develop and submit Business Case to court for review and approval. December 1994 - April 3, 1995 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 122. Submit Business Case and other relevant data to District Attorney begin the process for plan modification to March 31, 1995 3. 4. 5. Attorney will work with parties to secure consent to move multiple obligations to School Operations. Plan modification presented to court for review and approval. Meet with parents of area school advisory committee to discuss and seek additional suggestions regarding implementation of this recommendation. April 3, 1995 TBA April 95 6. Provide staff development inservice to principals regarding the revised plan modifications. May, 1995 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Chris Heller, District Attorney Chris Heller, District Attorney Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development 137. Provide staff development to school teams regarding plan modification. June, 1995 8. 9. Schools develop action plans based on staff development. Action plans reviewed. June, 1995 Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development Local area school teams 10. Court reviews, approves/rejects plan modification and budgets. 11. 12. Provide staff development relevant to implementing School Operation (action plan). Following Court approval, review Districts approach to the implementation of School Operations (Local School Action Plan) 13. Implement action plan June/July, September, 1995 September, 1995 - June 1996 August, 1995 August, 1995 September, 1995 - June 1996 Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. - Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider Local area school teams Local area school teams Estelle Matthis, Deputy Supt. Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider Local area schools teams 1414. Ongoing monitoring of action plans. September 1995 - June 1996 15. Formative and summative evaluation of 1995-96 action plans. September, 1995 - June, 1996 16. 17. Use results of evaluation to modi^/revise existing action plans. Annual report to Board regarding the implementation of the modified plan. June, 1996 Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Local area school teams June, 1996 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 15 d 3 '-i fcy r SiUSL'A^y 31995 Office of Desegregsiion Mcriuonrig IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTSSCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS APP 0 3 1995 JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By.- PIAII^JLRF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached \"Business Case - Focused Activities/Academic Progress Incentive Grants\" and the \"Little Rock School District Incentive School Plan - Staffing Business Case\". These documents have been revised since they were originally filed on March 14, 1995. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 ByT Chr i s topher He 1 Bar No. 81083CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 3rd day of April 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 1st cipher Hell 2 BUSINESS CASE FOCUSED ACnVITIES/ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS April 3, 1995 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In order to address the concerns of the area school patrons and equity issues regarding adequate resources, the Little Rock School District proposed in the TriDistrict Plan to implement a program entitled Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG). The grants, which were not to exceed $25,000, were to be offered for one year with an opportunity to continue for two more years. Prior to the May 1, 1992 Court order, the District proposed to modify the Settlement Plan by requesting to substitute APIG for Focused Activities. The Court approved the continuation of the APIG program, which the District was to evaluate for continuation at the end of the 1992-93 school year. However, the Court recognized the grant program as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of, the original Focused Activities feature of the plan. The APIG has been offered to area schools for application the last five years. At the conclusion of each school year, the principals submitted a narrative which included a summary of the project activities, a list of students who were targeted, and if improvements were made. Most of the reporting schools used their funds to proxdde activities interrelated to the core curriculum. However, data did not reflect that the grants led to a disparity reduction or achievement improvements as had been expected. The intent of Focused Activities was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, enriched learning activities at each elementary area school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through a voluntary assignment plan. The District did not begin to implement this component of the plan until the 1994-95 school year. Plans were developed during the spring of the 1993-94 year. Elementary area schools submitted grant proposals that requested a maximum of $5,000 to implement these activities. The severity of our financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have forced the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. 1The implementation of these two programs has presented some positive results in spite of delayed funding. Some of the submitted proposals did not specifically relate to the goals of APIG and Focused Activities. The grant application process is perceived by some to be burdensome and too restrictive in terms of how funds may be utilized. At least six alternatives were examined as the District looked for solutions that would continue to provide support to our area schools and allow us to operate our schools within our annual revenue. Alternative number three appears to be the most viable option at this time. The recommendation is to provide equitable opportunities to all area schools by eliminating the application process and providing additional funds through an annual appropriation in each area schools operating budget. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended Comprehensive Outcomes Evaluation (COE) and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two proposals would be maintained. This would allow the District to concentrate obligations identified in multiple locations. Schools would be able to clearly focus, implement, monitor and evaluate these activities in a comprehensive manner. The objective of this recommendation is to provide equitable quality educational experiences so that all students have the opportunity to succeed. Successful implementation will enhance student achievement and ensure that area schools become communities of learning among parents, staff and students. The impact of this recommendation will be positive as the District will be able to continue to meet its obligation as specified in the Desegregation Plan. This recommendation will require a plan modification as the District wishes to move obligations located in multiple places to one central area of the plan. Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as schools will focus their energy on implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. This recommendation will provide $155,000 to area schools and result in a $290,000 savings for the District. We have the opportunity to regain the support of our area schools staff, students, parents and other District patrons. This could pave the way for a productive and positive relationship with the Area School Advisory Committee. There will be minimum primary detractors if we keep our word to our area schools. It will be extremely important that the suggested implementation plan timeline be followed so as to provide our area schools the time, opportunity, and resources needed to provide equitable quality educational experiences. 2B. BACKGROUND The Districts Desegregation Plan initially included provisions for Focused Activities. The purpose was to provide resources that would facilitate the creation of attractive, em-iched learning opportunities at each area elementary school. Focused Activities were to serve as a recruitment tool to help improve racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. Specific details, including individual school allocations were not defined by the District until the 1993-94 school Implementation of Focused Activities began as of the 1994-95 school year. year. Area schools serve approximately 80% of the Little Rock School District student population. Many students whose attendance zones were within the area of the Incentive Schools were not able to attend these schools given the lack of space and provisions in the Incentive School Assignment Plan. The Tri-District Plan included a section, APIG, to improve the quality of education through increased achievement for all students which will result in the reduction of disparity among various races, socio-economic, and gender groups. This component was included in the May 1992 Desegregation Plan. The area, elementary and secondary schools, were provided the opportunity to develop non-competitive proposals for grants up to $25,000 for one year, with an opportunity to continue two more years at the same level of funding, The grants level of funding was reduced the third year to $10,000 as the district began to encounter very serious financial problems. Expected academic gains have not been established and/or sustained for this period of time. During the 1994-95 school year, secondary APIG grants were $10,000 and elementary grants were funded at $5,000. Uncertainty about whether and when funding would be available from year to year has hindered the area schools ability to plan and implement APIG and Focused Activities. Some schools have been slow and reluctant in submitting proposals for funding. The assistant superintendents for elementary and secondary schools conducted Fast Track Evaluations and Extended Evaluations of APIG grants during the 1993-94 school year. This information was used to determine the effectiveness of these programs in meeting their identified goals. It is important that all parties are informed and reminded of the trade-offs and benefits that area, incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools received through the Settlement Plan. Area schools were able to have attendance zone schools under a voluntary desegregation plan. At that time, it was clear that the District would need to find other means to support area schools, as provisions were made in the plan to provide additional support to incentive, interdistrict and magnet schools. 3c. PROBLEM DEFINITION Current implementation has not resulted in either expected improved achievement or a reduction in the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socio-economic, or gender groups. The District continues to cope with many of the problems that are unique to urban school districts, including safety and security, urban flight, racial issues, aging buildings, and financial issues. The severity of the financial problems and the need to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs have caused the District to seek more efficient ways of educating our students. Thus far, the District has not been able to identify any sustained academic improvement relative to APIG. The District must now redefine the required levels of focus, clarity, and connectivity of our programs if we are to optimize student performance. This plan must allow the District to operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of the revenues it receives on an annual basis. In accordance with the Desegregation Plan, the District has determined, based on the results of Fast Track Evaluations, Extended Evaluations, informal and formal observations, that it is appropriate to seek Court permission to implement Focused Activities and APIG in a more focused and meaningful way. LRSD elementary area schools have not Implemented Focused Activities prior to the 1994-95 school year. The District administration had not defined focused activities or planned for its implementation in the schools. Not until the spring of 1994 did the District begin to study various approaches to implementing Focused Activities. On April 21,1994, the LRSD convened a steering committee and charged it with the responsibility of defining Focused Activities. Committee members were also to develop both a grant proposal and promotional plan. The sixteen-member steering committee was composed of six building administrators, two central office administrators, two magnet school curriculum specialists, three classroom teachers appointed by the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA), and three parents appointed by the PTA Council. Grants were made available in June of 1994, however, no proposals were submitted for funding until the fall of 1994. Workshops were provided in the spring. Grant proposals were not submitted for various reasons. Portions of the grants were approved in order to allow schools to start their programs. The steering committee adopted the following goals for focused activities which are based on the goals in the Focused Activities section of the LRSD Desegregation Plan: 41. Each elementary area school will provide focused activities for the total school population. 2. Each elementary area school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive. 3. Each elementary area school will integrate focused activities into the core curriculum and will reflect the focused activities in the schools enrichment and day-to-day activities. 4. All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that compliment and extend the core curriculum activities. 5. Each elementary area school will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. In spite of the interaction with schools, problems still existed with timelines, stable funding, quality inservice, inadequate grant proposals, partial approval of grants, etc.. Several changes in the leadership of the District have not aided continuity in the implementation of these programs. Although the LRSD has been committed to Focused Activities and APIG, problems with the implementation of the programs were evident. Schools have viewed the grant application process as burdensome which has caused the number of applications to decline. Given several opportunities to apply for grants early in the school year, schools in some cases chose not to respond to a timely submittal of the grants. D. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 1. Change Nothing This alternative would continue to offer the Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants to the area schools in their present form. Based on past performance, we can expect to receive the same results. A review of the evaluation reveals that the goals of APIG were not achieved at a level that warrants continuation. To continue operating in this manner suggest that schools would continue to yield the same results. 2. Eliminate Focused Activities and APIG for the 95-96 school year. This course of action would not provide any support for area schools. 53. Combine the goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended Comprehensive Outcomes_Evaluation (COE), and the Desegregation Plan (School Operations) so that obligations that appear in multiple places and documents would be moved to the most appropriate place in the Desegregation Plan. All area schools will focus on quality education through the use of the Extended COE process based on Learner Outcomes, Curriculum Framework, that guide the development of an enriched multicultural curriculum and Arkansas Goals 2000. The guiding decision throughout this process should direct each school to establish a vision and develop an action plan based upon needs and critical indicators of success. The action plan would contain specific measurable objectives and an evaluation component as to what it implements and how well it is implemented. The action plan would allow area schools to become educationally effective as obligations in multiple places would be moved to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan, under School Operations. Such movement would increase the opportunity for schools to organize these activities in a more focused and comprehensive manner. The action plan would provide the opportunity for meaningful parent involvement in a broader range of activities. Parents would also participate in the development of this plan. The action plan would focus on what schools hope to achieve, not what they plan to buy. If obligations are specific, measurable, monitored, and evaluated, the LRSD will increase its ability to make this plan work. Therefore, this alternative allows the District to eliminate the application process and provide additional funds through an annual appropriation in each area schools operating budget\nthus placing the emphasis on site based decision making involving principals, staff, parents and students. 4. Implement Extended Day Programs for students who need assistance is provided through the Districts Academic Support Program. This program is supplemented by federal funds. Many of the Focused Activities and APIG proposals included extended day activities which are a duplication of services. This alternative was rejected because of its narrow focus. 65. Secure Outside Funding The District could aggressively request assistance from the Parent Teacher Association, Partners In Education, City of Little Rock and private resources. Each school can seek assistance from the Little Rock School District grant writer for technical support. Funding would be inconsistent and unreliable as well as inequitable. 6. K-4 Special Summer School Act 348 of 1995 provides for a supplemental summer school program established for students who are performing below grade level and at-risk of falling. Instruction is delivered by teachers who receive state-approved training. Students who are usually served by Focused Activities and APIG are also eligible for the K-4 Summer School. Participation in both programs appears to be a duplication of services. At the time the Desegregation Plan was written, this comprehensive state-mandated program was not available. The K-4 Special Summer School Program is funded by the State of Arkansas. The K-4 Initiative is very effective, however, it serves a limited number of students. E. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the LRSD redirect its effort to provide equitable opportunities to area schools by eliminating the grant writing process and providing additional funds through annual appropriations in each area schools operating budget. The goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE and the Desegregation Plan would be combined in such a manner that the spirit and intent of the two grant proposals would be maintained. Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curriculum. The regular operating budget in 7thirty-one (31) area schools will be supplemented with an additional ($5,000). This recommended alternative will cost the District a total of $155,000 while yielding a saving of $290,000. Using the expertise of the grant writer, efforts will be continued to increase this amount through private and public funding. This recommendation will allow the District to show continued support for the area schools. The following chart depicts how the goals of APIG, Focused Activities, Extended COE, and the Desegregation Plan complement and/or support each other. * 8E. ReconuneadatioD GOALS AND PURPOSE  ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS. FOCUSED ACTIVITIES, DESEGREGATION PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS). AND EXTENDED COE The goals and purpose of Academic Progress Incentive Grants, Focused Activities, Desegregation Plan (School Operations), and Extended COE are comparable as well complementary of each other.* as ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANTS A The focused activities of each area school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the schools environment and day-to-day activities. B  The academic performance of area school students will indicate - achievement gained partially as a result of enrichment experiences provided by the core program and enrichment activities. C  Area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. D All area schoolswill be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educadonal programs. FOCUSED ACTIVITIES The purpose of the \"Focused Activities shall be threefold: 1. 2. 3. To promote the school as a \"community of learning\" among parents, staff, and students\nTo provide enrichment opportunities at the building level\nand To ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the elementary area schools. Each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will provide focused activities for the total school population including attention to gender, race, and socioeconomic issues. B* Each school will be recognized as a community of learning in which alf students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive.  The focused activities of each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the schools environment and day-to-day activities. DESEGREGATION PLAN (SCHOOL OPERATIONS) C To provide a climate in each school which is based on the belief and expectation that all children can learn and to provide resources necessary to support that behef. Ae All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. C* All elementary area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. EXTENDED COE (COMPREHENSIVE OUTCOMES EVALUATION) Quality of Education Indicators included in this area are: D* To monitor student class ratios and instructional practices to ensure equal opportunities for all students. C* To provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities and to assess the results of school practices, paying special attention to their impact on minority and disadvantaged students. B To review and assess testing practices, formats, and results in order to better address the needs of all students while providing special intcr^ention for disadvantaged students. De To give school principals sufficient authority to improve schools and to advocate for students and to hold them accountable for results and opportunities for all students. B To ensure school-wide planning and individual academic achievement\nto address disparities, individual needs, and student success\nand to provide staff development on an ongoing basis. B  An increase in overall student achievement and the reduction of racial academic disparities. A\u0026amp;C The inclusion of multicultural materials and oondiscriminatory inslrucrional materials. B  Staff development during designated staff development days which is used to facilitate the desegregation process in such areas as cross-cultural teaching and learning styles, dealing with diversity, cross-cultural counseling, and minority achievement strategies. Equal Access Indicators included in this area are: Equal access to classrooms, programs, and subjects. Student Achievement Indicators included in this area are:  To provide information to parents in regard to topics relevant to increasing student access to educational and extracurricular opportunities. *Same leicering (^-) denotes that specific goals either are comparable, complement^ and/or support each other. B* A continuous increase in overall student achievement B* A reduction in the numbers of students retained (non promotes) by race, gender, grade, school, and teacher.  An increase in diverse parental participation in parent groups, parent functions, and school functions (including school and district committees). 8AF. Objective The objective of this recommendation is to provide quality educational experiences so that all students have the opportunity to succeed. The focus of this objective is to combine goals, of the Desegregation Plan with Extended COE in order to enhance student achievement and reduce disparities in academic achievement among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and socio-economic status. Successful implementation of this objective will ensure that area schools become communities of learning among parents, staff, and students. Evaluation Criteria Identified programs will be determined successful if there is: o Increased student achievement based upon results of pre and post tests (local, state, and national assessments). o Improvement on standardized test scores. Increased number of students moving from bottom quartile to the next quartile. Increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile as well as the sustaining of students growth in the upper quartile. o o Targeted Areas/Extended COE as defined in each schools study. Grade distribution reports reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C\" or better in the core areas for each student. o Program Budget Document (evidence of achievement). o Parent Surveys The District will design an evaluation instrument that will specifically identify factors which may have an impact on student outcome and successful implementation of programs. This evaluation instrument would be used to help schools establish a solid relationship between what it implements and how well it is implemented, and then use that link to shape what it does next. In addition, results from the instrument should improve use of resources, reduce wasteful activities, and provide data that would give the schools and District good information in which to make sound decisions regarding replication of successful effective strategies and programs as well as modification and termination of ineffective programs. 9Expected Benefits The District will be able to continue to make efforts toward increasing achievement for all students, and reducing disparities among different racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. These benefits will be derived from the establishment of a community of learning that has school/community support as well as a stronger focus and connection between teaching, learning and support programs. The District will make a solid philosophical, management, and material commitment to the continuation and support of area schools as obligations are retained in the Desegregation Plan. The implementation of this recommendation will enable the district to operate within its existing aimual revenue. G. IMPACT ANALYSIS The District will be able to continue its efforts to meet its obligation of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity among different racial, socio-economic, and gender groups. The area schools will be viewed as \"communities of learning,\" through the District implementation of enriched programs that are comprehensive, effective and efficient. The results of the implementation of this recommendation must be clearly communicated to the area schools staff and patrons so that they may understand that the District has not abandoned its efforts to assist them in the achievement of their goals. The results and support must be comparable to the expected benefits derived from resources allocated to the magnet and incentive schools. This recommendation will require the District to seek approval, from the parties and the court, to move obligations located in multiple places to an appropriate location in the Desegregation Plan. This movement provides for schools to implement obligations more effectively by using a more focused and comprehensive approach. If every obligation is more focused and we are driven toward these obligations, we increase our chance of being successful. Successful implementation will assure that the District will meet its obligation. With over 80% of our students attending area schools, it is likely that the patrons may perceive that the District is committing to equitable opportunities to all area schools. This recommendation could pave the way for the District and the Area Schools Advisory Committee to form a partnership and provide additional support for our area schools. 10The District must utilize available opportunities to inform and remind area school patrons of the trade offs that were agreed upon in the Settlement Plan that allowed differential funding for area schools. This decision paved the way for a voluntary Desegregation Plan that was court approved. H. RESOURCE ANALYSIS Personnel Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way as staff will focus their energy on the implementation of a comprehensive and focused program rather than spending countless hours developing proposals. Staff, students, and the community can benefit greatly from a more focused and interrelated program. The District will continue its efforts to fund and support area schools. Quality staff development will be provided so that instructional leadership, teacher effectiveness and parent involvement continue to enhance and expand the attainment of the area schools goals. Financial Analysis The District budgeted $445,000 for implementing APIG and Focused Activities for the 1994-95 school year. By effectively utilizing existing federal, state, local operating and desegregation funds, a total saving of $290,000 will enable the District to operate within existing revenues. FY 1995-96 Proposed Level of Funding School Operations APIG/Focused Activities $5,000 Elementary Area Schools (23) Junior High Area Schools (5) Senior High Schools ____CT Total Schools (31) TOTAL $115,000 $115,000 $25,000 $25,000 $15,000 $15,000 $155,000 $155,000 Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be the administration, area schools and patrons who want to see the District implement effective programs within existing revenues. 111. 2. 3. The primary detractors may be schools and patrons of the area schools who perceive that the district has minimized the effectiveness of this initiative for area schools. General Implementation Plan Provided this recommendation is approved, the following timeline will be implemented. If plans are not approved by May 15, it becomes more difficult to successfully implement this recommendation. Activity Completion Date Responsible Person(s) Develop and submit Business Case to court for review and approval. Submit Business Case and other relevant data to District Attorney to begin the process for plan modification Attorney will work with parties to secure consent to move multiple obligations to School Operations. December 1994 - April 3, 1995 March 31, 1995 April 3, 1995 Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Henry P. Williams, Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Chris Heller, District Attorney 124. 5. Plan modification presented to court for review and approval. Meet with parents of area school advisory committee to discuss and seek additional suggestions regarding implementation of this recommendation. TBA April 95 6. Provide staff development inservice to principals regarding the revised plan modifications. May, 1995 7. Provide staff development to school teams regarding plan modification. June, 1995 8. Schools develop action plans based on staff development. June, 1995 Chris Heller, District Attorney Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Marian Woods, Staff Development Local area school teams 139. Action plans reviewed. June/July, September, 1995 Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. - Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider 10. Court reviews, approves/rejects plan modification and budgets. September, 1995 - June 1996 Local area school teams 11. 12. Provide staff development relevant to implementing School Operation (action plan). Following Court approval, review Districts approach to the implementation of School Operations (Local School Action Plan) August, 1995 August, 1995 13. Implement action plan September, 1995 - June 1996 14. Ongoing monitoring of action plans. September 1995 - June 1996 15. Formative and summative evaluation of 1995-96 action plans. September, 1995 - June, 1996 Local area school teams Estelle Matthis, Deputy Supt. Sterling Ingram, Special Asst, to Deputy Asst. Supts. Margaret Gremillion Sadie Mitchell Dennis Snider Local area schools teams Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 1416. 17. Use results of evaluation to modify/revise existing action plans. Annual report to Board regarding the implementation of the modified plan. June, 1996 June, 1996 Local area school teams Henry P. Williams, Supt. Local area school teams Margaret Gremillion, Asst. Supt. Sadie Mitchell, Asst. Supt. Dennis Snider, Asst. Supt. 1516Bale School Brady Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Geyer Springs (Resubmitted) Jefferson Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Terry Watson Western Hills Woodruff FOCUSED ACTIVITIES 1995-96 Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded November 22 October 6 September 8 (1st) February 1 (2nd) December 8 January 17 February 7 February 10 December 6 (1st) January 17 (2nd) October 18 October 3 September 2 (1st) October 4 (2nd) March 2 February 2 (2nd) December 13 (1st) January 9 (2nd) February 9 December 12 November 28 October 17 February 13 December 12 January 23 February 20 February 13 December 12 February 20 October 31 October 31 October 31 March 6 February 6 January 23 February 20 December 19 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,700 (partial) $8,886 (partial) $10,000 $7,070 (partial) $2,852 S 10,000 S10,000 $10,000 $7,900 (partial) $10,000_________ $5,102.20 (partial) $2,686 (partial) $10,000 TOTAL\n$135,296.20ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCEiNTIVE GRANT - SECONDARY 1995-96 School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Central Hall Pulaski Hgts. January 25 January 9 March 2 January 30 Janutuy 9 March 6 $10,000 $10,000 $1,700 (partial) TOTAL: $21,700 ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT - ELEMENTARY School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Bale Brady Pulaski Hgts. Watson Woodruff February 14 February 14 February 22 February 27 February 14 February 20 February 20 February 27 March 6 February 20 $5,000 $5,000 $600 (partial) $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL\n$20,600Office 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: December 19, 1994 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Focused Activities and APIG Report Enclosed you will find a draft copy of the Focused Activities and APIG Monitoring Report. Please review the report and take note of any inaccuracies. Submit any corrections or other relevant observations in writing along with the draft report to our office by 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 20, 1994. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call.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 13, 1994 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Academic Progress Incentive Grants and Focused Activities As you know, we have been monitoring the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and the development of Focused Activities. It is our desire to conclude our ongoing inquiry and submit a report to the Court, In order to finalize that report, we wiU need the following information by September 19, 1994.  A description of the current status of Academic Progress Incentive Grants  Definition of Focused Activities  Copies of all correspondence received by building principals regarding Focused Activities/APIGs for the 1994-95 school year.  Documentation of any inservice held to explain application procedures for. the 1994-95 school year.  Copy of the timeline used by the district for submission of proposals, approval of proposals, and actual funding for the 1994-95 school year.  List of all schools which have had proposals approved and are currently being funded. Include the dates when funding was actually provided.  Copies of all Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grant proposals for the 1994-95 school year. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call our office.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: December 9, 1993 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Revised Documentation List for Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants Thank you for meeting with me regarding Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants on December 6. I found the meeting with you and Mr. Ingram to be enlightening and productive. The enclosed documentation list reflects the changes we discussed during the meeting. The submission date for these materials remains January 14, 1994. As always, if you have questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation.Focused Activities/Academic Progress Incentive Grants Documentation Focused Activities  Any memos or records of meetings during which focused activities were described and presented as an option to area schools  List of schools with focused activities and copies of focused activity plans for those schools  Records of community involvement in focused activity development and implementation: meetings, dates, names, race, sex  Record of the annual allocation received by schools with focused activities - 1990-91 through 1992-93  Documentation of any efforts by the LRSD to encourage area schools to implement focused activities.  Copy of the procedures jointly developed by the LRSD and PCSSD to prevent duplication of specialty themes  Copies of all evaluative checklists submitted by the schools 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93  Copies of all semester reports submitted 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93  Copies of all annual progress reports submitted by the schools 1990-91,1991-92,1992-93  Documentation of the assistant superintendents review of the semester reports and actions taken to revise activities for 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93  Copies of the summative districtwide report on Focused Activities 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93  Names of activity coordinators at each school 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94Academic Progress Incentive Grants  Records of grants given by the LRSD 1990-91 through 1992-93. Documentation should include: school name amount approved date the application was submitted date the application was approved date of actual appropriation of funds amount expended by the school during that fiscal year  Documentation for 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (as it becomes available) indicating the amount spent each year per school and the schools outstanding balance.  Copies of individual school grant proposals for 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (as they become available)  Names, race, sex, and position of individuals who served on the grant evaluation panel during the 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 school years  Copies of any communication 1990-93 which explains the review criteria to the schools  Detailed description of the review process used from 1990-91 through 1992-93 and the process currently used for review of the 1993-94 grants  Copy of the three-year evaluation of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant ProgramOffice 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\nDecember 6, 1993 To: From: Subject: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superiutendeat, Little Rock School District Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants Monitoring As you are aware, ODM is currently monitoring Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants. Our monitoring will encompass funding and programmatic elements of both areas from the 1990-91 school year through the current school year. The monitoring process will consist of data analysis as well as site visits to observe activities currently being funded. Enclosed you will find a list of needed documentation. We are requesting that these materials be submitted to our office by January 14, 1994. If you have questions or concerns regarding the documentation request or monitoring process, please dont hesitate to call our office. Thank you very much for your assistance.Focused Activities/Academic Progress Incentive Grants Documentation Focused Activities  Any memos or records of meetings during which focused activities were described and presented as an option to area schools  List of schools with focused activities and copies of focused activity plans for those schools  Records of community involvement in focused activity development and implementation: meetings, dates, names, race, sex  Record of the annual allocation received by schools with focused activities - 1990-91 through 1992-93  Documentation of any efforts by the LRSD to encourage area schools to implement focused activities.  Copy of the procedures jointly developed by the LRSD and PCSSD to prevent duplication of specialty themes Academic Progress Incentive Grants  Records of grants given by the LRSD 1990-91 through 1992-93. Documentation should include: school name amount approved date the application was submitted date the application was approved date of actual appropriation of funds amount expended by the school during that fiscal year g  Documentation for 1991-92,1992-93, and 1993-94 (as it becomes available) listinj the schools which carried over funds from the previous year and the amount of carryover  Copies of individual school grants for 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (as ey become available)  Names, race, sex, and position of individuals who served on the grant evaluation panel during the 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 school years  Copies of any communication 1990-93 which explains the review criteria to e schools Detailed description of the review process used from 1990-91 through 1992-93 and the process currently used for review of the 1993-94 grants  Copies of all evaluative checklists submitted by the schools 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93  Copies of all semester reports submitted 1990-91,1991-92, 1992-93  Copies of all annual progress reports submitted by the schools 1990-91, 1991-92 1992-93  Documentation of the assistant superintendents review of the semester reports and actions taken to revise activities for 1990-91,1991-92, and 1992-93  Copies of the summative districtwide report on Academic Progress Incentive Grants 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93  Names of activity coordinators at each school 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94 (unless this information is included in the individual grant applications)  Copy of the three-year evaluation of the Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program.RECEIVED MAR 1 2 1993 TO\nFROM: RE\nDATE: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright Area School Patrons . ... 1992-93 Budget Cuts for March 19, 1993 Hea?\u0026amp;g '\"9 I. March 9, 1993 Area School parents and patrons of the Little Rock School District request that this letter and the accompanying petitions be made a part of the court record. We wish to address the Court on Budget discussions directly related to Desegregation Plan. We educate 64% of all students in the Little Rock School District, that is approximately 10,788 out of 16,700 black students, and 6,000 out of 9,000 white student's, certainly the majority. We are concerned about the following issues: 1) 2) 3) 4) The Little Rock School District has promised, under the Desegregation plan, to make available to the Area Schools $25,000 per Area School per year for a three-year period or more (if the evaluation proves that the grant had positive results) for Academic Progress Incentive Grants to decrease academic disparity. Unfortunately, Area school patrons have had to repeatedly request these funds from the Little Rock School District. Currently, the Little Rock School District has slashed the available money from $25,000 to $10,000 per Area School (a cut of almost 1/2 million dollars). To date for this year, our district has only given Area Schools a total of $50,000 of the allotted $320,000. The Little Rock School District is also obligated to make available to the Area Schools funding for \"Focused Areas of Activities\", but has not responded to pleas and public requests for defining and implementing this funding. Area Schools have borne a disproportionate burden of budget cuts shown by reductions in funding for Gifted/Talented staff, music, counselors, physical plant assets, and general per capita funding compared to Magnet and Incentive Schools, This scenario has significantly diminished the educational opportunities of Area School students. Area School parents and patrons perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts and their negative impact on the Little Rock School District efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the Little Rock School District. 1 r-  r f I fi /fr-Zn', i I I I 1 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 another does not. So we'll conti there is a clear guideline in tha THE OURT: I, again, ca I knov/ you have been dealing with than one judge. In fact, if you  you have been dealing with three \u0026lt; thi case. And we don't all thin! Another thing I wanted to ask with thi Z\u0026lt;f7/iz?ez'C ^02 A5ti about. and we struggled , ray staff and 1 struggled with thi to area schools, and that is. focused activ s, with respect ies in area schools. The May 1 order, and May of this says, and I quote, \"The year, of '92, ourV recognizes that the Incentive Grant Prograra is a corapliraentary addition to. but not a replaceraent of the original focused activities features of the Plan. Focused activities will continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme and will according to the original plan which provide and parental involvement and operate for community an annual allocation of funds. There is no budget appropriation for this Settlement Plan budget\". MR. CHIP JOKES\nincentive grants, slash. focused activities in Now, can you I intended Program 13 to read focused activities. Thi was a suggestion made by the Office of De segregation Monitoring that I didn't  that I failed to make. So that should read on Program 13, \"Incentive grants. slash. focused activities\". EUGSNIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER  r- ( i -----'a. / I f a'aa) r. 33 1 I 1 9 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 another does not. So we'xx continue to work v/ith then so there is a clear guideline in that area. TOE OURT: I, again, can't be too critical, I know you have been dealing with more than one judge. In fact, if you coun because than one plan and more the Special Master, you nave been dealing with three district court judge thi case. And we don't all think alike. Another thing I wanted to ask about. in and we struggled with tnis, my staff and 1 struggled with this. to area scnools, and that schools. is, focused activ with respect ies in area ihe May 1 order, and May of this year, of says, and I quote. n The '92, ourt recognizes that the Incentive Grant Program is a complimentary addition to. but not a replacement of the original focused activities features the Plan. of rocusad activities will continue to be an option for area schools, may center around a theme and will operate according to the original plan which provide for community and parental involvement and an annual allocation of funds. There is no budget appropriation for focused activities in this Settlement Plan budget\". MR. CHIP JONES: incentive grants, slash. Nov/, can you I intended Program 13 to read focused activities. This was a suggestion made by the Office of De that I didn't  that I failed on Program 13, egregation Monitoring to make. So that should read \"Incentive grants. slash. focused activities\". EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER 4-.r I i i i 1 ! i 1 2 3 J 4 ! 34 THS COURT\nAll right. I was concerned that the District didn't really understand that 1 was saying the incentive grants are still there and focused activities still there. And I reiaeaber fron Ms. Mathis' testimony, that 5 t t I thought the District was trying to inerge these two. 6 and I really didn't want them merged. I 7 8 9 And I realise that it is very important, I mean. in my opinion. to continue these program for area schools, not only just for quality of education generally, bu also for their desegregation efforts 10 in reducing disparity. Because even thougii we concentrati so 11 much in thi courtroom on the incentive schools, Mr. Walker, 12 we concentrate very much on them, and monitor them and 13 14 monitor the Four-Tear Old, the Court is not unmindful of the fact that the bulk of the black children in this district are 15 in area schools, and we don't want to forget about them. and 16 they're not getting as many of the goodies as those children 17 in the incentive schools and the magnet schools are getting. 18 MR. WALKER\nOr supposed to be getting. Our 19 20 contention is that they are still not being received in the incentive schools, even though they say they are. 21 22 that. THE COURT\nWell, again. this i not a hearing on But if we cut out focused activities from the budget. 23 they certainly are less likely to get it in the area schools, 24 as well. 25 MR. WALKER\n.Absolutely. EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER1 2 THS COURT: And there's been at least 35 I've heard reports of sone wonderful ideas and thenes and progran. 3 that thes area school have come up with that have been very 4 successful and have a lot of community support, and I 5 certainly don't want to eliminate those. xAnd so now hat o 7 you're adding incentive grants/focused activities, do you still expect the budget to be $320,000.00 for the '92-93 a academic year? 9 ilR. CHI? JONES: At this point in time, again, the 10 budget is still in process, and one final plans on how to I 11 treat that or develop it, it's all subject to revision. 12 THE COURT: Now, as to the incentive schools, on May 13 1 the Court did not approve some of the things you wanted to 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do with respect to the incentive schools. the smaller classe you had more we And, for example, required  we required more aid if than  we had required an aid par classroom in some instances. budget. I won't go through the details of the But, anyway, it' you wanted it to cost you. the May 1 order? MR. CHIP JONES: Honor. THE COURT: going to cost you more money than Is this reflected in the budget. Yes, it's based on 20 to 1, Your What about the Latin program? MR. CHIP JONHS: It's not specifically set out, but if you look at program  let's see. Program 75, \"Other EUGENIE M. POVTER U.S. COURT REPORTERHOI 123 DR. BERND: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Tne exceptional children, do you know 10 11 12 13 14 what reduction explain that? are really reflected there? DR. 3ERMD: talking about are and t Could you Basically, Your Honor, what we're situations in which we have dona placement ting of children into special education programs through the use of outside contracted services. developed the capacity within the District to And we have accomplish these same functions and not spend that money in that manner, and we expect the savings to accrue from that change to be what has been given here. THE COURT: And you don't believe that thi will have a negative impact on black children who are r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 B disproportionately represented in that category? 16 No, we do not. It's more in the area of DR. BSR^^^: 17 testing and placement rather than a reduction of special 13 education services. And the procedure that we use to place 19 20 cnildren in special ed is very strictly legally prescribed, and we'll still have to follow that procedure and use the 21 appropriate tests and recommendations to place children. 22 23 24 25 THE COURT\nprogress grants. My next question relates to academic And you've taken $480,000.00 off them, yet the Settlement Plan promises that area school may have up to $25,000.00 thi year for those grants. How did you arrive at EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER124 10 11 12 13 14 15 that 43G,000-dollar figure? DR. 3ER:-ID\nBasically what wg looked at, we looked at what the Plan required and our interpretation of the Plan, and the up to\" was the fact that we could make that recommendation, that reduction and still follow the Plan. And I should add as kind of a parenthetical expression. Your Honor, we did look at the Plan with regard to all of these. and really try and make a conscientious determination that least the reductions did fit th THE COURT: at requi aments of the ?lan. Well, you said you looked at the \"up to's\". What did you figure per area DR. BERND: Jones, if I may. chool? Im going to throw that one to Mr. MR. CHIP JONES: Ten thousand. THE COURT: In other word you plan to slash these 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 o 9 16 grants from 25,000 to 10,000? 17 MR. CHIP JONES\nAnd, again, this totally hadnt 13 been worked out, but look at where the plans had \"up to 19 20 800,000\", if an individual had some particular need or proposal, the \"up to\" would also work a that level, as well. 21 Last year the District spent  we didnt spend  wer were a 22 couple of hundred thousand dollars less than the full 23 $300,000.00 that was budgeted. So even last year the full 24 25 25,000 per chool was not spent. THE COURT\nHave you had any negative reaction from EUGENIE M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTER125 10 11 the comnunity on this? i-m. CHI? JONES: DR. BERND\nit's out ther None that Im aware of. Actually we have not. That doesn't mean that it's not out there, but it hasn't reached our level. The other comment that I would make is V7a also want to look very carefully at how these monies are being spent and make student achievement. ure that they are directly affecting We're not totally convinced that that' been the case in the past. THE COURT\nIt might not have been. Again, I think I e::pres3ed this concern this morning. Th Rian doe call 1 2 3 4 6 7 3 9 12 for reduction in disparity, and I know that your model, the 13 effective schools program, would also strive for reduction in 14 disparity. This Settlement Plan, which I'm charged with 15 monitoring and you're responsible for implementing, place a 16 lor of emphasis on incentive schools and magnet schools and 17 inter-district schools. And this is about all that 13 shculdn' t ay it's about all. But thi is one of the few 19 perks that these area schools receive. And the bulk of the I 20 students, including the black students, are at these area 21 schools. And it concerns me that the Plan focuses so much on 22 a minority, and I'm not talking about a racial minority, but 23 I mean a minority of students in student population when the 24 bulk of the tudents are in area schools. And this i one of 25 the things that they are eligible to receive. And that's my EUGENIE M. PO14ER U.S. COURT REPORTER 41 only ramark at this time. 125 And I don'c know that you are 2 wrong in saying that perhaps these progress grants really 3 have not added much I think they have been useful morale 4 boosters, but I know it's something other than just a morale 5 booster. S I want to go on to transportation, cut those e^cpenses by 7 $200,000.00. now, this is, I assume. in addition to the 3 70,000-dollar out in Proposal No. 2. 9 DR. 3ERKD\nThat' correct, Your Honor. 10 THE COURT\nHow do you plan to cut the 200,000? 11 Where is that going to coma from? 12 DR. BERND: Mr. Jone could elaborate, but we're 13 looking at increased efficiency in routing, fuel savings, and 14 savings in transportation supplies, basically. Anything to 15 add to that? IS 17 13 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. CHIP JONES: The process these on an across the board basis. we used was looking at And in the nonpersonnei we used 20 percent as the figure, so this represents approximately 20 percent in reduction in their nonpersonnel budget. This is why this has to be a continuing process. The transportation budget is really tied to the price of gasoline. thi You know, if that goes up, you know, this may not may not be able to prove to be much savings. Right now this is something we just have to keep monitoring. And I 25 agree, there's not much control once we start transporting EUGENI M. POWER U.S. COURT REPORTERi J 4 b b / B y XU / 1. X 1 ic X J peopiti wer'\u0026gt;j belny trained IbS On IL at. t ne Li me i c a me . Q well, boc to r, wli V is it that you would spend s u c h h i q h piopoi'lioii or your' budget kriuw ttiat you are that ro r such a computer' system wiren you don't have much money.-' so much go and then be cal led a desegregation expense p roce s s r' 0 r you Wfiy 'wou I d ror data a data processing system that nobody understands and is out or proportion even to teaching expense A Mr . waIker, X will L a k e r e s po n s i b i I | t y tor many things on this stand, but happened betoiB b A I I right. the purchase or that computer my wa tell. Now , you have 1 ti you have system I s one that listed here incentive grants. 'What I s an Incentive grant: Ihdt s Linder No. X J . 1 i I X4 Xb Xb X / XB xy 20 2X 22 24 2b A Uk ay . Let me get to id. to gi've money to area schools An inoen Live g rant i s a program So they can use that discretionary money tor school Improvement planning, Intended to enhance desegregation. Q Well, i r It's activities that are so important, why would you reduce obB,OL)U to SJtiO.OGo a year? A we reduced It because we looked at the Plan and that the Plan did not so we reduced It, i t r rom and saw require a minimum or bbB.OOU to be spent, and we reduced 1t as one or our balancing budget-baIanc1 ng measures. Inals why we did it. boe s doe s the Pl an require SJ2U,OuO to be spent 1 or incentive g ran t s ?i o o I i I i I j 4 i u j A I tie Plan, W a 1 K e I' . A d I d 1 don t De I Ie. e, requires a s pec i r i c ainuun I . r -i ( . A t I I-1 yh t . J. d 11 a w e I ee I I live ti live app I to yu back and re-read the I diiguaye , Du c - - but we like we wanted tu letatii y 1  a 11 L s . Liid t a u r a 3 iiiuc h o 5 pO S sI D 1 e u r t. Hose particular school i budget tna:/ be eiuianced by some u the r p rueedu re to the extent ol a p ru pu r t I u n a t e auiuunt o Ir this money/ I i 1 1.U i 1 A that What s correct. the ma*1 mum amount that an incentive grant can be / i i I I ic 1 J 14 lb I 10 A y A y A 1 believe id you 1  d I'd have to look It up. All right. 1 or i I i 1! lb bl b J Id,Odd . b4 bb I Ht dUUH1 I 1 HL W1I Ntbbl 1 Ht CUUKI ! 1Ht W1 INtbb i UK. tAlUNi 1 Ht WllNtbb! bV MH. WALKtH-. y Id,ddd. Its It not much this year. It went down. Veah, 10,0ud. Its Now, why IS it went down. yeah, I was going to say i 11 -schoo 1 SU s pen s i on a de 3eg regat i onL tt , 1 J 4 to I d to 11 1^ 1J i4 lb 10 expense rather than a district s expense? I ha t Is No. i 1 1 / Id 19 2 I 22 2 J 24 2b  lot or a lot or the th toys here and i m t in niakinii th I s we re I n re I a t I on to -the I II - sc hoo I suspension there. I o t Carryiiiy those things as expense because they are sped t ie i II as a s a de sey regat i on in the Plan. Why is it view oI t he treated r a 1 re r in trie r u lure ' that this amount should not expectation or the Plan that and more 1 mean. planned continuation or A was non nio re are you pre sen t i understand your point. I liank you . it s Now a point that concerns talked about tills mo in 1 riy . students won t come. is not dec 1 i niny students will be and less discriminatory not building in. p rac t i ces ? me , i r and its the we don ' t iiave on the other hand, you may build space that the students won t use. ch i ckeri-and-the-egg argument. Its a 111 e r r e c t. same po 1 n t the space. ne re L h .11 t he not want to 1 don't think 1 can give you a definite answer to it. understand your point. but 1 I would like nothing better than to be able to spend those runds on something else. Uli the other iiand, i r we need need them, 1 want to have them there. a re a I I A And that's going to be a desegnegation expense? why not not there are not these programs necessary programs tile chi Idren in tiie district Id tiie r 1 I o r than ror black children\nunderstand the point you're making to me. Une9 '^A/' I 1 J 4 b b the Court It they were ir these cuts were approved by the Court, i don't know that they were, but 1 1 think they were. IHt CUUH I ) MR. WALKtKt BY MR. WALKER: well, some were and some weren t. All right. Q Uoctor. It Iook 5 as it to me i n looking at this document I that virtually all or these cuts were from. basical Iy, the B UesegregatI on budget. incen Live SGhoo1s look at begin at y the bottom down there, ^,4UB,OUU. incentive school, parent I I I iO rec ru1 Li ng , library, coiiimurilLy school. transportat ion. a c a d e III 1 c i t program grants. I ha t s Liie big one over here on on No . i J 1 J under i ncen t i ve IhaL s the grants, same a s academic program grants. i 5 n t it: 14 A Yes. lb y All right. And i t seems like it's -- you cut more than lb 480,000 you cut $460,000, which meant then that it was a i / Iarge r amount than $688,000 to begin with. in other words. IB 480,000 plus J^O-, to me. is 800,000, but you represented to the I ! 1 I I i I I I I 19 ^O 2i 22 2-1 24 2b Court that the previous year was only $688,000. A y is there a question in thereY Well, i m asking you two things. One , you're making the cuts in the desegregation budget, but then you're giving the cou r t inaccurate 1 ntormaIion. Urn year before was $688,000 and you said you made a cut o I $480,OOO. 480,000 from 688,OOO would leave $168,000. And \"n 1 i I I 1 I i I i I i I I i 2 J 4 b b I a y to li 12 12 14 lb lb 1 i lb IS 20 2 1 22 23 24 2b 191 and the -- and the represantation being made to the Court Is -120,000 , and causes us to You see I A t tie A Yes . i they're also to us. So, Im saying that this question the integrity or the figures. t i I a t, Mill I Doctor-f say that i m rigures on the page that A I I r i gn t. now . 1 was I n 'J o I V e d ! those numbers, and. them in detail, but y All right. seated. I e I I again. i reel well. let me wha t i t 1 i  in only going to comment you re showing me in the on I I I in the development or m not going to remember eaci) one or like those numbers are accurate. rae ask you this, Doctor, then 111 be is that the board or the directors does with $ay,obb that you cut out? money that went to the MH. WALkLH) your Honor? IHt CUUKI: bV MH. WALKtHi y 1 mean, does is that some board or Do you di rectors? understand what Im saying here. Yes, sir. You re cutting that amount from departmental budget. was tlie amount or the board or place? A Q A What directors budget in the first I'm not going to give you that orr the top of my head, but Who can? Who can? Mr. Milhollen may be able to I I i i j i I I I ISi r7 To: The Honorable Susan Webber Wright From: Parents and Patrons of Area School Children in the LRSD Re: March 19,1993 Budget Cut Hearings MAR 3 1993 Office ci Dsssorsgaticn Monitoring 1, as a parent or patron of children in the area schools of the LRSD, respectfully: 1) ask the Court to include this petition and signature as a part of the Court record. 2) ask the Court to review the sincere concerns of the Area School patrons as outlined in this petition. 3) ask the Court to listen to Area School patrons who perceive that their concerns about the inequitable budget cuts (gifted and talented and music faculty, school nurses, counsellors, and general per capita funding) and their negative impact on the Districts efforts to implement the Desegregation Plan have not been addressed by the LRSD or the Court. 4) ask the Court to demand that the LRSD live up to the committments it made to the Area Schools in its Desegregation Plan. 5) ask the Court to order the LRSD to make readily available to the Area Schools its due funding for the Academic Progress Incentive Grants and define and make available its due funds for Focused Areas of Activities as approved by the Court ordered plan without monetary penalty in other Area School programs. 6) ask the Court to include Area School patrons and parents in future budget hearings and desegregation matters. 7) ask the court to appoint an Area School committee to oversee the LRSD in desegregation matters, name address date\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":"alm_p17336coll22_3019","title":"Formal portraits, Grant Gordon and family, 1993-2000","collection_id":"alm_p17336coll22","collection_title":"African American Lives","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["The University of Alabama Libraries Special Collections"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Grant Gordon collection"],"dcterms_subject":["Middle class African Americans"],"dcterms_title":["Formal portraits, Grant Gordon and family, 1993-2000"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["William Stanley Hoole Special Collections Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://digitalcollections.libraries.ua.edu/digital/collection/p17336coll22/id/3019"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Images are in the public domain or protected under U.S. copyright law (Title 17, U.S. Code), and both types may be used for research and private study. For publication, commercial use, or reproduction, in print or digital format, of all images and/or the accompanying data, users are required to secure prior written permission from the copyright holder and from archives@ua.edu. When permission is granted, please credit the images as Courtesy of The University of Alabama Libraries Special Collections."],"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":["4 p."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Gordon, Grant, 1917-2003"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":657,"next_page":658,"prev_page":656,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":7872,"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}}]}}