{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47609","title":"[Rosa Parks viewing an exhibition of civil rights photographs at the Martin Luther King Center, Atlanta, Georgia] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"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":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks viewing an exhibition of civil rights photographs at the Martin Luther King Center, Atlanta, Georgia] [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.47609"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47435","title":"[Rosa Parks, wearing a red Alabama state sweater pin, sitting in front of three women, two with \"Chamber of Commerce\" name tags] [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":["1993/1998"],"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":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Rosa Parks, wearing a red Alabama state sweater pin, sitting in front of three women, two with \"Chamber of Commerce\" name tags] [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.47435"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"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_736","title":"School buses","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":["1993/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School buses","Transportation"],"dcterms_title":["School buses"],"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/736"],"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\nFROM JOHN W,WALKER P.A, TO 3710100 P. 02 JOHN w. Walker, p.a. AttokxNey At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansa.s 72206 TET.ephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-1187 I I JOHN \\v. walker RAIJH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR ' Also admitted to PracUw iu 4 '-Ik Diskrict yf Colunbia. May 27/ 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 li Re\nBus Route #07D Dear Dr. Bernd: It has come to my attention that there may be problems with Bus Route #07D which covers the Meadowcliff and Highland Court areas. Please advise whether or not you have or someone at your direction has authorized the use of two buses for this route, one for Black students and one for white students. If this is the case, I am concerned that the District is promoting segregation rather than its commitment of desegregating all aspects of the areas. school system. My understanding of our desegregation plan is that every effort will be made to improve race Continued separation of races by allowing separate buses for Black and white students does not fulfill that commitment. Please let me hear from you. incerel^ JCS\nlm John W. walker, Esquire Chris Heller, Esquire Ms. Ann Brown relations. C. Springi r ! i  t I cc\nr RECEIVF.O SEP 2 1994 Dione D. Doty 1510 Hillsborough Little Rock, AR 72212 Office of Desegregation tv'iofii ioi iiig September 1, 1994 Dr. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent Little Rock \u0026amp;hool District Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Mayo: Since your office took absolutely no action to reroute our newly reassigned bus route to exclude violent, crime intensive areas, we have nothing to reconsider. We will NOT compromise on safety issues and denial by your office and others of the existence of safety problems will only speed the exodus from the District. After seventeen years of supporting the Little Rock School District, we have withdrawn that support and enrolled our child in private school. The last 5 stops on this \"safe\" route are through one of the most violent areas in the city. Attachment 1 is summarized from a August 7 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article regarding the 41 Little Rock murders through that date. It only addressed murders, so it is far from being all-inclusive of area crimes. 37% of those murders were in some way related to this area either being the address of the victim, assailant or of the murder (22% of the 37%). Included were 3 drive-by murders (generally being unsolved), numerous shootings, chases, etc., etc. These locations were within blocks of both the bus stops and bus route which you consider \"adequate and safe\" and are certainly an indication of the high probability of being at the wrong place at the wrong time when traveling that route. Also note that the 14 year old assailant in murder # 12 has added a carjacking at gunpoint (3 felonies) and another drive-by shooting to his arrest record between August 14 and August 25. This assailant lives within blocks of one of these \"safe\" bus stops and has not restricted his activities to his home in the past! We understand that the Little Rock School District is large, that it has many students and that transportation is a major logistics problem Reduced bus-time and optimizing student-to-bus numbers were both cited by the transportation department as objectives for splitting the \"Green\" route, which has been our assigned route since 1990. We understand such objectives, but did not notice significant changes in either of these factors. We realize that the needs of the 6 children in this crime intensive area must also be met. We regret that they, or any children, are subject to the daily risk of living in such areas. However, we cannot and will not support ANY decision or ANY objective that would put ANOTHER 14 children at risk by transporting them twice a day through an urban war-zone! We do have choices!!Page 2 of 2 Doty to Mayo September 1, 1994 We certainly do not dispute that Booker Arts Magnet is an excellent school. We have been more than pleased with Dr. Simmons, Dr. Lacey, other Booker administrators, and Booker teachers and specialist. When we visited Booker to let Dr. Simmons know of our decision and to allow our daughter to say goodby to fnends, there were many expressions of regret that she was leaving and best wishes for her at her new school. This decision was not without regrets and tears on our part. However, the magnitude of this safety issue far out weighs the positives that Booker's administration and staff offer. We want to stress that we would NOf have placed our child in a private school had your office, Dr. Cheatham in the transportation department, and/or Dr. William's office indicated any intent to resolve this safety issue. After numerous statements such as \"We feel that the established routes provide adequate and safe service\", there was no doubt that we were being told to \"take it or leave it\"....so we left! We can be contacted at the above address or at (501) 225-6864 if you have questions, comments or would want to further discuss the basis of our decision. Sincerely, (copy) Dione D. Doty Attachment cc (w/attachments): Dr. Henry Williams Dr. Mary Jane Cheatham Dr. Cheryl Simmons Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Little Rock School Board[E^ESibfl - nnm-rar ^tt^atlKat^ J.mHnuoiitKl^fjjeitigaaK)gtt^ Little Rock School District August 23, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Doty 1510 Hillsborough Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Doty\nDr. Henry Williams, Superintendent, routing from your address. School. asked me to review the bus 1510 Hillsborough Lane, to Booker Magnet I personally reviewed the routing with information supplied by the Transportation Department. AAss ooff tthhiiss ddaattee,, wwee ddoo nnoott hhaavvpe aa bus that would follow your requested route to Booker Magnet School. The student population of the district students. We strive to provide both , educational environment for our students. is currently over 21,000 an efficient and safe --- I am unable to honor your request , for alternate -b-us -r-o-u-t-i-n3g at this ti-ijLmieHc.. We feel that the established routes provide adequate and safe service. J reconsider your choice of private school. Booker Magnet is an excellent school. I feel that if given the   ----  --- AAV* 1  v_ j I I I 1^, I I opportunity, Erin will be provided a quality education in a safe environment. Sincerely, Dr. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent RM: dk 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 \"Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2 Details from the August 7, 1994 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article of the 41 Little Rock mundeis (at that date) in 1994. DATE LOCATION DETAILS # BLOCKS TO BUS ROUTE LOCATION # BLOCKS TO BUS STOP LOCATION 1-9-94 2 of 41 2-7-94 4 of 41 2-12-94 5 of 41 2-15-94 6 of 41 3-17-94 12 of 41 **AND MORE! AND3- 25-94 14 of 41 4-17-94 17 of 41 2026 W. 18th Murder location In route from basketball game (Central area) to 2213 Valmar Murder location 3310 W. 16th Assailants address 2421 W. 16th Address of victim of police shooting prosecutors ruled justified 1722 Johnson St. Assailants address Stabbed, CRACK COCAINE in exchange for sex DRIVE BY SHOOTING, FIRED TWO BULLETS, RETRIBUTION FOR AN EARLIER SHOOTING Victim killed by GUNSHOTS in his living room (outside of area) Victim killed after police STAKEOUT, CHASE AND CONFRONTATION. SHOOTING outside of area but stakeout and chase locations not documented Shot victim with .22 CALIBER PISTOL, stolen property sale 4 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Jones 6 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow In route = \"in area of 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow In route \u0026amp; \"in area of NA NA NA **This is the 14/15 year old in Arkansas Democrat-Gazette August 26-30 articles. He was arrested \u0026amp; charged with the 3/17 murder, arrested again in August for carjacking at gunpoint ( 3 felony charges), then arrested again for a drive- by shooting in this area August 26. 3 gun \u0026amp; autO related incidents ..MURDER and CARJACKING and DRIVE-BY SHOOTING 2509 W. 13th Murder location GUNMAN OPENED FIRE as victim emerged from house\npolice say murder was GANG RELATED 1 Block 14th \u0026amp; Thayer 5 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow 5 Blocks 15th \u0026amp; Schiller AND 5 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow 5 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow 4 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodrow AND 6 Blocks 15th \u0026amp; Schiller A 4220 W. 12th Assailants address B. 4310 Maryland Murder location Demanded money from victim\nSHOT SEVERAL TIMES with large-caliber pistol A 4 Blocks 10th \u0026amp; Pine/Cedar B. 3 Blocks Maryland \u0026amp; Pine/Cedar A 8 Blocks 10th \u0026amp; Valmar B. 8 Blocks 10th \u0026amp; ValmarDATE 4-26-94 ' Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2 LOCATION DETAILS # BLOCKS TO BUS ROUTE LOCATION # BLOCKS TO BUS STOP LOCATION 20 of 41 16th \u0026amp; Izard Victim's car found at this location Victim strangled in her home outside of area\nno assailant address\nvictim's car in apartment parking lot NA Exact Location 16th \u0026amp; Izard 5-8-94 23 of 41 A.3510 W 14th Victim's address B. 1608 Park Murder location Victim shot with a HANDGUN, ran a short distance and collapsed at 1608 Park NA A. 5 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodruff B. 2 Blocks 15th \u0026amp; Shiller 5-11-94 24 of 41 3515 1/2 W. nth Assailants address (No murder location noted) Assaikint minutes earlier complained to police officer that victim had stolen his tennis shoes\nassailant STABBED victim after a FOOT CHASE. 1 Block 11th \u0026amp; Valmar 1 Block 10th \u0026amp; Valmar 5-27-94 27 of 41 A. 1520 Oak Victim's address B. 3600 Block of W. 16th Murder location Several men in a car fired a DOZEN OR MORE SHOTS from SEVERAL WEAPONS...UNSOLVED MURDER A \u0026amp; B 6 Blocks 12th \u0026amp; Valmar A \u0026amp; B 7 Blocks 10th \u0026amp; Valmar 9 Blocks 14th \u0026amp; Woodruff 5-30-94 28 of 41 A 1914 Ringo Victim's address B. 1422 Chester Murder location DRIVE-BY SHOOTING, three occupants, two gunshot wounds in chest\nUNSOLVED MURDER A. 5 Blocks 16th \u0026amp; Chester B. 2 Blocks 16th \u0026amp; Chester A 6 Blocks 16th \u0026amp; Izard B. 3 Blocks 16th \u0026amp; Izard AND 6 Blocks Dr. Martin Luther King \u0026amp; 15th 6-18-94 33 of 41 6-11-94 35 of 41  7-10-94 37 of 41 1603 Chester Assailants address A. 1911 Cross Murder location B. 1011 W 20th Assailants' address 1000 block of S Elm Murder location Assaikint called police and said had killed a man with a rock after being threatened with a knife (murder outside of area) Victim's neck was broken when choked \u0026amp; robbed at his home DRIVL-BY SHOOTING\nAS MANY AS EIGHT ROUNDS\nSHOOTER GANG-STYLE CLOTHING\nUNSOLVED MURDER Exact Location 16th \u0026amp; Chester 1 Block 16th \u0026amp; Izard NA 2 Blocks PineZCedar \u0026amp; 10th A \u0026amp; B. 6 Blocks 15th Izard AND 7 Blocks Dr. Martin Luther King \u0026amp; 15 th 6 Blocks 10th \u0026amp; ValmarOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371.0100 September 13, 1994 Mrs. Mary Jane Cheatham Transportation Department Little Rock School District 5400 Murray Street Little Rock, AR 72209 Dear Mary Jane: At 7:57 a.m. this morning, I had too close an encounter with a LRSD bus. As 1 was driving east on 17th street just past Rockefeller School, bus 40C lOE pulled out of McAlmont Street right in front of me, causing me to slam on my brakes to prevent a collision. The bus was traveling much too fast, and only slowed at the intersection of McAlmont and 17th. At first, I thought the driver had run a stop sign at the intersection, but then I realized that there is no stop sign at the comer of McAlmont and 17th to run, because McAlmont is a one-way street going south-and the bus was headed north! The bus contained no passengers that I could see, but my car certainly did, because I was making my morning rounds to drop my kids off at school. Besides the obviously serious dangers of going the wrong way on a one-way street (and in a big hurry to boot), I believe that that particular traffic violation results in an automatic 3-point ticket, which carries a high fine. I know you'll agree that the LRSD cannot afford the potential expenses in either safety costs, fines, or negative public relations. I trust that you'll instruct the driver of bus 40C lOE to go and sin no more. This incident causes me to wonder anew about the quality and extent of the safety instruction which LRSD bus drivers receive. I'm aware from personnel at the Arkansas Department of Education that the LRSD has sent no representative to the State's summer driver training institute in Hot Springs, even though participation would cost the district nothing because the State pays all costs. As a matter of fact, I understand the district would stand to gain some $31,000 as a result of LRSD's full participation in the State's training programs. That amount of money would enable the district to hire its own full-time safety trainer and supervisor, or it could be put to some other use that would help reassure parents that the LRSD is doing everything possible to ensure the safety of commuting children.Page Two September 13, 1994 Incidents involving bus transportation cause the district much negative and damaging publicity. I believe it would be wise for us to take advantage of every available opportunity to turn those negatives into positives. I know of no substitute for regular, quality, comprehensive, and preventive driver training Because transportation is such an integral part of the desegregation plan, please provide the information requested on the attachment by the end of the month. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely yours. Ann S. Brown cc\nRuss MayoSeptember 13, 1994 Provide the following written information to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring no later than September 30, 1994: 1. Describe the LRSD's bus driver training program objectives, content, and schedule which the district routinely follows, or at least followed in preparation for this school year. 2. Attach a copy of the curriculum and handouts which accompany the training. 3. List the names of the trainers and their training background or other relative training qualifications. 4. Indicate the number of drivers who received training and the date that they completed the training program. 5. List the number of drivers who have not received training and the date by which these drivers will have been trained\nexplain why any drivers have not completed training. 6. Describe the kind of follow-up training you provide for those who miss initial pre-service training sessions? 7. Explain the district's rationale for not participating in ADE's summer training program and subsequent training activities. 8. Describe any plans for future participation in ADE's training programs. 9. Name who is presently responsible for overseeing safety training and supervision\ninclude the job description(s) for the individual(s). 10. Describe the consequences (sanctions and remedial instruction) given drivers who commit safety violations.RECEIVED DEC 2 7 1991 December 21, 1994 Giiica of Dessgregaticn ...onao.tng Judy Magness Little Rock School Board, Zone 3 708 Hall Dr. Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Ms. Magness: I am writing to let you know about some frustrations with school bus transportation this year not necessarily because it is happening to me and my student but because it may be happening systemwide and may need the attention of our School Board and administration. For six years I have been completely satisfied with the school bus transportation. Other than a few times when the bus was late or failed to arrive, it picked my son up every morning on a corner near our house. The convenience and reliability of the bus was one of the things for which I praised the Little Rock Public Schools - in addition to Carver Magnet School, the best school in the world. THIS year has been completely different. The 2IC bus has been frequently late and has failed to arrive several times each month. Then on November 28, I sent a note to school explaining that we would be moving November 3 0 and requested a new bus stop for my son. The school called and said it might take a week but that the request would be forwarded to the Transportation Department that day. Now it's December 21, more than three weeks later, and we still don't have a bus stop. I have talked several times each week to the school and the Transportation Department and have not received any answer for what might be taking so long - other than administrative approvals. My husband has talked personally with the Transportation Director. A bus stop already is established about a mile from our new house, according to the schedule for Bus 211. One morning we arrived there early and waited for 30 minutes. No other students were at that bus stop, and no bus ever arrived. I have been taking my child to school most days - about a 40-minute round-trip. A few days I have let him stay home. Some mornings he has gone late when my husband went to work downtown.If other parents and students are experiencing similar frustrations, those who can afford other choices would probably choose a private school. I hope that our public school recruiters who try to persuade new residents to choose public schools over private schools do not have to also tell them that it will take a month or more to get their student on a bus. I realize that it is ultimately my responsibility to make sure my especially child gets to school every day. However, when the public school system promotes public school enrollment, it also touts convenient bus transportation - in rhe case of magnet/incentive schools in hard-to-desegregate locations far from the homes of most white families. in public school Although I haven't been directly involved administration for several years, it was always my understanding that the State of Arkansas pays for magnet school transportation and that it's rather expensive. Surely with all the state tax money being spent on magnet school transportation, a more reliable system could be provided for those of us who choose to attend public schools. Respectfully, Scharmel Wilson work: 664-3600 cc: Superintendent of Schools Transportation Director Student Assignment Office Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor Donna Creer, Magnet Review :ommittee Linda Pondexter, School Board President John Riggs, School Board Carver Magnet School?^p,/ SD SEP 2 0 1995 Office of Desegrsgaiiffli Monncnng fyi/ l/^e--i_ 3 o i\u0026lt; p A. fi c\u0026gt; /*T\u0026lt;i t! '/Vv j4^'/'^Qi'i\u0026lt;f^ 'i 'i- Dr. ( \u0026lt;y Oy zO ' w -^^SV xz LiH\u0026lt; R,oci(. Schoo/ Gi^i-i'ci- Ui'l'lx 1^0 c t -) -jL. -ZL.O^ '^4- Uk^ Cixi r ___________ ________5, _ - ____Cc^J 1 ____ 1^Qx:iy\u0026lt;^-k, L_^ c\u0026gt;\\_ Zlo H.Zb LijdiLjz_ , ^\u0026lt;H-e ( fi, tU-OO rec. Sl-r bo-tK, Cii/f . (v. p lt\u0026gt; \u0026lt;y o-p ^cL __Cc, l( ._. ol^o,^ 4- _ ha \u0026amp; ~l^ h\u0026lt;^'^ C\u0026amp;r-'i'Q.cf'efi /I. noui-s^ Cy old .c, -.D. M l_4 _ G $ Si ila __ r^i\\^ _ /3f o IX/ iV\"__ t. 5 c\u0026gt;Aft v k ... -- .'__^: _r___ a rr):iCi, O OAzq., jlf.__Ql( i^ /'Ixj, ei,loi\u0026gt;L\u0026gt;~t } Aj J\u0026gt; b . 1 Ct\u0026lt; iti.II, J.S +hl 4'k\u0026lt; ._Lq:a I'lQ,'* /- 4'0 roult cih-d QysZ-e^ 4o 4-0 33 e s 3C h Po 4'ha4 X 4a\u0026lt;^e I \\je Xz'y 3 Cbu^k^'l-c i~. 6 C Cciu i, t-lVCu^ Kio-Vk t \u0026lt;7 c?p- bos C-A^hz^c. y'iu 'kc s 4% v w ?i iw f' S?r i \" ' f. ) i 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)82^2000 It LriTTE R()('k School Distkkt OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 29, 1996 \" * / : Mr. Spence Holder, Coordinator School Transportation Arkansas Department of Education 4 State Capitol Mall. Room 204-A ! it Little Rock. AR '996 122Q\\ K Dear Mr. Holder\nI am appointing Mary Jane Cheatham. Director of Transportation, as the Little Rock School District's representative to serve on the Interdistrict Transportation Authority (ITA). If I can be of assistance to the committee, please contact me. Sincerely, / Henry P. WJrilliams Superintendent of Schools HPW/ca c: Mary Jane Cheatham Bobby Acklin. NLRSD Ed Hogan, PCSSD Melissa Guldin. ODM Janinne Riggs. Governors Office Cynthia Howell. Arkansas Democrat Gazette HIO West Miu kliain Street Little K\u0026lt;x:k, Arkiui.siw 7221)1 (.501)\nt2t-2IX)t) 8.15 96 14:33 S301 324 2023 LRSD COMMVMCATI ODM @002. 002 LnTLE kocK Scu(joL District For linraediate Release August 15, 1996 For more information: SucUen Vann, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) .and Laidlaw Transit, Inc. are planning bus routes for the 14,000 students who will be traasported to Linle Rock schools beginning Monday. August 19. l^aidlaw i,s mailing letters today to parents to inform hem of assigned bus routes and bus stops. Some parent': will receive a phone call instead of a letter due to some last minute assignments Laidlaw has established a telephone b:inii to provide assistance to parents who have questions related to school bus routes. Ihe ntimbei- for telephone assistance is -6085. It will be staffed Satuiday and Sundav. .August 17 and 18, from 1 p.m. until 5 . \" Beginning Monday. August 19, the phone lines will be staffed from 6:30 a-.m. until 5:30 p.m. If the phone lines are busy, callers may leave a message, and a staff'member will return the call. / 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  \u0026lt;501)834-2000 lPSD AWIIN. BiiLDINS ?4-2032 Sep 20 96 11:49 P. 02/02 fj t I =j I ra' 1-501 Ml I-ii fLF K(){k School District i\" For fm mt'diiitr Rfltase Homemade Mixiure Spifh on school Rus ^epfembtT 20, 1 s\u0026gt;06 for nioie infomiatton. Suellen Vann. 3'24-202(.i sI I I A mnth grade .special education stttaent from Mabelvale Junior High School took a plastic bottle tilled with a homemade bretv onto her school bus this mommg. The bottle conuiinej several household rocks a\nid other items. materials, including vinegar, aspirin witch hazel, aqaariiun The motion of the bus apparent caused the mixture to expand, and rhe top of ihe bottle .amc otf a vapor dowd formed, and foe Lmie Roek Polne and fore Depanrnents were called the scene. No students were injured, although a bus aide later wen, to foe hospital for treatment of her to Mabelvale Junior High. asthma. .All parents were contacted, and students Im, 1 ulfcrton pr,napal pf Mrt,|vrt, Ju,r H.^h. enticed ,h  assigmiients were given which would cau.se the studeni to attempt the home were taken eKperimentation. Transportation officials sard tlie school bus v^ ill be returned to been thoroughly cleaned 810 West Markham Stre ti-rfU: I tie Rofk, Arka. ,n\u0026gt;i TasOl Service after it has  (501 laaAtJOoo 12/04/1996 14:13 FROM JOHN 1.1. W fi L K E R P . fl . TO 710100 F' . 0 2 JOHN W. WALKR, P.A. / 723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501)374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. KJ^LBERLYR. DICKSON December 4, 1996 Mr. Fred Smith Executive Manager of Laidlaw Laidlaw Transportation 5400 Murray Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Dear Mr. Smith\nThis is to put you on notice that we are making a claim for damages regarding Laidlaw's failure to deliver Byran Hodges to Washington Magnet School on time for most of this year and thus, for causing him to miss valuable class time. We are also making a claim for Laidlaw's failure to even pick him up and for Laidlaw's frequent return of him to his drop-off point as late as 7:30 p.m. Byran is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Byran Hodges, No. 33 Perdue Circle, Little Rock, Arkansas 72204. He is eleven years old. The damage claim is for $100 per day for each day that he was late\n$200 per day for the days that he was not picked up at all\nand, $250 for each day that he was not returned home by at least 5:00 p.m. This acknowledges for settlement purposes an hour leeway in the afternoon for his return home Would either you or your authorized representative please contact me at your earliest convenience.\nrely. C Id (hn W. Walker JWW\nlp cc\nDr. Don Roberts Ms. Ann BrownI\" PT 12-^04\u0026lt;1996 ri:74 FROM JOHM W.WfiL.KER P.fi. t TO 0710130 r ' / P. 02 r\n\\ i fOHN W. WALKER, Pji. I'  -t-r- 1723 Broadwaji Littli Ruck, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 Fax (501) 374-4187 k LV. /OHN -W. W.4LKSR RAlS-n WASHJNGTOS MARKBUJiNEm AUSTIN PORTSB/B-KIMBTRiyU DICKSON December 4,1996 I?\n/'./ 'I-Ms Ann Brown ' Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg, 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Ms Brown We continue to receive many complaints re\nLaidlaw's transportation practices The primary complaint is that the buses are late in pick-up and delivery and that the children are subjected to loss of school time and are left in. unsafe circumstances both before and after school by the circumstances 1 ask that your office inquire into tins matter. I also ask that you inquire into the accuracy of the record keeping of the schools with respect to transportation, ft is my observation that the schools document earlier arrival times of buses than actual and earlier leave time from schools in the j, afternoons than actual. I believe the situation is so serious that it warrants a review by the Court of the entire matter 'fhank you for your attCDtion to this matter / / . Sincerely, - rhe v. Walker .  t / V s i..l. M \u0026lt; ri ,-i r}  '-.H 41 X' 5 ^ /.'a iHiM I TOTAL r . \u0026lt;5 3received UcC 1 1 1996 Office of Dasegregaiion Momonii^ \u0026amp;4X CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TELECOPIER TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET FAX NUMBER: (501) 371-6832 DATE\nTO: FAX#: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (Including Cover Sheet) '1 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES OR IF YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE, CONTACT AT (501) 371-///^- ^MESSAGE, 10d 2889 US IOS 'ON XVJ 0?d STdW m HUI O 96-lI-O'^E\u0026gt;2' - December 11. 1996 Dear, Mrs. Ann Brown December 16, 1996 there will be an emergency call meeting for concern parents. This organize meeting has been scheduled out of concern for the .safety' and education of oui Laidlaw 'Il'ansportation has breach there contract. On several mornings our children arc being left standing on bus stops for hours at a time, arriving at .school late or missing school. They are returning home late at night. This sendee has been happening children. since the beginning of .school, and we are asking oiir school hoard official and superintendent to attend. Please RSVP by Friday December 13, 1996 at 371-4442. The meeting will take place Mondav December 16, 1996 at 7:00 - S:00 P.M. at the South Little. Rock Recreation Center 2701 Main Street. cc\nJohn Walker,P.A. 0'd 25SlilOS 'ON XVd 03a 3 SHdt 33 IDH 0313 96-U-03C 12 17 1996 17 1 7 FROM JOHN U.WA L K E R P.A. TO 3710100 P.O\nM-' John W. Walker, P.A. Attcr.nty .Xt Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. .-Xkkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. W.aLKER RALPH W.ASHINGTON NL4RKBURNOTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR- . KIMBERLY R. DIUKSO.N via Facsinilo - 371-0100 December 17, 1996 Ha. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Qffice of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Ms Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Laidlaw Transportation Dear Ms. Brown: find ay report of the parent nesting on last Enclosed please tina ay xeyvii. wj. ---- 7\" the transportation of Little Rock students by evening regarding t.----s-- Laidlaw. Hr. Walker asked that I share these with you. Hr. Also by copy of this letter to Dr. him with a copy of the same. Roberts, I aa providing Sincerelv Joy C. Springer JCS/ cc: Dr. Don Roberts, I Z17/I 996 17: IS FROM JOHN IJ, IJ S L K e R P . fl . TO 3'10100 P.O: ot Meeting of Concerned Parents the Little Rock School District Laidlaw's Transportation Regarding of LR8P atudeota The facilitator reported that of this meeting, Ms. Phyllis Hodges, she invited the Superintendent of Little Rock ~ Don Roberts, all members of the Board of school District, Dr. Don Roberts, ail mem^rs or yne nv. Education of the Little Rock School District, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Monitor Ann Brown, a representative from^^idlaw^Transportation, Ed Streeter and m^ers of the Press to this meeting.- There was no one administration present at the meeting. from the LRSD central office Only Dr. Michael Daughtery of thX Little Rock School District Board of Directors member from the Arkansas Democrat\"*Gazette and was present- State Press were also present. he Arkansas A Anecdotal Statements\n1) elementary Parents from Washington, Fulbright, and Rockefeller y schools and Horace Mann and Dunbar junior high schools that their children have waited at the bus stop for reoorted that their children nave waiuea ar we cut. Laidlaw buses as late as 10:00 a.m. and that their children have a-r-rivod as late as 7:00 p.m. from school. These delays have arrived school, occurred on more than one occasion. 2) 2) Several of these parents reported that when they have contacted school district officials regarding their concerns, referred to Laidlaw officials who have either refused their telephone calls or did not give a satisfactory they were to return explanation for the delays. 3) for buses on Several of these parents reported that they have waited several occasions and buses have not shown up to pick up their children. 4) 4) It was reported by at least one parent that inexperienced and substitute drivers accounted for many of the delays. 5) 5) It was reported by at least one parent that they believed that the District was not concerned about these students loosing valuable educational time. 6) 6) Several parents reported that they are being inconvenienced by having to take their children to school because of Laidlaw's failure to pick up their children. 7) Several parents complained that they believed, at one of12- 17 1??6 17: 1 ? FROM JOHN 1.1. M A L k E F P . fl . TO 3710100 the reasons, for Laidlaw's delay in transporting students timely to school was Laidlaw's failure to communicate to the District officials changes in routes and pickups. IN SUMMARY were approximately 30 parents present at the meeting oj^ last evening, one point that I gleamed from the meeting was that Laidlaw was contracted by the Little Rock School District to transport LRSD's students to their respective schools as a cost saving measure, however, the costs being incurred by the District are much greater than actually reported when you make an assessment of the valuable educational time that students are loosina when they are late to school and being returned home late from school. Finally, I believe it is appropriate to make inquiry regarding the District's monitoring and current evaluation and assessment of Laidlaw's delivery of the services. I intend to make this inquiry by separate memorandum. Prepared by Joy C. Springer Joshua Intervenors  e*. i 1998 1 501-324-2eZ LRSD l'OMM'JNICATZONS PAGE 0'2/02 Little Kock School District For Immediate Release February 17. 1998 For more information: Edward E. Streeter or Lori Howell, 570-4000 Lzaidlaw Drivers Recognized for '\"K.oad-eo W ins School bus drivers from Izaidlax.' Transit, Inc. competed in the first annual .Mid- S'^trth School Bus Road-eo in Mempais last weekend, and on Wednesday drivers will be recognised for their outstan.di.ng nerforniiinee. The purpose of the Road-eo was to provide each driver the opportunity to dentocstrate ,^lis/'her driAinu skills by safely maneuvering a school bus through a challenging course. The competition included the following events\nStudent Leading Student L'nloading Alley Dock Rjuht Ttim R.ailroad Crossina Stop Line Test rite Serpentine Straight I,me Backin.g Diminished Clearance l.aidfaw drivers who demonstrated supenor driting skills were Howard Jones, first place\nSherri Bank,s. second place\nand Dwayne Holmes, third place. Drivers were awarded tropines and cash prizes, and they brought the Grose Cup back to Little P\u0026lt;ock where it will remain until next year's competition. The driver recogmtion will be held on Wednesday, May 20, at 9:30 a m. at the Laidlaw facility 5400 Murray Sueet. 810 Wert 'latHUdti Street Little Kock. .Arkansas 72201  ..501\u0026gt;324-2000 f 5rr .c i\n0: --A \u0026lt;36. 14:38 . 5017324-2023' LRSD communications ' PAGE 0'2/.02 Little Rock School District ll^ )  P J I July 6, 1998 For Immediate Release For more information: Sucllen Vann, 324-2020 I Bus Information Meetings Public Service Announcement Little Rock School District parents can get the latest school bus news by attending one of three meetings scheduled this summer. Laidlaw Transit and the Little. Rock !r 1 School District will host transportation meetings on July July 26*. and August 9*. All meetings will be held trom 3:00 until 5:00 p.m. in the Little Rock School District Administration Building, 810 West Markham. Staff members will be on hand to inform parents and students about school bus transportation and answer any questions parents might, have. Buster the Friendly Bus' will attend the meetings to educate and entertain the children. For more information, please contact Laidlaw Transit at 570-4000 or the Little 1 Rock School District at .324-2000. I  f 810 West Street  Littie Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)024'2000 id 1 i 01/14/1999 15:56 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 I. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: Fax: (501)324-2020 (501)324-2032 DATE\nJanuary 14,1999 TO\nCentral Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Special School Board Meeting MESSAGE: The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting this afternoon in conjunction with its regular agenda meeting. The special meeting will he held to consider proposed Board policies and negotiations with Laidlaw Transit, Inc. for transportation for the 1999-2000 school year The meetings will begin at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building 810 West Markham. # Pages (including cover) 1 lb Fax# Preparing students for success every dayArkansas Democrat gazette SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 1993  1 School bus hits car, injuring 8 LR pupils Bus driver cited for improper turn r ) IIlift* 1 BY OLIVIER UYTTEBROUCK AND DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Staff Writers Eight students were treated for minor injuries Friday after the Little Rock School District bus they were riding in struck a car. The accident comes a week after a Pulaski County first-grader was struck and killed by a bus. And late Thursday, a 15-year-old North Little Rock boy was struck in the head by a brick as he rode a bus from a football game at Central High School. He was treated at a North Little Rock hospital and released. In the accident Friday, Little Rock School District bus driver Tony Darryl Burse was cited for an improper left turn, police said. The bus, en route to Pulaski Heights Elementary School, carried 27 students. Little Rock School District buses experienced 14 accidents in September, said Brad Montgomery, the districts transportation director. Police cited bus drivers in six of those accidents, he said. In September 1992, there were 16 accidents involving buses, three of which involved ticketing the driver. The district hasnt compiled accident reports to date for this school year. The North Little Rock School District has had six collisions involving school buses from July 1 through Oct. 1. Police ticketed bus drivers in three of the incidents. And in the same period, four Pulaski County Special School District buses had accidents, including two in which the drivers were given tickets. In Fridays accident, police said the bus collided with a car as the bus driver tried to turn left onto B Street from Cedar. The driver veered into the right See ACCIDENT, Page ISA fv ii 1\n it .* iO. CHILDREN INJURED  Two students wait for MEMS paramedics to remove them from their Little Rock School District bus after the bus collided with a car at North Cedar Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Steve Kees^ and B streets Friday morning. Eight children were slightly injured. The bus was en route to Pulaski Heights Elementary School. Accident  Continued from Page 1A lane then turned left across the left lane. The car struck the left side of the bus, police said. Burse, 31, told police he swung wide to more easily enter the narrow street and failed to see a 1988 Chevrolet Corsica in his rearview mirror. Burse also said he signaled a left turn. District officials didnt know Friday whether Burse has been cited before. He was hired Aug. 16. Montgomery said that in accidents such as this one, in which there does not appear to be significant property damage or serious negligence, no suspension is warranted. District drivers are allowed three chargeable incidents before they are recommended for termination. The eight injured students were treated for cuts and scrapes at Arkansas Childrens Hospital, then released, a hospital spokesman said. ' The driver of the Chevrolet, Gwendolyn Watson, 23, of 2000 . Rebsamen Road was treated at University Hospital in Little Rock and released, a hospital spokesman said.\nOn Oct. 1, William Cody Wade, 6, a first-grade Bates Elementary School student, was struck by a Pulaski County Special School District bus at an intersection near his home. That accident occurred when driver Kaye Martin, 48, of Mabelvale, accelerated after she let Wade and several other children off the bus at the intersection of Dreher Road and Ada Lane in south Pulaski County. BUS ACCIDENT  MEMS paramedic Pat Bajorek carries injured pupii Jeff McCox, 9. from a Little Rock School District bus after an accident Friday at North Cedar and B Arkansas Oemocral-Qazette/Steve Keesee streets. Eight children suffered minor injuries. The accident comes a week after a Pulaski County Special School District first-grader was struck and killed by a bus. Martin told Pulaski County sheriffs deputies she was distracted by several children who were arguing and didnt see Wade in front of the bus. In the brick-throwing incident Thursday night, Robert Andrew Pugh was struck in the right temple as he rode a bus from Quigley Stadium at 16th and Jones streets, police said. Pugh, a student at North Little Rock High School East, was treated at Baptist Memorial Medical Center in North Little Rock and released after the 10 p.m. incident, a hospital spokesman said. In a similar incident Friday, three Little Rock students told police they were struck by rocks while riding a bus at 23rd and Abigail streets. None of the students was injured, police said. During the 1992-93 school year, there were 158 accidents involving Little Rock District bus drivers, of which 68 involved ticketing the driver. Democrat ^(gazette. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1993  LR School Board ponders plan to Arm itself for bus safety BY KRIS HUNTER Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Concern for the safety of children traveling on school buses has the Little Rock School Board considering the use of the Arm, a guardrail that would be attached to the outside of school buses. Talk of that new safety precaution, expanded bilingual programs and the Stephens Incentive Elementary School site dominated discussion at the boards agenda meeting Thursday. One Arm has been given to the district, with no obligation to buy, officials said. A board spokesman said specifics on how the device works are still not clear, though apparently it is a rail that would protrude from either the side or front of a school bus when it stops, warding off traffic and guarding the children getting on or off. To address the needs of the school districts 400-500 students from other countries, the board is seeking a federal grant to expand bilingual programs. The proposal, which requests $175,000 for each of the next three years, calls for hiring more tutors and buying more instructional materials. Surveys show 66 different languages within the school district, the board was told. The board is also gathering statistical information on student populations in its attempt to resolve controversy over a new site for Stephens Incentive Elementary School, now at 3700 W. 18th St. Though U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled the school could not remain at the 18th Street site, the board is appealing that decision. The ruling stipulated that Stephens would be replaced with a new interdistrict elementary school in the Interstate 630 corridor, between Interstate 30 and University Avenue. Jerry Malone an attorney for the district, said that since the ruling, one source of disagreement has been whether the school would have to be visible from Interstate 630. The information being collected is necessary to determine if enough children live in the 18th Street area to attend the elementary school, whatever the boards stance on the site, Malone said. Stephens has 180 students, from 4-year-oIds to sixthgraders. Since the school has to be rebuilt as an interdistrict school  one close to an even number of black and white stu- i dents  the site has been or- ! dered closed by August 1995. The real issue is whether or not we want to take another school out of a black communi- , ty, Superintendent Henry J Williams told the board. J If we close another school in the black community we are f telling them that their children I dont matter, the boards Linda Pondexter said.Arkansas Democrat (Bazcttc . WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1993 LR school bus driver arrested on warrants Little Rock School District bus driver William Montgomery was arrested on the job Tuesday morning for outstanding warrants. District Transportation Director Brad Montgomery (no relation to William Montgomery) said Little Rock police stopped the driver for speeding. He had just dropped off one load of students at a school and was on his way to pick up another load. After stopping the bus, police learned one or more warrants had been issued for William Montgomerys arrest. Brad Montgomery said police believe William Montgomery had a suspended drivers license. Brad Montgomery said his staff checks drivers for licenses at least twice a year. A check earlier this school year did not show William Montgomerys license had been suspended, he said. Brad Montgomery said William Montgomery was suspended pending a final decision on his employment.Arkansas Democrat (gazette  THURSDAY. NOVEMBER 11,1993 Bus driver for LRSD facet 3 traffic counts, dismissal\n, Little Rock School District bus driver William Montgomery, arrested Tuesday, will stand trial Nov. 24 on charges of driving on a suspended license, reckless driving and speeding, police said. Montgomery also faces a misdemeanor charge in Sherwood for allegedly writing a hot check, Sherwood police said Wednesday. The school board recommended Montgomery be fired. Deputy Superintendent Es- . telle Matthis said Wednesday night. Matthis said the driver was hired based on excellent references. Dr. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said the driver was hired Oct. 29 and the district had not received a response to its request for in- , formation on his driving record at the time of his arre^ Williams said new employI ees are sometimes allowed!.to drive buses even before-a record check is completed if there is a critical need. ' Brad Montgomery, district director of transportation, said Tuesday that William Moii- gomery was arrested after ie delivered one group of students to a school and while-on his way to pick up another group. Brad Montgomery and William Montgomery are not related. William Montgomerys trial will be in Little Rock Munfei- , pal Traffic Court, police said. IArkansas Democrat (Bazctte  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1993 Insurer to review school bus service 5 I Williams reports BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Districts insurance company will conduct a comprehensive study of the districts transportation department, Superintendent Henry Williams said Tuesday. The Gallagher Bassett Insurance Co., which carries the districts vehicle and property insurance, will look at virtually all facets of the embattled departments operations, including safety records, driver histories, employee training programs, bus routes and stops, and traffic patterns. The department, the drivers and the unruly student passengers on some of the buses have come under scrutiny in recent weeks by various news organizations, including the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. The study is expected to begin around Dec. 1. 'The company, which approached the school district about performing the evaluation, is charging a fee of under $5,000, a district official said, but the actual cost could not be determined Tuesday night. Williams made the announcement about the study and responded to questions on such subjects as gifted education, multicultural education, building maintenance and school security at a public forum Tuesday night at Forest Heights Junior High School. About 35 people, half of whom were district employees, attended the session, which was the fourth in a series of forums. The next session will be held at 7 p.m. Nov. 30 at Rockefeller Incentive Elementary School. In addition to the Gallagher study, the district has asked community members to participate on what Williams called a Blue Ribbon Committee to study transportation. Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis said representatives of the teachers, bus drivers, the school board, principals, the PTA and the Little Rock Police Department have been asked to become involved. Letters to those groups were mailed this week, and plans call for the group to begin meeting next month. The committee may visit the bus depot, ride a bus or take whatever steps it thinks necessary to develop recommendations for improving the system. Matthis said she and Williams have met with the bus drivers once and have asked them to propose a schedule of regular meetings during which concerns can be discussed. Williams said improved student behavior on the buses will be encouraged by working with students parents and letting them know their children can lose their bus-riding privileges. Adult supervision on problem buses also may have to be considered, he said. When asked about discipline in general, Williams said he would not tolerate disruptive behavior from students or behavior that endangers other children. Williams said school officials have taken an aggressive stand on behavior, but the media is not kind to the district. Were not as violent a population as depicted, he said, and urged his listeners to write to the newspaper to stop printing detrimental information, to stop printing crap.2B , FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1994   Pulaski Arkansas Democrat ':^azcttc Gunshot from passing car strikes LR school bus\nno one hurt  BY OLIVIER UYTTEBROUCK . Democrat-Gazette PolicB Reporter A gunshot fired from a passing car struck the side of a Little Rock School District bus carrying about 10 students Wednesday afternoon, police said. No injuries were report- edJ .Bus driver Arthur Coleman told police the shot was fired about 4:45 p.m. by one of four men in a tan 1984 Chevrolet Cavalier that passed the bus in the 3000 block of Walker Street. The bullet struck the metal frame of the third passenger window on the left side of the bus, cracking the window and sending glass fragments into the bus, Coleman said Thursday. The bullet wasnt found, he said. I heard the bang  it was awful loud, Coleman said. The driver of the car then passed the bus and sped away. They put the pedal to the metal, he said. Police said they searched unsuccessfully for the car and its occupants. Coleman said about 10 students were in the bus during the shooting. No students were in the seat beside the window, he said. Six students, from 12 to 17, remained on board when police arrived in the 2600 block of Walker Street, where Coleman stopped the bus. All were Little Rock residents attending Oak Grove High School in the Pulaski County Special School District. Coleman said he didnt see the gunman. A 17-year-old student on the bus told police one of the passengers in the car held a 9mm pistol out the window and fired. The four occupants wore red and ranged in age from 16 to 18, the student told police. The bus and car were traveling south on Walker Street, a residential street several blocks west of Boyle Park in west Little Rock, police said. Coleman said the students in the bus appeared to have done nothing to provoke the shooting. All the windows were up, he said. No kids were hanging out, giving gang signs or anything.r Democrat^C^azcttc | SATURDAY, MARCH 5 1994 Cwwt* Lime Rock  NeMfspapers. Inc. Teen on school bus hit by flying brick A junior high school student was injured Thursday evening when someone lobbed a brick through a school bus window, Little Rock police said. Little Rock School District bus driver Carolyn Williams told police she saw an unknown teen throw the brick, which struck Henderson Junior High student Shannon Hall, 15, in the face. Williams told police Shannon suffered a laceration under his right eye and several cuts. WEDNESDAY, MAY 11,1994^ School bus riders stone another bus Students on a Little Rock School District school bus threw rocks at another bus Monday afternoon and cracked its windshield, police said. Johnnette Bumworth. 24. tnlH police she was driving a bus car- ~ rying three children at 1200 Cleveland St. about 4 p.m. when students on a bus from Hall High threw rocks that cracked the windshield. Police said there were no injuries.Arkansas Democrat (gazette FRIDAY, MARCH 11,1994 * Boy reports attack awaiting school bus A Little Rock teen-ager was attacked by another youth while waiting for a school bus Wednesday morning. Vondrae Hawkins, 14, told police he was waiting on a bus at Ballinger Street and Apple Cove when an unknown youth approached him and accused him of associating with the Crips gang. Hawkins told police the other youth hit him in the face with a crutch the assailant was carrying. Police said^they could find no obvious signs of injury.Arkansas Democrat W? (gazette FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1994 ~ Shotgun fired twice at school bus stop Gunshots were fired near children who had just gotten off a school bus Wednesday afternoon at Tedbum Circle in Southwest Little Rock, but police reported no injuries. A witness told police that someone in a house on Tedbum Circle fired a shotgun twice near a bus stop where children were present. One youth on the bus told police he had fought with another student Wednesday morning at the bus stop. He told police that when they returned from school, someone from the other stu dents house fired a gun at him.'\"j Arkansas Democrat :^C^azcttc [ FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 1994 f Copyright 9 UtUe Rock Newspapers, Inc. I Teen gets off bus, injured by bottle Someone threw a glass bottle Wednesday, injuring a student standing near a Little Rock School District bus he had just exited. Police said the 15-year-old student was hurt about 4\n20 p.m. when a glass bottle shattered near bus No. 23 at 13th and Woodrow streets, injuring the students face. , ISATURDAY, MARCH 19,1994  Suit faults drivers in bus, van accident The family of a Little Rock student filed suit Friday against the Little Rock School District, a school bus driver and a van s driver and owner over a September 1993 school bus accident. , . Michael Ford, whose age and address were unavailable, suffered severe cervical neck sprain with muscle spasms in the collision between a school bus and a 1990 Chevrolet van The suit blamed the wreck on negligence by the drivers of both the van and the bus.Arkansas Denocrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 1994  3B LRSD bus drivers, aides warned of possible layoffs i i BY CYNTHIAHOWELL Democrat-Gazette Bucation Writer The Little Rode School District has put its sdiool bus drivers and aides or. notice that they could be laid off at the end of the school year. All but 80 of the driver and aide jobs could be eliminated if the school board decides in May to contract with a private company to operate thebus system, Superintendent Heiry Williams said in a letter to employees dated Friday. Union officialswill meet with bus driver representatives early next week to decide how to respond, said Eleanor Coleman, president of the Classroom Teachers Association. The CTA is the bargaining agent for the transportation employees through June 30, when the contract expires. Williams has not made a formal recommendation to the school board to reduce the size er contracting with private com- of the transportation depart- \"  ment but said in the letter to employees he may do so at the April 28 board meeting. The district would send out layoff notices if the board approves a private contractor, which could occur in May. District staff members have been working with a transportation consultant from Geor- pa to develop a proposal for hiring a transportation company. School board members had asked administrators to consid- panics for some noneducation jobs to save money. The school district must cut about $72 million to balance the 1994-95 budget. Administrators have estimated that they could save about $600,000 by hiring a private transportation company. The districts transportation department has 344 employees and a budget of $6 million this year. That includes 215 regular route drivers, 24 full-time substitute drivers, 41 special-education bus drivers and 41 aides who ride the special-education vehicles. The rest include supervisors, dispatchers, a custodian, eight mechanics, a shop foreman, a secretary, a driver trainer, a director of operations, an administrator-coordinator and a director. The department transports about 14,000 students each day on 558 routes with 306 buses. The department also transports Little Rock students who attend schools in the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts as interdistrict desegregation transfer students. Williams said transportation employees with the most seniority would be eligible for the 80 positions the district might retain. Those employees might drive a limited number of routes to meet the needs of students who have special needs, such as children with disabilities. The Pulaski County district also is considering hiring a private company to operate the transportation system. North Little Rock School District bffi-\ncials have said they are interested in a private Ijus company only to the extent of transporting the interdistrict transfer students.. y.Arkansas Democrat (gazette ^DNESDAY, APRIL 27, 1994 Workers picket over LRSD plan to privatize school bus service BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat'Gazette Education Writer About two dozen Little Rock School District bus drivers and aides picketed at the districts Administration Building on Tuesday morning over a proposal to hire private companies to operate most of the bus system next fall. Neddie Nichols, a 10-year driver for the district and head of the local teachers unions bus drivers unit, said the informational picket may continue today if the weather permits. Drivers also are expected to picket before the Little Rock School Board meeting set for 6 p.m. Thursday. Nichols said Tuesday that drivers believe they will lose their jobs or benefits if the dis- j trict proceeds with plans to privatize the transportation department. I dont understand why we are the ones who have to pay for their mismanagement Nichols said. She said the employees have tried to work with the district to cut unnecessary costs and reduce absenteeism._________ I dont understand why we are the ones who have to pay for their mismanagement  Neddie Nichols School district officials are requesting bids from private  companies to take over the department as a way to save money and operate the system more efficiently. District officials must trim next years, expenses by more than $7 million to balance the budget and avoid an illegal deficit In the request for bids on the job, the district is requiring private companies to hire all current, qualified district employees and to pay them their current base wages and benefits as long as the employees work for them. Nichols said the picketing is also intended to tell the public that the drivers care about students and are not, as a group, conducting any kind of work slowdown. Since early this month, as many as 60 of the districts 300 drivers have been absent, making buses and students late in arriving at or leaving schools. Nichols said she believes some drivers are using up their accumulated sick leave days to avoid losing the days if and when the department is privatized. Drivers earn one sick day a month.I Arkansas Democrat (gazette THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1994 Copyright 9 Utte Rock Newspapers. Inc. Driver shortage delays students in LR district District has 42 positions open, making buses up to an hour late BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat*Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District has 20 bus driver vacancies that officials say must be filled immediately to reduce the number of late buses plaguing students, parents and schools. Brad Montgomery, district transportation director, said 22 drivers did not report to work Wednesday morning. Coupled with the vacancies, the department also is 42 drivers short, causing buses to be as much as an hour late getting students to school. Wednesday was typical of the problems faced daily by the transportation department in recent weeks. The district has 22 full-time substitute drivers on its staff of about 280 drivers. The substitutes drive routes when regular drivers dont report to work because of illness or other reasons. The absentee rate among drivers is worse than it was this time last year because the district in 1993 hired more drivers to pick up the stack, Montgomery said. But the response to help-wanted advertisements this year has been slow, Montgomery said. The high absentee and vacancy rates among drivers are attributed to several factors, he said. Drivers often begin taking new jobs in the spring, knowing that bus driving jobs end when school is dismissed for the summer. Also, district employees, including drivers, are speculating that some drivers are taking sick leave days in anger or fear over a district proposal to hire a private company to operate the transportation department next year. If the Little Rock School Board approves the proposal, most drivers no longer would be district employees. The district is trying to protect current employees in the event the department is privatized. Any company given the system contract must hire all qualified, current employees at their current rate of pay and guarantee benefits equal to what the employees get now. Those benefits include health and dental insurance, short-and long-term disability insurance and a retirement plan. People who want to apply for driver jobs should contact the transportation department, which is at 5400 Murray St., at 570-4000 between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. Monday through Friday. Applicants must be at least 21, hold a valid drivers license and have no more than one moving violation on their driving records. Applicants must pass a drug test. Once an applicant is hired, the driver will be trained to become eligible for a commercial drivers license. Bus driver pay ranges from $37.13 per day to $57.16. Drivers work about five hours a day, but the work is split into two shifts, one that begins at 6:30 a.m. and ends about 9 a.m. Drivers must return to work at about 1:45 p.m. for the afternoon routes.Aikansas Democrat NiSpais. Inc. L  r:.S Sc btt lib (TW ONE HURT  A Southwest Junior High student peers from a school bus window a few feet away from the win- I* - d IV r* Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/Steve Keesee dow shattered Wednesday when someone threw a rock at the vehicle. Student hurt when rock breaks bus window A 15-year-old Southwest Junior High School student suffered minor injuries Wednesday when a rock thrown by another student shattered a school bus window and struck him in the head, police said. The incident was the second in three days when a Little Rock School District student threw a stone and broke a bus window. The rock struck Farley Mosley of 1616 Izard St., Apartment 101, on the left side of the head at 8:10 a.m. Wednesday, Little Rock police said. Mosley was treated at Arkansas Childrens Hospital and released, a hospital spokesman said. Students at the bus stop identified a Southwest Junior High School seventh-grader as the rock thrower. 'The bus driver told police she had just made a stop at 14th and Allis streets when the rock shattered the third window from the front on the bus left side. The incident followed one Monday afternoon when students on a b IS from Hall High School threw rocks that cracked the windshield of another Little Rock School District bus with three children aboard, police said. L Aribas Democrat ^(^azcttc THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1994 Copyngnt  Little Rock Newsoapers. Inc. Truck, bus collide J #'  r f r  fZ |z.\nByij h 3L ^.. jr :ggggt3^ ^*-- f '\n4i.. _?S*p?^v -o- i# s !rf aBBtt t . 2. ^3*\"' iSi\"- T5. WSP w 2^ 3\u0026gt; J3 ^\u0026lt;ap: I g ? \u0026gt;i fi \u0026lt; i?x *:5^ 5 V t rl' r'*\u0026gt;M .Y- .-VrM\u0026lt;\u0026gt; S^Mi it \u0026lt;jS .' L\u0026gt; '.if-* sig t. ^2f:  A-'fe- aiarfc ONE INJUREDA^UtUe Rock police officer directs traffic at University Avenue and Berkshire Drive about 3:30 p.m. Wednesday after a Chevrolet S-10 pickup hit a Lit-\ntie Rock School District bus carrying 25 Chicot Elemen-  tary pupils, none of whom was seriously injured. The Aritansaa DTxx3at-Gaz8art)rtd GoOBcheflc taidts driver, Joseph Vanness, was taken to University Hospital, where a sp^esman said he was in critical condition Wednesday night Bus driver Thomas Campbell said he was turning left onto University when the truck broadsided the bus. No charges were filed Wednesday.SATURDAY, JUNE15?1994 Copynght  Little Rock Newspapefs. Inc. Official fears bus vote will bring dire results'' BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazene Education Writer A Little Rock School Board member warned Friday that the decision this week against employing a private company to operate the districts school bus system will have dire consequences. John A. Riggs IV, said he feared the district could be placed into federal court receivership by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright for failing to make a responsible financial decision. The board voted 4-3 Thursday night, with virtually no discussion, against hiring a private bus company for next year. The district goes to court Tuesday for a hearing before Wright on its 1994-95 budget. Wright is presiding in the districts dese^egation lawsuit and is responsible for monitoring the districts budget and its overall compliance with the desegregation plan. The district and other parties in the lawsuit negotiated the settlement plan in 1989. It was approved by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990. District officials announced last winter that they must make more than $7 million in cuts to balance the 1994-95 budget and avoid an illegal deficit. District strategies for cutting costs next year included privatizing the transportation department at a potential savings of $500,000. The judge is looking to make a case about how the district is squandering its money, Riggs said in a telephone interview and added that the transportation decision could be used as evidence. She could say the board is not responsible and is not looking at where it is spending its money, he said. The court hearings could be ugly. Ri^s said a proposal to hire a national transportation company could save the district about $1 million over three years and provide the district with as many as 128 new buses in the first year of a three-year contract. The district asked transportation companies last spring to bid on taking over all of the bus system except the transportation of special education students. Only Mayflower, Vancom Management Services Inc. of Oakbrook Terrace, Ill., responded completely to the proposal. The company, which operates a school bus system in Memphis, said it could do. the job for $6.4 million in the first, year and $7 million the next year. District officials said it would cost them $6.5 million the first year and $7.3 million the second, year to offer the same level of service. Board members Pat Gee, O.G. Jacovelli, Linda Pondexter and Dr. Katherine Mitchell voted to reject the proposal. Board members Riggs, Kevin OMalley and Dorsey Jackson voted against the motion. OMalley said Friday he wasnt sure he wanted time to consider the proposal. He said he and other board members did not get a chance to review the proposal until the board meeting Thursday night. After spending the money to hire a consultant to help find a private company to do the job, he said, the board should have given the proposal more thought.Arkansas Democrat (gazette 1 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1994 School bus catches fire A driver hustled 19 students out a school bus rear emergency door after the vehicles engine caught fire Tuesday morning, police and school officials said. No injuries were reported. The fire, possibly the result of an electrical malfunction, was confined to the engine compartment, a Pulaski County Special School District official said. Bus driver Linda Fisher, 44, of North Little Rock saw smoke wafting out from under the buss hood at about 7:30 a.m. Tuesday, said i I Emanuel McGhee, district transportation director. Fisher stopped the eastbound bus on the shoulder of Maumelle Boulevard on an Interstate 430 overpass, McGhee said. She examined the engine, then told students to exit, he said.4B  THURSDAY, AUGUST 25. 1994 Police beat BY JIM KORDSMEIER Democrat-Gazette Police Reporter Student hit as rock is hurled bus to bus A student riding a Little Rock School District bus Tuesday afternoon threw a rock that sailed through another buss open window and hit a student on the nose, police said. School bus driver Yolanda Strong told police she was driving west on 20th Street when another district bus passed her at Johnson Street, headed east Strong told police someone on the other bus threw a quarter-sized rock that hit Eryn Surrat, 13. The teen-ager told police she wanted to be taken to Arkansas Childrens Hospital to be checked for injuries, police said, though hospital records didnt  show whether she was treated. I THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27,1994 Studentson bus knock window out  IjWe Rock School District bus window out while riding home Tuesday afternoon, police said. Carol Dotson, 23, told police she was driving the bus Lee Street about 4:15 p.m. when shattered a window on the left side of the bus west on as she passed Harrison Street Two men working on the street comer told police that all the students on the bus were in an uproar and someone inside the bus broke the window.Arkansas Democrat C^azettc j SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5. 1994 Brick hits student on LR school bus A teen-age girl threw a brick through a Little Rock School District bus window Friday morning, hitting a student, police said. Bus driver Kim Lockhart, 23, told police she had stopped at her scheduled bus stop at Ma- belvale Pike and Shetland Road about 8:15 a.m. when the teen-ager threw the brick, hitting a 14-year-old passenger. The passenger told police the brick brushed the top of his head without injuring him. He jumped off the back of the bus and asked the girl why she threw the brick at him, then knocked her to the ground, police said. II Arkansas Democrat .^C^azettc | WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1994 J* . X^J7*+ Coovright O Uttle Rock Newsoaoers. Inc. School buses to run snow routes as drill Democrat-Gazette Staff The Little Rock School Districts transportation department will run emergency bus routes Thursday in preparation for any severe winter weather. In preparation for the annual one-day drill, school officials distributed to students earlier this month information showing where their bus stops will be on the emergency routes. In running emergency bus routes, drivers generally stay on main roadways and do not travel into neighborhoods as much as they would when running the regular routes.Arkansas Democrat IS? (5azctk WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21.1994 Bus drivers expected to be on job in LRSD Little Rock school bus drivers are expected to report for duty today despite a few sick-out threats after a Tuesday meeting. Drivers met with Russ Mayo, associate superintendent of the Little Rock School District, to discuss absenteeism. Mayo wanted drivers to suggest ways to prevent high absenteeism. Last Friday more than 50 drivers called in sick, but Mayo said that is common this time of year on Fridays when paychecks are issued. About 10 drivers walked out of Tuesdays meeting with Mayo and threatened to call in sick because he failed to address their concerns about the districts management style. But most of the districts 300 drivers are expected to show up for.work, said Neddie Nichols, a former representative of the drivers union, which is no longer recognized by the district. We have a lot of unsatisfied drivers, said Nichols, noting that shes scheduling a meeting with Mary Jane Cheatham, the districts transportation director. * If several drivers call in sick today, Nichols said, it would not be an official action. Z .Theyll be drivers who just want to be heard, she said.Arkansas Democrat   WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1995  LR school bus ambush, robbery tied to gang BY JIM BROOKS Deinocral-Gazells Stall Writer A gunman stopped a Little Rock school bus Monday afternoon and several gang members searched the bu.s for a student, school officials said. When they didn't find who they wanted, they robbed two Central High School students on the bus, then fled, police said. It apparently was motivated by a group of gang-related people looking for someone, Assis- tanl Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo said. This is the first time I can recall when armed suspects stopped a bu.s and committed multiple robberies, said Lt. Charle.s Holladay, speaking for the Little Rock Police Department. A.s the bus stopped at 17th and Boyce streets about 4 p.m. Monday to let out a student, a man ran into the road, pointed a handgun at the bus driver and threatened to slioot if he tried to drive away, authorities said. They obviously were waiting for the bus to get there, Holladay said. Three unarmed men then boarded the bus while two others walked along outside, trying to find a particular student. Neither investigators nor school district officials would say who the student was or why the group was looking for him. Of the approximately 25 students on the bus, only two were robbed, police said. Robbers took two gold chain necklaces worth about $470 and $56 in cash from the two students, police said. Detectives went to Central High School on Tuesday morning to meet with school security personnel and interview the students who were on the bus. Students identified the ambushers as gang members. See BUS, Page 11A Bus  Continued from Page 1A At this point we have a general idea about the suspects but no names, Sgt. David Ebinger said. Mayo said that late Tuesday afternoon, school authorities had identified one of the men who boarded the bus. Police and school authorities said the robbers apparently were not students and all were above school age. Last year school buses and bus stops were the scenes of numerous crimes. The reports included:  In a February incident, shots were fired at a Pulaski County Special School District bus in the 3000 block of Walker Street.  In March, Little Rock police arrested a 14-year-old boy after a gang-related fight on a Little Police and school authorities said the robbers apparently were not students and all were above school age. Rock school bus.  Also in March, two shotgun blasts were fired near children who had just gotten off a Little Rock school bus on Tedbum Circle.  On Sept. 8 four teen-agers beat a Little Rock girl after she got off her school bus at 13th and Booker streets.  On the same day, police arrested two junior high school students after a gang-related brawl at a Southwest Little Rock bus stop.  Also in September, an 18- year-old Hall High School student leaped from the back door of a moving school bus after a disturbance broke out on the bus.  In December, a man assaulted two J.A. Fair High School students near a bus stop at 26th and Gaines streets. Some Little Rock school buses are equipped with video cameras that are rotated throughout the fleet, school officials said. The bus robbed Monday had no camera on board, Mayo said. There will be one on there today, he said Tuesday.AiLansas Demucratl^($)azdk J SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1995 A M a LRSD again LRSD studies using private buses BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral Gazetta Educalion Writsr Thp T iftio Rppt r.i Contract this year is Still uiicer- The Little Rock School D.s- object trict is trying again to get out of the transportation business. District administrators earlier this month issued a request for bids from private transportation companies to take over the school bus service used by 14,000 ...HHon-operation. The district district by May 3 would continue to operate bus- ................sewing special education The district put out a similar bid request last year and got responses from four companies. However, a divided Little Rock School Board ultimately rejected the idea of privatizing the Transportation Department. Faced with stagnant revenues and escalating costs. Superintendent Henry Williams and his staff are again recommending privatization as a way to replace the districts aging bus fleet and improve service to See LRSD, page 7B  Conlinued from Page IB students. The change could possibly save the district $l(X),006 next year and $1 million over three years. School board approval of any to putting oul the bid request. Specifically, Ihc flistri ct wants a private company to op erate the 197 regular school buses and llie 67 inagncl school/majorityto-minority transfer student buses  a $6.4 es students. One of the main objections voiced about privatization by some school board members and bu.s drivers i.s the potential impact on the more than 3(X) employees who would no longer work for the district. To ease those fears, the district will require any company lliat accepts the job to agree to employ all current Transportation Department employees and pay Ihcni al least the same base wages and benefits they are now gelling for a.s long a.s they work for Ilie company. Current wages for employees range from $27.90 a day for a driver who drives only one Hie inotniiig and route in evening, to a.s much a,s $57.16 a day for full-time substitute drivers who fill in for absent drivers on regular bus routes. Transportation employees get the same health, dental, disability and life insurance bene- fits received by district teachers. However a private company wouldnt be lied to the district's salary scale for any new employees, according to the proposal for a three year contract. Tlie district will rent its fleet of buses for $1 a year to the company that wins the contract. But the winning company must replace any gasoline-fueled buse.s that are more than 8 years old and any diesel powered bus that is more than 10 years old. The average age of buses in the districts fleet is 6.3 years. In the bid request, district administrators said they want to improve service to students. This past year, district buses were on time picking up and de-  livering students 75 percent of the time. Typically, there is a 9 percent absentee rate for drivers. Employee turnover is 30 to 40 percent a year. Late buses are a focus of parental complaints. The district will penalize any private company for late buses al a rale of $25 per incident. The company would be fined $500 for any bus that is operated that is un fit for service. Any contractor would be required to screen all driver candidates  including administering drug testing and reviewing a criminal background conducted by the Arkansas State Police. The district will reserve the right to deny employment to any driver believed to be unqualified or unfit.WEDNESDAY, MAY 10. 1995 Cooyngm O L-nt Rock Newsoaoers. Inc. -{ Arkansas Democrat ^^azette j Cited at flood barricade, LRSD driver rolls on BY JIM KORDSMEIER Democral-Gazerte Police Reporter A Little Rock School District bus driver cited for child endangerment for running a barricade in a flooded section of Boyle Park was still shuttling students Tuesday. Police stopped Roseanne Simmons, 46, Monday afternoon just before she tried to drive a 1991 International school bus across a high-water spot on Boyle Park Road, police said. cident and will be interviewing The only student on the bus the student. The transportation got out to move the barricade so director (Mary Jane Cheatham) the bus could go through, police. has already talked to the said. Officers stopped the bus driver, Vann said. The driver before it got to the high water should not have stopped and and cited Simmons. She (Simmons) is working to- done that\nit was inappropriate. Simmons could not be day pending the outcome of an reached for comment Tuesday investigation, district spokesman Suellen Vann said Tuesday. We are investigating the in- aftemoon. According to a police report, Simmons stopped the bus she was driving about 4:40 p.m. at a barricade set up in the 2800 block of Boyle Park Road. Nioa- mi Rottmen, 16, got out and moved the barricade out of the way, police said. Police assigned to patrol city parks stopped the bus just short of the flooded area. They called district officials and cited Simmons for running the barricade and for child endangerment Apparently the student only knew one way home and they were taking it She was t^ng the driver how to get there:'I'm not sure if its her normal route, Vann said. The student recently switched to the bus and may have been a new stop for the driver, Vann said. Rottmen told police she is a McClellan High student and that she lives on Dorchester Drive in the John Barrow Addition west of Boyle Park. Streets in Boyle Park are regularly barricaded when waters rise in flood-prone Hoek Creek. A spokesman for the city public works department said barricades in the park were set up Monday before 10 a.m. Police issued a number of citations Monday in Boyle Park for similar traffic violations, Vann said. Lt. John Hutchinson, police spokesman, said he didnt know how many citations were issued. \u0026gt;1-I Arkansas Democrat -^ (gazette | SATURDAY?MAY 2U,^re3n------' -  -  Maa^nenAT* IrW*. no.u* Ma\u0026gt;a\u0026gt;nnr Inn. Bus driver pleads guilty to charges Fined for endangering child, moving barricade on road BY PETER ARONSON Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer A Little Rock School District bus driver pleaded guilty in municipal court Friday to charges of child endangerment and moving a barricade. Little Rock Municipal Court Judge Bill Watt gave the driver, Roseanne Simmons, 46, a 90-day suspended jail sentence and fined her $250 for child endangerment and $110 plus court costs for moving the barricade. Police stopped Simmons on May 8 as she prepared to drive her school bus, with one student aboard, through a flooded section of Boyle Park Road. The McClel- Ian High School student, Nioami - Rottmen, 16, got out of the bus and moved the barricade. Police, who had been obse^- ing the barricaded area and issued several citations there that day, stopped the bus just before it reached the flooded area. Watt said that had Simmons continued, she could have put the bus in jeopardy. We have literally had flashflood problems down there where weve plucked cars out of trees, Watt said. Simmons is no stranger to Watts courtroom. Earlier this year, while driving a school bus, she struck a car and left the scene of the accident Watt said he fined her $110 plus court costs. Watt said Simmons has demonstrated a willful disregard for people and property. The judge added that if Simmons receives another citation while driving a school bus, he would suspend her commercial license and shes gonna walk, shes not gonna drive from court. It pisses me off, quite frankly. I dont like people leaving the scene of an accident, Watt said. For now. Watt said he is satisfied that the Little Rock School Districts transportation department can handle any further disciplinary action.40  FRIDAY. JUNE 9, 1995 Idea to reduce school buses given to board BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat'Gazette Educa\u0026amp;on Writer Little Rock School District bus drivers pitched school board members an idea Thursday that drivers believe would save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year and eliminate any need for privatizing their department. The drivers, who oppose hiring a company to operate most of the districts transportation department, recommended a plan to reduce the number of buses used daily. Speaking at a special board meeting, Dwayne Holmes, a district driver for eight years, said that enabling each bus to pick up students who live in the same neighborhood but attend different schools would increase ridership on each route and cut the number of buses needed. For example. Holmes said, 24 buses transport an average of 14 students each in west Little Rock to the Carver, Williams, Gibbs and Booker elementary schools. Combining the routes would reduce the number of buses to nine and raise the average number of passengers to 35. he said. Of the total 36 buses assigned to those four schools, combining routes citywide could reduce the number by 15, Holmes said. He estimated that the district could save $1 million for every 25 routes eliminated. Board members asked no questions and took no action on the proposal Thursday night.Arkansas Democrat (Bazcite   WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1995  Transit, fate of schools top agenda BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Qazette Education Writer Alter months of discussion, the future of two Little Rock elementary schools and the district's transportation department could be decided tonight by the Little Rock School Board at a special meeting at 5:30. The meeting'.s agenda says the proposed 1995-96 budget will be discussed. But board members said Tuesday they expect to vote on closing Badgett and Fair Park elementary schools and on hiring a private company to operate most of the school bus system. Those moves are designed to help the financially strapped district cut expenses for the coming school year. Both proposals have been defeated before. The board deadlocked 3-3 in April on a proposal to close Badgett, in extreme east Little Rock, and Fair Park, in central Little Rock's Hillcrest neighborhood. The schools are among the districts smallest, need renovations and are under-enrolled  Badgett with 177 pupils, Fair Park with 282. Closing them could save $1.1 million next year, district officials have said. But staff and parents of children at the schools have begged the board not to close them, saying their smallness meam\nmore individual attention for pupils. Earlier, board President Linda Pondexter and members Pal Gee and John Riggs IV voted against closing the schools. Katherine Mitchell, T. Kevin OMalley and Judy Magness voted to close. Aller that, a seventh board member, Stephanie Johnson, was appointed to the board. Johnson has declined to say how she might vole. District administrators are expected to make a presentation tonight about school bus services that Laidlaw Transit Inc. could provide. Last year, the board rejected a proposal for privatizing the bus system but let district officials ask for bids from companies again this spring. District bus drivers oppose privatization and have proposed their own changes in the transportation system to cut costs. The Laidlaw proposal would save the district nearly $700,000 next year and $1.4 million over the three-year contract, according to school district officials' summary of the contract provisions. Laidlaw, based in Ontario, Canada, and Cincinnati, Ohio, is the largest transit company in North America. It transports 1.8 million students a day in 40 states provinces. and five Canadian .11 llMWH*l*Arkansas Democrat '^ (Ijjazctte [ THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1995 Vote on closing 2 schools put off The Little Rock School Board wont vote until June 22 on closing two elementary schools next fall and employing a private company to operate its school bus service. Board members were expected to vote at a special meeting Wednesday. In fact, representatives of Laidlaw Transit Inc., the company seeking the job of running the bus system, traveled Wednesday to Little Rock to make a presentation to the board. But district officials said Wednesday afternoon that the meeting had to be postponed because board members had questions about the proposal that required further research by Laidlaw. The companys headquarters are in Cincinnati and Ontario, Canada. Also, board member Katherine Mitchell was out of state Wednesday and couldnt attend the special session. That created the potential for 3-3 tie votes on both the bus service contract and the proposal to close the Badgett and Fair Park elementary schools. In April, Mitchell voted to close the two elementary schools. That motion was defeated with a 3-3 tie. She voted against efforts to privatize the school bus system last year, but the contract proposal is different this year and financial problems are more severe. Both proposals seek to cut district expenses in 1995-96. Closing the two schools would save about $1.1 million. Hiring Laidlaw Transit would save about $700,000 the first year of a three-year contract and about $1.4 million over three years. The board will take up the budget at either their 6 p.m.. regular monthly meeting June 22 or at a special meeting right before that.Aikansas Democrat (gazette TUESDAY, JUNE 20,1995 Privatizing buses a $700,000 saving, LRSD officials say BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-GazeWa Edocallon Writer A private company could operate most of the Little Rock School Districts bus service at a savings of $700,000 next year, and of at least $1.4 million over three years, district officials say. At the same time, the contractor could improve service to 12,000 students, upgrade the bus fleet and guarantee 300 drivers and aides their current wages, according to a school administration report. The Little Rock School Board will decide Thursday whether to hire Laidlaw Transit Inc. of Cincinnati and Ontario, Canada, to take over its transportation system for the next three years. If the contract is approved, Laidlaw will provide bus service to most area schools and magnet schools, and to majority-to-niinority transfer students. The board.s vote Thursday could end two years of debate over privatizing the bus system. The vote is scheduled for the day before district officials update U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright on proposed budget cuts for next year Wright enforces school desegregation in the district and must approve budget decisions. A similar privatization proposal was defeated last year, 4-3, without much board discussion. That decision prompted Wright to . with the most seniority would .................. keep their jobs with the district, question the boards reasoning. She urged the district to use its budgeting and planning systems to manage its affairs and keep the community informed about budget proposals. The district would pay the company $6.1 million next year. Laidlaw wouldlease the districts serviceable buses and the transportation facility on Murray Street for $1 each. It also would acquire 39 replacement buses for use in the district for each of the next two years, and 37 buses in the third year of the contract. The bottom line to the community is that the bus system will run more economically and the dollars we save can be used in the classroom,\" said Mary Jane Cheatham, the districts director of transportation. Fred Smith, the districts director of support services, said he had some initial doubts about privatizing but concluded that Laidlaw has the experience and resources to make improvements next year that would take the district up to seven years to duplicate. Smith and Cheatham said Laidlaw can acquire buses and parts at low costs. Laidlaw, the largest student transportation company in North America, can replace 39 buses a year for the district at an annual cost of about $1 million. The district could only acquire 26 buses for the same $1 million. The company also can save money through maintenance, they said. Its preventive maintenance program extends the life of the vehicles, and the company has one mechanic for every 20 buses, compared with the districts ratio of one mechanic for every 39 buses. Bus drivers have opposed privatization and have olTered an alternative plan for saving the district money by combining bus routes. Cheatham said the drivers plan has merit and may be implemented even if Laidlaw gets the contract. Even if bus service is privatized, the 80 drivers and aides which will continue to operate the special education bus service for about 500 students. The remaining district drivers, aides and mechanics are guaranteed jobs with Laidlaw at the same base wages they earn now, plus comparable, but not identical, benefits. The company would conduct criminal background checks and drug tests on drivers. The district can deny employment to people believed unqualified for the job. The school district would have the right to fine the company for buses that are late or early picking up students after the first four weeks of school in September.Arkansas Democrat Sti gazette FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 1995  LR schools hand bus keys to private firm - dents in at least 40 states, five Canadian provinces, and such cities as Memphis, MilwaukeCi Gulfport, Miss., and Huntsville, BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer A divided Little Rock School Board voted Thursday to get out of the school bus business by turning over operation of most of its transportation department to a  Related articles 5B U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright at a hearing at 9 a.m. today. Wright monitors district budget decisions to ensure compliance with the districts desegrega- tion plan. Ala. , The agreement mark.s the end of almost two years of debate ovbr privatizing bus service. District bus drivers and the Classroom privale company. Ill a special meeting on budget issues, board membersi also ap-\n\"'lnVthrVa7geZschool Opposed the move despite assur proved closing the small Badgett transportation contractor in ances that the drivers would Be and Fair Park elementaries b merica. The company, guaranteed jobs with the compa\nsave $1.5 million. N headouarters in Burlington,, ny at their current rates of pay The closings and the bus ser- with headquayers ni Bur ing , See BUSK, Page 14A vice ^lan will be presented to Ontario, transpprts 1.8 million st 1 T  The school board voted 4 3 to enter into a contract with Laidlaw Teachers Association yehementiy I Buses trict employees will have a different pay rate that hasnt been an- nounced. .*unceu. i Gary Whitledge, a Laidlaw?* spokesman, said the company* - pays drivers between $7.50 and $10 an hour elsewhere. He said _ _ ----- he anticipated offering some type contract terms, board members of health insurance package for Judy Magness, Dr. Katherine (bose employees. Mitchell, T. Kevin OMalley and fbe contracts features inJohn A. Riggs IV voted for the olude extensive training pro-  Continued from Page lA and with comparable insurance benefits. After a presentation on the three-year, $19.5 million contract, which could save the district as much as $2.3 million. Board members Pat Gee, Stephanie Johnson and Linda Pondexter voted against it Mitchell, who helped defeat a similar contract proposal last year, said Thursday she changed her vote because she knew more about the contract terms this year and felt confident that the employees would not be harmed. I She pointed out that as Laidlaw ' employees, the drivers would be eligible for unemployment compensation during school holidays  a benefit now closed to them. Little Rock is believed to be grams for drivers and children\nmandatory drug testing and criminal background checks for employees, and fees assessed against the company for buses that arrive early or more than 15 minutes late on their routes. Peter Settle, marketing director for the company, said Laidlaw averages about 1.5 accidents per 100,000 miles, compared to Little Rocks rate of 2.8 accidents per 100,000 miles. The company averages eight out-of-service buses per day, compared to 20 in Little Rock. Laidlaw-managed buses the only district in Arkansas to turn over its school bus service to trict. are on time 99 percent of the time, compared to 78 percent of the time for the Little Rock dis- a private company. Laidlaw will lease 235 Little Rock buses for $1 per bus per year. Over three years, the company will add about 115 new or low-mileage snub-nosed diesel buses of its own to the Little Rock The vote to close Badgett and Fair Park elementaries was 4-3 with no discussion. The decision rescinded a board vote in April that allowed the schools to remain open. The schools are among the dis- fleet. The company buy its buses tricts smallest, said Dr. Russ from the AmTran Co. in Conway. Mayo, associate superintendent Laidlaw will also lease the dis- for desegregation. tricts transportation facility on f.................................... ____ .... . Badgetts student attendance Murray Street for $1. 2one in extreme east Little Rock The Little Rock district will become part of the Washing- operate buses only for about 500 Magnet Elementary School special education students out of attendance zone. Badgett stu- a facility on 21st and Barber jg^ts will be assigned to Washstreets. The 80 drivers with the but some will be able to gboose transfers to Clinton Mag- the opportunity to remain with Oakbrooke and Sylvan Hills gtementaries in the Pulaski The Little Rock district will most years of service will have the district and drive those buses. Laidlaw is expected to hire more than 200 drivers, as well as managers, dispatchers and office staff. District employees will be offered jobs first at the same pay and similar benefits, including membership in the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. Drivers and aides will no County Special School District. Fair Parks attendance zone in central Little Rock will be divided among three schools. Pupils living in the Fair Park zone north of Interstate 630 will be assigned longer get one day of sick leave per month but will get incentive pay for perfect attendance. Drivers employed by Laidlaw who are not current Little Rock dis- ementary. to Brady Elementary. Most of the pupils living south of the interstate will be assigned to Franklin Incentive School. Those living in a small area east of Peyton Street will be assigned to McDermott El-2B  WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 1995 Pulaski Arkansas Democrat '^(gazette s Hit-and-run 18-wheeler hits LRSD bus, injures 12 on board BYJAKESANDUN Democra-Gazette Staff Writer\nA tractor-trailer rig that smashed into a Little Rock school bus Tuesday morning slightly in- jured 11 children and the bus driver before the rig fled on a downtown interstate. - The unidentified driver didnt ^t away with the hit-and-run. thanks to a man and a woman in a 1991 Honda Prelude who chased the truck from the Roosevelt Road exit on Interstate 30 to the eastbound Interstate 440 exit Ann Vick and her passenger, Willie Harris, both of North Little Rock, returned to the accident scene with the name of the trucking company and the rigs registration and license numbers for police. He looked like he was going to stop, Harris said later from his home. Then the red light changed, and he went right on under it and got on the freeway. Thats when we took off behind him. Vick didnt answer calls made to her home Tuesday, He wasnt thinking about the kids on that bus. There isnt any way someone should do something like that Harris said. Little Rock police will notify two companies named on the truck  Gibson hitemational Truck Co. and D J. International  who can trace the driver, said Terry Hastings, a police spokesman. The truck carried a Texas registration. He was looking at me when I was writing everything down. Harris said of the truck driver. I said I hope hes not going to run over here on us.... He wasnt about to stop or turn around or nothing The Little Rock School District bus was taking 37 children ages 6 to 11 to a summer school program at Washington Magnet Elementary School when the driver, Debbie Barker, exited northbound off 1-30 about 8 a.m. The bus was turning west onto East Roosevelt Road when the 18- wheeler crossed into its lane, with the trailers left side crumpling the right front comer of the yellow school bus, police said. Eleven children who had been sitting on the right side of the bus were taken by ambulances to Arkansas Childrens Hospital with minor injuries. All were treated and released, a hospital spokesman said. Barker. 32. was taken to University Hospital and treated and released before noon, a hospital spokesman said. Everybody on the ri^t side hit the windows. Ukila Witherspoon, 9, said before leaving Childrens with her mother, Yarnell Witherspoon. He was coming at us fast and he hit us. I hit the window, said Ronnie Love, 10, holding an ice pack on his shoulder. It was a diesel (truck). Calvin Tatum. 11. who was also on the bus but escaped injury, went to the emergency room to see Ronnie, his brother, with Karen Greenlee, Washingtons kindergarten through fourth-grade summer school principal. The five-week program ends a week from Thursday. We were getting off the interstate. and the truck came from the side, Calvin said. It tore the front and side off. All that is off. School district officials estimated the damage at a minimum of $1,800. consistent with the police accident reports figure.THURSDAY, JULY 13,1995 FBI hunts owner of rig that hit school bus BY OLIVIER UYTTEBROUCK Democrat-Gazette Police Reporter Investigators searching for the owner of a tractor-trailer that Strack a Little Rock School District bus this week have asked federal officials to help trace a pair of the trucks license numbers jotted down by witnesses. Little Rock police said their initial check showed the rigs Texas registration number didnt exist in the National Crime Information Center, the FBIs nationwide computer data base. Police Wednesday asked the ' information center to search Texas registration records for the number, Little Rock police hit and run investigator Raymond Ferrell said. Police also asked the information center to search registration records in all 50 states for a number on the trailer, he said. Officers hope to learn the trucks owner today. Witnesses said the tractortrailer, which had separate license numbers on its cab and trailer, was marked with the names Gibson International Truck Co. and D.J. International. Neither firm is registered in Arkansas, Ferrell said. The tractor-trailer cut off a Little Rock School District bus with 37 children on board about 8 a.m. Tuesday, striking the bus front right comer. Eleven of the children were treated for minor injuries at Arkansas Childrens Hospital and released. Both vehicles were turning left from Interstate 30 onto Roosevelt Road when they collided. The trucks driver made a second left onto southbound 1-30, then turned east on Interstate 440, police said. Witnesses in a 1991 Honda Prelude chased the truck as far as Bankhead Drive, recording information.[ Arkansas Democrat | MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 1995 ' Private bus firm picks up I^SE^ BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer When the yellow school buses roll into the neighborhoods early Monday to pick up Little Rock indents for the first day of school, it wont be business as usual. After two years of debate, this summer the Little Rock School District turned over the operation of a 211-bus fleet to Laidlaw Transit Inc., the largest school bus transportation contractor in North America. The company Edward Streeter, who moved ' , bus drivers will strictly en takes 1.8 million students to and here from Miami to be the new. said, from school in at least 40 states terminal manager, said conver^^.* rripi!d ih , company I and five Canadian provinces. It , See BUSES. Page hS w^^ Buses  Continued from Page 1A sion of the bu.s service has been remarkably smooth. While there is no avoiding the confusion that typ- the district's other buses, feature a studeni continues to misbehave side and roof escape hatches, two- the company will seek a confer- way radios and tlie strobe lights and cnce with the parents before ......crossing arms now required by moving a studeni from the bus ifie.s the first few days of school, slate law. By .lamiary, 50 percent of a last resort. Streeter said he expects to provide the bus fleet will be new as buses Driver supervisors will rou- Little Rock with a system where purchased by the district and the finely drive throughout the city to safe buses run on time, drivers are state will be added. The stale buses monitor buses and will meet with are for magnet school students. principals and assistant princi- Fellow drivers on the morning pals about student discipline 12,000 regular and interdistrict commute may wonder why the They plan to present programs on transfer students. The Little Rock buses operate with their head- discipline and safety to students district will operate a much lights on, and why the buses won't parents and civic groups. The pre- smaller bus service for about 500 make right lurn.s on red traffic trained and students behave. Laidlaw will transport about handicapped students. Streeter alerted all parents, students, teachers, and even fellow rush-hour drivers to some changes in the bus service. For starters, Laidlaw bought 39 ents, teachers and principals will new flat nose buses to be integrat- ed into the Little Rock fleet. The time. Last year, the district reportbuses, made in Conway at a cost j cla.s.se,s 26 percent of the time, r---------------r --------causing classes to be disrupted Winnie the Pooh and has a three-year, $19.5 million- \u0026gt; students to miss instruction. ----- - -  Bus breakdowns and employee absenteeism were blamed. , _ ---------rap music. Laidlaw hired 160 former Little Rock drivers and gave them a system that is expected to save ''\"Thh^vp^^n%'!iiqfr? n r y' the district $2.3 million.  , ahUaw Z 7' 'perience. Some of the former - - I us that IS late drivers are now Laidlaw supeni ' . sors. The firm hired another 80 ^^l^'ng k I ds to be at bu.s drivers at a starting wage of $8 50 in.Q in mintifoe U... ________ r,,. **^*6 wngv UI contract to run the Little Rock JI errrerft^m to ovn/ut^A/l -i The buses that make the rounds today will be Laidlaw- owned or -leased buses. And the . j stop.s 10 minutes before their bus- umformed drivers in yellow d es are scheduled to arrive, polo shirts, dark pants and dark J Streeter said. Bus drivers are inshoes will be Laidlaw employ-\nstmeted to stop at every bus slop ees, even though they may be i - for 30 seconds, then move on if no the same people who drove the\n students board. The buses won't buses last year as Little Rock \u0026gt;J return to pick up students who district employees. '  \"'H \"They have treated u.s real nice, I,ewis said at Laidlaws ------------------------ to belter see children who might buses, Strceler said ........ dis- ''They made sure we had iohs -  Th? buses, larger han oral and then written warnings If she said They sent us cSed letters and called us on the telephone to make sure we knew about the application dates. ,, We will refuse to allow a mi of $2.1 million, will enable drivers nority of students to disrupt the lights  even though the turns are legal. Both measures are designed to keep children safe, Streeter said. Company officials hope parnote that the buses will run on ed that school buses were late to This year, the district will fine i arriving at a school. Misbehaving students will get re- as sentations for students feature an hour. The company i,s still taking applications. All applicants undergo a crime record check and a drug screening. Little Rock drivers opposed privatizing the system, despite guarantees of their same base salaries and benefits. But drivers Connie Lewis and Felicia Smith said last week that they are satisfied, so far, with Laidlaw. tt Lewis said she also appreciates what she believes will be a stronger stand against student misbehavior and that drivers won't retrace their routes to pick up students who missed the bus. Smith said she has no complaints but expects her take home pay to drop. The school district paid drivers for taking on extra routes. Because Laidlaw has changed the workday, it may be harder to earn extra pay. The father of two grown children, Streeter moved to Little Rock this summer from Miami, where he was operations manager for Mayflower Contract Services, a company purchased by Laidlaw. A native of Washington, D.C., Streeter's parents were raised in Crossett and he has relatives there as well as in Pine Bluff and Lake Village. Mike Jones, former operations trict, is the assistant director of the facility for Laidlaw.I I Arkansas Etemocrat^C^azcttc | FRIDAY, AUGUST 25, 1995 District will return school bus service to some in SWLR BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Board voted late Thursday to restore bus service to some Southwest Little Rock students who lost the service because they were attending schools outside their attendance zones. The decision came at the end of a long meeting dominated by harsh discussion on two subjects\ndistrict bus service and a proposal to hire an Illinois company to manage custodial services in the schools. In a series of votes, the divided board ultimately rejected a pro- portation. adding a bus. John Walker, an attorney for black children in the district, filed a motion Tuesday asking U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to order the district to continue bus service for students whose transfers help desegregate schools. He asked the judge to deciare the district in contempt of court for reassigning Pulaski Heists students from Southwest Little Rock to other schools while allowing other students to continue to attend the school as long as they provide their own trans- posal to sign a contract with Ser- Several Little Rock School DisviceMaster Management Services trict drivers and parents com- Inc. But only six of the seven plained Thursday about the bus board members were present. service in general and special ed- and the issue could be raised ucation buses in particular. ITie again. More than two dozen district operates the special edu- cheering custodial and mainte- cation buses but turned over nance employees attended the transportation of all other students to a private company this meeting to oppose the contract Board members were to conduct year. The Little Rock drivers com- Superintendent Henry Williams annual evaluation 'Thursday, but plained about the special educa- they delayed _that until a special tion buses need for repairs and said the condition of the buses meeting next 'Thursday. 'The boards decision to restore the Southwest Little Rock bus causes them to be late in picking up children. The drivers also said routes could cost the district some of their routes are more $140,000  ^,000 for each of five than an hour long. buses. But the decision also may Freddie Smith, district manag- head off a federal court hearing er for support services, said the set for 3 p.m. today on the issue. Carolyn Rufus, mother of two district and Laidlaw Transit Inc, are continuing to make adjust- Pulaski Heights Junior High ments in services. More than one- School students, told the board third  163  of Laidlaws 453 she and other parents had to miss routes were revised as of 'Thurs- work or change their work sched- day to accommodate students who registered late or whose address- ules to get their children to and from school this week. She said es changed. More route changes her children were transported by will take effect Tuesday and bus last year, but she learned earlier this month that the service would be discontinued. again two days later. Laidlaw had enough drivers to cover all routes 'Thursday but Rufus children are attending didnt on any one day all of last the school as desegregation transfer students. The district has a policy of transporting students who transfer out of their zones only if the service doesnt require semester. Smith said. The company has four weeks to resolve problems before the district starts fining the company for every morning bus that arrives at school late.1OB  FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1995 Arkansas Democrat (gazette Deadline near for contractor to smooth out LR busing problems BY SHAREESE HAROLD Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Last-minute schedule changes, students fighting on buses and complaints about children picked up two hours late have Laidlaw Transit Inc. scrambling to keep its word to improve the Little Rock School Districts bus system. Ed Streeter, Laidlaws terminal manager, said hes optimistic that all of the kinks will be worked out before Sept 18, the end of the companys 30-day probation period. At the end of the probation, Laidlaw will be penalized $25 every time a bus is more than 15 minutes late picking up students. In the meantime, west Little Rock resident Bobby Hacker said, his son is the one paying for the problems the district and the company are having. We have an 8-year-old who has been left waiting for a bus each morning that has never come since last Wednesday, said Hacker, whose son Joseph is one of the last students scheduled to be picked up on a Elementary School Dodd route. Hacker and his wife work and are concerned that when the bus fails to pick up their son, Hes just left waiting around wondering how hes going to get to school. The bus company told Hacker the driver of his sons bus quit Thats not our problem, Hacker said. They should be able to get someone to replace drivers who dont show up or who quit The district signed a three- year, $19.5 million contract with Laidlaw during the summer. Officials expect to save $2.3 million by allowing the company to transport about 12,000 regular and interdistrict students. The districts 227 buses travel 454 routes each day. Despite problems with driver absenteeism and with overnight changes in schedules and routes, Streeter said, students fighting on buses may be an even bigger problem. Twelve Mabelvale Junior High students were sent home for fighting on a bus en route to the school Tuesday morning. Three students were arrested on assault charges. Thursday, four more students involved in a fight were sent home. Jim Principal Mabelvale Fullerton will decide whether the students will be allowed to ride the bus again. We have video cameras on some of our buses, Streeter said. .And this Mabelvale group has been having problems since school started. Thursdays fight was caught on video camera. Thatll help us target the troublemakers, Streeter said the company expects to live up to the terms of its contract We have resolved some of those problems, and were working on resolving more, he said.I Arkansas Democrat 7^ (f^azcHc ( SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1995 Williams champions bus service System improving, school chief insists BY JAKE SANDLIN DeniocrB|.GazelIe SlaS Wilier Little Rock Superintendent Dr. Henty Williams on Friday defend ed the private firm mnning the school district's bus system and assured parents that service is improving despite early problems The Little Rock School Board lured I.aidlaw Transit Inc. last June to take over bus service to most district schools, ending almost two years of debate over whether the city's school bus .system should be privatized. However, I.aidlaw's first three weeks have been bumpy. Williams acknowledged receiving about 100 complaints from parents concerning missed stops, late nins, bus breakdowns and high driver absenteeism. But Williams added that many of the complaints were from parents who did rtot know who to call about a problem \"All of the problems that we've had are not Laidlaw problems, he said. \"There have been Little Rock School District problems.\" fhc district still handles bus h ai^portalion for its approximately .100 special education students, IjRidlaw has a tliree-year, $195 million contract with the district Ilie deal is supposed to save the district as much as $2.3 million. Tlie contract also provides a 30-day probation period that ends Sept. 18, stipulating a $25 penalty for every lime a bus is more than 15 minutes late picking up students after tliat date. We're not holding it over their heads,  Williams said. But he added, Our expectations are if they don 't do their job, they have to suffer the consequences.\" Iliree fights on school buses this week helped draw attention to bus problems. Williams said he is aware of five serious incidents on buses during the past three weeks, three fewer than the eight reported in the first two weeks of school last year. Two fights occurred on a Mabel vale Junior High bus this week. That bus now has a district security ofiicer on it, Laidlaw Terminal Manager Ed Streeter said. He said buses identified as problems are followed and monitored closely. more \"We believe that the children are safe, Streeter said. Problems with bus routes have resulted in more than 500 route clianges to better accommodate parents and students, Williams said. Those changes include altering routes for address changes, and moving bus stops from \"comer A to comer B. Our transportation system is improving,\" Williams said. At least one problem Laidlaw has IS new: It hasn't obtained a busines privilege license from Little Rock. The city Revenue Collection Division sent I.aidlaw a letter Friday giving it 10 days to fulfill the requirement it has \"obviously chosen to Ignore or face possible legal action and fines for violating a citv code. re- Streeter said Laidlaw has t check ready to pay for the license. aArkansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 16,1995 . . Copyright O Lfttki Rndc Newwwwi bw._ School bus drivers dont get paychecks Some Little Rock School District bus drivers finished their routes Friday and left without the paychecks they were anticipating at the end of the day, a school spokesman said. A payroll sheet containing checks for some Laidlaw Transit Inc. employees was either lost or stolen, and company employees worked into the night to figure out the problem. This is Laidlaw's first year as a subcontractor handling bus service for the school district \"Everybody will get paid. district spokesman Suellen Vann said. \"Some of the drivers just decided to leave and come back (today) to pick up their checks. Laidlaws terminal manager, Ed Streeter, was still working at 8:30 p.m. Friday to straighten out the payroll problem. Vann said. Streeter could not be reached for comment.j Arkansas Democrat (gazette TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19. 1995- LRSD buses getting on track Routes continue to change, but complaints about service down BY SUSAN ROTH Democrai-Gazette Education Writer The private company running the Little Rock School Districts bus system steadily continues to improve its service after a rocky start, officials said Monday. We've had no more problems than we usually have, said Mary Jane Cheatham, the districts director of transportation. Private contractor Laidlaw Transit Inc. is an extension of her department. Many parents have complained that buses were late, broke down . interdistrict transfer schools. or never came for their children. Cheatham and Laidlaw officials said the complaints have dropped dramatically in the past week. Monday was the first day for which Laidlaw will be fined for buses that arrive at school more than 15 minutes late or early. The company had a 30-day grace period to get routes in order. Monday afternoon, district officials said they did not yet know of any late buses. One bus was early, but it arrived at school within 15 minutes of its scheduled time. But Cheatham said the driver had missed some students and another driver had to go back and pick them up. But since routes are continuing to change  97 more changes went into effect today and another 30 will occur Thursday, officials said  the district is phasing in the penalties over the next two months. \"rhe first set of buses being held to the 15-minute rule are those serving the schools that are a critical part of the districts desegregation plan: the magnets and Cheatham said those also happen to be the most stable routes, because children tend to stay at thosQ schools. The 80 buses will be monitored daily for the.- next two weeks through reports from each of the schools, Cheatham said. After that, Laidlaw will be able to respond to the reports. 'The company will be fined $25 for every time a bus is more than 15 minutes late or early. Cheatham said her goal is to get students to school on time and to administer the contract in a fair and consistent manner, not necessarily to penalize the bus company. Some problems are their fault and some lie with the district she said. We are looking for long-term solutions. We are sharing information and workii^ out solutions every day, she said. This is not about finger-pointing. Officials didnt have recent reports on bus arrivals, but in the first two weeks of school, 723 out of 2,441 were late. Cheatham said she used last years definition of late in arriving at those figures, not the new 15-minute rule. She said only about 15 percent of the 723 would have resulted in fines. Laidlaw is transporting stur dents under a three-year, $19.5 million contract that is supposed to save the district up to $2.3 million. 'The company serves about 12,000 interdistrict and regular students, while the district retains responsibility for transporting about 500 special education students. Laidlaws 220 buses travel about 450 routes, Cheatham said. About 500 changes have already been made to the routes.Arkansas Democrat 19? (gazette FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1995 LR school bus driver dismissed A Little Rock school bus driver was fired this week for hitting a student, school officials said. Kyan Harris, 23, allegedly hit and cursed a pupil while substituting on the Ish Elemental School route Sept 13, officials said. The childs parent brought authorities a statement signed by other witnesses parents. Laidlaw Transit Co., the private company under contract to the Little Rock School District to run the bus system, suspended Harris without pay the following day pending an investigation. Company officiais completed their investigation a week ago and fired Harris on Monday. Harris drove for the school district last year. Laidlaw hired him Aug. 21 to drive this year. Ed Streeter, terminal manager for Laidlaw, said Harris did not usually drive the Ish route and those kids wouldnt normally come into contact with him.\" Harris had not had any other problems since August, Streeter said.rAikansas DemocraT^^azc^ FRIDAY, DECEMBER 22, School buses carry tax shock LRSD told it must pay $87,000 on purchase by private operator BY CHRIS REINOLDS Oefnocrat-Qazette Staff Writer The Little Rock School Dis- trict must pay $87,000 in sales\ntax for a private companys new school buses, officials told the more unforeseen costs. I dont want any more sur- nal bid or contract. Smith said. The district hired Laidlaw -  this year in a three-year, $19.5 pnses, Pondexter said, million contract that is supposed school board Thursday night The law exempts school dis- to save up to $2.3 million. The company serves about 12,000 interdistrict and regular students, while the district retricts'from paying sales tax, as tains responsibility for transwell as license and registration porting about 500 special educa- fees. on school buses only if the tion stude^^ _ _ _ district owns the buses, said Freddie Smith, the districts Board President Linda Pon- dexter and board member Pat Gee were surprised and angry at manager of support services. . Laidlaw Transit Inc., the pn- the oversight. You mean we pay the taxes vate company that provides most * actpH of the districts bus service, on their buses. Gee asked olans to buy a total of 150 buses Smith. ir the next three years in the next tnr y experiences we didnt think we had to pay sales tax, Smith said. Pondexter asked district attorneys to review the Laidlaw contract to find if there were any Thirty-nine buses are new this year. Laidlaw has agreed to pay $2,500 for licenses and registration but will not pay the sales tax since it was not in the origi- This was considered up Superintendent Henry Williams suggested that the district ask the sUte Legislature to revise the law so any entity including a private company that owns and operates a school bus would be exempt from state sales tax. Despite the costs, Williams said the district will still save about $570,000 a year using Laidlaw. new Arkansas Democrat ^(^5azellcJ SATURDAY. MARCH 2, 1996 LRSD driver charged in beating of son BY OLIVIER UYTTEBROUCK Democrat-Gazette Police Reporter A Little Rock School District bus driver on probation for a misdemeanor weapon conviction now faces a charge of second-degree batteiy for allegedly hitting his son with an extension cord, police said. , Harold Waj-ne Brown. 35. of 11019 -Mara Lj-nn Road was released on $5,000 bond Friday after pleading innocent to tlie misdemeanor battery charge. Investigators said he grabbed an extension cord and struck his 17- year-old son numerous times on the \"back after the boy returned home from school about 6 p.m. Tuesday. The boy was treated by a school nurse. A Little Rock municipal judge convicted Brown on Aug. 18. 1995. on a misdemeanor charge of cariy- ing a weapon, fined him $901 and placed him on probation for a year. He previously had been convicted of two other misdemeanors  a 1994 charge of loitering for the purpose of narcotics and a 1993 charge of obstruction of governmental operations. The Little Rock School District hired Brown as a school bus driver March 3.1994. a district spokesman said Friday. As a Little Rock driver, he would automatically have qualified to be hired by Laidlaw Transit Co, when the district turned over its school bus operations to the private com- pany in 1995. -Another school bus drivers arI rest in the reported rape of a 16- year-old student last month prompted Laidlaw to pertbrm back^ound checks on as many as 130 drivers. Mike Jones, an employee at Laidlaw's terminal in Little Rock, said Friday that the company had finished the checks on all its drivers. But Jones said he couldn't\ncomment on specific employees  and referred additional questions i to terminal manager Ed Streeter, i Streeter could not be reached  for comment late Friday. | Pulaski Count)- sheriffs deputies arrested Laidlaw driver .Artie Lam- i ont Tucker. 22. on a charge of rape ' Feb. 7.Arkansas Democrat TUESDAY. MARCH 26, 1996 I iHlo Hock Inr Truck rams school bus, sending 10 to hospital Nine schoolchildren and their bus driver were taken to Little Rock hospitals Mondav afternoon after a truck hit their bus while it was stopped on Chicot Road, police said. The children were taken to Arkansas Children's Hospital and Southwest Hospital after the wreck at 3:55 p.m. The southbound bus was stopped on Chicot Road at Shady Grove Lane in Southwest Little Rock when a large flatbed truck driven by William Perez rammed the bus from behind, police said. Perez. 37. of Shannon Hills was cited for following too close, police said. The children and the driver were complaining of neck pain and backaches and were being X- rayed for injuries Monday night, said Suellen Vann, the school districts spokesman. All were treat-IO ll n 7 J I \u0026gt;1 I WSOWMS: Lund hod School boWo, Laidtew H Arkansas Dmocraf-Ga20He I Arkansas Democrat^()p\u0026gt;azctk , - , -MONDAY, APRIL 1,1996 Laidlaw beating LRSDs record with buses BY JULIAN E, BARNES Oemocral-Gazelte Staff Wrifar Three bus accidents with ac- companying TV reports in one week left the manager of the private bus company that transports Little Rocks public school students shaking his head. The accidents, Fortunately most of the accidents have been fender\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_710","title":"School closings","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":["1993/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School buildings","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["School closings"],"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/710"],"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\nFILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS AUG 4 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AUG 0 2 1993 O\n!\nCS 0! Dese3f5'' Ki AonAonng EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK DSP. cLenx LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER By Order dated June 11, 1993 [doc.#1848], the Court approved the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") attendance zones for the King Interdistrict School on condition that the Ish Incentive School remain open unless the LRSD establishes that fewer than 100 students wish to attend Ish during the 1993-94 academic year. this regard, the Court directed that within 10 days from June In 9, 1993 , the LRSD submit to the Court its proposed survey of potential Ish students' along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results. The LRSD complied with the Court's directive and, by Order dated June 30, 1993 [doc.#1873], the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, the revised form letter with attachments, and the revised school selection form. None of the parties objected. Now before the Court is the motion of the LRSD to close the Ish Incentive School [doc.#1908] on grounds that the survey process has The Court determined that the 100 students who will decide the immediate future of Ish will come from the following groups: (1) students now attending Ish who reside within the Ish attendance zones\n(2) students not attending Ish but nrhA lit,A *1..* T_l. * . . ..a. who live within the Ish attendance zones\nand (3) students now attending Ish but who live outside the Ish attendance zones.indicated that only 82 students in the group listed by this Court in its June 11, 1993, Order wished to attend Ish. The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") have responded in opposition to the motion. Having carefully considered the parties' pleadings, the Court finds that the goals of the settlement plan will not be adversely impacted by the granting of the LRSD's motion to close the Ish Incentive School, and that the motion should be and hereby is granted. Joshua objects to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted on grounds that (1) the survey did not consider preschool children who may have desired to attend pre-school programs at Ish, and (2) it is reasonable to assume that an equal percentage of the students who did not respond to the survey would have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, i.e. 55.4%, and on that basis. presumed is 145.^ the actual number of preferences which may be Joshua further states, in a somewhat conclusory manner, that \"[t]he process was designed to fail.\" Joshua's objections to the survey and the manner in which it was conducted are denied as untimely. In the June 11, 1993 order, the Court specifically stated that \"[t]he Joshua Intervenors will have 5 days to file their response and objections to the LRSD's survey and plan, and 5 days to file their response and objections to the amended student assignment plan.\" In the June 30, 1993, I Order, 2 conclusion. the Court approved the LRSD's King/Ish survey process, in Joshua has not submitted a brief in support of its response setting forth any authority that would support such a -2-part because no objections had been filed. Joshua has not attempted to explain its neglect of the Court's deadlines, and it is now far too late to ask this Court to consider objections to the survey and its process. Joshua also objects to the closing of incentive schools which are located in predominately black neighborhoods. While such concerns are certainly valid, the Court notes that the King Interdistrict school, which will be desegregated, is a new school in a black neighborhood and, indeed, is in close proximity to Ish. There thus is no net loss of schools in predominately black neighborhoods with respect to the closing of Ish. The Court would also note that the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish due to an insufficient number of students does not conflict with the terms of the settlement plan, states the following with respect to incentive schools: The plan There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending those schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with variance of 5 percent. to these elementary The recruitment of white students area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens. ___ incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive The schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school\nany -3- a arecruitment and/or any assignment shall be in accordance with each district's student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. shall utilize the demonstrable implementing To meet that goal, the parties services of a consultant who has experience in developing and successfully such programs in a majority-black educational setting. Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, pg. 4. According to the desegregation plan. the double funding allotted the incentive schools is intended to help alleviate the racial-isolation of the children attending these predominately one- race schools. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stressed the importance of this incentive school feature: It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the i989i_plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to ..1 1. __ retreat should be approved. They are as (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools ... which no follows: They are Appeal of Little Rock School District, 949 F.2d 253, 256 (Sth Cir. 1991). However, in accordance with the aforementioned survey process, the LRSD gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood. King offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists. a 56 station computer lab, electronic-assisted instruction. and an automated media center. Also, as previously noted by the Court, if Ish were to close and its students transfer to King, the LRSD committed to -4-increase the total number of four-year-old classes at King from two to four. Nevertheless, to the extent the granting of the LRSD's motion to close Ish is a disputed modification of the plan, the Court finds that such modification is in compliance with the standards for reviewing disputed modifications as set forth by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Appeal of Little Rock School District, supra, 949 F.2d 253. There, the Court stated: To modify [a] consent decree[] io decree[], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions its it either 1 effective have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree, modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. A Id. at 258, quoting with approval Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). Here, the Court finds that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein. Furthermore, the Court finds that the circumstances and conditions thus have changed which warrant \"fine- tuning\" the plan. The closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Although the Court grants the LRSD's motion to close Ish, it does not excuse the LRSD from its obligation to recruit white -5-students to desegregate the remaining incentive schools, reiterates that it will closely watch all proposed school The Court closings and school capacity alterations to determine whether there is a developing pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing the capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens, not evidence such a pattern. The motion to close Ish does IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the LRSD's motion to close the Ish I Incentive School be, and xt is hereby, granted. Dated this 2nd day of August 1993. UNITEO states'DIsTRIC' 'RI CT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON -6-iL NOV 2 1995 OBice Oi Dssegrsaa-ion rvicruicnng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION .x7 2 d 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, VS. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Defendants. * * * * * *  it 4r * A A A No. LR-C-82-866 6y\n^Pt^'URiwyACK, CLERK CLftK ?_S Ois\nI cSN c:s 'C| ,^,:y^,\\s^g ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) for modification of desegregation plan, filed on June 30, 1995. At that time, the LRSD was seeking the Court's permission to close Fair Park Elementary School and Badgett Elementary School beginning the 1995-96 school year. The motion is now moot, the LRSD having withdrawn the request. Also before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD\") for approval of new school sites. filed on July 21, 1995. The PCSSD was seeking the Court's permission to build a new Daisy Bates Elementary School and a new junior high school at Crystal Hill. This new construction, as well as the purchase of computers for use by fifth and sixth grade students in the PCSSD, was to be financed from a millage increase the PCSSD intended to ask the voters to approve. Because the PCSSD determined not to ask for a millage increase, the motion for new construction is moot. 2 5 6 6 LBecause these motions (docket entry # the Clerk is directed to 2432 \u0026amp; # 2443) are moot, remove them from the pending motions report. SO ORDERED this day of November 1995.\nt judge PHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON JANCE 2. 20 o.  OJU. UxL cc,^^  C^cx^j iLctp. i \u0026lt;'(zp'-^ 2\u0026gt;-Z9-(^3 C/0^'' C~ '7- / -Z- ^3 Drc/e iH i i ZZ i- C/o),/'. u1 From: John W. Walker To: Anr' Brown Date-1/9/96 Time: 17:17:4S Page 2 of 2 DRAFT Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee Little Rock. AR C'O Dr. Henry Williams Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money. I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and pormoted the same philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the p jns modified to reflect you ideas. That causes me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorized to change the olan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work. If as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did, and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators, that undoubtedly sent a strong message from the Court to those administrators through you as a court agent. 1 do not believe that Judge Susan Wright was aware of this. But I am putting her on notice of my comments to you by copy of this letter with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended. I requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school 'closings and your argument to the Strategic Planning group regarding v/hich schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored. Fearing that 1 may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7:30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee where I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. i r Dr Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms Linda Pendexter Ms Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber Wright - From: John W. Walker To: Airn Brown Dale: 1/9/96 Time: 17:37:32 i, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. } 1 1 I Page 2 of 3 t.-'i-.' . 51'.' ' ATTORNEY AT 1723 SRQADVtkY LITTLE ROCK, ARKAN^,S 72206 TELEPHONE (^1) 374-3768 FAX (501) 374-4187 J-*.  JOKWW. WALKER  RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE \" AUSTIN PORTER JR. [Delivered by Fax 324-2146 \u0026amp; U.S. Mall] January 9. 1996 V k Mr. Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee c/o Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority X'J\nI IV : : k lt' A I.-- neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and promoted the contrary philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the plans modified to reflect your ideas. That caLises me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorized to change the plan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work. If. as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators and public opinion makers, that undoubtedly sent a strong messagejromlhe Court to those administrators (through you as a court agent). I do not believe that Judge Susan Wright v/as aware of your efforts to change our agreement: but I am putting her on notice of my comments to you, by copy of this tetter with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended and whether any corrective action is in order.  A( 1 RR  i Prom: John W Walker To: Ann Brown Date\n1/9/96 Time: 17:38:32 Page 3 of 3 Page Two Mr. Bob Morgan January 9, 1996 I also requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school closings and your argument to the Strategic Planning group regarding which schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored for money saving reasons. You indicated that you did not provide any. Fearing that I may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7\n30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee v/here I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, [Original Signed By Undersigned Counsel] John W. Walker JWWJp cc: Dr. Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms. Linda Pendexter Ms. Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber Wright Bl i !KJOHN W. WALKER. PJL ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Ja.M 1 i Office of Desegregahcn Wonaoruig JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. [Deiiverad by Fax 324-2146 \u0026amp; U.S. MaiQ January 9,1996 Mr. Bob Morgan Member of the Finance Committee Little Rock Strategic Planning Committee c/o Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: I appreciate your talking to me today regarding your committee's plans for closing schools and saving money. I was somewhat surprised to find that you believe that I have been an inadequate representative of the Joshua class by my advocacy to keep older schools in minority neighborhoods open and to have them enhanced in accordance with the plan. You acknowledged that while you were at the ODM you proposed and promoted the contrary philosophy with respect to school closing and cost savings and that you sought to have the plans modified to reflect your ideas. That causes me a great deal of distress because the ODM is not authorize to change the plan nor to substitute its judgment or that of its staff for that of the parties. I can see now why we experienced such difficulty in making the incentive schools work If, as an ODM monitor, you actively sought to undermine those schools, as you apparently did, and shared your ideas with the Little Rock school administrators and public opinion makers, that undoubtedly sent a strong message from the Court to those administrators (through you as a court agent). I do not believe that Judge Susan Wright was aware of your efforts to change our agreement\nbut I am putting her on notice of my comments to you, by copy of this letter, with a request that we meet with the Court to determine the extent to which your influence was extended and whether any corrective action is in order.Page Two Mr. Bob Morgan January 9,1996 I also requested any writings that you may have to support your proposed further school closings and your argument to the Str^egic Planning group regarding which schools should be retained and which sections of the city should be favored for money saving reasons. You indicated that you did not provide any. Fearing that I may have misrepresented our conversation, I invite your immediate response prior to the 7:30 Thursday morning meeting of the committee where I plan to be present. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, [Original Signed By Untfersigi John W. Walker /\nJWWJp cc\nDr. Henry Williams Mr. Fred Smith, Financial Director LRSD Ms. Linda Pondexter Ms. Ann Brown Honorable Susan Webber WrightJI. frt'^ Ah BEcervED DEC 13 2001 DATE: TO: OmEEOf OESGGR^or^ONms December 13, 2001 BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSURES FOR THE 2002-2003 ACADEMIC YEAR BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As you know, Board Policy FBC outlines the procedures for school closures. Current policy states that closures will be based upon the following factors:  Excessive cost of operation due to enrollment\n Excessive cost of renovation and repair due to the age and physical condition of the facility\n Inability of the district to deliver the required curriculum in the facility\n Any applicable federal court orders. The policy further states that a public announcement of the proposal to close a school will precede the closing date by at least twelve months, except in cases of extreme emergency. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 4.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan must be considered in determining whether to close schools. Section 3.6 reguires that we, not seek to close schools in African-American ^ighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new ool will be located in the same general area. We do not intend to nmend the closing of any school solely because of age or poor nance, \"so this section of the Plan will not come into play.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 2 Section 3.7 of the Plan reads as follows: 3.7 Modification Standard: During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a school other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: 3.7.1 Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable\nor, 3.7.2 The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. Section 3.7 applies during the term of the revised plan. According to Section 9 of the Revised Plan, the term of the plan is ended. Section 9 - Term\nThe term of the Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 School Year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2001 School Year. Given our Covenant and the uncertainty of the federal court proceedings, however, it would be wise to consider the closing of schools, only in cases where the Board can make the determinations required by Section 3.7.1 or 3.7.2. Section 4.3 of the Revised Plan describes the ideal racial composition of the Interdistrict schools as being as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School. Although the Plan describes the ideal racial composition and not the required racial composition, the Board should be - aware that the impact on Washington would be to move further from the ideal composition while the impact on Romine would be to move closer to the ideal composition.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 3 statewide Budget Reduction: As a result of the recent budget reductions statewide, we anticipate losing between $2.3 million and $2.4 million dollars in expected revenue this year. It is important to note that this loss will automatically be carried forward to the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. There is also the distinct possibility that additional reductions in revenue could take place prior to the end of this fiscal year, unless the state revenue forecast rebounds quickly. ! The district currently has two (2) schools with enrollment below 200 students, and thirteen (13) schools with an enrollment below 300 students. Staff has prepared background data and information for two schoolsBadgett Elementary and Dodd Elementary, as current enrollment falls below 200 students. We have also included enrollment data for the Charter Program, which is housed at Badgett. A. ENROLLMENT DATA: Badgett Elementary: Enrollment: 153 = 64% usage Building Capacity: 239 # of Certified Staff: 11.8 # of Non-Certified Staff: 7.40 Enrollment w/o 5 grade: 130 students-required to move, of which 85 students are in the Badgett zone, \u0026amp; 45 students will go back to AZ school Building capacity is based upon average class size. IRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Meeting Page 4 In the event that Badgett is closed:  All non AZ students at Badgett will return to their AZ schools.  Rockefeller and Washington students currently attending Badgett would return to their attendance zone school.  Students within the East 6 and 9*^ street corridor would be assigned to Rockefeller. Net impact on Rockefeller would be an increase of 68 students (65 B, and 3 NB). In this scenario, Rockefellers total enrollment would increase from 389 students to 457 students. The percent of Rockefellers African American enrollment would increase from 64% to 70% (K-5). The building capacity at Rockefeller is 481 students.  Students south of the airport would be assigned to Washington. Net impact on Washington would be an increase of 55 students (49 B, and 6 NB). In this scenario, Washingtons total enrollment would increase from 459 students to 514 students. The percent of Washingtons African American enrollment would increase from 57% to 61%. The building capacity at Washington is 678 students. B. ENROLLMENT DATA: Dodd Elementary: Enrollment: 188 = 69% usage Building Capacity 271 # of Certified Staff 17.5 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.3 Enrollment w/o 4yr olds, b* graders, and Spec. Educ 140 required to move, of which 120 students are in the Dodd zone \u0026amp; 20 students will go back to AZ school *Buiiding Capacity is based upon average class sizeRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 5 Kenwood Subdivision: The Kenwood subdivision is currently in progress. There are 210 lots in this subdivision. We have obtained information from the City of Little Rock Planning Commission, which indicates that 150 lots will be developed over the next five years, with the remaining 60 lots being developed at a later time. These are single-family homes to be developed in phases. According to information obtained from the developer: Phase 1 will have 49 homes with a target date of August, 2002. Phase 2 will have 53 homes with a target date of January 2003. Phase 3 is too far out to project and is dependent upon interest and demand. Potential Impact: Based upon a formula used by the Planning Department, the anticipated impact for the 2002-2003 school year would be 14-20 elementary students. The anticipated impact for the 2003-2004 school year would be 11-15 elementary students. In the event that Dodd is closed:  All non-AZ students at Dodd will return to their Attendance Zone schools.  Students north of Colonel Glenn would go to Romine. Net impact on Romine would be an increase of 45 students (16 B and 29 NB). In this scenario, Romines enrollment would increase from 284 students to 329 students. The percent of Romines African American enrollment would decrease from 70% to 64%. The building capacity at Romine is 403 students.  Students (east of Shackleford Road) from the Pecan Lake/Tall Timber subdivision would go to Western Hills. Net impact on Western Hills would be an increase of 46 students (40 B and 6 NB). In this scenario. Western Hills enrollment would increase from 277 to 323 students. The percent of Western Hills African American enrollment would increase from 72% to 74%. The building capacity at Western Hills is 320 students.  Students from the lower quadrant of the present Dodd zone (south of Colonel Glenn and Lanehart), would go to Otter Creek. Net impact on Otter Creek would be an increase of 46 students (20 B and 26 NB). In this scenario. Otter Creeks enrollment would increase from 397 students to 443 students. The percent of Otter Creek's African American enrollment would decrease from 55% to 53%. The building capacity at Otter Creek is 415. Special Note: Four classrooms are to be added to Otter Creek by the start of school in August. In the event that the classrooms are not available by the opening of school in August, it would be necessary to relocate a couple of classes. iRegular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 6 C. In the event that the Charter Program is closed:  All of the 83 students at the Charter School will return to their AZ schools. This will have limited space impact upon the receiving schools. D. EDUCATIONAL DATA: I have attached an academic school profile for the two school sites, and the Charter Program. Dr. Bonnie Lesley will provide an overview of the academic performance at each campus. E. FISCAL IMPACT OF POTENTIAL CLOSINGS: I have attached a complete cost breakdown for the three potential closings. In summary, we are projecting the following savings: BADGETT: 536, 048.68 DODD: 738, 909.39 CHARTER: 479, 669.98 TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS: $1,754, 628.05 $ $ i It is anticipated that the district will be able to absorb the majority of the certificated teaching staff from the two sites and the Charter program, given the normal attrition rates of the district. The non-certified staff will be absorbed across the district as needs dictate.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 7 F. ADDITIONAL ENROLLMENT HISTORY-ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cost analysis sheet 2. 3. 4. Educational Assessment Information Six Year Enrollment Comparisons of Schools with Less Than 250 Students, I Elementary Enrollment Sorted by School Totals. G. CONCLUSIONS:  The loss of approximately $2.4 million in revenue this fiscal year has created an emergency financial situation in the district. It is important to note that this is not only a one-year loss in revenue.  There is the possibility that we will lose additional revenue this year if the economy continues to decline, thus creating an additional financial hardship.  The District must reduce expenditures for the 2002-2003 fiscal year if we are to meet contractual obligations and remain financially responsible and solvent.  It is evident that the cost to operate a facility with declining enrollment is significantly higher. The cost per child to operate Badgett, Dodd, and the Charter Program is significantly more than the average of other similar area school facilities.  If the District is to close any school, the Board must take action on or before the January 10*^ Agenda meeting, in order to properly notify parents and provide ample time for students to complete the registration process for the 2002-2003 academic year.Regular Board Meeting, December 13, 2001 Board Report Page 8 I In closing this informational report, it is important to note that the Superintendent brings forward this information after careful analysis and much deliberation with senior administrative staff. While our current financial situation has been exacerbated by the largest reduction in state revenue in the history of the State of Arkansas, it is important to note that the current enrollment situation also dictates that we examine the cost effectiveness of operating facilities that are experiencing declining enrollment now and in the future. We are charged with being good stewards of the taxpayers resources and maximizing our efficiency. We are in the process of reviewing other potential areas of reduction for the 2002-2003 fiscal year and will bring forth additional recommendations after the first of the year. H. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of Directors review the data as presented and provide the Superintendent and staff with direction on potential school closures for the 2002-2003 academic year. Attachments:r:L_:r iz_:cz: I JJTTL ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SELECTED BUDGET INFORMATION ____ 2001-2002 Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed GfT' _ Counselor Library Princip^ Office Upkeep of Bldg Total T 1st Quarter 7^ Four Year Old Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed___ G/T 1_ Counselor Nurse Library Principal's Office Upkeep ofBIdg Total { Gluafterl Classroom Music Supervision Transportation Total FTE-Cert Cert__ 1.00 P2 0.40 l.bo ____0.4b' 1.00 'i.ob 'too N-Cert 4.00 11.80 1 BADGETT 1-40 2.00 140 FTE-Cert Cert TOO ___2.00 ___2.bo J____ojq 2-2O 0-5b TOO FTE N-Cert l.bo 5.50 1.00 1.00 17.50 0.40 0.40 TOO lob 10.30 Salary 129,773.00 291,417.00 \"18,831.20 _31916.0b _17,3bl4b 44,313.00 41691.54 103,713.80 36,150.00 618,113.94 Salary_ 146,723.00 '66,271.00 347,673.00 15,48100 129,400.20 21,635.50 _47,9iTqq 6,996.20 56,531.67 96,951.00 '31876'00 871,450.5'7 .M -183.37 4^19138 ' FTE-Cert Cert 5.50 ' 0.20 1.00 N-Cert 3.00 6.70 74.38^ Grand Total 36.00 3.00 94^ Salary 151,889.00 -Z'^il 22 1087810.50 _43,20b.0b 31'1,640.50 20.70 1,801,205.01 Ringe Purch Ser Supplies Capital 8,058.80 79,442.21 ' 4,479.87 8,810.76 4,203.47 io\n697.8i 10^40351 25,196\nb5 ^1'1,871.23 163,163.71 350.00 8,572.00 1,473.00 Other DODD Fringe 113,790.23 ' 17338.19 ' 96,290.17 13,871.98 122244.15 15\n254.35 1'11,^0.85 2,331.21 i2'2ZZ 50 22,906.61 11,821.50 231,977.34 2,000.00 26,8^.00 27,209.00 1,498.00 11,5'43.00 2,000.00 0.00 __ __ 237,831.80 381.78T2T 23,311.07 1_42J26\n76 21,511.87 55,010.81 54,568.b5 _ 128,909.85 ' 7Q,373.23 822,02965 Estimated Sav^ings_ _ -37,831.80 _J5b,ooq.qq -23,311.07 -P-22 - :21^1f87 -55,010.81 -53,095^05 -128,9b9.85 -66,378.23 -536,b48.68 Remainjng Itos^__ _______o.ob ' 231,781.21 _____o.bb 42,726.76 2 __ P-22 12-00 _1,473.00  o.oq -lZi2,bMbq 285,980.97 Purch Ser 1,900.00 48,3^.00 51,435.00 CHARTER Fringe 142,170.36 _1,936.00 _3q,369J2 16,454.00 90,929.48 Purch Ser io,7oo\nbb 17,500.00 28,200.00 486,070.53 106,844.00 Supplies 3,200.00 \"\" 300.00 3,728.0b 1,748.00 100.00 1,609.00 10,685.00 Supplies 23,200.00 19,000.00 41200.00 64,428.00 Cai^ital 1,400.00 1,400.00 Capital__ 10,500.00 10,500.00 13,900.00 Other 67 00 350.00 417.00 Other 1,200 00 1,200.00 1,617.00 Totai 63780.23 ' ' 83,909.19 450,991.17 __19,353.98 162,444.35 26,^9.85  59,^1.85 9,328.01 17125717 121,507.61 j7,64T5b 1,167,364.91 Savirigs -63,780.23 ' -38,562.92 -251074.27 -19,353.M _l_2 92j -22,889.85 -59,261.85 ' -9,328,01 -70.509.j7 -121,507.61 -77,641.5b -738,909.39 Remaining Costs___ \" 0.00 45,346.27 198,916.9 b - o.ob 162,444.35 _ IJP-OO O.bb 0.00 _1,748.00 QOO 2o,boq.qb '_428,455.52 Total 239,659.^ 9,677.00 139.179.6'2 96,154.00 484,669.98 Savings -234,659.36 -9,677.00 -139,1/9.62 1j96,1 54.00 Remaining ' 5,bob.b'o _ _ obb b\noo b.oo 479r669.98 \" 5,000.00 2,474,064.54 1,754,628.05 719,436.49Principal: BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROFILE Mary Golston Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 46.20 6.23 8.60 8.77 14.53 47.14 12.21 10.79 13.29 10.14 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.43 14.38 17.95 21.24 20.75 53.42 14.97 17.13 27.1 28.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 17.08 13.57 20.19 31.38 43.43 29.85 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade Level Grade 2 Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 1.23 21.6%' 6.24 ~5.9%| 7.62 11.8% I 1.78 50.0% 12.71 26.5%l 17.71 42.9% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 2051 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 161 196 198 194 165 189, 193 201 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 27 -3 3Achigygrngnt Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 197 200 199 169 192 200 204 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 ________19 3 4 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 169 190 201 198 171 191 201 201 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr, 2001 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 22 10 0 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 12% 12% 76% 0% 27% 27% 45% 0% 15% 15% 69% 2001-02  2002-03 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 0% 18% 82% 2001-02 2002-03 0% 5% 27% 59% 0% 23% 23% 54% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 1999-00 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 14% 16% 14% 19% 20% 16% 18% 12%, 20% 19% 11% 10% 7% 12% 13% 2000-01 2001-02 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 22% 25% 13% 22% 21% 11% 20% 7%, 13% 13% 2000-01 2001-02Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5Principal: DODD ELEMENTARY PROFILE Faith McLaughlin Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 51.35 13.32 14.41 22.15 21.65 52.00 13.70 15.00 22.06 21.52 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.95 17.33 18.86 46.48 33.71 52.47 17.63 22.63 50.59 35.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 19.67 19.96 65.40 60.93 69.91 59.32 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 6.32 86.5% 19.76 58.3% I 32.8 51.7% I 5.24 80.0% 21.2 73.5% 32.64 82.8% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 187 198 205 181 183 198 202 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 10 11 4Achigygrnent Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 179 190 202 206 183 182 201 208 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr, 2001 3 11 6 Spr, 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 181 187 202 205 182 194 201 205 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 Spr, 2002 Spr, 2003 13 14 3 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 0% 35% 35% 30% 3% 21% 42%| 33% 0% 24% 29% 48% 2001-02  2002-03 ^^j^^^sas^^BenchrTTark_ExarnjnationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 5% 14% 29% 52% 2001-02 6% 21% 15% 58% 5% 5% 14% 76% 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 26% 34% 22% 30% 29% 35% 44% 25% 34% 35% 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 30% 36% 28%, 32% 32% 42% 55% 33% 40% 39% 26% 31% 14% 26% 25% 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 I I ri^-gTiMCHARTER ELEMENTARY PROFILE Principal: Krishna Young Obsgrvation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 'S 'Ka Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 a Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 TiV s\nTC j'i Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004\nkj2i3feste ?T/ In Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 198 205 212 -Sfa-//. 3?-\n5j ri' :si? \u0026gt;4 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A N/A 178 182 192 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 7.Q 6.6 N/A N/AAchieygment Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 199 207 213 N/A N/A N/A 172 174 199 Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 N/A N/A Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 200 208 215 N/A N/A N/A \\77 192 196 I Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth ordUcS Z,5 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 ----------- ...w. WIWVUI i?s5Bsw!sprwsa3!S^5SS5 X _______87 8 N/A N/A Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. Level Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. .....* 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 3 i'*'. 1999-00 2001-02  2002-03 0% 0% 25% 75% Grade 4 Mathematics 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 0% 6% 0% 94% Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1998-99 1999-00 Retention Rate Grade (Kinder 7% 6% 10% 9% 8% 1997-98 I 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 7% 8% 10% 9% 8% 11% 8% 5% 10% 10% 2000-01 2001-02Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Junious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent TO: Dr. Ken James FROM: Junious Phone: (501)324-2272 SUBJECT: Requested Information DATE: December 10, 2001 In response to information requested in the December 6**' board agenda meeting, the following report is provided: I. SIX YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS OF SCHOOLS WITH LESS THAN 250 STUDENTS 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 BADGETT B VJ/0 TOTAL DODD B TOTAL 185 214 \"79 233 200 \"76 216 179 \"77 796 174 13 146 7 153 156 86 145 79 224 162 131 \"72 145 \"77 114 74 FAIR PARK B W TOTAL 193 62 255 188 60 165 63 160 6T 167 57 164 \"\"45 WILSON B W TOTAL 294 68 297 329 53 278 35 MS 257 3T 2^ 232 2M Redrawn school attendance zones were enacted during the '99 - 00 school year When comparing the 98-99 \u0026amp; 99-00 school year, the key reduction piece is removal of 6th grade classes.  Opening of the new Stephens school January (2001) provided impact by way of Badgett no longer serving as an Alternative School Site for the Washington AZ. II. ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT  sorted by school totals LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT - October 1,2001 (official) SCHOOL 1. Badgett 2. Dodd . 3. Fair Park 4. Wilson 5. Woodruff 6. Rightsell______ 7. Mabelvale 8. Western Hills 9. Meadowcliff 10. Baseline 11. Pulaski Heights 12. Romine 13. Mitchell 14. Forest Park 15. Gibbs 16. Geyer Springs 17. Bale 18. Brady________ 19. McDermott 20. Wakefield 21. Franklin 22. Rockefeller 23. Otter Creek 24. Cloverdale 25. Jefferson______ 26. Williams______ 27. Watson 28. Washington 29. Fulbright______ 30. Carver 31. Terry_________ 32. Chicot 33. Stephens______ 34. King_________ 35. Booker 01-02 ENROLLMENT _________153_________ _________188_________ _________209_________ _________252_________ _________267_________ _________268_________ _________271_________ _________277_________ _________280_________ _________282_________ _________282_________ _________284_________ _________298_________ _________305_________ _________307_________ _________320_________ 330 _________332_________ 374 _________384_________ _________388_________ ________389_________ ________397_________ ________426_________ ________426_________ ________446_________ ________452_________ ________459_________ ________466_________ 495 507 508 545 571 575 Average Elementary School size: 363 Largest Elementary School is Booker with 575 students. Smallest Elementary School is Badgett with 153 students. CAPACITY BEING USED 64% ________________________ __________69%__________ __________74%__________ __________85%__________ __________91%__________ __________61%__________ __________87%__________ __________78%___________ __________78%___________ __________81%___________ __________70%___________ __________100%__________ __________76%___________ __________95%___________ __________89%___________ __________86%___________ __________81%___________ __________83%___________ __________92%___________ __________73%___________ __________81%___________ __________96%___________ __________87%___________ __________90%___________ __________91%___________ __________85%___________ __________68%___________ __________95%___________ __________89%___________ __________85%___________ __________99%___________ __________84%___________ __________80%___________ 89%Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT December 14, 2001 RECEIVED DEC 1 4 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 OfflCtOf DESKfiEGAPOW MQNIT3fi0ia FAX: 371-0100 Re: Possible School Closings Dear Ms. Marshall: We are in the process of presenting information to the LRSD Board of Directors to allow the Board to determine what budget cuts must be made in response to the reduction of State funding for education. As a part of this process, we have presented some very preliminary information to the Board of Education concerning the savings which can be achieved by closing certain schools. At our meeting last night, the Board indicated that it would continue to consider the possibility of closing schools as one way to make necessary budget cuts. Now that we know that the Board will continue to consider the possibility of school closings, we would like to share and discuss with you the information we have and to hear your views on this issue. Time is very short because school registration is scheduled for January 28 - February 8^, 2001. We would like to meet with you, if at all possible, on Wednesday, December 19, 2001. Please call me as soon as possible so that we can confirm a time or. if necessary, arrange a different date for a meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of School TKJ/bjg 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2012Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT December 14, 2001 Ann Marshall, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 I 1 1 FAX\n371-0100 Re\nPossible, School Closings Dear Ms. Marshall\nallow tte tn H P of presenting information to the LRSD Board of Directors to of ft determine what budget cuts must be made in response to the reduction of State funding for education. As a part of this process, we have oresented some vir? Board of Education concerning the savings which can bl leved by closing certain schpoooslssl.b iAlitty oouf rd moseinetgin sgk laoslts n iagVhto t^hwe 7Byoard indicated that it Now that we know that the Board will continue to consider the Dossibilitv of school informafio^^ January 28 - FebruaT8^?o1)rWe'X'TkZ?^^ school registration is scheduled for CcoonnfLirdme 9ra fti^rrn^n sa sdcif fCearlel nmt dea ates fsoor oan m aese tpinogs.s ibTlhea snok tyhoaut fwoer ycoaunr meet with you. if at all possible, on Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of School TKj/bjg 810 Wejt Mazkhazn Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (SOI) 324-2012 a 810 West Markham flt? ^Or DATE: Phone\nFay\n(501) 324-2020 (5011 324-2032 January 7, 200z f on+rai V..K.J IKI V41 Ariziir\u0026gt;coc Cyi iihia KuWcib AfkunSuS Deinu(.rui-Gu/.^iiS FkOm: Sueiien Vann, uirector of Lommunicatons SUBJECT: Special Si.huoi Buard Meetings MESSAGE\nThe Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special Board meeting Tuesday, January 15, at 6 p.m. to discuss proposed school closings related to budget reducions. Please note that this issue will not be on the agenda on Thursday, January 10, at the Board's agenda meeting. The reason for the change is that one Board member will be out of town on Thursday, and Superintendent Ken James and Board members felt that the entire Board should be present for the discussion and decision. Additionally, the Board will gather on Thursday, January 17, at noon at Metropolitan Career/Technical Center to have lunch and tour the district's new technology center. The center will house the district's upgraded computer network and telephone systems which are funded through the 2000 capital improvement millage. The network will support the installation of new computers in schools throughout the district. # Pages (including cover) TO Fax# 1 An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge5013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM P02 JAN 03 02 16:52 JOHN W. WALKER SH.WN CHILDS JuH.k W. XAalker, P.A. Atoeney At Law 1723 Broadway Liitu Rock, .AaituNSAS 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile\n324-2146 OK COUNSEL ROBERT McHENKJ, PA. donna J, Mr HENRY 8210 Hindesson Road tnTLs Rock, .uikansas 72210 Phone: (SOU 372-3425  Fax (601) 372-3428 tUAii\nmdieiiryd@Awbell.aet January 8, 2002 Ms. Katherine Mitchell Ms. Judy Magness Ms. Sue Strickland Mr. Michael Daugherty Mr. Baker Kurrue Mr. Larry Berkeley Mr- Terry Rose Little Rock Board of Directors Little Rock School District 310 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: School Closing Dear Board Members\nIn that I will be unable to appear before the board at the Tuesday meeting to represent the viewpoints of Joshua, I wish to inform you of the Joshua position with respect to the proposal to close Badgett, Dodd and Fairpark Elementary Schools, brief. I will be First. The Revised Rian (para. 3.6) provides in substance that there will be no school closing of schools in majority black areas absent reasons of compelling nece.s.sity. ______... ... administrators' position the closing is dictated by concerns of ('para. As T understand the economy, i.e., the district is in dire economic .strait,s and simply cannot afford to maintain small schools that are far below capacity in student enrollment. under situation. ordinary circumstances, The argument of economy while a valid one it should not be applied in this years. Badgett has been the subject of closing for We opposed the closing each time. at least ten The staff and board determined to shore the .schoni up with charter school programs and with great fanfare and costs created expectancies that the charter50137441S? WALKER LAW FIRM 225 P03 JAN 08 02 Page iwo January 8, 2002 school idsi was a good one and that the boara would support it by allowing time for it to develop and by giving it the support that it would need to overcome doubts from persons like myself about the propriety and efficacy of charter schools. Thsrefore, to close Badgett would be a breach of faith and commitment as well as of the plan and/or the covenant. Moreover, closing of a black school with the it would constitute the transportation burden upon black students. attendant increase in the Second. David 0. Dodd's closing is also based upon reasons of The Revised Desegregation Plan was based upon geographic attendance zones which were presented to the public as neighborhood schools. economy. Joshua has expressed its concern about the manner in which the neighborhood school zones were drawn and that is record. on Dodd seems to fit the standard submitted to the Court of the desired objective of neighborhood schools. one of racial balance by a zoning plan. That standard was It would seem that Dodd's racial balance is better than that of most schools in the district and that Dodd should be maintained for that reason alone. There are many students who live in the Dodd area who attend private schools. Most of those students are white. district would find ways to attract those enhancement of programs and considerate of their parents. activ.ities It would seem that the students to Dodd by and by- being more Your proposal has a promise not only of closing Dodd but of driving appro.ximately 100 more white children out of the district when those students and parents to remain in the di.strict. wsnt. If economy is indeed the reason for the closing, losing 100 students at per student aid of approximately $5,000 per student,' will take, within a year or two, annually from, the district's at least revenue stream. five million dollars That in turn will increase the district's need to close more schools in order to meet current budgetary considerations. The board has said that It parent? out of the district\nits is not trying to drive white actions appear otherwise. These parents may not be the white parents to which the board refers when the board members discuss student retention. middle to lower income. Ths Dodd parents ara I mention this factor because while Dodd is being mentioned for closing, ths district, without approval, has actually added classrooms at Otter Creek, Court a more middle class economy is neither Dodd. community in the district. Thus, the reason\nonsistent nor logical when applied to David 0.58137441S7 WALKER LAW FIRM P04 JAN 0S '02 Fags Three January 8, 2002 Finally, with respect to Dead, you have a supportive set of parents who actually proKiote the idea of good education and good race relations simultaneously. Those factors have importance when the history of this community is taken into account and when the Revised Plan and Covenant are considered. Third. With respect to the proposed closing of Fairpark, I do not oelievs that the administration Is serious about this closure. It/ 1 believe, is being submitted to deflect attention from the closing of the two lower income schools. income schools, Badgett But like the two lower closing are not substantiated. and Dodd, the justifications for the If economy is the reason for the closing the board may wish to revisit some of the decisions to add administrative staff which were recommended by Superintendent Les Carnins and approved by the board. It IS my belief that a large number of administrative staff were added by Dr. Gamine which were not economically justified at the time. I realize this IS a sensitive area since the board recommendations. approved each of those For example, you approved substantially enhanced pay increases for all the administrators at the associate and assistant superintendent level. While I do not oppose fair pay for administrators, these adminxstrators' pay is comparable to the pay that superintendents receive in other district, and in some cases IS even greater. category, not nine or ten. You expect to find one or two people in this position of Chief Financial Another example is the creation of the Officer, a position which explicitly created to obtain the services of Or. Don Stewart. was It is ironic that the chief defender of the economic basis for the school closings is Dr. Stewart. If the district had maintained its structure without adding Dr. Stewart, it would have saved at least 5100, 000 per year. Stewart, but this example is glaring. I don't want to be personal regarding Dr. I submit that it is more important to actually maintain the \"neighborhood schools\" that the board championed than to hire a person simply because the superintendent likes that person's experience.s and abil ities, The 5100,000 administrative costs associated with that salary would be more than sufficient to continue, on a operation of either Dodd or Badgett, sound economic basis, the assessment is anywhere close to being correct. or perhaps both. If this the district would take time to reevaluate its overall needs and then make some cost, judgments regarding them. it would seem that staffing Administrative costs are but one item. I have previously brought to your attention the large number of small classes in the advanced placement area and have pointed up the lack of econom.ic justi fication. for small classes for .A.P. students. The educational501374413? WALKER LAW FIRM PQ5 JAM OS '02 16:54 Page Four January 8, 2002 justification is students, made takin Sut in any strongest for small classes of underachieving ass, the appropriate assessirient should be I must a note into account all components of the district's business also 35 we consider closing three schools the district IS still planning to build a new school in an upper middle class area in west Little Reck. schools in The poor areas can simply reason of economy in closing not be j ustifred under circumstances where you are opening new schools without regard tor the same concerns for economy. school in the west. You plen to open an expensive new Nor can reasons of econom.y for school closings be justified when there are so many staff members on the payroll whose work is being duplicated unnecessarily by Others. Lastl J  These viewpoints have not been publically discussed by the board members in a public forum. Because they have not and because your procedure does not lend itself to dialogue in public board meetings, may I suggest that before you close any school the board create a committee, rather small, with representatives from the Joshua Intervenors, the teacher's union and the seven school zones, and which includes Dr. James and Dr. Stewart, district's financial circumstances. to review the be simply a resource available to the committee. I would ask that Dr. Stewart I note that Pulaski County School District, In this respect. there. while Dr. Stewart was always had more money than Dr. Stewart said it had. his leadership, Under the district was always very solvent while it clairaed that it was on the verge of disaster. idea, Please consider these views and if you reject my committee I ask that you take no action until Mr. Heller has hjid an opportunity to discuss this matter with Joshua to see if there is some way to avoid any school closing. If this is not possible. Joshua has no choice other than to file formal objections to the anticipated and recommended school closings with the Court. Thank you for listening to me. Sincerely, Johpl^W. Walker Or? Behalf of the Joshua Intervenors JWW\nip5?' iii LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED JAN 1 8 2002 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING SPECIAL MEETING January 15, 2002 6:00 p.m. Consideration of School Closing Options for 2002-2003 school year DATE: January 15, 2002 TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: Dr. Kenneth James, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSURES FOR THE 2002-2003 ACADEMIC YEAR BACKGROUND INFORMATION: As you know, Board Policy FBC outlines the procedures for school closures. Current policy states that closures will be based upon the following factors:  Excessive cost of operation due to enrollment\n Excessive cost of renovation and repair due to the age and physical condition of the facility\n Inability of the district to deliver the required curriculum in the facility\n Any applicable federal court orders. The policy further states that a public announcement of the proposal to close a  school will precede the closing date by at least twelve months, except in cases of extreme emergency. Revised Desegregation and Education Plan: Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 4.3 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan must be considered in determining whether to close schools. Section 3.6 requires that we not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. M's do not intend to recommend the closing of any school solely because of age or poor maintenance, so this section of the Plan will not come into play.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 2 Section 3.7 of the Plan reads as follows: 3.7 3.7.1 3.7.2 Modification Standard: During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level structure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a school other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable\nor. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. Section 3.7 applies during the term of the revised plan. According to Section 9 of the Revised Plan, the term of the plan is ended. Section 9 - Terrn: The term of the Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 School Year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2001 School Year. Given our Covenant and the uncertainty of the federal court proceedings, however, it would be wise to consider the closing of schools, only in cases where the Board can make the determinations required by Section 3.7.1 or 3.7.2. Section 4.3 of the Revised Plan describes the ideal racial composition of the Interdistrict schools as being as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School. Although the Plan describes the ideal racial composition and not the required racial composition, the Board should be aware that the impact on Washington would be to move further from the ideal composition while the impact on Romine would be to move closer to the ideal composition.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 3 statewide Budget Reduction: As a result of the recent budget reductions statewide, we anticipate losing between $2.3 million and $2.4 million dollars in expected revenue this year. It is important to note that this loss will automatically be carried forward to the 2002- 2003 fiscal year. There is also the distinct possibility that additional reductions in revenue could take place prior to the end of this fiscal year, unless the state revenue forecast rebounds quickly. The district currently has two (2) schools with enrollment below 200 students, and thirteen (13) schools with an enrollment below 300 students. Staff has prepared background data and information for two schoolsBadgett Elementary and Dodd Elementary, as current enrollment falls below 200 students. We have also included enrollment data for the Charter Program, which is housed at Badgett. The Superintendent has also included similar financial data and information about Fair Park Elementary, per the Boards direction. A. ENROLLMENT DATA: Badgett Elementary: Enrollment: 153 = 64% usage Building Capacity: 239 # of Certified Staff: 11.8 # of Non-Certified Staff: 7.40 Enrollment w/o S* grade: 130 students required to move, of which 85 students are in the Badgett zone, \u0026amp; 45 students will go back to AZ school Building capacity is based upon average class size.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Meeting Page 4 In the event that Badgett is closed:  All non AZ students at Badgett will return to their AZ schools.  Rockefeller and Washington students currently attending Badgett would return to their attendance zone school.  Students within the East 6* and 9* street corridor would be assigned to Rockefeller. Net impact on Rockefeller would be an increase of 68 students (65 B, and 3 NB). In this scenario. Rockefellers total enrollment would increase from 389 students to 457 students. The percent of Rockefellers African American enrollment would increase from 64% to 70% (K-5). The building capacity at Rockefeller is 481 students.  Students south of the airport would be assigned to Washington. Net impact on Washington would be an increase of 55 students (49 B, and 6 NB). In this scenario, Washingtons total enrollment would increase from 459 students to 514 students. The percent of Washingtons African American enrollment would increase from 57% to 61%. The building capacity at Washington is 678 students. B. ENROLLMENT DATA: Dodd Elementary: Enrollment: 188 = 69% usage Building Capacity 271 # of Certified Staff 17.5 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.3 Enrollment w/o 4yr olds, 5* graders, and Spec. Educ 140 required to move, of which 120 students are in the Dodd zone \u0026amp; 20 students will go back to AZ school *Building Capacity is based upon average class sizeSpecial Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 5 Kenwood Subdivision: The Kenwood subdivision is currently in progress. There are 210 lots in this subdivision. We have obtained information from the City of Little Rock Planning Commission, which indicates that 150 lots will be developed over the next five years, with the remaining 60 lots being developed at a later time. These are single-family homes to be developed in phases. According to information obtained from the developer. Phase 1 will have 49 homes with a target date of August. 2002. Phase 2 will have 53 homes with a target date of January 2003. Phase 3 is too far out to project and is dependent upon interest and demand. Potential Impact\nBased upon a formula used by the Planning Department, the anticipated impact for the 2002-2003 school year would be 14-20 elementary students. The anticipated impact for the 2003-2004 school year would be 11-15 elementary students. In the event that Dodd is closed:  All non-AZ students at Dodd will return to their Attendance Zone schools.  Students north of Colonel Glenn would go to Romine. Net impact on Romine would be an increase of 45 students (16 B and 29 NB). In this scenario, Romines enrollment would increase from 284 students to 329 students. The percent of Romines African American enrollment would decrease from 70% to 64%. The building capacity at Romine is 403 students.  Students (east of Shackleford Road) from the Pecan Lake/Tall Timber subdivision would go to Western Hills. Net impact on Western Hills would be an increase of 46 students (40 B and 6 NB). In this scenario. Western Hills enrollment would increase from 277 to 323 students. The percent of Western Hills African American enrollment would increase from 72% to 74%. The building capacity at Western Hills is 320 students.  Students from the lower quadrant of the present Dodd zone (south of Colonel Glenn and Lanehart), would go to Otter Creek. Net impact on Otter Creek would be an increase of 46 students (20 B and 26 NB). In this scenario. Otter Creeks enrollment would increase from 397 students to 443 students. The percent of Otter Creeks African American-enrollment would decrease from 55% to 53%. The building capacity at Otter Creek is 415. Special Note: Four classrooms are to be added to Otter Creek by the start of school in August. In the event that the classrooms are not available by the opening of school in August, it would be necessary to relocate a couple of classes.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 6 C. In the event that the Charter Program is closed:  All of the 83 students at the Charter School will return to their AZ schools. This will have limited space impact upon the receiving schools. D. ENROLLMENT DATA: Fair Park Elementary: Enrollment: 212 = 70% usage Building Capacity 304 # of Certified Staff 18.1 # of Non-Certified Staff 10.8 Enrollment w/o 4 yr olds, and 5*^ graders 164 required to move, of which 121 are in the Fair Park zone. 43 students will return to their AZ school In the event that Fair Park is closed:  All non-AZ students at Fair Park will return to their Attendance Zone schools.  Students south of 1-630 would go to Franklin. Net impact on Franklin would be an increase of 84 students (75 B and 9 NB). In this scenario, Franklins enrollment would increase from 385 students to 469 students. The percent of Franklins African American enrollment would decrease from 97% to 96%. The building capacity at Franklin is 532.  Students east of McKinley, North of Markham and South of Cantrell would go to Brady. Net impact on Brady would be an increase of 38 students (29 B and 9 NB). In this scenario, Bradys enrollment would increase from 338 students to 376 students. The percent of Bradys African American enrollment would decrease from 81% to 80%. The building capacity at Brady is 409.  Students east of Mckinley, South of Evergreen, and North of 1-630 would go to Forest Park. Net impact on Forest Park would be an increase of 17 students (5 B and 12 NB). In this scenario.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 7 Forest Parks enrollment would increase from 307 students to 324 students. The percent of Forest Parks African American enrollment would remain at 39%. The building capacity at Forest Park is 400 students. E. EDUCATIONAL DATA: I have attached an academic school profile for the three school sites, and the Charter Program. F. FISCAL IMPACT OF POTENTIAL CLOSINGS: I have attached a complete cost breakdown for the three potential closings. In summary, we are projecting the following savings: BADGETT: 536, 048.68 DODD: 738, 909.39 CHARTER: 479, 669.98 FAIR PARK: $ 749,692.03 TOTAL PROJECTED SAVINGS: $ 2,504,320.08 $ $ $ It is anticipated that the district will be able to absorb the majority of the certificated teaching staff from Badgett, Dodd and the Charter program, given the normal attrition rates of the district. If Badgett, Dodd, the Charter Program, and Fair Park Elementary are closed, all of the certified staff could not be absorbed, thus additional reductions in personnel would be necessary. The non-certified staff will be absorbed across the district as needs and resources allow.Special Board Meeting, January 14, 2002 Board Report Page 8 G. ADDITIONAL ENROLLMENT HISTORY-ATTACHMENTS: 1. Cost analysis sheet 2. 3. 4. Educational Assessment Information Six Year Enrollment Comparisons of Schools with Less Than 250 Students. Elementary Enrollment Sorted by School Totals, H. CONCLUSIONS:  The loss of approximately $2.4 million in revenue this fiscal year has created an emergency financial situation in the district. It is important to note that this is not only a one-year loss in revenue.  There is the possibility that we will lose additional revenue this year if the economy continues to decline, thus creating an additional financial hardship. Even if we do not lose additional revenue this fiscal year, it is still essential that we reduce expenditures to balance the 2002-2003 budget.  The District must reduce expenditures for the 2002-2003 fiscal year if we are to meet contractual obligations and remain financially responsible and solvent. At this time, I have targeted a $6.5 million dollar reduction as a target for the 2002-2003 fiscal year.  It is evident that the cost to operate a facility with declining enrollment is significantly higher. The cost per child to operate Badgett, Dodd, the' Charter Program, and Fair Park is significantly more than the average of other similar area school facilities.  If the District is to close any school, the Board must take action at the January 15' Special meeting, in order to properly notify parents and provide ample time for students to complete the registration process for the 2002-2003 academic year.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 9 In preparation of the consideration of any school closures, the following activities took place:  During the week of December 10-14.1 faxed and mailed a letter to all of the parties involved in the Desegregation case.  During the week of December 17-19.1 met with the following to ensure their understanding of our exploration of school closures for the 2002- 2003 academic year: Dr. James Smith, Superintendent. North Little Rock Schools Dr. Carl Brown. Assistant Supt. Pulaski County Dr. John Archetko. Assistant Supt. Pulaski County Ms. Clementine Kelley. CTA President Mr. Frank Martin. CTA I met with Ms. Ann Marshall on Friday. January 4, 2002. I did not receive a response from Mr. Walker, during this timeframe, but Mr. Walker has written a letter to the Board of Directors.  On December 19*^, letters were mailed to all parents/guardians of students currently attending Badgett. Dodd. The Charter Program, and Fair Park. Informing them of Community Meetings on the following dates: Badgett Elementary/Charter Thursday. January 3\"* Dodd Elementary Monday. January 7^ Fair Park Elementary Tuesday. January 8^ 6:00 p.m.  6:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. In closing this informational report, it is important to note that the Superintendent brings forward this information after careful analysis and much deliberation with senior administrative staff. While our current financial situation has been exacerbated by the largest reduction in state revenue in the history of the State of Arkansas, it is important to note that the current enrollment situation also dictates that we examine the cost effectiveness of operating facilities that are experiencing declining enrollment now and in the future. We are charged with being good stewards of the taxpayers resources and maximizing our efficiency. We have prepared other potential areas of reduction for the 2002-2003 fiscal year and submit same for your review and consideration.Special Board Meeting, January 15, 2002 Board Report Page 10 1. RECOMMENDATION: A. B. After careful analysis and processing of all information gleaned as a result of our community meetings, it is the recommendation of the Superintendent that Dodd Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School remain open during the 2002-2003 school year. It is also the recommendation of the Superintendent that the Board consider revoking the charter of the Charter school and reassign the students to their respective attendance zone schools, for the 2002-2003 school year. Projected Savings: $479,670.00 C. It is also the recommendation of the Superintendent that the Board consider closing Badgett Elementary School under the provisions of 3.72 of the Revised Desegregation Plan, effective at the close of the current school year. Projected Savings: $536, 049.00 Attachments:I FTE-Cert FTE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SELECTED BUDGET INFORMATION 2001-2002 BADGETT I I Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed G/T Counselor Library Principal's Office Upkeep of Bldg Total I i Cert 1.00 6.00 0.40 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 I N-Cert ! 4.00 'ri 11.80 1.40 2.00 7.40 1 st Quarter 1 ADA ' ADM ^52.05 167.95 Salary 29,773.00 291,417.00 18,831.20 33,916.00 17,308.40 44:313.00 42,691.54 103,713.80 36,150.00 618,113.94 % Attend \n90.53% Fringe 8,058.80 79,442.21 4,479.87 8,810.76 4,203.47 10,697.81 10,403.51 25,196.05 11,871.23 163,163.71 I Purch Ser 350.00 26,859.00 27,209.00 Supplies 8,572.00 1,473.00 1,498.00 11,543.00 Capital i Other 2,000.00 2,000.00 0.00 Total 37.831.80 381.781.21 23.311.07 42.726.76 21.511.87 55.6l6.81 54.568.05 128.96'9.85 76,378.23 822,029.65 Estimated Savings -37,831.80 -156,606.06 -23,311.67 ...........6.00 -21,511.87 2 -55,010.81 \"-53,69'5:65 -128,909.85 ' '-66,378.23 -536,648:68 Remaining Costs 0.00 231,781.21 0.00 42,726.76 0.00 0.00 1,473.00 0.00 10,006.00 285,986.97 Four Year Old Kindergarten Classroom Music Special Ed G/T Counselor Nurse Library Principal's Office Upkeep of Bldg Total 1st Quarter r FTE-Cert Cert 1.00 2-00 7:66 0.40 3.60 0.50 1.00 FTE N-Cert ' 1.00 5.50 DODD 1.00 1.60 17.50 0.40 0.40 1.00 2.00 10.30 li 93,38 Classroom Music Supervision Transportation Total 1st Quartet^ Grand Total FTE-Cert Cert ' '5.56 0.20 1.00 FTE N-Cert 3.00 6.70 3.00 .D\u0026gt;^\\AdM': Salary 46,723.00 66,271.06 347,673.00 15.482.06 129:466:26 21,635.56 47,911.00 6,996'.26 56,531.67 96,95i'.'66 35,876.66 871:456.5'7 % Attend , Fringe 13,790.23 17,338.19 96,290.17 3,871.98 _33,044.15 5,254.35 11,350^85 2,33T81 13,977.50 22906.61 11,821.50 23i\n977.34 Purch Ser 1,900.00 1,200.00 48^335.00 51,435.00 : /O/MIOIIU' \u0026lt; 94,82% 222 Salary__  151,889.06 7,741.06 \u0026gt; 108:816.50 43,200.06 311,640:6'6 % Attend 174^3833\n85.63 86.86%\n36.00 CHARTER _ Fringe 42,170.36 1,936.00 30,369.1'2 ' 16,454.06 90,929.48 Purch Ser '16,700.00 17,500.00 28,260^00 20.70 1,801,205.01 486,070.53 106,844.00 Supplies 3,200.00 300.00 3,728.00 1,748.00 100.00 1,609.00 10,685.60 Supplies 23,200.66 19,000.00 42,200.00 64,428.00 Capital 1,400.00 1,400.00 Capital 10,506.66 10,500.00 13,900.00 Other 67.00 350.00 417.00 Other 1,200.66 1,200.00 1,617.00 Total 63,786?23 83,969.19 45'6:991:17 19,353.98 2162,444:35 _ 26:889.85 ' '59:261.85 9:328.61  _72,257.i'7 i2i.567.6l  '97,641:50 i,167,364:'9T Savings -6'3,780.23 -38,562.92 -252,074.27  2:-i9.353.98 _ 2 0.00 226,8'89.85 -59,261.85 1 _:9'328:6i 2270,569.17 \" -121,507.61 '\" -77,641.50 -738:'969':39 Remaining Costs 0.00 45,346.27 198,916.90 0.00 162,444.35 ......... 0:00 ............6.00 6:06 1,746:00 0.00 26,666.00 428,4'55.52 Total '239'659.36 '9,67'7.00 139.179.62' 96.154.00 484 669.96 Savings _ -234,659?36 '2-9,677.00 -139,179:62 ' -96.154.00 -479,669.98 Remaining Costs 5,000.00 \"6.06 Qoo 0.06 5,006:60 2,474,064.54 1,754,628.05 719,436.49Principal: BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROFILE Mary Golston Observation SurveyKindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 46.20 6.23 8.60 8.77, 14.53 47.14 12.21 10.79 13.29 10.14 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.43 14.38 17.95 21.24 20.75 53.42 14.97 17.13 27.1 28.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print 'Vocabulaiy Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 17.08 13.57 20.19 31.38 43.43 29.85 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24 Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 1.23 21.6% 6.24 5.9% I 7.62 11.8% I 1.78 50.0% 12.71 26.5% 17.71 42.9% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 161 196 198 194 165 189 193 201 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 27 -3 3Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 197 200 199 169 192 200 204 I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 19 3 4 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 169 190 201 198 171 191 201 201 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 22 10 0 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02  2002-03 0% 12% 12% 76% 0% 27% 27% 45% 0% 15% 15% 69%, Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 0% 0% 18% 82% 0% 5% 27% 59%, 0% 23% 23% 54% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 14% 16% 14% 19% 20% 16% 18% 12% 20% 19% 11% 10% 7% 12% 13% 22% 25% 13% 22% 21% 11% 20% 7% 13% 13% 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02Principal: DODD ELEMENTARY PROFILE Faith McLaughlin Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999:2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 51.35 13.32 14.41 22.15 21.65 52.00 13.70 15.00 22.06 21.52 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 52.95 17.33 18.86 46.48 33.71 52.47 17.63 22.63 50.59 35.03 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test  Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 19.67 19.96 65.40 60.93 69.91 59.32 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24, Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 6.32 86.5%' 19.76 58.3% I 32.8 51.7%| 5.24 80.0% 21.2 73.5% 32.64 82.8% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 198 205| 212 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 173 187 198 205 181 183 198 202 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 12.6 7.9 6.6 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 10 11 4Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 193 199 207 213 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 179 190 202 206 183 182 201 208 I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 8.9 5.7 4.8 3 11 6 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 192 200 208 215 Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 181 187 202 205 182 194 201 205 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Grovirth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 13 14 3 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-gg iggg-oo Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02  2002-03 0% 35% 35% 30% 3% 21% 42% 33% 0% 24% 29% 48% Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level iggs-gg iggg-oo Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 5% 14% 29% 52% 6% 21% 15% 58% 5% 5% 14% 76% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test iggy-ga igga-gg Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete i9gg-oo 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade Kinder Grade 1 26% 34% 22% 30% 29% 35% 44% 25% 34% 35% 30% 36% 28% 32% 32% 42% 55% 33% 40% 39% 26% 31% 14% 26% 25% iggy-ga igga-gg iggg-oo 2000-01 2001-02CHARTER ELEMENTARY PROFILE Principal: Krishna Young Observation SurveyKindergarten Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 S'\n(SSP, Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test Letters Word Print Vocabulary' Dictation 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 - Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24. Grade 2 Grade Level Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 'Si * Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target 198 205 212 -kV w - Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A N/A 178 182 192 rST^ Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 safe 7.9 6.6 N/A N/AAchievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 199 207 213 N/A N/A N/A ?72 174 199 [Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 T arget 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 200 208 215 N/A N/A N/A Ml 192 196 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 Target 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 N/A N/A Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 0% 0% 25% 75% 2001-02  2002-03 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 2001-02 2002-03 WSsW 0% 6% 0% 94% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Retention Rate Grade 1997-98 1998-99 [Kinder I 7% 6% 10% 9% 8% 7% 8% 10% 9% 8% 11% 8% 5% 10% 10% 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 iPrincipal: Samuel Branch Observation Survey-Kindergarten Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 47.03 13.03 16.76 30.73 19.97 51.55 15.40 20.80 33.50 19.00 Observation SurveyGrade 1 Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 53.70 17.44 22.56 28.11 22.22 52.92 17.43 20.78 39.51 29.62 Observation SurveyGrade 2 Sub-Test 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Letters Word Print Vocabulary Dictation 19.79 17.73 68.79 38.86 47.69 45.50 Developmental Reading Assessment % Readiness = Level 2, Kindergarten\nLevel 16, Grade 1\nLevel 24, Grade 2 Grade Level 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 Kinder Score Kinder % Grade 1 Score Grade 1 % Grade 2 Score Grade 2 % 3.54 68.3% 22.44 62.5% 29.07 62.9% 4.75 75.6% 18.16 72.7% 28.56 67.7% Achievement Level TestsReading RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 192 198 205 212 177 190 193 177 174 196 194 205 Achievement Level TestsReadingCohort Growth Grade Level Target Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 12.6 7.9 6.6 19 4 12 Achievement Level TestsLanguage Usage RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 193 199 207 184 197 201 183 196 194[Grade 5 I Inf 212| 20^ I Achievement Level TestsLanguage UsageCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2- 3 Grades 3- 4 Grades 4- 5 Target 8.9 5.7 4.8 Spr. 2001 12 -3 5 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Achievement Level TestsMathematics RIT Grade Level Target Spr. 2000 Spr. 2001 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 192 200 208 215 173 189 195 203 179 195 192 207 Achievement Level TestsMathematicsCohort Growth Grade Level Grades 2-3 Grades 3-4 Grades 4-5 T arget 11.9 8.7 8 Spr. 2001 22 3 12 Spr. 2002 Spr. 2003 Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Literacy Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 0% 20% 30% 50% 0% 21% 50% 29% 0% 35% 24% 41% Arkansas Benchmark ExaminationGrade 4 Mathematics Level 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 Adv. Prof. Basic Below B. 5% 5% 25% 65% 0% 0% 7% 93% 6% 12% 18% 65% Stanford Achievement Test 9Grade 5 Sub-Test 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Reading Language Math Basic Bat. Complete 17% 18% 12% 19% 20% 34% 42% 19% 34% 34% 28% 29% 15% 26% 26% 25% 31% 15% 24% 22% 24% 17% 12% 21% 21% Retention Rate Grade 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Kinder Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5'A LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Juiiious C. Babbs, Associate Superintendent TO: Dr. Ken James Phone: (501)324-2272 FROM: Junious B SUBJECT: Requested Information DATE: December 10, 2001 In response to information requested in the December 6* board agenda meeting, the following report is provided: I. SIX YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS OF SCHOOLS WITH LESS THAN 250 STUDENTS 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 BADGETT B vwo TOTAL DODD B W TOTAL 185 21^ 214 233 200 216 179 \"77 174 13 146 IM 156 242 145| 79 162) 89j 131 \"72 2W 145 ~T1 114 74 188 FAIR PARK B W TOTAL WILSON B \\N TOTAL 193 62 188 60 165 63^ 160 167 ~T7 2^ 164 294 68 3W 297 \"65 3W 53) 3^ 278 313 3? 232 20 252 Redrawn school attendance zones were enacted during the '99 - 00 school year When comparing the 98-99 \u0026amp; 99-00 school year, the key reduction piece is removal of 6th grade classes.  Opening of the new Stephens school'January (2001) provided impact by way of Badgett no longer serving as an Alternative School Site for the Washington AZ. IL ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT  sorted by school totals LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT - October 1, 2001 (official) SCHOOL 1. Badgett 2. Dodd 3. Fair Park 4. Wilson 5. Woodruff 6. Rightsell______ 7. Mabelvale 8. Western Hills 9. Meadowcliff 10. Baseline 11. Pulaski Heights 12. Romine 13. Mitchell 14. Forest Park 15. Gibbs 16. Geyer Springs 17. Bale 18. Brady________ 19. McDermott 20. Wakefield 21. Franklin 22. Rockefeller 23. Otter Creek 24. Cloverdale 25. Jefferson 26. Williams 27. Watson 28. Washington 29. Fulbright______ 30. Carver 31. Terry_________ 32. Chicot 33. Stephens______ 34. King_________ 35. Booker 01-02 ENROLLMENT 153 188 209 252 267 268 271 277 280 282 282 284 298 305 307 _________320_________ 330 332 374 384 388 389 397 426 426 446 452 459 466 495 507 508 545 571 575 Average Elementary School size: 363 Largest Elementary School is Booker with 575 students. Smallest Elementary School is Badgett with 153 students. CAPACITY BEING USED 64% __________69%__________ 69% __________74%__________ __________85%__________ __________91%__________ __________61%__________ __________87%__________ __________78%__________ __________78%__________ __________81%__________ __________70%__________ 100% 76% __________95%__________ __________89%__________ __________86%__________ __________81%__________ __________83%__________ __________92%__________ __________73%__________ __________81%__________ __________96%__________ __________87%__________ 90% 91% __________85%___________ __________68%___________ 95% __________89%___________ __________85%___________ __________99% 84% 80% 89%POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION (2002-2003) (1-14-02) TARGET REDUCTION: $6.5 MILLION PROJECTED SAVINGS SCHOOL CLOSINGS: A. CLOSE CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAM: $479,670.00 B. CLOSE BADGETT ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $536,049.00 C. CLOSE DODD ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $738,909.00 D. CLOSE FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY PROGRAM: $749,692.00 ELIMINATE THE TOTAL ATHLETIC PROGRAM: $ 1,874,205.00-2- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE MIDDLE SCHOOL ATHLETIC PROG $ 378,669.00 ELIMINATE THE 6^^ GRADE ATHLETIC PROGRAM: $ 56,062.00 CONSIDER PLACING ATHLETICS OUTSIDE THE SCHOOL DAY: $ 360,000.00 ELIMINATETHETRANSPORTA TION PROGRAM: $5,724,168.00 REDUCE THE DISTRICTS FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE FINE ARTS PROGRAM: $ 405,263.00 ELIMINATE ALL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS: $ 3,541,514.00 ELIMINATE TWO SECONDARY AND TWO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ASSISTANT PRINCIPALS: $ 300,000.00 ELIMINATE ALL SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS $ 438,560.00 ELIMINATE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER-MIDDLE SCHOOL-SHARE: $ 100,000.00 ELIMINATE THE EXTRA DAYS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING PAID DURING THE SUMMER FOR THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS: $ 174,375.00-3- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE ONE POSITION IN THE HUMAN RESOURCE OFFICE: $ 40,000.00 ELIMINATE THE UNFILLED POSITION OF ASSOCIATE SUPERINTENDENT: $ 121,500.00 ELIMINATE THE UNFILLED POSITION OF ASST. SUPERINTENDENT-PRE: $ 86,693.00 ELIMINATE THE POSITION OF COMMUNITY SCHOOL DIRECTOR AND REDUCE # OF CLASSES $ 150,000.00 ELIMINATE TWELVE POSITIONS IN THE HIPPY PROGRAM (FIVE ARE CURRENTLY VACANT: $ 220,914.00 ELIMINATE 2 STUDENT RECRUITER POSITIONS: $ 114,000.00 ELIMINATE 2 POSITIONS ON SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT: $ 39,323.00 REDUCE OVERTIME COST BY 50%: $ 150,000.00-4- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION: ELIMINA TE THE DAIL Y MONEY PICK-UP AT THE SCHOOL SITES AND REPLACE WITH IN-DISTRICT OPERATION: $ 80,000.00 ELIMINATE THE VIPS PROGRAM: $ 268,141.00 ELIMINATE TWO POSITIONS FROM VIPS OFFICE: $ 40,000.00 REDUCE THE FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM BY 14 CLASSES: $1,124,000.00 ELIMINATE 50% OF CONSULTATION FEE FROM ADMINISTRATIVE SER VICES $ 13 ,000.00 ELIMINATE .50 POSITION OF DROPOUT COORDINA TOR $ 41,000.00 ELIMINATE 4 SCHOOL NURSES $ 154,400.00 ELIMINATE 4 SCHOOL COUNSELORS $ 199,000.00 REDUCE TRAVEL EXPENSE FROM OPERA TING BUDGET BY 50% $ 156,054.00-5- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION ELIMINATE DISTRICT CONVOCATION $ 30,000.00 ELIMINATE 30.0 FTE- CERTIFICATED STAFF-SECONDARY: $1,380,000.00 ELIMINATE 50 AIDES: $ 600,000.00 ELIMINATE ONE READING SPECIALIST: $ 62,000.00 ELIMINATE 1.0 LIBRARIAN: $ 45,877.00 REDUCE ALL DISTRICT FUNDED BUDGETS BY 7 72 %: $1,688,000.00 ELIMINATE THE COORDINATOR OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT: $ 86,754.00 ELIMINA TE TWO FTE FROM PRE: $ 92,218.00 ELIMINATE ONE ACTIVITY DIRECTOR AT PARKVIEW: $ 33,000.00 -6- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION REDUCE THE BUSINESS OFFICE BUDGET BY: $ 39,000.00 ELIMINATE TWO FTE INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES FROM THE IRC: $ 31,128.00 ELIMINATE ONE PROG. EVAL/ESL FROM IRC: $ *61,069.00 (Title I and District Funds) ELIMINATE ONE FTE SPEC. EDUC. ADMINISTRATOR: 67,045.00 ELIMINATE TWO ADAPTIVE PE POSITIONS FROM SPEC. EDUC. PROGRAM: $ 96,000.00 ELIMINATE ONE FTE CUSTODIAN AT THE IRC: $ 18,740.00 REDUCE THE CONTRACT OF THE DISTRICT OMBUDSMAN FROM 12 MONTHS TO 11 MONTHS: $ 12,420.00 REDUCE THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH PROCESSING PURCHASE ORDERS, BY IMPLEMENTING A PURCHASE CARD SYSTEM: (WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE IMPLEMENTED DURING THE 2002-2003 SCHOOL YEAR). $ 100,000.00 REDUCE MAIL DELIVERY TO SITES TO EVERY OTHER DAY: $ 21.500.00-7- POTENTIAL AREAS OF REDUCTION REDUCE THE FACILITY SERVICE BUDGET BY: S 100,000.00 REDUCE THE COMMUNICATION DIVISION BUDGET BY: $ 25,500.00 ELIMINATE TEN FTE POSITIONS AT THE END OF THE 2002-2003 FISCAL YEAR-THE FUNDING SOURCE (GRANT) WILL EXPIRE: $ 395,048.00-8- VARIED SCENARIOS TO OBTAIN TARGETED REDUCTIONS SCENARIO #1: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program Close Dodd Elementary Close Fair Park Elementary $ 536,049.00 $ 479,670.00 $ 738,909.00 $749,692.00 $2,504,320.00 reduction The remaining $4.0 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed. SCENARIO #2: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program Close Dodd Elementary $ 536,049.00 $479,670.00 $ 738,909.00 $1,754,628.00 reduction The remaining $4.74 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed. SCENARIO #3: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close Badgett Elementary Close Charter Program $ 536,049.00 $479,670.00 $1,015,719.00 reduction The remaining $5.48 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed.-9- SCENARIO #4: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close No Schools and make all Target reduction of $6.5 million reductions from the items listed. SCENARIO #5: PROJECTED SAVINGS: Close No Schools Reduce 60 FTE Certified Staff Reduce 100 FTE Non-Certified Staff $2,760,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $3,960,000.00 reduction The remaining $2.54 million dollar reductions would come from a combination of the items listed.John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNAJ.McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (601) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Via Facsimile - 324-2146 January 16, 2002 Mr. Junious Babbs Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr Babbs: I understood Dr. Mitchell to say last evening that 78% of the students who attend Badgett Elementary were bused to the school. After the Board meeting, I inquired where she obtained her information and she indicated that it came from you. Would you, therefore, please provide clarification of her comments by providing the following information seriatim: 1) Does the 78% include students in the Charter program and in the school? 2) How did you arrive at your 78%? 3)1 suspect that 78% of the students who attend the Charter program are, in deed, bused there due to the nature of the program and services provided. Is that correct? 4) (a) How of the of the 81 Charter school students (raw number) are bused? (b) How many of these students reside in the Badgett attendance zone? 5) (a) How many of the 153 regular school students (raw number) are bused? (b) How many of these students reside in the Badgett attendance zone? 6) (a) What is the mile(s) radius of attendance zones for Badgett? zone blocks? (b) In other words, how many miles away is the nearest street? The farthest street? 7) Please identify the streets that are in the Badgett attendance zone. 8) Based upon the answer in number 5(a), how far do these students travel to get tothe school? 9) Dr. James report to the Board indicates that 65 black students would be transported to Rockefeller, (a) Please identify the zone blocks where these students currently live and distance Badgett compared to the distance to distance to Rockefeller. (b) In other words, how many additional miles will these students have to travel after being assigned to Washington compared to Badgett? 10) Dr. James further reported to the Board that 49 black students would be transported to Washington, (a) Please identify the zone blocks where these students currently live and the distance to Badgett compared to the distance to Washington. (b) In other words, how many additional miles will these students have to travel after being assigned to Washington compared to Badgett? Finally, would you also please advise whether any of the FTE - certified staff (11.8- Badgett and 6.7 - Charter) members have communicated intentions of retirement, resignations, etc. in order to help confirm the Districts reported approximately million dollar savings by closini the school and charter program. Ig Thank you for your attention to this request. Sincerely, r' /Joy C. Springer* On Behalf of Joshua JCS/ cc: Dr. Kenneth JamesJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd@swbell.net Via Facsimile - 324-2146 Januaiy 16, 2002 Dr. Kenneth James Superintendent for Administrative Services Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. James\nThis is to request a copy of the Board minutes from last evening along with a tape recording of the meeting. I will provide a cassette tape to Ms. Beverly Griffin on my way into the office on tomorrow morning. Thank you for your attention to this request. r / Joy C. Springer' On Behalf of Joshua JCS/Arkansas Democrat (gazette | FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 History saves Central High from consultants hit list BY CYNTHIA HOWEIX Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Central High, the Little Rock School Districts flagship school, needs almost $6 million in repairs and renovations and even then it perhaps wont meet the educational demands placed on schools in the 1990s. Those are the findings of a San .Antonio consulting firm hired last February to evaluate the condition of Little Rock schools and make recommendations on the districts building needs. In ail. the firm found that the districts schools and administrative buildings need more than W million in renovations and repairs over the next several years. The consultants. 3D/Intemation- al. described 70-year-old Central as uniquely imposing, a fine old structure and a landmark, but they ranked the school fifth among the citys five high schools in terms of building condition. Generally, restrooms are inadequate, classrooms vary in size and are rated poor to fair, music is in the basement, science facilities need upgrading to be state-of-the- art, traffic and parking conditions are poor, tennis courts are now unusable and the wooden structure previously used as the 'Tiger Den needs to be removed, the consultants said. The school did not appear well- maintained, especially its mechanical systems, the consultants said. Inspectors said the plaster walls and ceiling are deteriorating, and moisture is seeping throu^ the outside walls. Windows need replacing, and acoustical ceilings are needed. Other needs include new I hardware, plumbing repairs, a new I fire alarm system, extensive work ' on the ventilation systems, and an elevator to provide disabled people with access to each of the schools five floors. Repairs also are needed in the library, in the gymnasium and in Quigley Stadium, where the running track should be replaced. \"The last-place ranking of this facility indicates the extent of work required, which, when completed, may not serve the district as a high school of the 1990s. the consultants said in their report. The consultants acknowledged that because of Centrals history and its reputation for high-quality academic programs, closing the building is not really an option. They did suggest that the building might be better used as a community college. .A. second alternative would be a super magnet program high school for accelerated programs and adult education. The consultants said the school needs S3.2 million worth of work in the ne.xt two years to solve immediate problems and meet safety codes. In subsequent years, electrical wiring systems need to be installed to support technology programs. Central, which is listed as a National Historic Landmark, was built in 1926 and early in its history was designated as the countrys most beautiful school. In 1957, Central High attracted international attention when federal troops were called to maintain order as nine black students integrated the previously all-white school. Of the five high schools, the consultants said Parkview Arts and Science Magnet High School, built in 1968, was in the best shape, followed by J.A. Fair, Hall High and McClellan High. The consultants based rankings of schools on physical condition, size, location and capacity to support educational programming. Central isnt the only building with problems. The consultants recommended closing from eight to 11 of the citys elementary and junior high schools. Following is a list of those schools and some of the prottems found by the consu^ tants: Fair Park Elementary  Built in 1929, the school tanks 33id of the 35 elementanes. Ifs heating and air-conditioning system needs replacement as do the plumbing arxf electrical panel boards and al interior finish. Rerxjva- tions would cost $714,626. Woodruff Elementary  Bull in 1911, the school ranks 31st out of 35. Plumbing work Is needed as is repair of the plaster walls. Classrooms and the library are small. The consultants said the fine old building' has outlived its usefulness. Renovation costs total $212,098. Wakefield Elementary  Built in 1959. the school ranks 34lh of 35 and needs plumbing and electncai work along with complete renovation of interior surfaces. The school grounds also need improvements of fencing, sidewalks, paved areas and playground equipment. Protected renovation costs are $1.2 million. Pulaski Heights Elementary  Built in 1925. the school ranks 27th. Needs include new floor tiles and ceilings, replacement of doors and the venolanon system, plumbing and the fire alarm system. The projected cost is $1.4 million. Mitchell Incentive Elementary  Bunt In 1908. the school ranks last among the ele- mentaries. The school f^is structural problems and outdated plumbing, ventilation and electncai systems. The projeraed cost is $580,000. Jefferson Elementary  Constructed in 1950. the school tanks 30th. The school has the typical electncai. mechanical and plumbing problems. Also, the library and offices are small and load-bearing walls are damaged. The school, already undergoing expansion, would take $1.8 million to renovate. MeadowdHI Elementary  Built In 1956, the school tanks 28lh. Virtually all the plumbing and electrical systems need replacement Exterior work is needed. The cost of renovation would ba $1.1 mlKon Ish Elemerttary  Built in 1964 and closed by ths district in 1993. the school Is used on a temporary basis for children who attended Chicot before it was damaged by fire last year. Repair would cost $656,776. GatlaiKl Elementary  Built in 1922, the schrxil tanks 291h. The district has had longstanding plans to dose the school, which needs about $1.4 million in work to its plumbing, heating and electrical systems. The library and cafeteria are too small. Wilson Elementary  Built in 1927, the school tanks 18th out of 35. The school needs about $723,963 in work. Mabelvale Junior High  Built in 1952, the school stands last among the eight junior highs. The heating and air-conditioning equipment on the school roof need replacement, as do the field house and stadium bleachets.Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Committee to review LRSD study Will do the legwork oh school closings BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Oazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District will rely on a committee of patrons, employees and school board members to suggest how the dis-  Irict might use a consulting compa- riys recommendations for closing or renovating schools. Tile 3D/Intemational Co. of San Antonio presented its 13-volume, $^,000 study to the board in September. It projected that the district will lose 3,6()0 students by 2005, making school closures necessary. The consultants evaluated each building and estimated costs of repairs, additions and modernization. They presented the district with three options for dealing with the student loss and recommended closing as many as 10 elementaries and one junior high, and building one new elementary school. Doug Eaton, the district's direc- , lor of plant services, told school I board members Tuesday that an | implementation committee will\nmeet for the first time at 9 a m. Thursday to begin considering each proposal'.s possible impact on student assignments, the curricu- 1 lum, personnel, the district budget,  property tax rates and the districts desegregation plan. The committee will make its ! recommendations to the district administration, which will make recommendations to the school board. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said Tuesday that any recommendations for closing schools in 1996^97 should be presented to those schools communities in January. Before then, though, Williams and members of his staff will meet with parent and community groups to explain the study and to emphasize that no decisions on closing schools have been made. Eaton said closing schools and reassigning students will be complicated and must be phased in over several years. Board member Judy Magness said on Tuesday that the consultant's recommendations could leave more students attending schools closer to home, which many parents say they want She alsb said the recommendations coitld lead to more modem schools thiM will better prepare students forlhe 21st century. Board member Michael Daugherty asked why the district should consider closing so many elementary schools when junior highs are losing more students. Board member Linda Pondexter asked what the schools' racial composition would be under a new student assignment plan. The number of predominantly one-race schools would increase, Williams said. Among the schools that could be closed or used for other purposes If the consultants recommendations are accepted are Fair Park, Garland, Ish, Jefferson, Meadowcliff, Mitchell, Pulaski Heights, Wake- field, Wilson, WoodnilT eiemen- taries and Mabelvale Junior H igh ' FRIDAY, DECEMBER 14. 2001  Parents plead cases, but two schools stay in budget axs reach LR board hears of virtues of smallness, then adds Fair Park to possible closures Qnhflfllc for closing because of eir small wUllUUId enrollments. Badgett, at 6900 Pecan Road near the citys air-  Continued from Page 1B port, has 153 students in its regarea for potential budget cuts, ular program and another 80 en- and that he and his staff are rolled in the districts charter preparing recommendations for program, which is housed in the more reductions. same building. Dodd, 6423 Stage- In response to School Board coach Road, has 188 pupils, members who said they cant de- which is 69 percent of the build- cide on closing schools with- mgs capacity. out knowing what their other op- The average elementary tions are, James said he will give school in the district has about them some proposals after the 360 students. The average elementary first of the year. The district would save BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Were going to refuse to let Dodd close, Tiwana Noon- Faced with the possible loss er, a parent of three Dodd of their neighborhood schools pupils, said, Were going to next year to budget cuts, par- fight. Dodd parents and commu- ents and others from the Bad- gett and David O. Dodd ele- nity members pointed to the mentary school communities number of grants that the school Thursday extoUed the virtues has received in recent years to of their small schools to the Lit- restructure the way reading and tie Rock School Board. language arts are taught. Those James, who has been Little $536,048 by closing the regular Rocks school superintendent for Badgett school and another about six months, just last week $479,669 by closing the charter raised the issue of closing one program, plus $738,909 by closer more of the districts small- ing Dodti est schools next faff as a way to By closing the schools, the help offset escalating costs and number of teaching positions in a declining revenue forecast that the district could be reduced by is already affecting the districts about 20. A similar number of $224 milhon budget. support staff positions also could The district is getting $2.4 be reduced. Board members were sym- grants and programs may not pathetic and made no final de- all be transferable to other million less in state funding this cisions. schools, they said. Additional- However, by the end of the ly, they argued that the special- meeting, the School Board not ly trained staff members will be only directed Superintendent scattered across the district, diKenneth James to continue luting the effectiveness of their planning for the possible clos- training. District officials speculated, year than initially budgeted be- however, that most of the peo- cause of shortfalls that were an- pie in jobs at the affected schools nounced last month in state tax could be absorbed into other collections. That loss is expect- schools as vacancies occur be- ed to be earned forward into the cause of retirements and resignext school year when the dis- nations. ing of Badgett and Dodd as a Diane Krippendorf, a com- trict must meet contractually obligated teacher pay increases. way to save about $1.7 million, munity member, also pointed but also asked him to prepare a out that as many as 200 new feasibility study on closing a homes are planned for the Dodd third small school. Fair Park El- attendance zone, which should ementary at 616 N. Harrison St, boost the schools enrollment where about 200 pupils attend over the next few years. District According to preliminary - . plans, Badgett pupils would be The School Board must make assigned to Rockefeller and a decision on the school closings Washington elementary schools, by Jan. 10 to be able to notify Charter school pupils, who at- affected parents of the changes tend the school by applying, before registration starts for the would return to the schools that  2002 school year. That regis- serve the attendance zones in classes. officials said the new homes tration period  when parents which they live throughout the The presidents of the parent- might bring in 14 to 20 new chil- teacher associations from both dren for the school in each of Dodd and Badgett presented the the next two years. can make a variety of school district. choices for their children  begins Jan. 28. As for Dodd pupils, they School Board with petitions James has said that the pos- Thursday pleading to keep their sible school closings are just one schools. See SCHOOLS, Page 9B would be divided among West- James repeatedly acknowl- ern Hills, Romine and Otter edged that the district is decid- Creek elementary schools if their ing the issue on a very fast time school is closed. line that is contrary to districts Two bands of small children - policy that calls for school clos- set the tone for Thursdays meetings to be considered for at least ing, marching in two circles on 12 months, except in emergen- the administration buildings cies. front steps, waving posters and James assured the board that chanting in support of their is entering dire financial straits, schools, as board members ar- You dont take the largest cut rived for the meeting. Dont in state aid in the history of the close Dodd school, yelled one state and think it is business as group. usual, he said. Please dont close Badgett Badgett and Dodd are targets school, the others said.J a n u a r y 3, 2 0 0 2 District sets sessions on closing 3 schools ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School District will hold a series of public meetings, beginning today, at three low-enrollment schools under consideration for closing. The meetings are scheduled at:  Badgett Elementary, 6900 Pecan Road, 6 p.m. today. J  Dodd Element^, 6423 Stagecoach Road, 6 p.m. Monday.  Fair Park Elementary School, 616 N. Harrison St., 6 p.m. Tuesday. The meetings-are open to the public. The district proposes closing schools beginning July 1 because of state budget cuts. The Little Rock School Board will consider the proposal during its regular meeting Jan. 10 at 5 p. at the School District headquarters at 810 W. Markham St.F  Arkansas Democral-Gazette/STEPHEN B. THORNTON Badgett Elementary School parent Jerry Peters (left) Zeigler (center left), Rockefeller Elementary Principal asks Little Rock School Superintendent Ken James a Anne Mangan, and Sadie Mitchell (right), the district's question Thursday night during a public hearing at associate superintendent for school services. Mangan Badgett to discuss the schools possible closing. Lis- and Zeigler attended because Bad^tt tening are Washington Elementary Principal Gwen would attend their schools if Badgett cldses, cIroes students LR parents face closing of 3 schools Badgett meeting held\n2 more set BY PATRICK HEALY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT (JAZETIT As solemn-faced parents, teachers and administrators discussed the fate of Badgett Elementary School with urgent voices, the children played. Arm in arm, they pranced across the schools packed gym. inspected TV cameramen and galloped through the banana-yellow hallways while adults discussed shutting down Badgett, in east Little Rock, and two other Little Rock elementary schools. The 'Fliursday meeting was the first of three meetings scheduled before the School Board votes whether to close Badgett, Dodd and Fair Park elementary schools. Other meetings are scheduled at Dodd on Monday and at Fair See BADGETTj^age 4B Badgett  Continued from Page 1B Park on Tuesday. Tlie meetings are designed to let school officials explain the shutdown proposal and hear community concerns. Were still in shock, and we still dont want it to happen, said Kim Dunahay, Badgetts Parent Teacher Association president. Even if they vote to close the school, the fights not going to stop. The School Boards vote, rescheduled from Jan. 10 to Jan. 15, comes at a time of financial crisis, said Sadie Mitchell, the districts associate superintendent for school services. In addition to rhe $2.4 million state funding cut, the school district must pay $3 million in promised raises. Altogether, the school district fiiust slice $6 million from its annual budget ol $220 million. Superintendent Ken James Pb-S ! Proposed Wlendance Zones k rl \u0026amp; 31 Arkansas Democrat-Gazetle/STEPHEN B. THORNTON students if the school is closed. The informational meeting Thursday night at the school was the first of three meetings to discuss potential school closings. said, Were going to have to junious Babbs, associate superintendent for deseg-make some tough decisions. regation for the Littie Rock School District, discusses The board is considering clos- proposed attendance zones for Badgett Elementary ing Badgett, Fair Park and Dodd elenientaries primarily due to nickel-and-diine that to death. applauding when parents praised ular elementary schools, their low enrollments, James Normally, a proposal to close Badgett and spoke against its Weve tried regular schook said. This year, 153 students at- schools must be announced one closing. said Carrie Igwe, whose fourth-tend Badgett, 188 go to Dodd, and year before the shutdown date. I like it here because most of grade son, Caleb, has attention tend Badgett, 188 go to Dodd, and year before the shutdown date. ------------- 200 attend Fair Park. But with the budget cuts, James the teachers are nice, and they deficit hyperactivity disorder The average Little Rock ele- said, schools must act fast. let you come into their class- and attends the charter school.  Everybody has to be rooms and they give you treats, He has special needs    ' '  1 Igwe said her son did poorly mentary school has 363 students. ____------- ,  If the tliree schools are closed, touched, James told the crowd. 10-year-old Kenetra Lowe said . . their students would attend dif- Tliis is not a win-win situation. after the meeting. Id rather stay in his classes until he came to The one-hour meeting went here. I may be shy to go to an- Badgett. Igwe said she doesnt the next school year. more smoothly than past dis- other school. I wouldnt have any want her son to return to regu- Some teachers would find cussions about closing Badgett, friends on the first day. lar classes, and she balks at pri-     Parents and educators ex- vate school tuition. ferent schools at the start of other jobs in the district, but oth- In 1995, a proposal to close Bad- ' ers could be laid off, James said, gett met with parentsprotests pressed concern about the 83 It certainly seemed reason- and a court challenge that forced students who attend Badgetts money to send him to a private able to me, board Vice President the School Board to back down, charter school. The students, school, she said, unless the Lit- But on Thursday, audience many of whom have learning dis- tie Rock School District is going '     ......  '  to pay it for us. Judy Magness said. When youve _________ got to cut $6 million, you cant members listened quietly, twice abilities, would be sent to reg- We dont have the kind of Z 0 0 3 V A J enuBp I January 1 5. 2 0 0 2  I Some proposed cuts, such as U C n 0 01S eliminating the districts year- '*'*\"\"**** opening ceremony, reducing mail  Continued from Page 1B delivery and removing one hu- The schools have been con- man resources job, dont direct-sidered for closure primarily ly target classrooms. because of their low enrollments. Others da They mclude cutting This year, 153 pupils attend Bad- school police officers, eliminating gett, 188 go to Dodd, and 200 at- r.----------- , v tend Fair Park. The average Lit- letic programs and scaling back the middle-school or sixth-grade ath-tie Rock elementary school has fine arts budget by $400,000. 363 pupils. We will do whatever they If the three schools are closed, hand out to us. said Athledc some teachers would find other Director Johimy Johnson, who positions in the district, but some oversees the districts $1.8 milhon could be laid off James said. Because ofstate funding cuts, stone yet. the district must slash $6.5 nul- The Volunteers in Public lion from its annual budget of Schools program and its budget $220 million. Besides closing of $270,000 also could be cut Smce schools, board members are con- 1972, the program has connected sidering broad cuts to staff, trans- volunteers with schools for tutor-athletic program. Nothing is in portation, athletics, pre-kinder- ing, mentoring and field trips, garten and other programs. Debbie Milam, coordinator of * Ideas range from cutting one the program, said she under- 1 librarian to eliminating the trans- stands the budget crisis but hopes ' portation and athletic programs, her program is left alone. Such sweeping cuts probably They would lose aa wweellll-- would be pared down over time, trained, experienced staff, Mil- \u0026lt;James said. am We^U stiU volun- Some of those things you teers. We just wont have Kcant do, James said Monday, re- screened volunteers or trained fferring to the prospect of cutting volunteers. said. Well still have volun-a11 of the $5.7 million transportation program. School Board member Tony Rose said the board can tweak the 11 piu^cuil. - ----------------------------------- . James and board members will budget proposals. Instead of tnm-  meet in coming months to dis- ming the budgets at all schools cuss the 50 listed options and how by 7.5 percent, for instance, the they would affect students. board could pass that cut at 4 per- You try to get the majority [of cent or 5 percent. cnuittss]l aass ffaarr aawwaavy ffrroomm tthhee ccllaassss-- Therell be tradeoffs, he said. room as said. you possibly can, James If we cut this, then we 11 keep this. ZX* o D CfTs C5m^ o 5 33. SCT' a g\u0026lt;1 5 Sc O= 7fi - ?o a2. qgq . oS :G ^53 \"a   S g 3 ' S?! E\u0026lt; 2fl tRr 0w \" oM (Z3 f6 \u0026gt;  \u0026lt; B (/) o z cz\u0026gt; \u0026gt; co q n m aS W o 1 C3 I o \u0026lt; 5. r s ., 00  \"R Em M \u0026lt;! n O  rt rt 5 2. 2 Egmi^o-EnW  ft 3 O. m 00 OoQq O co \u0026lt;! \"R3 S2P. r* S Cu O o S CL E S 3  2. fl CL o OQ '**  \u0026lt;D  m C. \u0026lt; oE. 3 S 1 \u0026gt;1 !I\u0026lt;3 ft 3*23 0   2. a R- 3 'm' P.O !R'\"-2.3 o' r^\u0026gt;-rT r* n\u0026gt; o ..... V' n\u0026gt; O 5 LrS\nf  Q- cr w CT j \" foqft no wj [- rti w o ft -I w 3 n oq r. S' n w n K - o a R Q S S3 \" S 33 e ft 9S - - - 2 3 R- . o T 3 \u0026amp;. ? r 7 S o S n n O O o n\u0026gt; c*-  o 3 o a nj ^3 p- C. CT 0^ T o gJls-o 8\nH-S's i-- \"  3 2.-^0/ S\no o o  g -o G- 5  2. o 8 (A r V! r.   o 3 ~ 2 . -cJ rr^p Ct* w s CD CD C/3 05  CD Q CZ\u0026gt; C9 \u0026lt;\"-f \u0026lt;c/3 o n w o t3 c 2. 5=^ 3 BI I a oO ' C2T 3o C3T- o fwl a. S  a 5^ o J o S' S    5 e- M E o 5 w ^'^8 M R- OS !. o ftj \u0026gt;-: LL  n 5^ n o {r 2. 55* 1 X 3 S co CD 00 3 o Ct* a S' 5 5\" S' . R' f  s f CL n 55 c S S-g a 3  qr rse S s  \"a . S d5q ' S' B G',^3 o\u0026gt; 2. b -a S. n 1\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_909","title":"School Monitoring Report and Principals' Responses,; North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School facilities","School principals","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["School Monitoring Report and Principals' Responses,; North Little Rock School District"],"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/909"],"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\n  \n\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 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":"tmll_hpcrc_10094168","title":"State Advisory Committee 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"],"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 Commission on Civil Rights--Periodicals","Civil rights--United States--Periodicals"],"dcterms_title":["State Advisory Committee handbook"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/usccr/documents/cr162st2993z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_10094168"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["1 v. (various pagings) 23 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_969","title":"''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District","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":["1993-01/1993-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School discipline","School employees","School enrollment","School facilities","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","Gifted persons"],"dcterms_title":["''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"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/969"],"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\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\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 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_47164","title":"Stephanie Stokes Oliver, editor, Essence; Anique Oliver; Essence Awards, April 1993, New York City [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, New York, New York County, New York, 40.7142691, -74.0059729"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":["Title from item."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["Stephanie Stokes Oliver, editor, Essence; Anique Oliver; Essence Awards, April 1993, New York City [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.47164"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photomechanical printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc","portrait photographs1990-2000.gmgpc","group portraits"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_38931","title":"Stockholm Concert house, Dec. 1993 [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["Sweden, Stockholm, Stockholm Municipality, Sweden, 59.32938, 18.06871"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows gospel singer Cyndee Peters and Nelson Mandela in Stockholm, Sweden. Photo likely taken when Mandela visited Sweden after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway.","Title from item."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["Stockholm Concert house, Dec. 1993 [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.38931"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see(http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["portrait photographs1990-2000.gmgpc","photographic prints1990-2000.gmgpc","group portraits"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Peters, Cyndee","Mandela, Nelson, 1918-2013"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_789","title":"Strategic planning process","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993/2003"],"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 boards","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Strategic planning process"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/789"],"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\nACTION TEAM VOLUNTEER FORM The Little Rock School District is looking for volunteers to serve as action team members. Name ---- Lutui---- R-mail Address Phone (day) Yig-(p ------- (evening) t\u0026gt;(p3-.4z?7P_______ (FAX) 5'di- ? ?! -6 ICO Please indicate your first, second, third, etc., choice: (These are based on strategies that will require teams to plan action steps.) ___Financial resources  Employee hiring/training  4.' J^Community partnerships Xzuz^u Parent Engagement ---- Instructional strategies/data use ___ Learning environment Please return tn: Ilaiiniiig \u0026amp; Develnpnieiit Little Rock SchunI District 810 W. Markiiani St. Little Rock, AR 72201 To: From: Subject: Little Rock School June 9, 1993 Distric^5^C Mr. Horace Smith, Desegregation Monitoring Office Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent for School Operations and Climate Long-Range Strategic Plan During our meeting held on May 28, 1993 we discussed a long-range strategic plan to be implemented at each of the Incentive Schools. As Arma Hart mentioned in the meeting, diligently to finalize their plans. principals are trying We would like to have a common format for all the long-range strategic plans. It would be most helpful if you could provide us with a sample format to ensure that we have included all the components necessary for these plans. Your assistance, as always, is greatly appreciated. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Strategic Planning Workbook THE CAMBRIDGE GROUPStrategic Planning Workbook THE CAMBRIDGE GROUP hTHE CAMBRIDGE GROUP INTERNATIONAL \u0026amp; DOMESTIC AFFILIATES William J. Cook, Jr., Ph.D. President, Chairman of the Board Judy Wallace Cook Secretary- Treasurer Vonda C. McLain Vice-President, General Manager Constance Anderson Director of Programs Jill Aubume Cook Director of Publications Hobbie Register Office Manager SENIOR ASSOCIATES Stephen V. Barone Howard}. Feddema, Ed.D. Lawrence W. Huggins ASSOCIATES William D. Breck, Ed.D. Donald D. Burger Suzanne Connelly Mark Fredisdorf, Ed.D. Lisa D. Grant Lindsey Gunn, Ph.D. Veronica Huggins Maureen Innes David R. Jennings, Ph.D. Keith W. Lutz, Ed.D. Stephanie Pace Marshall, Ph.D. Charles G. Mason, Ph.D. Claudia J. Martinez James A. McMurray John Messell Carlene Naylor Glenn M. Pclecky, Ed.D. Kay Psencik, Ed.D. Glenn F. Smartschan, Ed.D. Christopher L. Sny, Ph.D. LaVoneia C. Steele, Ed.D. William M. Stuart Odell Stuckey, Ed.D. George J. Szy'manski, Ph.D. Pat Tillotson, Ed.D, Marcia Venus, Ph.D. Ronald Z. Zook, Ed.D. South East Regional Resource Center, Alaska Association for the Advancement of International Education Association of California School Administrators Canadian Strategic Planning Centre for Education, British Columbia Canadian Strategic Planning Centre for Education, Ontario Canadian Strategic Planning Centre for Education, Saskatchewan Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22, Delaware Illinois Association of School Administrators Central Indiana Education Service Center Iowa Area Education Agencies Kentucky School Boards Association Michigan Institute for Educational Management Minnesota Association of School Administrators Southern Education Consortium, Mississippi Rensselaer-Columbia-Greene Counties Board Of Cooperative Educational Services, New York Buckeye Association of School Administrators, Ohio Bucks County Intermediate Unit #22, Pennsylvania South Carolina School Boards Association Texas Association of School Administrators Wisconsin Association of School Boards Copyright  1993 Colonial-Cambridge Management Group, Inc. All rights reserved. Except as noted below, no part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, transcribed, stored in a retrieval system, or translated into any language in any form by any means without the written permission of Colonial-Cambridge Management Group, Inc. Licenses Contents of the section Reproducible Materials are licensed for reproduction only by internal facilitators who are certified by The Cambridge Group. This license allows that these masters may be reproduced to make transparencies and hard copy for the purpose of facilitating strategic planning sessions and/or making informational presentations when the certified facilitator providing such services is a full-time employee of the organization for which the strategic plan is being developed. The reproduction of these materials for sale or loan to others is expressly prohibited. Prohibited also is the use of these materials by independent consultants, facilitators, or other individuals for the purpose of providing strategic planning facilitation, consultation, or other seivices for remuneration to any organization of which they are not a full-time employee. CORPORATE OFFICE 5795 Carmichael Parkway Montgomeiy, Alabama 36117 (205) 279-7150 Facsimile (205) 279-7151 Orders* To order additional copies of the Strategic Planning Workbooks. please contact Hobbie Register at The Cambridge Group by phone 205/279-7150 or fax 205/279-7151. The following information should accompany your order:  Name  Shipping Address  Purchase Order Number  Organization  City/State/Zip  Number of Workbooks  Date Materials are Needed  Certification Program Attended Available to Gradi ates of the Strategic Planning Certification Program I Contents I Definitions 1 Beiiefs 3 Mission 5 Strategic Poiicies (Parameters) 7 Strengths 9 Weaknesses 11 Criticai Anaiysis of Organization 13 Competition 15 Externai Anaiysis 17 Objectives IS Strategies 21 Action Pians 23 Reproducibie Materiais 25 C 1993 Colonial-Cambridge Managemetit Group. Inc.Strategic Planning Workbook DEFINITIONS ^BELIEFS A statement of the organizations fundamental convictions, its values, its character. EMISSION A broad statement of the unique purpose for which the organization exists and the specific function it performs. * STRATEGIC POLICIES (parameters) Management pronouncements that establish the parameters within which the organization will accomplish its mission. STRENGTHS Characteristics which contribute to the ability of the organization to achieve its mission. WEAKNESSES Characteristics that limit the ability of the organization to achieve its mission. ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN The arrangement of functions and relationships among people within an enterprise. COMPETITION Any entity that successfully attempts to fill the same need as the planning organization. EXTERNAL ANALYSIS An examination of those forces over which an organization has little or no control. External change usually impacts an organization by virtue of its existence in a larger, sometimes more complex situation. ^OBJECTIVES An expression of the desired, measurable end results for the organization. For a school district, objectives are restricted to student success, performance, and/or achievement. ^STRATEGIES The broadly stated means of deploying resources to achieve the organizations objectives. ACTION PLANS The explicit portion of a given strategy that outlines the tasks required to implement the program, the person responsible for each task, the due date for the completion of each task, and an analysis of the benefit and costs for the specific action plan. O 1993 Colonial-C'amhriilge Management Clrottp. Inc. 1 2BELIEFS ) DEFINITION A statement of the organizations fundamental convictions, its values, its character. H 7?r'sr$ {25 IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The belief statement provides the bedrock values which move the organization to commit itself to a specific mission and objectives. It establishes moral and ethical Lhfc* priorities which serve to guide all the organizations activities. The beliefs should not J be mere observations or statements of fact, but sincere, uncompromising convictions. They should be universal in application, but specific in meaning. i4 JX Tpr^cc^ A EXAMPLES We believe that: r Excellence is achievable and always worth the investment. Each individual has unlimited potential. s\u0026gt; Education is the discovery of truth and the creation of new realities. All people have equal intrinsic worth. All people can learn anything. The family is the primary influence in the development of the individual^ Higher expectations yield higher results. USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE BELIEFS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION. O /99J Colonial-Cambruige Management Group. Inc. 3 (Beliefs Continued) 4 Strategic Planning Workbook MISSION DEFINITION A broad statement of the unique purpose for which the organization exists and the specific function it performs. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The mission is literally the keystone upon which the entire plan is built. Typically written in one sentence, it provides the primary focus of the organization. The mission statement must emphasize the uniqueness, the distinctiveness, the singularity of the organization. Essentially, it represents the commitment of the organizations resources to one purpose. EXAMPLES The mission of the School District is to guarantee all students 100% success through a network of independent competing instructional services that actualize the unique potential of each person.  The mission of the School District is to produce graduates with unlimited capacity to compete in a superior manner in any challenge they undertake by guaranteeing each individual customized, all-inclusive learning experiences, integrating the unique agricultural, medical, and historical resources of our diverse community. USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE MISSION OF YOUR ORGANIZATION.  1993 Coloniat-Camhridge Management Group. Inc. 5 6 (Mission Continued) Strategic Planning Workbook STRATEGIC POLICIES (parameters) DEFINITION Management pronouncements that establish the parameters within which the organization will accomplish its mission. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The purpose of the parameters is to place self-imposed limitations on the organization\nthat is, to close doors. As such, they sharpen the mission and eliminate the need for continuously making the same decision. Parameters must be stated in exact terms and, typically, will be written in the negative. EXAMPLES Nothing will take precedence over the Pre K-12 instructional program. We will practice participative management at all levels of the organization. We will not tolerate prejudicial discrimination of any kind. * We will not tolerate ineffective employees. All decisions will be made based strictly on what is best for the individual student. USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE PARAMETERS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION.  1993 Colonial-Cambridge Mauagetnent Group, Inc. 7 (Strategic Policies Continued) 8 Strategic Planning Workbook STRENGTHS DEFINITION Characteristics which contribute to the ability of the organization to achieve its mission. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING Strengths are those present attributes that will be most effective in achieving the mission. Organizations that achieve excellence do so by capitalizing on their strengths\nthat is, doing what they do best. EXAMPLES Movement toward participative management Opportunity for professional growth Ability to cope with change * Innovative programs Leadership development efforts Commitment to scholarship Board of Education committed to quality Counseling program Financial resources USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE STRENGTHS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION.  1993 Cotonial-CambruJge .Management Group, Inc. 9 10 (Strengths Continued)Strategic Planning Workbook WEAKNESSES DEFINITION Characteristics that limit the ability of the organization to achieve its mission. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The weaknesses are those inadequacies that must be overcome if the organization is to accomplish its mission. EXAMPLES * Staff resistance to innovation and change Poorly defined decision-making process  School to school inequalities Inadequate salaries and competitive salary schedules Testing data available but not usable * Inefficient central office organization Over crowded curriculum (unclear objectives) Inequity of expectations Inefficiency of neighborhood school concept Trying to be everything to everybody * Combination classes and schools Elementary grading system Perception of massive data handling without effective outcomes USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE WEAKNESSES OF YOUR ORGANIZATION.  J993 C(\u0026gt;lonial-Camhridf\u0026gt;e.Management Group. Inc. 11 12 (Weaknesses Continued)Strategic Planning Workbook CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATION DEFINITION The arrangement of accountabilities, authority, and information among people within an enterprise. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The organizational design is itself strategic, because it represents commitment of resources toward mission and objectives. A critique of the present organizational design quite often reveals its inappropriateness for the changing strategic direction of the enterprise. EXAMPLE Critique of the Organization Design: Span of Influence Gaps Redundancies (Duplications) Decision-making Implications Formal vs. Informal USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE AND CRITIQUE THE ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN OF YOUR ORGANIZATION. (dO NOT ATTEMPT TO DRAW AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHART)  1993 Colonial-Cambrid^e Manafienienl Group. Inc. 13 (Critical Analysis of Organization Continued) I 14Strategic Planning Workbook COMPETITION DEFINITION Any entity that successfully attempts to fill the same need as the planning organization. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING A careful analysis of competition is quite often the most productive way of analyzing the planning organization. Dominant characteristics are both contrasted and compared in order to determine the competitions points of vulnerability. EXAMPLE Privale/Parochial Schools Their Advantages 1. Small classes 2. Snob appeal 3. Discipline control 4. Select students 5. Free from state mandates Our Advantages: 1. Public funding 2. Student diversity 3. Multi-cultural 4. Facilities and equipment 5. Teacher qualification Vulnerability: The question of cost versus quality USE THIS SPACE TO LIST YOUR COMPETITION - ADVANTAGES, DISADVANTAGES, AND VULNERABILITY. C 1995 Colonial-Cambruige Managemetii Group, Inc. 15 (Competition Continued) \u0026lt; 16Strategic Planning Workbook EXTERNAL ANALYSIS DEFINITION An examination of those forces over which an organization has little or no control. External change usually impacts an organization by virtue of its existence in a larger, sometimes more complex situation. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING External, or environmental changes may present significant opportunities if they are appropriately anticipated and structured into programs to capitalize on them\nor, they may present a threat, making it necessary to alter products or modify methods of doing business. By identifying political, technological, and socioeconomic changes, isolating the significant factors, and determining their probable impact, either offensive or defensive programs can be structured to exploit the potential offered or to soften the total impact. EXAMPLE List each social, political, economic, demographic, technological or educational trend. Develop predictions and probable impacts.  CATEGORY: ECONOMIC FACTOR PREDICTION IMPACT I. Public School Revenue I. A. General fund revenue mandated by formula from state 1. A. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. B. Board choice to hold budget/bond election B. 1. 2. Limits programs Limits staff Limits supplies/materials Affects class size Possible school closures/ including busing Reduced building maintenance Revenues not guaranteed Polarizes community USE THIS SPACE TO LIST OTHER EXTERNAL FACTORS, PREDICTIONS, AND IMPACTS.  1993 Coionial-Cambridge Management Group, Inc. 17J ll 1/ (External Analysis Continued) i 18 IStrategic Planning Workbook OBJECTIVES DEFINITION An expression of the desired, measurable end results for the organization. For a school district, objectives are restricted to student success, performance, and/or achievement. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING The objectives are practical, specific manifestations of the mission. They express, in measurable terms (time, money, quality, quantity) the results the organization will achieve as it fulfills its mission. Specifically stated, they must have broad, organization-wide implications. And they are aspirations, not projections. EXAMPLES * To have 100% of our students graduate or successfully complete their individual achievement programs. No later than 1995, 100% of our high school graduates will be in a post-secondary educational program or in an endeavor of their choice within six months of the successful completion of their educational program. USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE OBJECTIVES OP YOUR ORGANIZATION. O 1993 Colonial-Cambridfie Management Group. Inc. 19 (Objectives Continued) 20Strategic Planning Workbook STRATEGIES DEFINITION The broadly stated means of deploying resources to achieve the organizations objectives. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING In the broadest sense strategy comprehends purpose, function, policies, beliefs, objectives, strategies, and concrete action plans\nhence, strategic planning. But the word strategy in this instance is used in a narrower sense and refers to the means used to achieve the objectives in the organization and its major parts. The objectives are the what\nthe strategies are the how. EXAMPLES We will put in place a network of independent, competing instructional services maximizing flexibility, freedom of choice, 100% success rate, contracts between teachers/students, collaboration with community and corporations. We will organize the district strategically, including instruction and support services to concentrate all efforts and resources toward student success. We will develop the character of each student, with emphasis on appreciation of the common core of human values and a respect for our common traditions of excellence. We will energize and integrate all aspects of our diverse community into full support and implementation of the mission and objectives. We will form a lasting partnership with each graduate and maintain knowledge of his/her progress. We will develop and implement a whole-life learning network. USE THIS SPACE TO LIST STRATEGIES FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION.  1993 Coionial-Cambridge iManagement Group. Inc. 21 22 (Strategies Continued)Strategic Planning Workbook ACTION PLANS DEFINITION The explicit portion of a given strategy that outlines the tasks required to implement that program, the person responsible for each task, the due date for the completion of each task, and an analysis of the benefits and costs for the specific action plan. IMPORTANCE IN PLANNING Action plans insure that the strategies are implemented. They allow specific assignments of tasks to individuals within the organization\nthey provide a means for measuring both individual and organizational performance\nand they provide an effective system of accountability. EXAMPLE See the Action Plan form. USE THIS SPACE TO DESCRIBE THE ACTION PLANS OF YOUR ORGANIZATION.  1993 Colonial-Cambruige Management Group. Inc. 23 24 (Action Plans Continued) riStrategic Planning Workbook Reproducible Materials This section contains material designed to be reproduced by you for use with your district. Included are masters for Action Plan and Cost Benefit Analysis forms. They are copyrighted materials for which a limited license is granted to the purchaser of this workbook. LICENSE GRANTED Contents of the section Reproducible Materials are licensed for reproduction only by internal facilitators who are certified by The Cambridge Group. This license allows that these masters may be reproduced to make transparencies and hard copy for the purpose of facilitating strategic planning sessions and/or making informational presentations when the certified facilitator providing such services is a full-time employee of the organization for which the strategic plan is being developed. The reproduction of these materials for sale or loan to others i,s expressly prohibited. Prohibited also i.s the use of these materials by independent consultants, facilitators, or other individuals for the purpose of providing strategic planning facilitation, consultation, or other services for remuneration to any organization of which they are not a full-time employee.  1993 Cdonfal-Cambridge Management Group. Inc. 25 Action Plan Specific Results: Strategy No. Plan No. Date\n# Action Step (Number each one) Assigned To: Starling Date: Due Date: Completed Date: t 26  i993 Colonial-Camhridge Management Group. Inc Responsible: (Shaded areas for management phase)Cost-Benefit Analysis Costs Benefits Tangible: Intangible: Opportunity Costs: O 1993 Colonial Cambridge Management Croup. Inc. Tangible: Intangible: Strategy No. Plan No. Date: Return on Investment: 27 THE CAMBRIDGE GROUP A DIVISION OF COLONIAL-C AM BR 1 DC E MANAGEMENT GROUP. INC. 5796 CARMICHAEL PARKWAY MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36117 (205) 279-7150 FAX (205) 279-7151  1993 COLONIAL-CAMBRIDGE MANAGEMENT GROUP. INC. NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THE PUBLISHER. Page 2 Feel free to invite other memho-rg of your group. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 to make your reservations so that we can provide adequate seating. Looking forward to working with you. Thanks again. Sincerely, Henry P. illians Superintendent of Schools  die LriTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 25, 1995 JAN 3 0 1995 Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 0f?.'C2 q\nLittle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Mooney: I am delighted that you have agreed to serve on the strategic planning team for the Little Rock School District. I am certain that this process will help determine the future direction of the district. Dr. Howard Feddema will serve as the facilitator for the strategic planning process. He is associated with the Cambridge Management Group located in Montgomery, Alabama. Listed below is the schedule for the planning sessions, to be held at the Excelsior Hotel. Tuesday, Feb. 14 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Planning Session (Light supper provided) An Wednesday, Feb. 15 Thursday, Feb. 16 Friday, Feb. 17 informational session 7:30 3:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 3:00 a.m. Breakfast 3:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 3:00 a.m. Breakfast 3:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Planning Session for members of the planning team. community organizations, and others will be held on Monday, Feb. 6 from 5:30 7:30 p.m. Building, 310 West Markham. in the Board Room of the Administration Please plan on attending this meeting. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201  (501) 324.2000 9 Statement of Intention to Establish Green Factor Research Committees Presented to the LRSD Board of Directors - February 9. 1995 As part of the process for moving the Little Rock School District toward unitary status, the Superintendent intends to implement the following measures: A. Establish, committees to research specific areas, Green Factors, that have potential for achieving unitary status Committees will be established to research the following areas\n1. Student Assignment 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Faculty Ratios Staff Ratios Transportation Extracurricular Activities Facilities Student Achievement FEB 9 1995 tries Qi L u 4 The work of the committees will be coordinated by Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, and the Student Assignment Office. B. Define the composition of the committees and the structure of their work Each committee will be composed of ten to fifteen people who understand the importance of unitary status in the Little Rock School District. The committees will include persons with appropriate skills in observing, interpreting, and communicating conditions and factors of influence in the topic areas. Committee members will include teachers, administrators, and community members. Each committee will be co-chaired by a LRSD administrator and an individual selected by the Superintendent. Each committee will produce a report that addresses the opportunity for the LRSD to seek unitary status in its respective area. The reports will identify if such action is feasible and provide information to support its findings. C. Identify the funding source for the committees The Green Factor Research Committees will be financed with funds from the LRSD legal fees account. Approximately 512,000 - $15,000 is anticipated for this activity. Project Timeframe: The Superintendent intends to submit a resolution to the Board for action at the next Board meeting on the establishment of Green Factor Research Committees. Each Research Committee will be expected to deliver its report with a six-week period. Assuming project start up by March 1, the Green Factor reports should be available by mid-April./7/\u0026gt;S JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 FEB 1 5 1995 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. 05fii t i k-,,. February 13, 1995 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: I hope that your visit to New Orleans last week after the agenda session was both professionally and personally rewarding. We missed you at the school board meeting where we represented a series of children who had not only been put out of school, but had been arrested as well. Your perspective regarding that issue would have been useful for posterity if nothing else. I am writing to advise you that the Joshua Intervenors will not participate in the District's latest long range planning process which is scheduled to begin, ironically, on Valentine's. Day. The irony is that the District does not consider Black children, especially boys, as sweethearts\nrather, they are viewed almost universally as hoodlums who lie and have no interest in school other than to be disruptive. We can not participate for a number of reasons some of which I now proceed to set out. The first one is set forth in paragraph two above. undertaking is faulty. The second is that the premise of the It presumes that the existing desegregation plan is unworkable and needs to be changed. I can not agree with this premise because the existing plan is the Board's plan which was arrived at over a lengthy period of time and involved much of the community. It was an ambitious undertaking designed to remediate, desegregate and retain children in school, especially Black children. The Board and successive administrations have manipulated public opinion to the view that the plan is unworkable and that our children are criminals in waiting. Because of that prophesy, administrators and Board members yield to the public mentality calling for public repression and more severe punishment measures for actions that often should be the basis for counseling. Your Board seems to forget that the children have constitutional rights that await vindication and that teachers, principals and even police officers are in the schools to vindicate constitutional rights. You all have subverted the process by reversing the question ofwho the intended beneficiaries point. are. This brings me to my third The desegregation plan calls for reduction of suspensions and expulsions. Rather than reduce suspensions and expulsions, the Board and administration have chosen to increase them. Moreover, it now totally disregards the concept imbedded in the desegregation plan that school staff are in loco parentis status rather than police status. As stand-in parents, it is inconceivable that the District would allow police officers to make school disciplinary judgments and then allow the criminal judicial system to incarcerate juveniles without bail for four days and nights. Yet that is what happened to Mabelvale Junior High School students who were simply involved in a fight, approach allows a principal to abdicate her responsibility for making disciplinary decisions by deferring to police authorities the District placed in the environment. These parents were not on notice that they were sending their children to school to be subjected to nonschool ultimate determinations involving simple The social and economic adversities which conveyance of this discretion to resource officers visit upon Black children is immense and pervasive. Police authorities should be removed from the schools or take their orders from school authorities after As stand-in parents This fights. due consideration of due process considerations and the desegregation plan itself. I remind you that we have repeatedly called to the Board's attention the numerous indiscretions and discriminatory acts of Ms. Gayle Bradford at Cloverdale and Mabelvale Junior High Schools. You, your predecessor and the Board have not taken our monitoring reports and other correspondence seriously. We have advised you that Ms. Bradford's situation appears designed to frustrate the desegregation plan and to deny equal education to Black children. You should also be reminded that a large number of the Black staff members have protested her treatment of them and of students. Contrast, if you will, your reaction to those staff members with your reaction to the white staff members at Mablevale Elementary School to a Black principal. I can provide many more examples for you and have done so in the past, reinforces my fourth point. This The School District takes whatever action necessary to goodwill of white patrons and attendance of their children. The same is true of your white staff. We can not P^^'ticipate in a procedure or process where racial views predominate in a manner contrary to achievement and vindication of constitutional rights. Fifth, we participated in a similar process in 1993. modeled on the Syracuse City School District \"Strategic Plan 1991-1996\". See memo to Estelle Matthis from Rin Mnnnov Ha' It was ---- ----  See memo to Estelle Matthis from Bill Mooney dated 7\"\n- That process was under your aegis although you did not officially come to the District until October of 1993. August 23, 1993. have never received a report of the consequences of our work in I 1993. I request a report at this time on that matter. If ourrevisit the same issue in 1995. work was productive in 1993, why is it necessary for us to In passing, I note that Leon Modeste was involved in the Syracuse plan and I believe that your present consultant, whose name I believe is Howard Feddema, was also. The District seems to continually try to recreate the wheel which brings me to my sixth point. The desegregation plan adopted by the Board has never been implemented in good faith. Look at the various ODM reports, the Joshua reports and the Courts various findings. I would like to be made privy to any session involving the public which has been convened for the purpose of implementing the existing plan since you have been here. nothing. It goes without saying that Dr. Bernd did I must therefore conclude that the Board and administration no longer, if they ever did, intend to implement the court approved plan. This bring me to my final point. Joshua can not participate in a process designated to denigrate the court approved plan where the announced goal is to \"get the District out of Federal Court\", especially where the District's treatment of Black children cries out more than ever before for the protection of the Court. As an African American, you more than any of your predecessors, should be aware that our long, tedious, tortured \"stride toward freedom\" has been secured through legal actions taken through and by the Court. It looks as if that is the only arena where we can at least get a fair hearing in these times and hope to have the interests of our children protected. For these and other reasons, count us out. of the \"Strategic Plannning: Creating the Future\" process. Instead, we ask that you devote as much time in implementing the plan and in treating all children as contemplated by it as you and the Board would devote to its dismantlement. Si\nerely, .n W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown C0RR2O Contact Person: Sterling Ingram 324-2124 Date: August 23, 1993 To: Estelle Matthis From: Bill Mooney Subj: Syracuse Strategic Plan and Action Plan Examples Based on our discussions in last Fridays Cabinet meeting, I have made a copy of the Syracuse Strategic Plan and copies of some Action Plan examples. This represents everything I have obtained from Syracuse. I tried to remove any of my working notes from the source document, but please forgive me if I missed some of them. If I can be of any other help, just give me a call. ) zI k JOHN W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Litile Rock, Arkansas t2206 Telethone (501) FAX (501) 374-4187 r JOHN W. walker R.ALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. I, February 13, 1995 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Harkhaa--- - Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr, Williams! I hope that your visit to New Orleans last week after the agenda session was both professionally and personally rewardi^. We missed you at the school board meeting where we represented a series of children who had not only been put out of school, but had been arrested as well. Your perspective regarding that issue would have been useful for posterity if nothing else. I ironically, on valentine's. I am writing to advise you that the Joshua Intervenors will not participate in the District's latest long range plannii^ process which is scheduled to begin, ironically, on Valer)tine a Day. The irony is that the District does not consider Black children, especially boys, as sweethearts\nrather, they are viewed almost universally as hoodlums who lie and have no interest in school other than to be disruptive. I I I 1 We can not participate for a number of reasons some of which The first one is set forth in I now proceed to set out.  --- The second is that the premise of the paragraph two above. undertaking is faulty. --r----- j t ..--r. desegregation plan is unworkable chang^. I can not agree with this premise because the existing plan is ^e It presumes that the existing and needs to be changed. Board's plan which was arrived at over a lengthy period of tine lived much of the community. It was an ambitious and involved undertaking designed to remediate, desegregate and retain children in school, especially Black children. successive administrations have manipulated public opinion to the view that the plan is unworkable and that our chil^^ are criminals in waiting. Because of that prophesy, administrators and Board members yield to the public mentality calling for public repression and more severe punishment measures for actions that often should be the basis for counseling. Your Board seems to forget that the children have constitutional rights that avait vindication and that teachers, principals and even police officers are in the schools to vindicate constitutional rights. You all have subverted the process by reversing the question of criminals in waiting. JO'd 00I0I2I 01 The Board and fd uHof woaj Z3J3I 2661/21/20who the Intended beneficiaries are. point. This brings ne to sty third i The desegregation plan calls for reduction of suspensions and expulsions. Rather than reduce suspensions and expulsions. the Board and administration have chosen to increase them. Moreover, it now totally disregards the concept imbedded in the desegregation plan that school staff are in loco parentis status rather than police status. As stand-in parents, it is inconceivable that the District would allow police officers to make school disciplinary judgments and then allow the criminal judicial system to incarcerate juveniles without bail for four days and nights. Yet that is what happened to Mabelvale Junior High School students who were simply involved in a fight. This approach allows a principal to abdicate her responsibility for making disciplinary decisions by deferring to police authorities the District placed in the environment. These parents were not on notice that they were sending their children to school to be subjected to nonschool ultimate determinations involving simple The social and economic adversities which conveyance of f ights. tills discretion to resource officers visit upon Black children is immense and pervasive. Police authorities should be removed from the schools or take their orders from school authorities after due consideration of due process considerations and the I remind you that we have repeatedly desegregation plan itself. called to the Board's attention the numerous indiscretions and discriminatory acts of Ms. Gayle Bradford at Cloverdale and Mabelvale Junior High Schools. You, your predecessor and the Board have not taken our monitoring reports and other correspondence seriously. We have advised you that Ms. Bradford's situation appears designed to frustrate the desegregation plan and to deny equal education to Black children. You should also be reminded that a large number of the Black staff members have protested her treatment of them and of students. Contrast, if you will, your reaction to those staff members with your reaction to the white staff members at Mablevale Elementary School to a Black principal. T many more examples for you and have done so in the past. I can provide This reinforces my fourth point. The School District takes whatever action necessary to retain the goodwill of white patrons and attendance of their children. The same is true of your white staff. We can not participate in a procedure or process where racial views predominate in a manner contrary to achievement and vindication of constitutional rights. Fifth, we participated in a similar process in 1993. It was modeled on the Syracuse City School District \"Strategic Plan 1991-1996'. See leuo to Estelle Matthis from Bill Mooney dated August 23, 1993. That process was under your aegis although you did not officially come to the District until October of 1993. I have never received a report of the consequences of our work in 1993. I request a report at this time on that matter. If our C0  d 00IO1ZE Oi H'd aajiitin'n iiHor uoad 21-: a I S64,/I/Z0I productive in 1993, why is it necessary for us to sao passina, L\u0026lt; work was revisit the same issue in 1995. In passing, 1 note that Leon Modeste was Involved in the Syracuse plan and T believe that your present consultant, whose name I believe is Howard Feddema, iw as also. The District seems to continually try to recreate the wheel which brings se to ny sixth point. The desegregation plan adopted by the Board has never been Implemented in good faith. Look at the various ODM reports, the Joshua reports and the Courts various findings. I would like to be made privy to any session involving the public which has been convened for the purpose of implementing the existing plan since you have been here. nothing. It goes without saying that Dr. Bernd did I Bust therefore conclude that the Board and administration no longer, if they ever did, intend to implement the court approved plan. This bring me to my final point. Joshua can not participate in a process designated to denigrate the court approved plan where the announced goal is to \"get the District out of Federal Court\", especially where the District's treatment of Black children cries out more than ever before for the protection of the Court. As an African Anerican, you more than any of your predecessors, should be aware that our long, tedious, tortured \"stride toward freedom\" has been secured through legal actions taken through and by the Court. It looks as if that is the only arena where we can at least get a fair hearing in these times and hope to have the interests of our children protected. For these and other, reasons, count us out of the \"Strategic Plannnlng: Creating the Future\" process. Instead, we ask that you devote as much time in implementing the plan and in treating all children as contemplated by it as you and the Board would devote to Its dlssantlenent. Sincerely, in W. Walker JWW\njs co: Ms. Ann Brown Id ' ' M ut i,-ac. FES 1 'I9\u0026lt;\ns Offics of Dessgregit\na IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W, KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM EXPENDING SUBSTANTIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDS WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL AND FOR OTHER RELIEF The Joshua intervenors respectfully move the Court to enjoin the Little Rock School District from expending unbudgeted, large sums of school district fends without prior court approval. They also ask the Court to require the Little Rock School District to specify what action they have taken during the 1994-95 school year for compliarxie or in order to promote compliance with their own desegregation initiatives. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the Court that 1. The school district administration and school board have embarked upon a course of action to dismantle the court approved desegregation, integration and remediation plans herein. They have done this through, i.e., bad faith disputation of the plan, disregard lor remediation, proliferation of oiscipiinaiy consequences upon Black children, public relations actions designed to misrepresent facts within the schools, proposing to closing more schools in minority and low income areas, increasing rather than decreasing transportation burdens upon minority children, and expending or proposing to expend large sums of district furxjs to supplement salaries of fevered district personnel under trie guise of 'green Factor* resaarcri committees. For trie latter point, please see exhibit A, a statement approved by the LRSO Board of Directors on February 9,1995. For the other points, Joshua respectfully requests leave to take discovery on them prior to a hearing. 2. The school district plarts to engage in a long rang strategic planning conference beginning on February 14, 1995. The District engaged in such a process in August and September, 1993. The purpose of the confererx^e is to find ways to dismantle the court approved desegregation plan. Such plan, if undertaken for trie stated purpose, is not in good feith\ntherefore, the process should not be allowed. If it is allowed, however, we respectfully submit that the Court should not have any official role in the proceeding through ODM or otherwise because such approach is contrary to the interests of Black children in the District WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to allow them to take discovery, set this matter down for early hearing and thereafter enter an Order (a) finding that the districts actions represent bad faith implementation (rf implementation at all) of trie Court approved Desegregation Plan\nand (b) enjoining the district from proceeding with substantial furtding initiatives including school closings wBhout prior Court approval. Respectfully submitted,t- 0  d 1H i 0 i JOHN W. WALKER. PJL 1723 Broadway Little Rock. AR T23X (501) 374-37S8 loKn W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was fonwarded to all counsel of record, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this__ day of February, 1995. Johi Walker STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE NAMES ADDRESS PHONE/FAX Anderson, Dr. Victor 6700 \"H\" Street Little Rock, AR 72205 671-6200 (work) 671-6207 (fax) Beason, David 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 324-2060 (work) 324-2032 (fax) Briggs, Mona 401 N. Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72205 671-6250 (work) 671-6294 (fax) Coleman, Eleanor 1500 West 4th Street Little Rock, AR 72201 372-3519 (home) 375-4620 (fax) Crary, Don 209 West Capitol, 2nd Floor Little Rock, AR 72201 374-1011 (work) 688-8342 (fax) Dedner, Kevin 3314 Holt Road Little Rock, AR 72204 228-0472 (home) student at Central Frazier, Lee Two SL Vincent Circle Little Rock, AR 72205 660-3000 (work) 660-2329 (fax) Harris, Tyronne 901 Martin L. King Dr. Little Rock, AR 72202 324-2135 (work) Johnson, Brad 12017 Cherrystone Circle Little Rock, AR 72209 455-2068 (home) student at Fair Kennedy, Barbara 6423 Stagecoach Road Little Rock, AR 72204 455-7430 (work) 455-7427 (fax) Kohler, Dr. Patty 100 S. Arch Little Rock, AR 72201 324-2180 (work) 324-2032 (fax) Martin, Mahlon 308 East 8th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 376-6854 (work) 374-4797 (fax) Mason, Jesse 2801 S. University Little Rock, AR 72204 569-3584 (work) 569-3588 (fax) Matthis, Estelle 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 324-2010 (work) 324-2146 (fax) Mayo, Dr. Russ 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72201 324-2271 (work) 324-2281 (fax) Miller, Virgil P.O. Box 1681 Little Rock, AR 72203 378-1251 (work) 378-1146 (fax)Strategic Planning Committee Page 2 Milton, Ken 2410 Battery Street Little Rock, AR 72206 324-2415 (work) 324-2150 (fax) Mooney, Bill 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 376-6200 (work) 371-0100 (fax) Moore, Delia P.O. Box 3257 Little Rock, AR 72203 376-4567 (work) 376-7607 (fax) Riggs, John 9125 Interstate 30 Little Rock, AR 72209 570-3528 (work) 570-3525 (fax) Robertson, Zeke P.O. Box 1611 Little Rock, AR 72203 373-3383 (work) 373-3090 (fax) Smith, Carole 5709 Kavanaugh Little Rock, AR 72207 663-4334 (work) Steward, John 924 S. Midland Little Rock, AR 72205 378-2154 (work) Stewart, Hezekiah 3701 Confederate Blvd. Little Rock, AR 72206 378-0176 (work) 378-0432 (fax) Strickland, Carroll 4107 Bruno Little Rock, AR 72209 565-5012 (work) Vibhakar, Diane 3917 S. Lookout Little Rock, AR 72205 661-8030 (home) Walker, John 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 374-3758 (work) 374-4187 (fax) Warren, Judge Joyce W. 1916 South Pine Street Little Rock, AR 72204 340-6725 (work) 340-6788 (fax) Wells, Kathy 2121 S. Gaines Street Little Rock, AR 72206 374-7269 (home) Williams, Dr. Henry 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 324-2100 (work) 324-2146 (fax) lisupI REMINDER RECEIVED FEB 1 3 W5 OJfice of Desefife\u0026lt;j2fiy( i- LRSD Strategic Planning Process Begins Tuesday, February 14,1995 5:30 p.m. (Light Dinner Provided) Excelsior Hotel Caraway Boom Valet Parking Provided (Identify yourself as participant in LRSD meeting) Dress Casual! Call 324-2112 if you have any questions. See you there!!!RECF' -WK FEB 1 4 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-O82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM EXPENDING SUBSTANTIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FUNDS WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL AND FOR OTHER RELIEF The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to enjoin the Little Rock School District from expending unbudgeted, large sums of school district fends without prior court approval. They also ask the Court to require the Little Rock School District to specify what action they have taken during the 1994-95 school year for compliance or in order to promote compliance with thar own desegregation initiatives. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the Court that 1. The school district administration and school board have embarked upon a course of action to dismantle the court approved desegregation, integration and remediation plans herein. They have done this through, i.e., bad faith disputation of the plan, disregard for remediation, proliferation of oiscipiinaiy consequences upon Black children, public relations actions designed to misrepresent facts within theschools, proposing to closing nrare schools in minority and low irxxxne areas, increasing rather than decreasing transportation burdens upon minority children, and expending or proposing to expend large sums of district funds to supplement salaries of favored district personnel under the guise of 'green Factor' research committees. For the latter point, please see exhibit A, a statement approved by the LRSD Board of Directors on February 9, 1995. For the other points, Joshua respectfuUy requests leave to take discovery on them prior to a hearing. 2. The school district plarts to engage in a long rang strategic planning confererxje beginning on February 14, 1995. The District engaged in such a process in August and September, 1993. The purpose of the conference is to find ways to dismantle the court approved desegregation plan. Such plan, if undertaken for the stated purpose, is not in good faith\ntherefore, the process should not be allowed. If it is allowed, however, we respectfully submit that the Court should not have any official role in the proceeding through ODM or otherwise because such approach is contrary to the interests of Black children in the District WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to allow them to take discovery, set this matter down for early hearing and thereafter enter an Order (a) finding that the districts actions represent bad faith implementation fif implementation at all) of the Court approved Desegregation Plan\narxl (b) enjoining the district from proceeding with substantial funding initiatives including school closings without prior Court approval. Respectfully submitted,tOd IHiOi JOHN W. WALKER. PJL 1723 Broadway URIo Rook, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 By. Ib/n W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading was forwarded to all counsel of record, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this__ day of February, 1995. Joh] Walker LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501 \u0026gt;4-2032 Jan 6 95 16:14 P.Ol January 6, 1995 To\nAnn Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Fax t 371-0100 From: Linda Young Little Rock School District 324-2112 This is to confirm the meeting on Wednesday, January 11th at 1:30 in your office with Dr. Williams, Leon Modeste and I regarding p.m. the Strategic Planning Process. Attached is a framework of the Strategic Planning Process for your review. Looking forward to our meeting on Wednesday. Thank You, Linda Youngfl jS 1 Confirm commitment and readiness  Conduct basic awareness session(s)  Explore system capacity and design Prepare for planning  Communicate about planning  Collect vital signs data Build strategic planning team .. Conduct first planning session vS * .. \u0026lt;* -i z Develop action plans  10. Action plans Conduct second planning session  Achieve consensus action plans  Affinn consensus strategic plan Prepare implementation sch^ule (with supporting resource plan) Obtain board approval * 1. Beliefs  2. Mission  3. Parameters 4. Internal Analysis 5. External Analysis 6. Competition 7. Critical Issues  8. Objectives  9. Strategies : Develop capacity for implementation  Communicate approved strategic plan  Develop mutual expectations and system design  Systemize site involvement I**' iejff i. 5.*' S*K- *1^ -. Communicate draft plan ''I 7 Validate pians and process continually \u0026lt;. Build action teams  Regular reviews  Periodic updates A ' -J 1 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT - RECEIVF'^ January 25, 1995 JAN 3 0 1995 Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Office of Desegrega. . Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Mooney: I am delighted that you have agreed to serve on the strategic planning team for the Little Rock School District. I am certain that this process will help determine the future direction of the district. Dr. Howard Feddema will serve as the facilitator for the strategic planning process. He is associated with the Cambridge Management Group located in Montgomery, Alabama. Listed below is the schedule for the planning sessions, to be held at the Excelsior Hotel. Tuesday, Feb. 14 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Planning Session (Light supper provided) An Wednesday, Feb. 15 Thursday, Feb. 16 Friday, Feb. 17 informational session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Planning Session for members of the planning team. community organizations, and others will be held on Monday, Feb. 6 from 5:30 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham. Please plan on attending this meeting. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Aritansas 72201  (501)824-2000 Page 2 Feel free to invite other members of your group. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 to make your reservations so that we can provide adequate seating. Looking forward to working with you. Thanks again. Sincerely, Henry P. ] Superintel Schools 'Jr ' I ' f I I s Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT M 5 1995 March 30, 1995 Ann Brown ODM 201 E. Markham, Ste. 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown, The Little Rock School District has begun a Strategic Planning Process. We believe that this is a valuable process for defining the educational future that we want for our children. The Strategic Planning Committee has completed the first planning session. An informational session to share the work of the committee will be held on Wednesday, April 5, 6:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 West Markham. The committee will provide an update on the strategic planning process and share draft materials of the work that has been completed to date with the community. Broad base community participation is needed for the Action Planning phase of the process. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 if you need further information or assistance. Thanks so much for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 LRSD SUPPORT SERVICES Fax:1-501-324-2032 fipr 4 95 9:59 P. 02/02 .. - as 73-40] (501)834-3000 SHULTS, BAY \u0026amp; KTJBKVS attornkys at law ISOO WOKTHEN BANK BCIUJINO aOO WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITT1.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 73201-3037 ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KLRRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. THUBY TELEPHONE (801) 375-8301 FACSIMILE (501) 375-68! May 22, 1995 Def' 4 '^1 r Mh I 2 2 1995 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Oiisce ci Dear Ms. Brown\nAlthough I am the co-chairperson of the Little Rock School District's long-range Although lam the co cna desegregation plan, 1 am writmg in my planning action team dealing individual capacity at this time as  h-  - ~implement member of this community at la g  . effort to achieve unitary parent with children in the district and as a a driving the litigation. and have invested my whole future in Little I have resided here for 15 years and have mvesteu my wnoie iuloiu xxx been committed to Little Rock public schools since I retamedAc^Li^  recruitment and 1 have tirst nanu through when trying to decide Rock. I have------ . . , Rock. I have actively assisted in kindergarten knowledge regarding the process which parents go where their children will attend. latest report caused great damage to the The recent publicity surrounding your Little Rock School District and to its prospects for implementation of the aspects of the plan which seem subscribe to the view that ma V .. , snecial needs which must lower socioeconomic students (regardless of r ) district, sits'\nbuild community support and involvement. equal access to a full measure of the Plan will not be possible unless weSirtrLTS, RAY \u0026amp; KUBRCS Ms. Ann Brown May 22, 1995 Page 2 Great damage has been done to this district by the publicity surrounding your latest report. We are struggling to maintain white enrollment. One of the biggest obstacles in this struggle is the general negative perception which results from damaging articles and media publicity. The result of this damage is that children opt out of the public system and their parents cease to support it. I believe our biggest problem district-wide is the perception that the district is failing. This perception erodes community support for the district. There is no community support for a millage increase, and further cuts in the district's programs will result in more damage, more opting out, and more animosity toward the district, making a millage increase even more difficult. I have worked for years against a dual system, one public and one private. We have been fighting this battle for many years (see enclosed article). I fear that the tide has turned against us. I would like to personally invite you to come to one of our planning meetings and let us know how we can be of assistance in implementing the plan. The only qualification for membership on our committee that you be a person of good will who is willing to work. If you feel that the office of desegregation monitoring is not in a position to participate in this process, I would still ask that you attend one of our meetings and let us know how we can be of assistance. Our next meeting is May 31, 1995, at 6:30 p.m. at Hall High School. Please contact me and let me know whether you or someone from your office would be willing to attend and make a presentation to us regarding your office, the role of your office, and the way that we could be a positive influence in the desegregation process. Sincerely yours, H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdb rt As I sat on the Main Street Mall basking in the noon sunshine, watching the pedestrians trip on the uneven tiles, and a reading the paper, I was initially amused by the letter from the jovial anarchist. Win Farrell, who was rejoicing in the Little Rock electorate's defeat of the 8 mill tax increase. Upon the second reading, I really couldn't tell whether Mr. Farrell's letter was an honest of his views or a clever piece of journalism designed to point out the myopia of the majority. In either case. my amusement faded as I realized that the views ex- pressed by that writer were shared by the many people who pulled the same lever on election day. Although most of the \"nays\" would probably not admit to II long[ing] for thiG day when the public school system in America is wiped out, \" I'm afraid that the negativists share all isolationistic views. too many of the jovial anarchist's There is no crucial flaw in Farrell's notion that each is responsible for educating his own. If such a commitment did in fact exist, the problems of the Little be greatly diminished. Rock school system would It is, however. naive and unrealistic to believe that each member of the community has the time, resources, and ability to provide a well-rounded education to the young members of his immediate family. Such a belief could.be no more realistically held by a wealthy man than by a man of lesser means. It is also unrealistic and naive in a more fundamental sense to think that 6a well-rounded education can be had in a cloistered environment which is not representative of the community as it exists. If the purpose of education is to prepare one for a productive life in the real world, then that end can be best served by conducting the training process in a microcosm which introduces the student not only to math and English, but also to actual problems in a controlled, but representative, atmosphere. In recognition of some of these realities of education, public schools were born. \"Public schools\" have suffered in the past because they were not truly public, and the public has suffered by learning lessons in the streets which should have been learned in the classrooms. It now appears, though, that the lessons were not learned very well and that we are regurgitating the very bitter pill which presently holds the only hope of curing the pernicious disease. I'm not ready to give up on the idea of community improvement through education, any many of Little Rock's citizens are not giving up, but the help and participation of all segments of the community is essential. One need only glance at the precinct-by- precinct results of the last election to see that the people with the most to give are tired of giving. Those less advantaged are doubtless tired, too. I believe that sooner than later we must all realize that this community and its members will succeed or fail together, and that the good education that all desire cannot be had in a roomful of people who pleasantly deny that their neighbors exist, or in a roomful of people who are not receivingfamilial support, direction and encouragement. I am aware of the fact that many of the lessons now being learned in the public schools are horribly unacceptable, but that only means that there is much hard work to be done in the community. It is time that we put our heads together and set about the task.H. BAKER KUERUS 1600 WORTHEN BANK BUILDING UTTLE ROOK ARKANSAS 72201 / RECFIVO Jill 10 1995 Office of Desegregation Mcniioring /n^dJlud^ I fi i wnii^ l^ Siart' K i /i^ Pa, C\\ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KURRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY SHTJLTS, RAY \u0026amp; KURRUS ,ATTORNEYS AT LAW IQOO BOATMEN S BANK BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3637 TELEPHONE (501) 375a3Ol FACSIMILE (501) 376-Q861 July 7, 1995 TO: ACTION TEAM 2 MEMBERS Dear Friends, Our next meeting will be held on July 13 at 6:30 p.m. at Hall High School. Please plan on attending the meeting. I enclose to each of you a summary sheet which shows the results of our brainstorming session during our last meeting. Jerry Osterman deserves our thanks for leading the session and for preparing the first draft of the notes. Also enclosed are copies of the litigation summary which Van Light has prepared and copies of an article she provided which covers current issues in desegregation litigation. The article pre-dates the U.S. Supreme Court decision tn the Kansas City case. Last, but not least, I enclose a copy of an outline which I have prepared. This outline is my view of the desegregation plan status, with a particular emphasis on implementing a beneficial strategy for improved relations among the patrons of the district. At our upcoming meeting I would like to discuss the specific action plans which will address the concerns expressed at our last meeting. I believe we should emphasize inclusion of all parties and cooperation among these parties and all monitoring bodies. Sincerely yours, H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdb Enclosures 7/7/95 TEAM 2 - LRSD STRATEGIC PLANNING LRSD Strategic Planning Team 2 is charged with developing action plans to implement the following strategy\nII 'Develop the means to successfully implement or modify the desegregation plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the strategic plan.  A brainstorming session, held June 22, 1995, collected ideas from all participants without criticism or judgment. These ideas are grouped into four categories, with clarifications by the authors in brackets. This report is being sent to all participants for their review, constructive criticism, and further suggestions. Please forward your comments to Baker Kurrus (Fax\n375-6861) or to Gerry Osterman at 221-2057. The report will be reviewed at the next committee meeting. Most of the ideas can be grouped under the following headings\n1. 2. 3. 4. Desegregation plan performance and review. Quality education for all students. Public involvement, understanding and support. Optimization of the special programs. The ideas stated by the team members are summarized as follows\nDesegregation plan review 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Implement/modify the plan. Remove all vestiges of segregation. Develop simplified, understandable, focused plan. Develop realistic plan. Consider feasibility of plan components. Consider district revenue. Consider changed circumstances. Meet basic requirement to abolish racial identification (for student bodies, faculty, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities). Define words in the plan (develop glossary). Consider administrative listing of plan requirements. Tailor the remedy (plan) to the original problem. Involve teachers and administrators in planning.7ni^s [Involve the intervenors and the desegregation plan committees like the magnet review committee and the bi-racial committee early in the process, before suggesting plan revisions and before the decisions are made. We must consult before deciding - and listen. The present process is limited to promoting conflict in court sessions. This damages the district. Failure to improve this process will result in lower education for all Little Rock students] Quality education for all students 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Student centered plans and programs (Reading Recovery, Great Expectations). Emphasize reading, writing and arithmetic. De-emphasize race (emphasize persons). Provide special teaching for disadvantaged. Use best available teaching methods. Define what is wrong with schools for black students. Get honest about race, class and culture. (Analyze and provide for needs and differences like variations in early exposure to print). Define the public schools' responsibilities and limits. Public involvement, understanding and support 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Develop community acceptance (of desegregation and the plan). Increase parent involvement. Educate white \"majority\". Reduce flight of white and black families. Develop historical understanding (of public schools). Change attitudes toward education and race. Investigate Parents for Public Schools (national organization). Optimization of special programs (including neighborhood schools, incentive schools, magnet schools, interdistrict schools, special education, vocational education, alternative schools, summer schools and nursery schools) 1. 2. 3. Emphasize neighborhood schools. Improve effectiveness of Incentive Schools. Consider pairing schools. 24. 5. 6. Determine current demographic (and geographic) information and forecast. Consider magnet schools advantages and disadvantages. Look at neighborhood schools' effect on all students. Additional comments Desegregation must be a good faith effort (and competent). Little Rock School District is accountable for results. We have had a relatively short time to change attitudes. We need timeliness of progress (compliance). Improve security (community peace of mind). [The interests of all litigants, and their duty, is to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch and to provide the best practical education for all students. New communications and probably some reorganization and changed emphasis of the parties is required to achieve these interests.] Gerald Osterman Baker Kurrus cc: Committee members Leon Modeste Linda Young Russ Mayo Henry Williams Ann Brown John Walker Eleanor Coleman Grainger Ledbetter 3Status LRSD Desegregation Case as of June 22, 1995 Plan Implementation Process a. Completion Status Russ Mayo's office conducting audit. Audit results in 3 weeks. (2500 compliance tasks, 1718 remaining) b. Compliance is evaluated in terms of I. Showing Good Faith effort. (that is, demonstrating that there is a genuine commitment to operate a unitary system. The school would operate in compliance with the commands of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The school would not return to its former ways. II. Eliminating all vestages of past discrimination in the school system to the extent practical. Define vestage: a trace\na remnant of the former unconstitutional school system. Green factors Student Assignment Faculty and Staff Facilities Transportation Extra Curricular Activities Availability of equitable (as opposed to equal) education opportunities. Additional Specific harms identified by the District Court specific to the Little Rock case. c. Desegregation Plan Amendment Process (see handout) I. Plan Amendments Pending (at district court) Proposed change to adjust racial balance ratio requirement to match racial balance ratio of affected attendance zone. Proposed changes affecting budget. ii. Plan Amendments Under consideration at LRSD/Deseg Office NONEII. Litigation Affecting Desegregation Plan a. Litigation Currently in Process. i. Claim against State of Arkansas. LRSD Claims that State of Ark. violated Settlement Agreement by way it computes workers' compensation, computers, M to M Transfers. District Court: Sth Circuit: Ruled in favor of LRSD claim. State appealed, Decision pending. i i. Claim against PCSSD. LRSD claims that PCSSD violated Settlement Agreement by way it computes the amount of money to be dispersed to the Interdistrict Schools. District Court: Sth Circuit: Ruled in favor of PCSSD. LRSD appealed, Decision pending. b. Litigation Recently Concluded. i. Joshua Intervenors petitioned Court not to allow the closing of Ish Elementary by LRSD. District Court: Sth Circuit: Ruled in favor of LRSD Upheld District Courts ruling. i i. Joshua Intervenors petitioned Court to create 3 majorityblack school board zones instead of 2. District Court: Sth Circuit: Ruled against petition. Upheld District Court's ruling. HI. Prediction of Completion of Plan Compliance and Release from Court Supervision.2 Lc X 3 co 1) OO s JS  -S 1) Q co (U c^ 3 .3 3 2P w  E 00 x: 3 U 2 G c u o V5 73 73 3 3-0 \u0026lt;U U co U . G. -= I O E CQ o u D 12^ o 03 S oi IZ3 CZ2 O o o 3 O E 3 (D E 3 3 3 O 3 00 o o CT) o O tn tn u o o w 2- CU 3 . 00 3 1) Um co Q 3 hJ .s co (SO 3 3 J= u o o co \"o 13 45 a a\u0026gt; \u0026gt; o _ Q o co 5 u 2 \u0026lt;U CQ fi o bJD fl fl OJD C C3 IS 0^ U) 0) cn IXl o 1) Q 0M CO C P co co 3 \u0026lt;u 73 3 5? .s O o co O 3 co 'S E 73 \u0026lt; co u 0.) U= u 3 (U H VJ 0^ s s o U 73 a\u0026gt; \u0026gt; o Om ex 3 fi m (M 3 CO CU 00 o c 3 .2  G C D G S o X' C cn O T3 \u0026gt; O O 13 gj 3 TS 73 a\u0026gt; \u0026gt; o k a ex 3      s o. 3 CO (U a: 3 c 3 O X) 3 1) s 73 O 33 3 3 \u0026lt;U *3 P . i CO -=i (S co 00 X g .. 2 -2 o o co  4= C tn 5 3 S o CO  M 3 33 r x\u0026gt; 3 \u0026lt;- -s /? C O o a cy e- -z\nCO C/3 CO C \u0026lt;U t) -3 Q Q:^ o cs a. g 3 CZ5 c co u O Q P - Q X t4_ .- o (U 3 j= CQ CZ) 3 .2 3 \"co \u0026gt; w c s A s GO 0^ R tZ! Cj 5 \"S o .u Co -ic u o 05 \u0026lt;uin 195 A. B. I. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Identify LRSD Plan Obligations. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Classify and Group Plan Obligations. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (g) (h) (1) Incentive schools Student assignments Interdistrict magnets LRSD magnets Area schools Personnel Transportation Budget Special programs Isolate Goals and Objectives (differentiate from Obligations). Determine and Assign Compliance/Performance Responsibility. Determine Monitoring Responsibility. Consult Joshua Intervenors regarding all of the above. Consult ODM regarding all of the above. Plan and Calendar Regular Meetings with Joshua and ODM regarding all of the above. Seek advice/assistance from Joshua and ODM regarding all of the above. Consult, analyze, discuss, compromise, and seek consensus on all Plan issues. Establish Timetable and Plan for Meeting Unperformed Feasible Obligations.7/7/95 c. Develop Joint (LRSD, ODM, Knight and Joshua) Plan for Release/Recognition of Accomplished Plan Requirements. D. Determine Plan Requirements Which Are No Longer Feasible or Educationally Sound. 1. Consult ODM, Joshua. 2. Use professional educators who recognize LRSD obligations and Joshua goals. 3. Reinvigorate Plan with better, more effective programs which meet the goals. E. Seek Joint (LRSD, Joshua, Knight) Plan Modifications in order to meet goals and objectives. 1. Advise/consult with all parties, including ODM. 2. Consult experts within District and outside to get best educational programs available to meet goals. 3. Address Joshua concerns directly in advance through A. B. C. advice/consult/compromise/consensus process II. ESTABLISH TRUST, CONFIDENCE, AND GOOD FAITH Declare Intention to Cooperate With Knight. Joshua. ODM - reestablish working relationships. Schedule and Follow-up on Cooperative Efforts Outlined in Section I. Cultivate Conununity/Business Support. 2in 195 D. Analyze and Report on Positive Desegregative Results in area schools, interdistrict magnet schools. E. Focus on Rockefeller, and replicate its success in other Incentive Schools. F. Analyze LRSD magnet schools from standpoint of academic performance and desegregation results. G. Publicize Accomplishments. H. Identify Problems and Address Them Cooperatively. III. ARTICULATE LONG-RANGE PLANS FOR LRSD A. Complete Strategic Planning Process. B. Reinvigorate Board of Directors. C. Propose Joint Planning Sessions for Schools (Joshua. ODM, Kmght and LRSD). D. Complete Demographic Study and Use Study in Planning for Growth and Change. E. Outline Budgetary Needs/Examine MiUage/Organize Commitments for Millage. F. Plan for Facilities - Expansion, Reconstruction, and New Construction. G. Exhibit to the Community, Positive, Cooperative Approaches to Problems. H. Concentrate on Recruiting. 3CURRENT ISSUES IN SCHOOL DESEGREGATION LITIGATION Stephen J. Immelt* This presentation addresses litigation issues that arise when school districts attempt to eliminate court supervision under desegregation decrees or when school district actions are challenged on the basis that they produce an impermissible racial impact in terms of the overall operation of the system. (It, therefore, does not address issues of racial discrimination arising solely in an employment context) The presentation begins with a brief overview of the legal issues that shape desegregation cases, with particular emphasis on recent Supreme Court decisions dealing with the termination of judicial supervision. It then discusses practical issues that are likely to arise in such litigation. Forty years ago the Supreme Court issued its monumental decision in Brown v. Board of Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The impact of that decision on American education, and society at large, have been enonnous. A direct consequence of Brown was Stephen J. Immelt is a partner in the law firm Hogan \u0026amp; Hartson. The views and opinions expressed in this article are strictly his own and are not attributable to other lawyers in the firm or its clients. B-1 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01that it injected the Federal judiciary into the operation of public schools in a way that was unprecedented and far-reaching. Although the federal judges who presided over desegregation cases frequently expressed the hope that their involvement with the local schools would be limited and temporary, there was no clear sense of exactly what steps would be necessary to remedy the constitutional violations that were at the heart of Brown and its progeny or how long the process would take. The legal objective, as articulated by the Supreme Court, was disarmingly simple: the elimination of segregation, root and branch, from every facet of school operations. Green v. County School Board. 391 U.S. 430,435,438 (1968). Dismantling the dual school systems that were the product of de jure segregation in the South was a fairly straightforward task, at least legally. Much more complicated was the task nf eliminating the vestiges of those systems. The efforts to create a school system free of the influences of a prior dual system turned out to be a lengthy, frustrating. controversial, and elusive quest, embroiling federal courts in litigation that has often been measured by decades rather than years. This confused state of affairs was partly a function of the peculiar nature of desegregation cases themselves. Although such cases embody some of the most important conceptual principles underlying the Constitution, in practice they are extremely fact intensive. The geography and demographics of the particular community largely drive the legal analysis. To study desegregation cases is to read about routine B-2 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 operational decisions relating to school locations, school attendance zone boundaries, bus routes and the like. These are cases where the facts matter. These are also cases where the personality and outlook of the assigned judge has had a tremendous impact on the course of the litigation. A review of leading desegregation cases would reveal a wide variety of legal conclusions and remedial schemes in cases that seem ostensibly quite similar. Another important factor was the degree of acrimony that typically infused these cases, at least in their early stages. The issues that these cases present resonate so emotionally that it can be difficult to measure progress or even to agree on what criteria should be used. In many of the cases, the relations between the parties to the litigation have been characterized by a lack of trust and hostility of an intensity that took decades to develop. Also, the institutionalization of some cases (through the appointment of monitors, experts and the like) created a sense of inertia, perhaps even permanence, about judicial oversight. Despite these trends, some districts succeeded in obtaining a declaration that they had achieved unitary status, with the result that active judicial supervision of those districts ceased. In recent years the effort to achieve unitary status has accelerated. Not surprisingly given the history of these cases, the litigation over whether to terminate judicial oversight of desegregation efforts has reflected the same lack of consensus and uniformity that characterized the underlying proceedings. Although most B-3 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 cases described the legal inquiry in the termination phase as one focused on whether the school district had achieved unitary status, there was little agreement about exactly what was meant by that term or the analysis that should be undertaken to assess whether it had been achieved. There was also confusion about the legal effect of a unitary status determination. Did it mean that the case was over for good or just that active judicial supervision was being terminated? Did it mean that any orders issued in the course of the proceedings had no further force and effect? The answers to these questions had important practical consequences. In most cases the desegregation plans, which commonly dealt with student assignment, teacher assignment, building construction, transportation and related matters, were embodied in court orders. Did a declaration of unitary status and a dismissal of the case mean that those orders had no further application? Were districts then free to abandon or modify the very desegregation plans that had enabled them to achieve unitary status? For example, was a district that had been declared unitary free to return to a system of neighborhood schools even if the effect was to create racially identifiable schools? And if a district were to adopt such a course, what would be the legal standard that would be applied to evaluate its legality? Would the plaintiffs have to prove a fresh constitutional violation under Supreme Court decisions requiring proof of a discriminatory intent or would they be able to rely on the more relaxed standards that apply to districts under a court order? B-4 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01For years the Supreme Court was content to allow the issues surrounding unitary status determinations to remain with the lower courts, notwithstanding the widespread confusion and inconsistency. Finally, in 1991, the Court took up the question of whether. and under what circumstances, a school district could be released from all constraints of a federal court order arising from an earlier finding of a constitutional violation. The case of Board of Education of Oklahoma City v, Dowell. 498 U.S. 237 (1991), arose from a long standing desegregation case in Oklahoma City. That case had a long and acrimonious history. The case had been filed in 1961, and there had been a finding in 1963 that the schools had been intentionally segregated. After voluntary efforts failed to address the problem, the district court entered an order in 1972 mandating a student assignment plan, known as the Finger Plan, that eliminated segregated schools by closing certain segregated elementary schools and converting them to fifth grade centers. Based on the successfill operation of the Finger Plan, the district court entered an order in 1977 declaring the district to be unitary, although the 1972 order was not vacated or modified. When the school district decided to abandon the Finger Plan in 1985, that action was challenged as violative of the 1972 order. The district court held an extensive evidentiary hearing and determined that, notwithstanding the resegregative effect of abandoning the Finger Plan, the school district continued to be unitary and that any segregation in student assignment was a product of demographic changes, not the action of the school district. The 1972 injunction was therefore dissolved. Furthermore, the district court held that the plaintiffs had failed to show that a fresh constitutional violation B-5 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 had occurred because there was insufficient proof that the system had acted with discriminatory intent. The Tenth Circuit reversed. It held that an equitable decree, such as the 1972 order, should remain in place unless there have been changes in circumstances such that the dangers that the decree was intended to address have become attenuated to a shadow. 890 F.2d 1483,1490 (10th Cir. 1989). Because, under that analysis, the school system had a continuing duty to desegregate, the effects of eliminating the Finger Plan required special scrutiny. The Supreme Court reversed. The Supreme Courts opinion in Dowell emphasized that injunctive decrees in school cases were never intended to be permanent. Once a decree had achieved its purpose of bringing about the transition from a state-sponsored segregated system to a racially nondiscriminatory school system judicial, supervision should cease. To evaluate whether that goal had been achieved, the Dowell Court identified two critical inquiries: 1) had the school system complied in good faith with the court decree since it was entered\nand 2) had the vestiges of past discriminatinn been eliminated to the extent practicable. With regard to the vestiges inquiry, the Court directed that consideration be given not only to student assignments, but to every facet of school operations  faculty, staff, transportation, extra-curricular activities and facilities. 498 U.S. at 250 (quoting Green v. New Kent County School Board. 391 U.S. 430,435 (1968)). Once a school decree was dissolved, the school districts future conduct would remain subject to B-6 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01e Equal Protection Clause, but any such claim would need to establish a discriminatory intent if the moving party were to prevail. hl The Supreme Court soon returned to the issue of unitary status determinations in Freeman v. Pitts. 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992), a case involving the school system for DeKalb Cormty, Georgia. Freeman reaffirmed the essential holdings of Dowell and embraced the principle that federal court supervision of a school system could be withdrawn incrementally\nin other words, the Court could withdraw supervision over student assignment issues while continuing to monitor other aspects of the system such as faculty assignments. The Freeman Court provided some further elaboration of the analytical framework for withdrawing court supervision. A court should examine whether: 1) the vestiges of past discrimination in a particular area of school operations has been eliminated\n2) the existence of full and satisfactory compliance with the existing decree with regard to those areas where supervision is to be withdrawn\n3) the need for ongoing judicial control over the area sought to be removed to bring about compliance in other areas\nand 4) the defendants good faith commitment to avoiding future violations of the type that gave rise to the original decree. 112 S.Ct. at 1446. In its current term, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear State of Missouri v. Jenkins. That case, which will likely focus on the vestiges analysis, should provide even further guidance concerning the standards for withdrawing judicial supervision over school systems. B-7 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01With that background in mind, let us turn to practical considerations. Assume that your client has been the subject of a desegregation order at some time in the past It is contemplating changes in some aspect of school operations, a change in attendance boundaries or the construction of a new school, that may be controversial because of a perceived racial impact You are asked to advise the district about the legal standards that would apply to these decisions. Alternatively, your client decides that it is tired of paying for high-priced Washington lawyers and that the time has come to terminate court supervision. You are asked whether that effort will be successful and what issues are likely to come up in the course of the case. Or your client is sued for actions based on their alleged racial impact What legal standard will apply to the determination of the school districts liability? If a party challenges the action of the school district, will they need to prove an intent to discriminate in addition to a racially disparate impact? The touchstone of this analysis will be whether the school district has achieved unitary status. If it has not, its actions will continue to be evaluated based on the impact of its actions in terms of race, regardless of the intent underlying the action. The application of this more rigorous standard may not preclude the school district from taking the desired action, but it will in all likelihood be necessary for the district to show that it has considered all reasonable alternatives and that there are compelling reasons for the chosen course. If, on the other hand, the District can show that it is no longer subject B-8 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 to judicial supervision, a less rigorous standard would apply and the burden of proof would shift to the party challenging the action. The starting point for addressing any of these issues is to undertake a thorough review of all prior court orders. Are there any orders that have been entered in the case that arguably were intended to terminate judicial oversight? If there has not been active judicial oversight in recent years, there is a good chance that such an order may exist. Whether the order uses the magic words unitary status is not definitive. Indeed, in r Dowell the Supreme Court cautioned against giving terms such as unitary constitutional stature. We think it is a mistake to treat words such as dual and unitary as if they were actually found in the Constitution.... Courts have used the terms dual to denote a school system which has engaged in intentional segregation of students by race, and unitary to describe a school system which has been brought into compliance with the command of the Constitution. We are not sure how useful it is to define these terms more precisely, or to create subclasses within them. 498 U.S. at 245-46. The critical issue was whether the district court has made a finding that the constitutional violation has been eliminated and done so in terms clear enough to put the parties on notice about the intended effect of the order. Since all unitary status orders entered prior to January 1991 were developed without the benefit of the Dowell case, one advocacy issue will be to develop arguments that the earlier order effectively complied with the criteria established in Dowell for dissolving a desegregation decree, even though the earlier order may not have used the B-9 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 exact language employed in the Dowell opinion. One of the attachments to this presentation is a copy of a unitary status order entered in 1977 that was subjected to a Dowell analysis (the 1977 Order). The issue in that case was whether the district in question had purged itself of any prior constitutional violations so that any new conduct had to be evaluated as a fresh constitutional violation. The plaintiffs argued that the 1977 Order did not use the precise criteria articulated by Dowell and that the School District itself had not considered the order to be definitive because it had continued to operate under the pre-existing desegregation plan. A particular deficiency noted by the plaintiffs was that the 1977 Order had not reviewed the Green factors nor had it made precise findings as to the elimination of vestiges with regard to each aspect of school operations. The School District prevailed on the issue by emphasizing the sweeping nature of the Courts declaration. Because the Court had expressly found that the constitutional violation had been eliminated, the plaintiffs were clearly on notice that the case was coming to an end. In this regard, the 1977 Order complied with the Dowell Courts observation that an order be sufficiently clear that the Plaintiffs could reasonably be expected to take an appeal if they were of the view that judicial supervision should continue. The lesson here is that, while improbable, your client may be unitary but not realize it. Read the .orders. B-10 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01Assuming that there is no magic order hidden in some file cabinet, the next, and probably most critical, step is to conduct a unitary status audit. Counsel needs to sit down with the client and review various aspects of school operations with a view toward the Dowell/Freeman factors. This review must be objective and analytical. It must consider the history of litigation in your district and the likely attitudes and expectations of the presiding judge. Obviously, the Court records should be reviewed, paying particular attention to any reports submitted to the Court by the parties or outside experts or mo]\nors. The more active the level of judicial supervision has been, the more searching the unitary status inquiry must be. The threshold consideration is whether there has been good faith compliance with all court orders. Obviously, part of this inquiry relates to the history of the litigation itself. A district that has consistently resisted efforts to desegregate, that has taken an aggressive and combative approach to the litigation, or that has been ordered to take action because voluntary initiatives were ineffective is likely to encounter resistance and skepticism on this issue. A history of resistance is not necessarily fatal, however, for the Courts have recognized that attitudes change and, even more importantly, that the composition of school boards change. The advocacy issue in dealing with the issue of good faith compliance is to demonstrate that there is genuine commitment to operating a unitary system. As the Dowell Court observed, good faith compliance requires a finding not only that the school B-11 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 district was being operated in compliance with the commands of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, [but also] that it was unlikely that the school board would return to its former ways. 498 U.S. at 247. In this sense, the good faith compliance analysis does not consist strictly of a retrospective review of the school districts conduct in the litigation. There is also an important predictive element. In assessing the strength of your clients position on this issue, you must go beyond the professed attitudes and intentions of your client. The Courts have generally expressed skepticism about the credibility of self-serving pronouncements by school officials of their good faith intentions. Dowell v. Board of Education of Oklahoma City. 8 F.3d 1501,1513 (10th Cir. 1993). Actions are what matter. Voluntary actions that promote desegregation beyond the strict requirements of the decree may be particularly material to show a strong institutional commitment to operate a system free from unconstitutional conduct. Ii Part of the litigators role, therefore, must be to evaluate critically the evidence that may reflect your clients commitment to desegregate. You should review with your client any significant public controversies affecting schools during the last five years. Opening and closing schools, changing attendance boundaries. allocating resources among schools and the like are the types of issues that generate controversy and that pose a significant risk of creating adverse evidence concerning your clients intentions. Learn the details of these controversies. Transcripts or tapes of public hearings are a source of particular interest. You should also identify all programs that have a bearing on future plans or programs for the school district. The existence of B-12 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 programs designed to promote desegregation on a voluntary basis such as minority to majority transfers and magnet schools may be given significant weight in assessing a school districts commitment to operate constitutionally and may go a considerable distance to overcome problems of recalcitrance in the past. Some districts have adopted policies that address what actions they intend to take following a declaration of unitary status as a sign of their good faith intentions. The next step in the legal analysis is whether the vestiges of past discrimination in the school system have been eliminated to the extent practicable. This inquiry is central to the whole purpose of school desegregation litigation, for the Supreme Court in GlSSn imposed on school authorities the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch. 391 U.S. at 439. Conironted with this issue, the logical question that any litigator would ask is what is a vestige? That is a simple enough question but the answer is far from straightforward. In common understanding, a vestige is a trace, in this case a remnant of the former unconstitutional school system. But what does that mean when applied to a constantly changing institution such as a school system? Perhaps the best framework for analyzing the existence of vestiges are the factors identified in Green: student assignment, faculty and staff assignments, transportation. extra-curricular activities and facilities. B-13 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01Student Assignment  Have the districts student assignment policies been designed to foster desegregation and have those policies been successful? Faculty and Staff  Are faculty and staff assigned to schools on an equitable basis? Does the composition of faculty or staff identify the school with a particular race? If there were affirmative action provisions in the Decree, have those been successfully implemented? Transportation  Are the burdens of any mandatory busing for desegregation shared equitably among various racial groups? Extracurricular Activities  Does the District encourage participation in the entire spectrum of extracurricular activities by members of all races and ethnic groups? Facilities  Are the educational facilities available at any predominantly minority schools comparable to those at predominantly majority schools so that all schools are capable of providing a modem educational programs? Consideration must also be given to any factors that may have a bearing on the availability of equal educational opportunities. These would include student achievement, attendance and drop-out rates, student discipline, and placement in special programs such as Special Education or Gifted and Talented programs. Finally, to the extent that the district court in your case has previously identified specific harms attributable to segregation, you must assess whether those issues have been addressed to the extent practicable. Although all of these factors are important, the issue that historically has received the most attention is that of student assignment One of the hallmarks of the B-14 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 unconstitutional dual systems were schools that were identifiable on the basis of race. An obvious starting point, therefore, in considering whether vestiges remain is the degree of racial imbalance in the school district Freeman. 112 S.Ct. at 1437. But the fact that racial imbalances may exist does not end the inquiry. The Freeman Court emphasized that racial balance is not to be achieved for its own sake. 112 S.Ct. at 1447. The critical issue is whether the existing racial imbalance is attributable, causally, to the prior constitutional violation. Once the racial imbalance due to the de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under no duty to remedy imbalance that is caused by demographic factors. Freeman. 112 S.Ct. at 1447. In Freeman, the Court held that jurisdiction over a school system could be withdrawn on an incremental basis. For example, student assignment issues might be returned to the schools while other issues. such as faculty assignments, continued to be supervised by the court. The Freeman Court recognized partial withdrawal as a possible outcome even though DeKalb County continued to operate a number of racially identifiable schools and the racial imbalance in some of those schools was becoming increasingly skewed. The Freeman case was remanded to give the school system an opportunity to show that broad population changes in the district, not school policies, were the cause of current racial imbalance in school populations. Another area of controversy relates to the issue of so-called educational vestiges. One of the undeniable legacies of dual school systems was the inferior educational opportunities afforded to minority children. Some of the disparities were quite obvious in B-15 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 terms of differences in resources and programs but other effects were pernicious precisely because they were so subtle. Assessing the elimination of educational vestiges that may manifest themselves in attitudes toward the capabilities of minority children is challenging and bound to be controversial. See United States v. Yonkers. 833 F.Supp. 214 (S.D. N.Y. 1993). The Supreme Courts decision this term in Jenkins v. Missouri is expected to provide additional guidance concerning the analysis of educational vestiges. Accompanying this presentation are copies of selected pleadings from recent litigation that help illustrate the way in which the educational vestiges issues are being approached currently. From a litigators perspective, the vestiges phase of the analysis requires substantial reliance upon experts. A demographer should be consulted early in the process in order to understand the patterns of student assignment. The fact that particular schools are experiencing increasing racial imbalance may reflect demographic forces that are well beyond the influence of the school system. Several cautions are in order, however, in assessing demographic trends and the relation of those trends to the vestiges analysis. First, it is important to examine whether the school system has taken any steps that counter the trend or, even more important, that exacerbate it. Efforts to avoid imbalance through voluntary programs such as minority to majority transfers would be a positive fact. On the other hand, allowing white students to leave a school through selective application of a transfer policy would be a problem. Second, it is important to explore whether there is evidence that might support an argument that the school B-16 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 districts policies have themselves shaped demographic trends. For example, in rapidly growing com muni ties there is often pressure from developers for school systems to commit to particular school sites in advance of the construction or the demonstrated need. The sites selected by developers may have the effect of creating racially imbalanced schools. If other sites existed that might serve the expanding school population while preserving better racial balance or if there was a failure even to consider alternative sites, the school district may have a harder time separating itself from demographic trends. The important point is that the attorney must understand the demographic facts early in the case. In many districts, this effort may be facilitated by the growing sophistication of the student information systems that have been developed and installed in many districts. Even before consulting an outside demographer, you should find out what information can be supplied from your own client Once you have gathered the demographic information you need to be in a position to analyze it. Spread sheet programs such as Excel or Lotus 1-2-3 are invaluable tools for analyzing student assignment information. With such programs you can organize school information based on a variety of factors such as student racial composition, faculty racial composition or geography. You can then plot the trends of this information over time. Another important step is to create maps of the district to address important issues such as the relationship between population growth and school expansion or the patterns of minority housing. Such exhibits can demonstrate graphically, and persuasively, the demographic trends that may explain current student assignment patterns. Again, the B-17 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 crucial legal issue is whether any existing segregation in the schools is the product of residential segregation resulting from private choices of individuals and reflecting economic and social forces over which the schools have no control or, instead, whether current residential patterns continue to be shaped by school policy. This is an intensely factual inquiry. Expert assistance may also be necessary in order to assess the issue of educational vestiges. Are there disparities in achievement affecting minority children that may be attributed to the past violations? As with student assignment, the question is not just whether there are differences but whether the past constitutional violation is the proximate cause of the differences. Other important educational issues may include an analysis of differences on the basis of race in areas such as disciplinary actions, special education referrals, or participation in honors programs and extra-curricular activities. An education expert can help assess the reasons for and significance of such differences. That expert can also provide an opinion regarding whether further efforts to address educational issues are practicable. The issue of practicability is one that is likely to be heavily influenced by the perception of your clients past efforts to deal with issues of race. There will likely be overlap here with the good faith compliance analysis described above. In the area of student assignment, has the district pursued policies that promote desegregation? Are there magnet schools or volimtary transfer programs? Where have new schools been built B-18 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01 and what old schools were closed? Were there alternatives for locating those schools that would have had less impact in terms of racial balance. If so, what was the explanation for the decision that was made. Was there public controversy about these decisions? If so, is there evidence that might suggest that the school district surrendered to the racial attitudes of the community in making the decision? It is not a defense that a school district created segregated schools because that is what the public wanted. A similar analysis should be applied to the question of educational vestiges. Have issues been raised, for example, about minority achievement levels or discipline? If so. were these issues addressed in a serious way, even if the differences remained, or were the concerns dismissed as unfounded, without investigation. What resources have been brought to bear on student achievement? Has there been any recognition of the need for innovative approaches to address different learning styles. These issues require a vigorous review of the historical record and a searching analysis that does not accept your clients explanations at face value. One truism noted above is the crucial importance of the individual judge and that judges personal assessment of the importance and benefits of judicial supervision. What is a vestige to one judge may be a problem with no practicable solution to another. Nevertheless, the judicial latitude that may operate in these cases underscores the need for I I a thorough record. The course of the Dowell opinion on remand illustrates the point. In 1 1 the opinion that was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit applied B-19 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01a stringent analysis that reflected some skepticism about the actions of the Oklahoma City school board. Yet when the district court reinstated its findings following remand from the Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit afiirmed the decision, in large part based upon the factual record and its deference to the lower courts fact finding process. Dowell v. Board of Education of Oklahoma City. 8 F.3d 1501 (10th Cir. 1993). That same circuit struck down a unitariness finding in the Topeka school case that produced the original Supreme Court decision in Brown because of a failure of proof concerning the Districts good faith and the absence of a causal relationship between the racial identifiability of Topekas schools and its prior practice of segregation. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. 978 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1993). The facts matter. Suppose, then, that you succeed in efforts to have your district declared unitary and all judicial authority with regard to the district ceases. The districts future actions will, of course, remain subject to the Equal Protection Clause. Under that analysis, however, the fact that a school districts actions affect the racial composition of its schools does not, without more, establish liability. The more in question is proof of intent As the Tenth Circuits most recent opinion in Dowell states: Plaintiffs must prove not only that defendants actions created or maintained racial imbalances in the schools, but also that those actions were motivated by segregative intent 8 F.2d at 1518. That case certainly demonstrates that the effect of a school districts actions are not determinative since the result of Oklahoma Citys abandonment of the Finger Plan was to B-20 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 000420t01 create a group of predominantly African-American schools that mirrored some aspects of the Citys school system before the case was brought in 1961. Although proof of segregative intent imposes a serious burden on any plaintiff, school systems would do well to approach with care and caution decisions that may produce significant differences in terms of their racial impact Determining whether a particular decision was motivated, in part, by segregative intent is an inquiry that depends on the analysis of circumstantial evidence. The same issues discussed above in connection with the vestiges analysis will come into play here. For example, there may be a close examinatinn of the stated basis for the decision, the availability of alternatives and the reasons why those alternatives were not chosen. Statements made by public officials in response to public sentiment may color those decisions. The outcome of these cases may depend in large part on the willingness of the school district to take advice firom counsel as part of the decision making process. (Copies of pleadings from a recent case in which a school system prevailed in a desegregation case through a summary judgment motion accompany this presentation.) Any system that considers itself immune to constitutional scrutiny should consider the recent experience of the Philadelphia, Hartford, and Rockford, Illinois school systems. Each of these systems is currently embroiled in desegregation litigation: a federal court recently found that the Rockford schools were being operated in violation of the Constitution with the result that sweeping relief may be granted\nin Philadelphia the B-21 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01case is in a remedial phase. Although the Rockford case may run counter to the general trend toward releasing federal court supervision of schools, it demonstrates that race continues to be a central concern for American public education. School districts must understand their continuing duties under the Constitution. Counsel play a critical role in fostering decision making that will not subject their school clients to unnecessary litigation risks. Indeed, with a good appreciation of issues that have driven the school desegregation cases, school counsel are in a unique position to guide their clients toward conduct that will be not only defensible but likely to discourage the commencement of litigation at all. B-22 \\\\\\BA - 80334/1005 - 0004201.01?rS5SSiS:x Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT July 12, 1995 Mr. Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Mooney: I would like to extend to you an invitation to attend an exciting community briefing on Wednesday, July 19 at 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Little Rock School District at 810 West Markham. The focus of this briefing is to provide a special report to community leaders regarding the progress of the strategic planning process and the current status of the desegregation plan. Following the special report to the community, a question and answer session will be held. This briefing session will be broadcast live on Channel 4 Cable TV. Thank you for your continued support of the Little Rock School District. Looking forward to seeing you on July 19th. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000'd Uurl i7?:GT AVtl 6* . ' c^ei Fl L'Y .iU Kjv\nk. Arkansas 7-' 17\u0026lt; pi. J 5 (501)3!44 !4000 dNi'Pna 'Miwab asanp IT 08/03/95 18:49 *J I ) /\u0026gt; - 501 324 2023 I.RSD COMMUNICATI --- ODM @001/001 tj S' a''  ! i\u0026gt; August 3. 1995 ^^iw-irirFiinn .sftiak a (1 is Little Rock School District News Release For more information: Linda Young, 324-2112 The Strategic Planning Action Team Representatives will hold C rwuiitng Aciion )eam Hepresentatives will hold a breakfast R\u0026lt;* School OMfer. Board Room. School Board members have been invited to attend. ### Note.- A special meeting situation exists when members attend the same event two or more school board 1 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000 4^ iSHULTS, RAY \u0026amp; KURRUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1600 boatmens bank BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE UTTLE BOCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3637 ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KURRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY TBLEPHONB (501) 375-2301 FACSIMILE (501) 375-0861 July 21, 1995 RECEIV^n Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jill 2 4 1995 Office of Dese\nregiion idonitcriMg Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann, John and Hank: As you know, I am co-chairing the District's Long-Range Planning Committee which is attempting to come up with strategies to implement or modify the desegregation plan to achieve unitary status. At our last conunittee meeting, the members in attendance asked that I write to you and thank you for your work. The committee specifically asked that I congratulate you on the decision to meet and work cooperatively in an attempt to resolve the problems in our mutual best interests. From my own personal perspective, I believe it is increasingly important that we who are committed to public education pull together and demonstrate to our community that we can construct and operate a public school system which runs smoothly and delivers for everyone. I was very disappointed when I picked up today's paper and saw the articles which reported on the District's community update meeting held last evening. The principal purpose of the meeting was to report on the status of the various long- range planning teams. The general tone of the meetmg was upbeat and positive. The meeting was well attended. The Superintendent gave a nice talk in which heSHULTS, KAY \u0026amp; KUBKUS Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John W. Walker Dr. Henry Williams July 21, 1995 Page 2 spoke optimistically about the prospects for progress through cooperation. Instead of reporting on any of this, the Democrat-Gazette gave a rather mathematical report on the number of specific requirements contained in the desegregation plan. The tone of the article was pessimistic, even though the actual presentation on the desegregation plan focused on performance of feasible requirements, cooperation, advice and mutual consent to determine modifications, and other positive, upbeat developments in the case which benefit us all. I am ready, willing, and I hope able to assist you in any way I can. Please call on me if I can help in any way. Sincerely yours, H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdbCG - MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: CC: August 7, 1995 Strategic Planning Team #9 - Establish Financial Stability Organization and Policy Review Sub-Committee John Gardner, Co-Chairman Meeting Reminder Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent Linda Young, New Futures Liaison\nk9 \u0026gt;t3s7 U 'Z t i ir'Z AUG 9 1995 Office of Desegregation Mcniicring The next sub-committee meeting will be held from 5:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. on Monday, August 28, 1995, at the Little Rock School District, 810 West Markham, 1st Floor Lounge. \\Ne plan to finish our sub-committees findings and report at the August 28 meeting. Soon thereafter, both Action Team 9 sub-committees will meet to prepare for our final team report. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting on August 28.MEMORANDUM DATE: August 10, 1995 TO: Strategic Planning Team #9 - Establish Financial Stability Revenue and Expenditure Review Sub-Committee FROM:'(^red L. Smith, Manager, Support Services RE: CC: Meeting Reminder Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent Linda Young, New Futures Liaison 4UG / ] 1995 Office of Oesecigqpp'vi -Jnn a ivioniiofinj The next Revenue and Expenditure Review Sub-Committee meeting will be held from 7:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 15, 1995, at the Department of Higher Education, 114 East Capitol Avenue, second floor conference room. We hope to finish our findings and report within the next three weeks, so I encourage all sub-committee members to attend future meetings if at all possible. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting on August 15.MEMORANDUM 0 a  u DATE: August 16, 1995 TO: AUG 1 7 1995 Office of Dsssgregaticn Moniiorir 'id Strategic Planning Team #9 - Establish Financial Stability - Revenue and Expenditure Review Sub-Committee FROM: Fred L. Smith, Manager, Support Services RE: CC: Meeting Reminder Leon Modeste, Special Assistant to the Superintendent Linda Young, New Futures Liaison The next Revenue and Expenditure Review Sub-Committee meeting will be held from 7:30 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 22, 1995, at the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street. We look forward to seeing you there.SHULTS, BAY \u0026amp; KUBRUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1600 boatmens bank BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 73SO1-3637 ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KURRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY TELEPHONE (BOI) 375-2301 FACSIMILE (501) 375-6801 TO: August 25, 1995 RECEIV\"^ sc S' AUG 9 1995 ACTION TEAM 2 MEMBERS Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Friends, 4 I Enclosed are three Action Plans which have been compiled from the results of our previous meetings. The Action Plans are basically the result of the process which has been pursued throughout our previous meetings. The Action Plans will be the subject of our next meeting. Please come prepared to discuss these plans and make any changes which are necessary. Planning is sometimes frustrating because we all want to actually solve problems which we perceive. Please keep in mind that whatever plans we propose will, if adopted, require volunteer efforts. We as concerned citizens should be prepared to assist. It is very important that we have good attendance at our next meeting so that these plans can be given a fair review. If we settle on the plans and complete a cost benefit analysis of them, we will have completed our task. I do not know whether we will accomplish these things at the next meeting or whether one additional meeting will be required. If another meeting is required, it will be scheduled for September 7. Sincerely yours. H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdb Enclosures cc: Mr. Henry Williams Mr. Leon Modeste Ms. Linda Young Mr. Russ Mayo Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John Walker ! I I 1 i Action Plan SPECIFIC RESULTS: # 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Implement Plan ACTION STEP (Number each one) Identify LRSD obligations Establish Timetable and Plan for Meeting Unperformed Feasible Obligations Develop Joint (LRSD, ODM, Knight and Joshua) Plan for Release/Recognition of Accomplished Plan Requirements Determine Plan Requirements which are no longer feasible or educationally sound Seek joint (LRSD, Knight, Joshua, ODM) plan modifications in order to meet goals and objectives Responsible: Assigned To: Strategy No, Plan No . Date: 2 1 8/31/95 Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: I IAction Plan Strategy No., Plan No .__ 2 2 SPECIFIC RESULTS: Date: 8/31/95 Establish Trust, Confidence and Good Faith it ACTION STEP {Number each one) .Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: 1. Publicly declare intention to cooperate with Joshua. Knight, ODM and reestablish working relationship 2. Schedule and follow-up on cooperative efforts outlined in Plan 1 3. Cultivate community and business support 4. Analyze and report on positive desegregative results 5. Publicize accomplishments 6. Identify problems and address them cooperatively Responsible:Action Plan Strategy No. Plan No .__ 2 3 SPECIFIC RESULTS: Date: 8/31/95 yVticulate Long-Range Plans for LRSD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ACTION STEP {Number each one) Complete Strategic Planning Process Reinvigorate Board of Directors Propose Joint Planning Sessions for Schools (Joshua, Kmght, LRSD \u0026amp; ODM) Complete Demographic Study and Facilities Use Study for planning for growth and change Outline Budgetary Needs\nExamine Millage\nOrganize commitments for millage Plan for facilities-expansion, reconstructions and new construction Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: 7. Demonstrate and exhibit to the community positive, cooperative approaches to problems Responsible:SHULTS, SAY \u0026amp; KURRUS ATTOBNBYS AT LAW leoo boatmens bank building SOO WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLB ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3637 ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. baKer kurrus STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY TELEPHONE (BOI) 37B-23O1 FACSIMILE (501) 375-0861 September 1, 1995 TO: ACTION TEAM 2 MEMBERS Dear Friends, Our meeting originally scheduled for September 7 has been rescheduled for September 11 at 6:00 p.m. Please make note of the new time. We want to start this meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the hope of completing our final review of the revised Action Plans which we worked on at our meeting last evening. Enclosed are revised plans. These revisions will provide a more narrow focus to our planning. Several of the other plans were determined last night to be within the purview of other planning teams. Please plan on attending the meeting September 11 at 6:00 p.m. Sincerely yours, H. Baker Kurrus HBK:rdb Enclosures cc: Mr. Henry Williams Mr. Leon Modeste Ms. Linda Young Mr. Russ Mayo Ms. Ann Brown Mr. John Walker f i Action Plan - TO IMPLEMENT THE DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED Strategy No, Plan No .__ SPECIFIC RESULTS: Date\n9/11/95 2 1 Identification of LRSD desegregation plan obligations f # 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ACTION STEP (Number each one) Classify and group plan obligations Isolate goals and objectives Determine and assign compliance/performance responsibility Determine monitoring responsibility Consult with and seek advice from all parties involved (ODM, Joshua Intervenors, Knight Intervenors) Plan regular meetings with ODM, Joshua Intervenors, Knight Intervenors Come to consensus among these groups on the desegregation plan Responsible: Assigned To: starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date:Action Plan - TO IMPLEMENT THE DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED Strategy No., Plan No . 2 2 SPECIFIC RESULTS: Date: 9/11/95 Establish a timetable and plan for complying with all obligations # ACTION STEP (Number each one) Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: 1. Assign specific Staff to develop a proposed timetable 2. Deliver timetable to ODM, Joshua, Knight 3. Request acknowledgment from ODM, Joshua and Knight Responsible:I i I i Action Plan - SPECIFIC RESULTS: # 1. 2. 3. TO IMPLEMENT THE DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED Strategy No, Plan No . Date: 2 3 9/11/95 Determine plan requirements/obligations which are not feasible or educationally sound ACTION STEP {Number each one) Consult ODM, Joshua Intervenors, Knight Intervenors Use professional educators familiar with LRSD obligations and the goals addressed in the desegregation plan Reinvigorate the desegregation plan with better, more effective programs which meet the goal and obligations Responsible: Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date:Action Plan - TO IMPLEMENT THE DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED Strategy No., Plan No .__ 2 4 SPECIFIC RESULTS\nDate:, 9/11/95 _____________Seek joint plan modifications and recognition of completed obligations through consultation with ODM. Joshua Intervenors. Knight Intervenors, all for the purpose of enabling the LRSD to achieve goals and objectives # ACTION STEP {Number each one) Bl Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: 1. 2. Advise and consult with all parties Consult with experts within the LRSD and outside resources to provide information about available educational programs to enhance goal achievement 3. Address the concerns of the Joshua Intervenors directly through consulting, advising, compromise, consensus Responsible:Action Plan - TO IMPLEMENT THE DESEGREGATION PLAN AS MODIFIED Strategy No, Plan No .__ 2 5 SPECIFIC RESULTS: Date: 9/1122S. Declare intention to cooperate with and establish working relationships with Joshua Intervenors. Knight Intervenors. ODM # 1. 2. 3. ACTION STEP (Number each one) Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: Establish trust, confidence and good faith among parties regarding Plan matters __________________________________ Identify Plan problems and invite parties to address them cooperatively Work together to create solutions that meet children's needs_________ Responsible\nt-acz SHTTLTS, RAY \u0026amp; KUBKUS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1000 boatmen's BANK BUILDING 800 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLB ROCK, ARKANSAS 722O1-3Q3T ROBERT SHULTS THOMAS RAY H. BAKER KURRUS STEVEN SHULTS DEBORAH K. TRUBY TELBPHONB (801) 378-8301 FACSIMILE (801) 375-08Q1 September 15, 1995 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 SEP 1 6 1995 Office of Dessgreiiaiw \u0026gt;4^^ Hi tf Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ann, Hank and John: Enclosed are the final Action Plans which have been developed by the Little Rock School District planning team which I co-chaired. 1 have been alarmed, but not surprised, by the dramatic decreases in the number of white students in the District for the 1995-96 school year. As I told Ann in the first correspondence which I sent to her in May of this year, great damage was being done to the Little Rock School District and its prospects for implementation of a desegregation plan by the negative publicity which occurred The fact that the major players were publicly and vigorously in the spring. questioning the motives and integrity of the others damaged the District greatly. I was involved in recruitment during this period, and the Little Rock School District lost many students because of the perception of endless turmoil. This type of activity has caused tremendous cumulative damage to the District. To make matters worse, when the initial \"olive branch\" was extended and cooperative meetings were scheduled, the first meetings were non-productive and actually caused additional negative pu\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_707","title":"Strategic planning process","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1993/2003"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School board members","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Strategic planning process"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/707"],"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\nRECEived NOV 7 Office of Desegregation 95 IMonitoring A Vision For The Future Little Rock School District Proposed Strategic Plan 1996-2001A mission statement is a broad statement of the unique purpose for . which the district exists and the specific function it performs. Mission Statement The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive contributing citizens. This is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. 1 Beliefs are a statement of the district's fundamental convictions, values, and character. Beliefs We believe....  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence development of a child. on the  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy.  Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a person's life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. 2 Objectives are an expression of the district's desired, measurable end results of student success, performance and/or achievement. Objectives  By the year 2001, average student performance for every identified sub group (race, gender) will be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests.  No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum.  Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others. 3 Strategies are the means by which the district can accomplish its objectives. Strategies  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support.  We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with students' learning. our 4 Strategies (Continued)  We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives.  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age.  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district.  We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district.  We will redesign our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan. (No action team necessary, due to dependency on the other strategies.) 5Parameters are the guiding principals that establish the framework within which the district will accomplish its mission. Parameters *  No new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.  No program or service will be retained unless benefits continue to exceed cost and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission.  School-based decision making will always be consistent with the Strategic Plan as well as the Desegregation Plan.  We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual.  We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget.  We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. * Contractual items will be subject to negotiation. 6 PVe will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan. Strategy 2 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 2. X 1. Identification of LRSD desegregation plan obligations. X 2. Determine plan requirements/obligations which are not feasible or educationally sound. X 3. Establish a timetable and plan for complying with all feasible obligations. X 4. Seek joint plan modifications and recognition of completed obligations through consultation with ODM, Joshua Intervenors, Knight Intervenors, all for the purpose of enabling the LRSD to achieve goals and objectives. X 5. Declare intention to cooperate with and establish working relationships with Joshua Intervenors, Knight Intervenors, and ODM. 8 We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum. Strategy 3 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year JZl X 1. Adopt a policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction. X 2. Expand comprehensive Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills. X 3. Develop an intervention team at each school which provides systemic support including professional development for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3. X 4. Promotes school-wide reform and ensures access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. X 5. Implement middle school programming to provide a developmentally appropriate educational environment for the academic success of adolescents. X 6. Redesign the delivery system at the alternative learning center to improve academic skills and to address the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of the students. 9 Strategy 3 Action Plan (Continued) X 7. Train requesting teachers in the Math/Science crusade (K-12) to better implement the Goal 2000 plan and give them the background for following the guidelines set forth by the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) and the related science organization. X 8. Provide extended day academic programming for students at risk of failing and in need of extra assistance in core subjects. X 9. Implement a three week summer program for identified at risk students in the middle level grades in order to provide an on-going three year experience in science and math. 10VJe will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support. Strategy 4 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Communicate key issues with consistency to our audiences. X 2. Increase credibility with teachers, principals, and members of the district's staff through more timely and accurate information flow to and from LRSD's central administration. X 3. Achieve positive relationships with key members of the media in order to help ensure a consistent flow of accurate information to our various audiences. X 4. Expand the use of available tools to positively influence the perceptions of parents, as well as other audiences within the district, with regard to the quality of education received by all children within the LRSD's schools. X 5. Shift focus away from the district back to its individual schools (as well as to their students and teachers). X 6. Create a system that ensures a constant flow of \"success stories\" from the individual LRSD schools into the Districf s Office of Communications for release to the public. X 7. Create positive spokespersons out of parents, teachers and other influential members of the community. 11 Strategy 4 Action Plan (Continued) X 8. Improve the existing system that was designed to direct the media toward the appropriate information source within the District 12We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning. Strategy 5 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Expand the role of Partners in Education to include the development of business and community partner coalitions with neighborhood school emphasis in an effort to expand resources which address external issues interfering with students' learning. X 2. Improved opportunities for young people to develop positive interactions with adults who are mentors. X 3. Increase the level of grant funding available to the LRSD to utilize in partnerships with community agencies and organizations to address external issues that interfere with students' learning. X 4. Design and develop a joint working agreement with LRSD and community agencies and organizations that ensures availability of and access to comprehensive support services for all LRSD students. 13 V^e will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives. Strategy 6 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year JZl X 1. Develop job descriptions that are consistent and specific. X 2. Design recruitment/entrance standards to attract superior personnel who excel academically or otherwise in their major fields of study, experience, or interest X 3. Develop a fair, equitable compensation system for all employees that is objective, fairly administered and tied to the performance of the school. X 4. To maximize student-teacher contact time, decrease substitute personnel expense to the district and enhance the morale of all district personnel. X 5. Create monetary and non-monetary incentives to reward district employees who work for the betterment of our students. X 6. Provide staff with opportunities to pursue educational endeavors that will promote high educational standards within the district X 7. Develop an evaluation process which accurately assesses employee performance and serves as a tool for professional growth. X 8. Develop a termination process which is fair, equitable and effective. [ Contractual items will be subject to negotiation.] 14 We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. Strategy 8 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X lA. Prepare for implementation of site-based management to allow individual schools choice to do what is best to meet the needs of their students. X IB. Implement site-based management to allow individual schools choice to do what is best to meet the individual needs of their students. X 2A. Identify a variety of school innovation options throughout the district to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 2B. Develop a variety of innovation options throughout the district to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 2C. Implement a variety of irmovation options throughout the district to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 3A. Establish a seed school with University Teacher Education ties to do ongoing research in the practical applications of various school programs and options, to keep current with literature in the field, to provide a site for exemplary individualized education for a student body representative of the LRSD student population, to do training by demonstration and example as well as precept, and thus continually adding to the list of potential programs and options for educational individualization. 16 Strategy 8 Action Plan(Continued - Page 2) X 3B. Support and maintain operation of seed school. X 3C. Utilize the seed school to support teacher education and the testing of new educational programs and strategies designed to maximize individualized education. X 4. Allow students in grades K-12 to move at their own developmental and intellectual pace as teachers discover their learning styles to eliminate permanent ability tracking. X 5A. Acquire alternative assessment methods that allow teachers to determine a students actual functioning level so as to provide appropriate programming and to eliminate permanent ability tracking. X 5B. Implement alternative assessment methods that allow teachers to determine a studenf s actual functioning level so as to provide appropriate programming and to eliminate permanent ability tracking. X 6. Strengthen pupil service teams to be utilized as a first line screening mechanism for students evidencing problems so that alternative program options will be implemented for students not requiring Special Education. X 7. Collaborate with the community to offer early childhood programs for children ages 2 to 4 as an option for district patrons, with preference going to low socio economic status (SES) families, to provide experiences and information needed to equalize student preparation. X 8. Cultivate and use the community centralized resources guide (refer to strategy 5) for the individual development of each and every student. 17Strategy 8 Action Plan(Continued - Page 3) X 9. Provide commuruty based services that enable parents, students, and community to work together to further a child's education. X 10. Create an educational climate which encourages parent/ teacher interaction by eliminating major barriers and providing increased opportunities for participation in the learning process. 18We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district. Strategy 9 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Develop strategies to retain and attract students to the LRSD to assure adequate future revenues from sources that will be increasingly based on the size of student population. X 2. Develop a financial committee composed of LRSD personnel and community representatives to function as an advisory committee to the LRSD Board and Superintendent on budget development, monitoring, implementation, and other financial matters. X 3. Develop Board fiscal policy statements and manual to be housed in an official repository addressing revenues, expenditures, millage increase, debt service, monitoring, reporting, facilities planning, and staffing and procedures to effectively communicate to the public, teachers, and administration. X 4. Develop a five year revenue forecast (by month for the first year and annually for years two through five) for the District. X 5. Develop a five year expense forecast (by month for the first year and annually for years two through five) for the District X 6. Revise the process and develop policy on monitoring actual performance compared to budget to include Board briefings, mid-year adjustments and amendments, and report formats. 19 Strategy 9 Action Plan(Continued - Page 2) X 7. Select peer school districts and develop performance indicators for comparison purposes in order to identify areas and possible means for improvement X 8. Establish a committee of District and non-District representatives to monitor proposed legislation and/or regulations and make recommendations for new, or revisions to current, laws and regulations that would impact operations of the LRSD. X 9. Establish a goal to prepare a budget document that will meet the criteria for the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. X 10. Develop resource sharing partnerships with North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). 20We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. strategy 10 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Provide ongoing conflict resolution training and skill development for students. X 2. Improve behavior and safety on school buses and bus stops. X 3. Control access to school buildings, grounds and events. X 4. Implement a staff development plan for all personnel to fully understand safety policies and procedures. X 5. Develop and enhance a system of communication among schools, administration, and the public regarding issues of safety and security. X 6. Inform the public of plan in regard to the following (a) control of drug activity (b) violence prevention (c) campus and bus security\n(language that is direct and easy for all to understand). X 7. Develop a credible evaluation plan that will ensure complete and proper implementation. 21 We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well as effectively operate the district. Strategy 11 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Define technology in terms of the educational and administrative needs of the LRSD. X 2. Establish a broad based technology advisory board for the LRSD. X 3. Acquire and implement the technology needed to meet current and future instructional and administrative needs of the LRSD. X 4. Assemble a technical staff to implement and support district information technologies, including computer hardware and software applications, networking, computer operations, and audiovisual services. X 5. Design and implement a comprehensive technology training program for all LRSD employees (teachers, administrators, and support staff) that provides appropriate facilities, tools, training, and supplies to maximize effectiveness. X 6. Train students in the use of technology so that they are able to access, evaluate, and apply information. X 7. Train students to use current technology to increase competencies in problem solving, specific content areas and critical thinking skills. 22 NOV 08 85 11 Ml c*'t P.l Pulaski County Special School District 925 East Dixon Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501) 490-2000 Post Ofhce Box 8601 Ltitle Rock, Arkansas 72216 FAX (501) 490-0483 Date: Time: , jj:s5' /4. /H. To: ^n//y From\ny/y Number of Pages (including cover sheet): 7' Message SCHOOL CAPACITY INFORMATION PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT October 17, 1935 HIGH SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACITY Jacksonville Mills North Pulaski Oak Grove Jr./Sr. Robinson Sylvan Hills -IO2S 780 900 935 506 998 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS SCHOOL CAPACITY Puller Jacksonville North Jacksonville South Northwood Robinson Scott (Alternative Sch.) Sylvan Hills 945 737 727 1014 514 125 925 ELEiVIEMTARY SCHOOL SCHOOL CAPACITY Adkins Arnold Drive Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato Clinton College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Murrell Taylor Tolleson ASO 420 328 768 66A 600 800 340 820 465 526 525 785 599 365 476 555 440 656 500 280 492 519 444 570Office 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: Novel er 27. 1995 From: in Brown To: Leon Modeste and Linda Young Subject: LRSD Draft Proposed Strategic Plan My staff and I have reviewed the proposed strategic plan you sent me earlier this month, as 1 had indicated we would in my November 7 memo to you. Our comments and questions are listed below. We applaud your efforts and those of the many employees and volunteers who participated in the strategic planning process. We heartily wish you every success in the plans implementation, and look forward to the progress it should foster. 1. The document reflects lots of hard work and contains many excellent proposals. It is general enough to allow for changing circumstances but precise enough to outline specific actions. 2. Tlie proposals are complementary to the LRSDs desegregation plan and goals and should work well in tandem with the districts desegregation commitments. 3. One idea that struck us as particularly valuable was that proposed in Strategy 8. Establishing ties to higher education entities and having those schools conduct ongoing research into the practical applications of a variety of educational programs is a type of input and evaluation that should be very helpful to the district. 4. Some of the strategies could be quite expensive, those for technology and the summer program for at-risk students for example. How does the district expect to finance these and the other recommendations? 5. The objective to raise average student performance on standardized tests to the 75th percentile or above for every subgroup is very ambitious. However, given the nature of standardized testing and the student population of the LRSD, it is also probably highly unrealistic. 6. Achieving the proposals will obviously involve additional types and phases of planning. How and when does the district plan to attach specific implementation steps, dates, responsible persons, benchmarks, and evaluation criteria to each of the proposals?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 November 27, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Ive recently received and read a copy of the LRSD Proposed Strategic Plan for 1996-2001. The plan obviously represents a tremendous amount of work on the part of many vitally interested and involved people. It contains many excellent ideas and laudable objectives and fits well with the districts desegregation plan and goals. 1 congratulate you, your staff, and the citizen volunteers on completion of this worthwhile planning process. When do you expect to announce more details about how the strategic plan will be carried out, such as the execution steps and dates, budgetary allotments, the names of those responsible for various aspects of implementation, and the evaluation criteria? 111 appreciate receiving this information as soon as its available so my staff and 1 can be on the lookout for ways to positively highlight your strategic plan in action. 1 wish you every success in bringing the strategic plan to life. Please let me know how 1 may be of assistance. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Members, LRSD Board of Education JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. RECS3WD JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JAN 1 I 1996 Office of Desegregaficri Mor lung [Delivered by Fax \u0026amp; U.S. Mail] January 9,1996 Honorable F. G. \"Buddy\" Villines Pulaski County Judge County Administration Building 201 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Jim Dailey Mayor of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas City Hall 500 W. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Patrick Henry Hayes Mayor of the City of No. Little Rock P.O. Box 5757 No. Little Rock, AR 72119 Dear Sirs\nI was privileged to attend a meeting of the Board of Directors of New Futures this morning. That organization has budgeted funds to support what is known as the \"Little Rock School District's Strategic Plan\". Mayor Dailey is a member of that Board of Directors. I was pleased to know that the support was being given to the Strategic Plan but 1 am somewhat curious to know whether the same support has been given to the plans of desegregation which were entered into between the three Pulaski County School Districts, the Arkansas Department of Education, the teachers, and the black plaintiffs in the school case. Letters of support of the Desegregation Plans were promised along with good faith efforts of public officials to make the plans work. The purpose of this letter is to ascertain the specific efforts and budgets which have been adopted to support the parties' desegregation efforts.Page Two Honorable F.G. \"Buddy\" Villines Mr. Jim Dailey Mr. Patrick Henry Hayes January 9,1996 Would each of you kindly provide me with any letters of support or ordinances or resolutions of support, including financial support, which have been directed toward the desegregation efforts. I would also like for you to delineate the specific problems, if any, which you perceive to be in need of corrective action. I particularly invite Mayor Dailey's reply. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Joi Walker JWW:lp co: Dr. Henry Williams Mr. Bobby Lester Mr. James Smith Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel of Records A Little Rock School District wSS S .- To: From: Subj ect: January 22, 1996 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring iX inda Young and ^ieon Modeste Strategic Plan Facilitators Office Little Rock School District Strategic Plan JAH 2 4 1996 In accordance with our telephone conversation, we are responding to your request for an update on the Strategic Plan. We are most grateful to you and your staff for taking the time to read the LRSD Strategic Plan. Also, we deeply appreciate your support and thoughtful comments. There were two specific questions that you were concerned about: First, what are our expectations of funding action plans that are expensive? It is our intention to implement a funding strategy with the support of our advisory committees. We will be seeking a variety of funding sources. However, this is not anticipated for this first year. Second, a response to your request regarding implementation: We are currently making preparations to move into the most difficult part of \"implementation phase\". the Strategic Plan, which is the Dr. Williams has assigned key administrators to specific strategies (See Attached). On January 30 and 31, 1996, Dr. Howard Fedema will facilitate the \"Mutual Expectations Workshop\". At that time the key administrators will began to design their work through the lens of the strategic plan. If you or any of your staff wish to attend the workshops, please feel free to inform us 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Response to Strategic Plan page 3 Attachment strategy Assigned Administrator #1 Curriculum Gene Parker, Supervisor Communications, English, ESL, and Foreign Languages/ Acting Director of Reading #2 Desegregation Russ Mayo, Associate Supt. of Desegregation #3 Scores Below 50% Victor Anderson, Asst. Superintendent/Secondary #4 Communications Suellen Vann, Director, Communications #5 Community Partnerships Debbie Milam, VIPS Coordinator *6 Personnel Brady Gadberiry, Director Labor Relations #7 Staff Development Sterling Ingram, Director Staff Development #8 Equity Patty Kohler, Director Div. of Except. Children #9 Finances Fred Smith, Manager Support Services #10 Safety JoEvelyn Elston, Director Pupil Services #11 Technology David Beason, Director Information Services Strategic Plan Facilitators Linda Young, Liaison New Futures/Restructuring Director Leon E. Modeste, Special Asst, to Superintendents LnTLii Rock School Distkiof OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 15. 1996 Walter Hussman Publisher Arkansas Democrat-Gazette P. O. Box 2221 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear Walter: Public education has been, and will continue to be, an important concern among residents of this community. It is critical, therefore, that dialogue exists between educators and the community. It is equally important that media representatives meet periodically with educational leaders to discuss the issues which we must address. In fact, the Tri-District Desegregation Plan calls for regular meetings between a media coalition and the superintendents of the three public school districts. I would like to invite you, or your representative, to meet with Bobby Lester, Pulaski County Special School District Superintendent\nJames Smith, North Little Rock School District Superintendent\nand me on Wednesday, April 24, at 8:30 a.m. The meeting will be held in the Board Room of the Little Rock School District Administration Building, 810 West Markham. I look forward to meeting with you, other media representatives, and the other local superintendents. Sir/cerely, :\u0026lt;\nnry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools cc: Bobby Lester James Smith 810 West Miirkliain Sired l.ltLle R\u0026lt;x:k, ArkajiMUH 72201 (501)321-2(X)0 * Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 April 18, 1996 TO: All Little Rock School District Personnel FROM: Linda Young, Internal Coordinator, Strategic Planning ^^B-c^on Modeste, internal Coordinator, Strategic Planning THROUGH: enry r. Willi\nis, Superintendent of Schools RE: Questions Following the April 5th Strategic Planning Update As promised, we are providing responses to the questions and thoughtful concerns that were articulated by staff members across the district following the closed circuit telecast about strategic planning. We are very pleased with the interest in and positive comments about our district-wide effort to ensure continued success for our students into the 21st century. What follows is a response by Dr. Williams to your questions. We encourage each of you to continue to think about the strategies addressed through our strategic planning effort and to become involved in the work that must be done to ensure that our mission becomes our reality. Again we encourage you to become involved by volunteering to serve on one of the numerous stratgic planning teams that are currenly being formed. Listed below are the lead administrators responsible for the implementation of the strategic plan. Please feel free to contact us or any of the strategy leaders if you wish to become involved. Leon Modeste, Internal Coordinator Linda Young, Internal Coordinator 324-2011 324-2112 I Strategy | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Title Core Curriculum Standards Implement Desegregation Plan Students Testing Below 50% Communication Plans Community Partnerships_____ Personnel Policies Staff Development____________ Equitable Delivery System Financial Stability____________ School Safety_________________ Use of Technology Leader Gene Parker Russ Mayo_____ Vic Anderson Suellen Vann Debbie Milam Brady Gadberry Sterling Ingram Patty Kohler Fred Smith JoEvelyn Elston David Beason I Telephone# | 324-0510 ~ 324-2429 324-2005 324-2020 324-2297 324-2118 324-2130 324-2190 324-2003 324-2162 324-2056Little Rock School District Strategic Planning Update April 18, 1996 Follow Up Questions And Answers Is it really possible by the year 2001 for average student performance for every identified sub group to be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests'? Those of us who have taken a course in measurements and statistics have probably come away from that experience believing that this objective is impossible to achieve. Why? The answer is simply because of the nature of statistics. But, the strategic planning committee wanted to set objectives that would really stretch us and force us to grow into a new way of thinking about what can happen for students. This objective is a desired objective. Our hope is that through the strategic planning effort -all of us- administrators, teachers, and support staff-will come together to create an optimum learning environment for all students. The intent of this environment will be to nurture all of our students in ways that encourage them to achieve their personal maximums. The strategic planning committee has identified ambitious strategies for moving the district toward realization of this objective. Specifically, strategies 1, 3, 7, and 8 address comprehensive systemic changes designed to accomplish this through standards for curriculum and assessment, innovative strategies for improving below grade level performance, staff development, and site-based management. Finally, do I believe that the intent of this objective is obtainable? Yes - absolutely. As we work together throughout the district, building on a common belief system, we can achieve our mission. Student behavior and discipline issues in our classrooms and schools remain major concerns for most of us. Where among the twelve strategies are these concerns addressed? These concerns are actually addressed throughout the entire strategic plan. However, they are exphcitly addressed in strategy 10 which focuses on the development and implementation of actions aimed at restoring public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. These actions include providing ongoing conflict resolution training and skill development for our f '71^ J LriTLE Rock School District APf !996 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT j AA pri1l 11 5c , 11 n9n9n6 | Of D: Dear Colleagues: As a foUow up to the Strategic Planning. Update on Friday, April Sth, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you my personal excitement regarding the progress that has been made in the strategic planning effort. I am encouraged by the positive comments and the thoughtful questions that I have received since our closed circuit broadcast. From the update, you no doubt gleaned that we have undertaken a comprehensive effort to take our school district into the 21st century. The secret to our future success hes in the development of specific action strategies based on a clear vision for the future, rather than the more familiar long range planning which perpetuates, ultimately, an unsatisfactory status quo. The eleven strategies represent a monumental opportunity to create a world class school system that will sustain and challenge all students as they journey through our educational programs. Specifically, I am extremely pleased to report that we are making progress on developing standards for student performance, curricular content, and delivery systems. These standards will ensure the continuity between and among the components of learning experience necessary to produce successful learners. In doing so, they will provide us with clear direction about what we need to do, how we need to do it\nand, for a change, they will provide us with information about what we must have in order to do it well. Through the strategic planning effort we have made significant progress in identifying appropriate strategies for students who are performing below grade level. We plan to share more information about this in the very near future through revised policies, procedures, and the identification of new options for early intervention and ongoing academic support. Several of you have expressed concerns about the issues of disciphne, safety, and security. Let me assure you that as we continue to move through the strategic planning process, we will focus on discipline, safety, and security as 810 West MaiWiam Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 324-2000 RECESVSO Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 APR i 3 1996 Office of Desegregation Monitoring April 18, 1996 TO: All Little Rock School District Personnel FROM: Linda Young, Internal Coordinator, Strategic Planning .^SK/^on Modeste, Jnternal Coordinator, Strategic Planning THROUGH: enry P, Willii s. Superintendent of Schools RE: Questions Following the April 5th Strategic Planning Update As promised, we are providing responses to the questions and thoughtful concerns that were articulated by staff members across the district following the closed circuit telecast about strategic planning. We are very pleased with the interest in and positive comments about our district-wide effort to ensure continued success for our students into the 21st century. What follows is a response by Dr. Williams to your questions. We encourage each of you to continue to think about the strategies addressed through our strategic planning effort and to become involved in the work that must be done to ensure that our mission becomes our reality. Again we encourage you to become involved by volunteering to serve on one of the numerous stratgic planning teams that are currenly being formed. Listed below are the lead administrators responsible for the implementation of the strategic plan. Please feel free to contact us or any of the strategy leaders if you wish to become involved. Leon Modeste, Internal Coordinator Linda Young, Internal Coordinator 324-2011 324-2112 I Strate^ i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ________________Title Core Curriculum Standards Implement Desegregation Plan Students Testing Below 50% Communication Plans Community Partnerships_____ Personnel Policies Staff Development____________ Equitable Delivery System Financial Stability____________ School Safety_________________ Use of Technology Leader Gene Parker Russ Mayo_____ Vic Anderson Suellen Vann Debbie Milam Brady Gadberry Sterling Ingram Patty Kohler Fred Smith JoEvelyn Elston David Beason ] Telephone# | 324-0510 324-2429 324-2005 324-2020 324-2297 324-2118 324-2130 324-2190 324-2003 324-2162 324-2056Little Rock School District Strategic Planning Update April 18, 1996 Follow Up Questions And Answers Is it really possible by the year 2001 for average student performance for every identified sub group to be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests'? Those of us who have taken a course in measurements and statistics have probably come away from that experience believing that this objective is impossible to achieve. Why? The answer is simply because of the nature of statistics. But, the strategic planning committee wanted to set objectives that would really stretch us and force us to grow into a new way of thinking about what can happen for students. This objective is a desired objective. Our hope is that through the strategic planning effort -all of us- administrators, teachers, and support staff-will come together to create an optimum learning environment for aU students. The intent of this environment will be to nurture all of our students in ways that encourage them to achieve their personal maximums. The strategic planning committee has identified ambitious strategies for moving the district toward realization of this objective. Specifically, strategies 1, 3, 7, and 8 address comprehensive systemic changes designed to accomplish this through standards for curriculum and assessment, innovative strategies for improving below grade level performance, staff development, and site-based management. Finally, do I believe that the intent of this objective is obtainable? Yes - absolutely. As we work together throughout the district, building on a common belief system, we can achieve our mission. Student behavior and discipline issues in our classrooms and schools remain major concerns for most of us. Where among the twelve strategies are these concerns addressed? These concerns are actually addressed throughout the entire strategic plan. However, they are explicitly addressed in strategy 10 which focuses on the development and implementation of actions aimed at restoring public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. These actions include providing ongoing conflict resolution training and skill development for our Page Two October 10, 1996 I hope you make it clear as soon as possible and in as widespread a manner as possible that we are not in disagreement of this fundamental principle. Sincerely, W. Walker JWW:lp cc\nMs. Ann Brown Dr. Roosevelt Brown Mr. Rett Tucker A Vision For The Future Little Rock School District Proposed Strategic Plan 1996-2001 A mission statement is a broad statement of the unique purpose for which the district exists and the specific junction it performs. Mission Statement The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive contributing citizens. a This is accomplished through open access to diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. 1 Beliefs are a statement of the district's fundamental convictions, values, and character. Beliefs Wc believe....  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence on the development of a child.  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy.  Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a person's life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. 2 Objectives are an expression of the districts desired, measurable end results of student success, performance and/or achievement. Objectives  By the year 2001, average student performance for every identified sub group (race, gender) will be at or above the 75th percentile as measured by standardized tests.  No later than the year 2001, no fewer than 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum.  Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others. 3 Strategies are the means by which the district can accomplish its objectives. Strategies  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support.  We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with students' learning. our 4 Strategies (Continued)  We will develop and implement personnel policies and procedures to ensure all employees are making optimal contributions to our mission and objectives.  We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan.  We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age.  We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district.  We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools.  We will integrate appropriate technology to help achieve our objectives, as well Operate the district.  We will redesign our as effectively educational system, its 0/^^ organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan. (No action team necessary, due to dependency on the other strategies.) 5In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/lan^uage arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 1 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Adopt a definition for content standards in the Little Rock School District. X 2. Adopt a definition for performance standards in the Little Rock School District. X 3. Submit the components of performance standard sets in the Little Rock School District. X X 4. Develop performance standards for the Little Rock School District. X 5. Adopt a definition for delivery standards in the Little Rock School District. X 6. Adopt components of delivery standard sets in the Little Rock School District. X 7. Develop delivery standards for the Little Rock School District X X 8. Develop a trainer-of-trainers model for the Little Rock School District to use to train all appropriate human resources on how to implement and achieve the standards. 7 We will develop the means to successfully implement or modify the Desegregation Plan in order to achieve unitary status as well as the objectives in the Strategic Plan. Strategy 2 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Identification of LRSD desegregation plan obligations. X 2. Determine plan requirements/obligations which are not feasible or educationally sound. X 3. Establish a timetable and plan for complying with all feasible obligations. X 4. Seek joint plan modifications and recognition of completed obligations through consultation with ODM, Joshua Intervenors, Knight Intervenors, all for the purpose of enabling the LRSD to achieve goals and objectives. X 5. Declare intention to cooperate with and establish working relationships with Joshua Intervenors, Knight Intervenors, and ODM. 8 We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50th percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving district standards in the core curriculum. Strategy 3 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Adopt a policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction. X 2. Expand comprehensive Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills. X 3. Develop an intervention team at each school which provides systemic support including professional development for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3. X 4. Promotes school-wide reform and ensures access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. X 5. Implement middle school programming to provide a developmentally appropriate educational environment for the academic success of adolescents. X 6. Redesign the delivery system at the alternative learning center to improve academic skills and to address the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of the students. 9 Strategy 3 Action Plan (Continued) X 7. Train requesting teachers in the Math/Science crusade (K-12) to better implement the Goal 2000 plan and give them the background for following the guidelines set forth by the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) and the related science organization. X 8. Provide extended day academic programming for students at risk of failing and in need of extra assistance in core subjects. X 9. Implement a three week summer program for identified at risk students in the middle level grades in order to provide an on-going three year experience in science and math. 10We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support. Strategy 4 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Communicate key issues with consistency to our audiences. X 2. Increase credibility with teachers, principals, and members of the district's staff through more timely and accurate information flow to and from LRSD's central administration. X 3. Achieve positive relationships with key members of the media in order to help ensure a consistent flow of accurate information to our various audiences. X 4. Expand the use of available tools to positively influence the perceptions of parents, as well as other audiences within the district, with regard to the quality of education received by all children within the LRSD's schools. X 5. Shift focus away from the district back to its individual schools (as well as to their students and teachers). X 6. Create a system that ensures a constant flow of \"success stories\" from the individual LRSD schools into the Districts Office of Communications for release to the public. X 7. Create positive spokespersons out of parents, teachers and other influential members of the community. II Strategy 4 Action Plan (Continued) X 8. Improve the existing system that was designed to direct the media toward the appropriate information source within the District 12We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students' learning. Strategy 5 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Expand the role of Partners in Education to include the development of business and community partner coalitions with neighborhood school emphasis in an effort to expand resources which address external issues interfering with students' learning. X 2. Improved opportunities for young people to develop positive interactions with adults who are mentors. X 3. Increase the level of grant funding available to the LRSD to utilize in partnerships with community agencies and organizations to address external issues that interfere with students' learning. X 4. Design and develop a joint working agreement with LRSD and community agencies and organizations that ensures availability of and access to comprehensive support services for all LRSD students. 13 We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. strategy 7 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. To reformulate a district-level Staff Development Planiung Council which will bring together stakeholders to advise and assist in the development of policy for and evaluation of a staff-development system that is site-specific and driven by the three objectives adopted by the LRSD. X 2. To train the Staff Development Planning Council, central administrative staff, and staff at five schools on teaming for school improvement. X 3. To meet the needs and address the problems of school sites through the use of school improvement teams. X 4. To establish a district and community technical assistance network to support school improvement teams. X X 5. To evaluate the staff development system within the district 15 We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. strategy 8 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year X lA. Prepare for implementation of site-based management to allow individual schools choice to do what is best to meet the needs of their students. X IB. Implement site-based management to allow individual schools choice to do what is best to meet the individual needs of their students. X 2A. Identify a variety of school innovation options throughout the district to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 2B. Develop a variety of innovation options throughout the district to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 2C. Implement a variety of innovation options throughout the district to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 3A. Establish a seed school with University Teacher Education ties to do ongoing research in the practical applications of various school programs and options, to keep current with literature in the field, to provide a site for exemplary individualized education for a student body representative of the LRSD student population, to do training by demonstration and example as well as precept, and thus continually adding to the list of potential programs and options for educational individualization.____________________ 16 Strategy 8 Action Plan(Continued - Page 2) X 3B. Support and maintain operation of seed school. X 3C. Utilize the seed school to support teacher education and the testing of new educational programs and strategies designed to maximize individualized education. X 4. Allow students in grades K-12 to move at their own developmental and intellectual pace as teachers discover their learning styles to eliminate permanent ability tracking. X 5A. Acquire alternative assessment methods that allow teachers to determine a student's actual functioning level so as to provide appropriate programming and to eliminate permanent ability tracking. X 5B. Implement alternative assessment methods that allow teachers to determine a students actual functioning level so as to provide appropriate programming and to eliminate permanent ability tracking. X 6 Strengthen pupil service teams to be utilized as a first line screening mechanism for students evidencing problems so that alternative program options will be implemented for students not requiring Special Education. X 7 Collaborate with the community to offer early childhood programs for children ages 2 to 4 as an option for district patrons, with preference going to low socio economic status (SES) families, to provide experiences preparation. and information needed to equalize student X i 8. Cultivate and use the community centralized resources guide (refer to strategy 5) for the individual development of each and every student._____________________________________________________ 17Strategy 8 Action Plan(Continued - Page 3) X 9. Provide community based services that enable parents, students, and community to work together to further a child's education. X 10. Create an educational climate which encourages parent/teacher interaction by eliminating major barriers and providing increased opportunities for participation in the learning process. 18We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the district. strategy 9 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Develop strategies to retain and attract students to the LRSD to assure adequate future revenues from sources that will be increasingly based on the size of student population. X 2. Develop a financial committee composed of LRSD personnel and community representatives to function as an advisory committee to the LRSD Board and Superintendent on budget development, monitoring, implementation, and other financial matters. X 3. Develop Board fiscal policy statements and manual to be housed in an official repository addressing revenues, expenditures, millage increase, debt service, monitoring, reporting, facilities planning, and staffing and procedures to effectively communicate to the public, teachers, and administration. X 4. Develop a five year revenue forecast (by month for the first year and annually for years two through five) for the District. X 5. Develop a five year expense forecast (by month for the first year and annually for years two through five) for the District X 6. Revise the process and develop policy on monitoring actual performance compared to budget to include Board briefings, mid-year adjustments and amendments, and report formats. 19 Strategy 9 Action Plan(Continued - Page 2) X 7. Select peer school districts and develop performance indicators for comparison purposes in order to identify areas and possible means for improvement X 8. Establish a committee of District and non-District representatives to monitor proposed legislation and/or regulations and make recommendations for new, or revisions to current, laws and regulations that would impact operations of the LRSD. X 9. Establish a goal to prepare a budget document that will meet the criteria for the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. X 10. Develop resource sharing partnerships with North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD). 20We will develop and implement plans to restore public confidence in the safety and security of our schools. Strategy 10 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Provide ongoing conflict resolution training and skill development for students. X 2. Improve behavior and safety on school buses and bus stops. X 3. Control access to school buildings, grounds and events. X 4. Implement a staff development plan for all personnel to fully understand safety policies and procedures. X 5. Develop and enhance a system of communication among schools, administration, and the public regarding issues of safety and security. X 6. Inform the public of plan in regard to the following (a) control of drug activity (b) violence prevention (c) campus and bus security\n(language that is direct and easy for all to understand). X 7. Develop a credible evaluation plan that will ensure complete and proper implementation. 21 Strategy 11 Action Plan (Continued - Page 2) X 8. Train teachers, administrators, and other school support staff to use current technology to increase productivity and maximize effectiveness. X 9. Gather, store, and analyze student data bases used to provide accurate and timely reports. 23IRh. MAY 8 1998 it  OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT May 7. 1998 Ms. Ann Brown, ODM 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: The Little Rock School District is preparing to conduct an update session of the Strategic Plan. We believe that the periodic update is vital to successful strategic implementation and to the organization itself. This session will provide an opportunity to review the revised desegregation plan, re-validate priorities, and gain a narrower focus with more intense concentration of effort on significant objectives. The team will also review the progress that has been made in the implementation of the strategic plan over the past months. It is my hope that you will agree to serve on the strategic planning team. The team will meet Thursday, June 4 and Friday, June 5 at St. James United Methodist Church, 321 Pleasant Valley Drive in Jones Hall. On June 4 and 5, breakfast will be available at 7:30 a.m. with the sessions beginning at 8:00 a.m. Sessions will conclude at 9:00 p.m. on June 4 and 5:00 p.m. on June 5. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 to confirm your participation. Sincerely, Kes Carnine Soperintendent 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000P\u0026gt;. (4*- SiAA-f^ 2 19S8 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING June 1, 1998 Ms. Melissa Guldin, ODM 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guldin: Thank you for agreeing to serve on the Little Rock School District Strategic Planning Team. Attached for your review is overview information about the Little Rock School District, a copy of the Strategic Plan, and a copy of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The team will meet Thursday, June 4 and Friday, June 5 at St. James United Methodist Church, 321 Pleasant Valley Drive in the Peck Building, Entrance 6. Breakfast will be available at 7:30 a.m. with the sessions beginning at 8:00 a.m. Sessions will conclude between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m. on June 4 and 5:00 p.m. on June 5. In order to provide full participation from the team and accomplish the work that must be completed, it is important for all members to be present during the entire session. A map of the St. James facility is enclosed for your convenience. The Peck Building is labeled Building Entrance 6 and is located on the East side or freeway side of the building. The meeting will be held in Room 109. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 324-2112. Thanks again. Sincerely, Linda Young New Futures Liaison and Restructuring Director 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000DATE: TO: FROM: RE: Little Rock School District November 4, 1998 Strategic Planning Team Members Young, New Futures Liaison J NOV 5 1998 OFJCEOF DESEGREGATION MCMITORINQ D ^3 Strategic Plan Update Session November 10, 1998 7:30 - 5:00 St. James United Methodist Church 321 Pleasant Valley Drive Enclosed are the draft action team recommendations for Strategies Two, Four and Ten as requested by the team in June. Please review the material prior to the meeting on November 10. A special note of clarification, action team ten has developed a new action plan and added steps to several original action plans. The complete list of original and newly developed action steps have been provided for action plans in which additional steps are proposed. An agenda and map of St. James United Methodist Church is also enclosed for your review. Breakfast will be provided at 7:30 a.m. with the meeting beginning at 8:00 a.m. The meeting will be held in Room 109, the same room used for the June session. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 324-2112. Thanks so much for your continued participation in the Little Rock School District. Attachments 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000Little Rock School District Strategic Plan Update received November 10,1998 NOV 5 1993 I. Introduction AGENDA OmCEOF DESKRESATIGSMOHnTORfSiS II. Purpose ill. Review Components IV. Presentation of Action Plans V. Discussion of Action Plans VI. Revisit Components VII. Implementation Schedule VIII. Next StepsStrategy 2 Contents page In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Content Standards/Performance Standards (Plans 1-4) Plan 1 Results: Adopt a definition for content standards in the Little Rock School District. Plan 2 Results: Adopt a definition for performance standards in the Little Rock School District. Plan 3 Results: Adopt components of performance standards sets in the Little Rock School District. Plan 4 Results: Develop performance standards for the Little Rock School District. Delivery Standards (Plans 5-7) Plan 5 Results: Adopt a definition for delivery standards in the Little Rock School District. Plan 6 Results: Adopt components of delivery standard sets in the Little Rock School District. Plan 7 Results: Develop delivery standards for the Little Rock School District. Standards Training (Plans 8-9) Plan 8 Results: Develop a trainer of trainers model for the Little Rock School District to use to train all appropriate human resources on how to implement and achieve the standards. Plan 9 Results: Ensure parent (family) understanding of the core curriculum standards and how progress will be measured.Action Plan STRATEGY NO. PLAN NO. 2 9 DATE\n11/2/98 SPECIFIC RESULTS: Ensure parent (family) understanding of the core curriculum standards and how progress will be delivered. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ACTION STEP (Number each one) Design and distribute a family friendly brochure that uses clear, straightforward language to describe the core content standards for each grade level at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Distribution opportunities should include pre-registration and/or registration times at each school and permanent displays in each school office, at the central office, and at student assignment with copies available for take home, as well as on the district's web page. Other distribution outlets may include realtors, city offices, including the Chamber of Commerce, and relevant public events. Design a core curriculum standards orientation speakers presentation to be used by district personnel at PTA meetings, open houses at schools, and at community forums. Schedule and publicize core curriculum presentations with question and answer sessions throughout the community, including sites such as churches, community centers, and individual schools, to be presented prior to implementation of the standards. Record and play intermittently such presentations on the districts TV channel. Design and distribute at the beginning of each school year tip sheets for families to use to reinforce and support the teaching and learning of standards at home. Tip sheets should address primary and intermediate grades at the elementary level and the middle school level and should outline family involvement opportunities in student learning. Redesign student report cards and interim progress report forms to accurately reflect student progress in relation to the core curriculum standards and grade or course level benchmarks. (See Plan #4, Action Steps 4-10.) Responsible: Assigned To\nstarting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: (Shaded areas for management phase) #COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS STRATEGY NO. PLAN NO. 9 DATE\n9/10/98 COSTS Tangible: BENEFITS Tangible:  /Annual brochure printing (tri-fold, front/back in house at .20 each for 50,000 brochures) $10,000.00 Families and patrons will be informed about the learning e.xpectations for all students who attend the LRSD.  Postage (bulk rate - .20 per brochure) 10,000.00  Speaker presentation kits (25 notebooks with instructions and transparencies at $10 per notebook) 250.00 Families and patrons will get clear, consistent information about the core curriculum standards.  Teacher/parent/administrator committees to design tip sheets Families will have written guidelines that show them how to help their children achieve the standards set for their children by the LRSD. - stipends for 40 teachers (5 per core area per elementary and middle schools at $125 per teacher) 5,000.00  Aimual tip sheet printing in house at .20 each for 26,000 sheets 5,200.00  Teacher/administrator committees to redesign report cards and interim progress reports -stipends for 36 teachers (12 per elementary, middle, and high school levels at $175 per teacher) 6,300.00 Assessment and teaching will match and families and students will be provided with a clear picture of student performance in relation to student expectations for achievement. 2 Intangible\nIntangible: (Have you considered opportunity costs and return on investment?)STRATEGY 4 Communication Plans We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support.Strategy4 Contents Page Plan 1 Results\nCommunicate key issues with consistency to our audiences. Plan 2 Results: Increase credibility with teachers, principals, and members of the districts staff through more timely and accurate information flow to and from the Little Rock School Districts (LRSD) central administration. Plan 3 Results: Achieve positive relationships with key members of the media in order to help ensure a consistent flow of accurate information to our various audiences. Plan 4 Results: Expand the use of available tools to positively influence the perceptions of parents, as well as other audiences within the District, with regard to the quality of education received by all children within the LRSDs schools. Plan 5 Results: Shift focus away from the.District back to its individual schools (as well as to their students and teachers). Plan 6 Results: Create a system that ensures a constant flow of success stories from the individual LRSD schools into the Districts Office of Communications for release to the public. Plan 7 Results: Create positive spokespersons out of parents, teachers and other influential members of the community. Plan 8 Results\nImprove the existing system that was designed to direct the media toward the appropriate information source within the District. Plan 9 Results: Assess and evaluate the communication plan.Action Plan Strategy No. Plan No. 4 9 Specific Results: Assess and evaluate the Communication Flan Date: 10/15/98 # 1 Action Step (Number each one) Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: Provide quarterly reports to the Superintendent regarding the status of the COMMUNICATIONS PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, INCLUDE MEASURABLE RESULTS. Compare past and future results of the School Climate/Human Relations Survey TO DETERMINE IF PUBLIC TRUST AND COMMUNITY SUPPORT HAS IMPROVED.  Cambridge Management Group, Inc. Responsible: 2 (Sftaded areas for management phase)Cost-Benefit Analysis Strategy No. 4 Plan No. Date: 10/15/98 Costs Tangible: Benefits Tangible: District staff time to prepare reports $-0- Paper/ Distribution $-0- District would have current status of implementation of, and results from, the Communications Plan 9 Intangible: Intangible: Additional reporting requirement which reduces staff time for other responsibilities Provides evidence/assurance that communications efforts are proceeding in an orderly and well-planned manner based on the Communications Plan (Have you considered opportunity costs and return on investment?)October 30, 1998 Dear Strategic Planning Committee Members: The Strategy 10 School Safety team recognizes the need for closer working relationships between the Little Rock School District and the juvenile justice system. For this reason, we support legislation that would require the juvenile justice system to do the following\nWhen a student has been charged with a serious feiony violation and has been incarcerated by the juvenile authorities, the juvenile authorities should be required to contact the school district and advise the school district of the charges pending against the juvenile before the juvenile is allowed to return to school. The Strategy 10 School Safety team believes that the above-proposed legislation would assist the Little Rock School District and the Juvenile Justice System in three ways\n1. 2. 3. Juveniles who commit a serious crime may be coming back to the school where the victim may be attending. This would create a problem for the school and the students involved. When a school is not notified that a juvenile has been involved in a serious incident, the school does not have the opportunity to counsel the juvenile before he/she returns to the school setting. Sometimes it might be more appropriate to place the juvenile in an alternative school as opposed to the original school setting. The juvenile would be afforded an opportunity to receive counseling and more individualized academic support. At the same time, the juvenile would be removed from the environment where he/she could be harmed or cause harm. The proposed legislation will assist the district in protecting juvenile offenders and assist the school district in becoming proactive rather the reactive. Sincerely, Action Team #10Strategy 10 Contents Page Plan 1 Results: Provide ongoing conflict resolution training and skill development for students. Plan 2 Results: Improve behavior and safety on school buses and bus stops. Plan 3 Results: Control access to school buildings, grounds, and events. Plan 4 Results: Implement a staff development plan for all personnel to fully understand safety policies and procedures. Plan 5 Results: Develop and enhance a system of communication among schools, administration, and the public regarding issues of safety and security. Plan 6 Results: Inform the public of plan in regard to the following (a) control of drug activity (b) violence prevention (c) campus and bus security\n(language that is direct and easy for all to understand.) Plan 7 Results: Develop a credible evaluation plan that will ensure complete and proper implementation. Plan 8 Results: Develop, enhance and improve the communication/distribution and equitable implementation of the LRSD Students Rights and Responsibilities Handbook.Action Plan Strategy No. Plan No. 10 1 Date: 10/30/98 Specific Results: Provide ongoing conflict resolution training and skill development for students. # Action Step (Number each one) Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: 2 Evaluate effectiveness of training effort\nput in curriculum/classroom instruction. 3 Institutionalize conflict mediation and violence prevention programs in all schools by making them a part of the local Campus Leadership annual review process.  Cambridge Management Group, Inc. Responsible:Cost-Benefit Analysis Strategy No. Plan No. 10 1 Date: 10/30/98 Costs Tangible: Benefits Tangible: Staff time involved in developing an Quality indicators of program effectiveness. evaluation instrument for the conflict mediation program. staff time involved in implementing the assessment process. Intangible: Intangible:Action Plan Strategy No. Plan No. 10 2 Date: 10/30/98 Specific Results: Improve behavior and safety on school busses and bus stops. # Action Step (Number each one) Assigned To: Starting Date: Due Date: Completed Date: 8 Assess neighborhood groups to determine interest in participating in a pilot Parent Patrol program for bus stops.  Cambridge Management Group, Inc. Responsible:Cost-Benefit Analysis Strategy No. Plan No. 10 2 Date: 10/30/98 Costs Tangible: Benefits Tangible: Staff time $0 Community members involved with school district. Safety and security department VIPS staff Laidlaw staff Intangible: Intangible: Enhances opportunities for community involvement in school district.Cost-Benefit Analysis Strategy No. Plan No. 10 5 Date: 10/30/98 Costs Tangible: Benefits Tangible: Additional resources for expansion and refinement of the School Resource Officer program. SRO program provides additional security. Additional resources (and possible redirection of existing dollars) for expansion of prevention programs such as Officer Friendly. Improved prevention programs at the elementary level Intangible: Intangible: Improved morale of school district staff. Improved public perception of school district. Improved public confidence in the districts commitment to providing a safe and orderly learning climate.LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT March 1,1999 Ms. Ann Brown 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 MAR Z (93 Dear Ms. Brown: OFFICEOF  okesregationmonitorjnq I am pleased to share that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District approved the Strategic Plan 1998 - 2003 at the January board meeting. Paula Patterson and Diane Vibhaker did an outstanding job of presenting the Strategic Plan recommendations to the Board. A special thank you to Paula and Diane. The work outlined in the plan is proceeding on the timeline that was recommended. The District is actively implementing the major initiatives of campus leadership, middle school implementation, and standards based curriculum development in the core areas, all of which will lead to increased student achievement. I have enclosed a copy of the approved plan. Again, thank you for your commitment and support to the District. Your participation on the Strategic Planning Team is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Leslie V. Carnine Superintendent Encl. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 834-2000 Strategic Plan 1998 - 2003 1 A mission statement is a broad statement of the unique purpose for which the District exists and the specific function it performs. Mission The mission of the LRSD is to equip all students with the skills and knowledge to realize their aspirations, think critically and independently, learn continuously and face the future as productive, contributing citizens. This mission is accomplished through open access to a diverse, innovative and challenging curriculum in a secure environment with a staff dedicated to excellence and empowered with the trust and support of our community. 1 Parameters are the guiding principles that establish the framework within which the District will accomplish its mission. Parameters  We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual.  No new program or service will be accepted unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.  No program or service will be retained unless benefits continue to exceed cost and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission.  The Campus Leadership Plan will always be consistent with the Strategic Plan as well as the Desegregation and Education Plan.  We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget.  We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. * Contractual items will be subject to negotiation. 2Beliefs are a statement of the Districts fundamental convictions, values, and character. Beliefs We believe....  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence on the development of a child.  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to sustain the health of a democracy.  Accepting and utilizing cultural and racial diversity enrich and strengthen the community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a persons life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  Self-worth allows each individual to aspire to excellence and develop his/her unique capabilities.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. 3 Objectives are an expression of the Districts desired, measurable end results of student success, performance and/or achievement. Objectives  Each student will set and achieve challenging educational goals tailored to his or her interests, abilities and aspirations related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship or service to others.  By 2003, at least 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified curriculum. in the core  By 2003, at least 65% of students in every identified sub-group of race and gender will perform at or above the national average in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nat least 30% will perform at the highest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nand no more than 10% will perform at the lowest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests. 4 Strategies are the means by which the District can accomplish its objectives. Strategies  We will design our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan.  In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards.  We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50* percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum.  We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support.  We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations to address 5 Strategy 1 We will design our educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. (Implementation of Strategy 1 will be accomplished through other strategies.) 7 In partnership with our community, we will establish standards in the core curriculum (reading/language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies) at each appropriate level, as well as develop the means of assessing whether students have met these standards. Strategy 2 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 1. Adopt a definition for content standards in the Little Rock School District, (completed) 2. Adopt a definition for performance standards in the Little Rock School District, (completed) 3. Submit the components of performance standard sets in the Little Rock School District, (completed) 4. Develop performance standards for the Little Rock School District, (completed) 5. Adopt a definition for delivery standards in the Little Rock School District, (completed) 6. Adopt components of delivery standard sets in the Little Rock School District, (completed) 1. Develop delivery standards for the Little Rock School District, (completed) 8. Develop a trainer-of-trainers model for the Little Rock School District to use to train all appropriate human resources on how to implement and achieve the standards. 9. Ensure parent understanding of the core curriculum standards and how progress will be measured. X X X X X X X X X X X 8 We will develop and implement a broad range of alternatives and interventions for students scoring below the 50\" percentile on standardized tests or who are at serious risk of not achieving District standards in the core curriculum. Strategy 3 Action Plan Year 1 X X X X i Year 2/3 X X X X X Year 4/5 X 1. Adopt a policy statement providing for intervention as an operative and vital part of elementary school instruction, (completed) 2. Expand comprehensive Reading Recovery/Literacy Support early intervention services for K-3 students who are at risk of not developing literacy skills. 3. Develop an intervention team at each school which provides systemic support including professional development for teachers which enables all children to sustain adequate yearly progress through grade 3. 4. Promotes school-wide reform and ensures access of children (from the earliest grades) to effective instructional strategies and challenging academic content. Content will include intensive complex thinking and problem-solving experiences through an integrated literature-based program. 5. Implement middle school programming to provide a developmentally appropriate educational environment for the academic success of adolescents. 6. Redesign the delivery system at the alternative learning center to improve academic skills and to address the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of the students. 9 Strategy 3 Action Plan X X X (Continued) 7, Train requesting teachers in the Math/Science crusade (K-12) to better implement the Goal 2000 plan and give them the background for foliowin\nthe guidelines set forth by the NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) and the related science organization. 8. Provide extended day academic programming for students at risk of failin\nand in need of extra assistance in core subjects. ig X 9. Implement a three week summer program for identified at risk students in the middle level grades in order to provide an on-going three year experience in science and math. 10We will design and implement internal and external communication plans to improve public trust and community support. Strategy 4 Action Plan Year 1 X X X X Year 2/3 X X X X X X X X Year 4/5 1. Communicate key issues with consistency to our audiences. 2. Increase credibility with teachers, principals, and members of the Districts staff through more timely and accurate information flow to and from LRSDs central administration. 3. Achieve positive relationships with key members of the media in order to help ensure a consistent flow of accurate information to our various audiences. 4. Expand the use of available tools to positively influence the perceptions of parents, as well as other audiences within the District, with regard to the quality of education received by all children within the LRSDs schools. 5. Shift focus away from the District back to its individual schools (as well as to their students and teachers). 6. Create a system that ensures a constant flow of success stories from the individual LRSD schools into the Districts Office of Communications for release to the public. 7, Create positive spokespersons out of parents, teachers and other influential members of the community. 8. Improve the existing system that was designed to direct the media toward the appropriate information source within the District. 11 Strategy 4 Action Plan (Continued) X 9. Assess the implementation of the communication plans and evaluate their effectiveness. 12We will build strong partnerships with other community agencies and organizations to address external issues that are interfering with our students learning. Strategy 5 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 1. Expand the role of Partners in Education to include the development of business and community partner coalitions with neighborhood school emphasis in an effort to expand resources, which address external issues interfering with students learning. 2. Improved opportunities for young people to develop positive interactions with adults who are mentors. 3. Increase the level of grant funding available to the LRSD to utilize in partnerships with community agencies and organizations to address external issues that interfere with students learning. 4. Design and develop a joint working agreement with LRSD and community agencies and organizations that ensures availability of and access to comprehensive support services for all LRSD students. 13 X X X X X X X X We will design a comprehensive staff development system to best achieve the mission and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Strategy 7 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 1. To reformulate a District-level Staff development Planning Council which will bring together stakeholders to advise and assist in the development of policy for and evaluation of a staff-development system that is site-specific and driven by the three objectives adopted by the LRSD. 2. To train the Staff Development Planning Council, central administrative staff, and staff at all middle schools on teaming for school improvement. 3. To meet the needs and address the problems of school sites through the use of campus leadership teams. 4. To establish a District and community technical assistance network to support campus leadership teams. 5. To evaluate the staff development system within the district. 15 X X X X X X X We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students and that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. Strategy 8 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X X 1 A. Prepare for implementation of site-based management to allow individual schools choice to do what is best to meet the needs of their students. X IB. Implement site-based management to allow individual schools choice to do what is best to meet the individual needs of their students. X 2A. Identify a variety of school innovation options throughout the District to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 2B. Develop a variety of innovation options throughout the District to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 2C. Implement a variety of innovation options throughout the District to be offered to best meet the needs of students at individual schools. X 3 A. Establish a seed school with University Teacher Education ties to do ongoing research in the practical applications of various school programs and options, to keep current with literature in the field, to provide a site for exemplary individualized education for a student body representative of the LRSD student population, to do training by demonstration and example as well as precept, and thus continually adding to the list of potential programs and options for educational individualization. X 3B. Support and maintain operation of seed school. 16 Strategy 8 Action Plan (Continued)  X X X X X X X X X X 3C. Utilize the seed school to support teacher education and the testing of new educational programs and strategies designed to maximize individualized education. 4. Allow students in grades K-12 to move at their own developmental and intellectual pace as teachers discover their learning styles to eliminate permanent ability trackin\ng- 5A. Acquire alternative assessment methods that allow teachers to determine a students actual functioning level so as to provide appropriate programmin\nand to eliminate permanent ability trackin\ng- g 5B. Implement alternative assessment methods that allow teachers to determine a students actual functioning level so as to provide appropriate programming and to eliminate permanent ability tracking. 6. Strengthen pupil service teams to be utilized as a first line screening mechanism for students evidencing problems so that alternative program options will be implemented for students not requiring Special Education. 7. Collaborate with the community to offer early childhood programs for children ages 2 to 4 as an option for District patrons, with preference going to low socio economic status (SES) families, to provide experiences and information needed to equalize student preparation. 8. Cultivate and use the community centralized resources guide (refer to strategy 5) for the individual development of each and every student. 9. Provide community based services that enable parents, students, and community to work together to further a childs education. 10. Create an educational climate, which encourages parent/teacher interaction by eliminating major barriers and providing increased opportunities for participation in the learning process. 17We will develop and implement plans to establish financial stability and achieve the strategic objectives of the District. Strategy 9 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 1. Develop strategies to retain and attract students to the LRSD to assure adequate future revenues from sources that will be increasingly based on the size of student population. 2. Develop a financial committee composed of LRSD personnel and community representatives to function as an advisory committee to the LRSD Board and Superintendent on budget development, monitoring, implementation, and other financial matters. 3. Develop Board fiscal policy statements and manual to be housed in an official repository addressing revenues, expenditures, millage increase, debt service, monitoring, reporting, facilities planning, and staffing and procedures to effectively communicate to the public, teachers, and administration. 4. Develop a five-year revenue forecast (by month for the first year and annually for years two through five) for the District, (completed) 5. Develop a five-year expense forecast (by month for the first year and annually for years two through five) for the District, (completed) 6. Revise the process and develop policy on monitoring actual performance compared to budget to include Board briefings, mid-year adjustments and amendments, and report formats. 7. Select peer school districts and develop performance indicators for comparison purposes in order to identify areas and possible means for improvement. 18 X X X X X X X We will develop and implement plans to enhance public confidence in the safety and security of our schools and to ensure discipline and an orderly learning climate. Strategy 10 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X X 1. Provide ongoing conflict resolution training and skill development for students, parents/family, and staff. ? Improve behavior and safety on school buses and bus stops. X X X X ! i I i J. Control access to school buildings, grounds, and events. 4. Implement a staff development plan for all personnel to fully understand safety policies and procedures. 5. Develop and enhance a system of communication among schools, administration, and the public regarding issues of safety and security. 6. Inform the public of plan in regard to the following (a) control of drug activity (b) violence prevention (c) campus and bus security\n(language that is direct and easy for all to understand). 7. Develop a credible evaluation plan that will ensure complete and proper implementation. 8. Develop, enhance, and improve the communication/distribution and equitable implementation of the LRSD Students Rights and Responsibilities j Handbook. I 20 X X 1 I I I T IT X X X X II i_KOv ^/UJ'^h*UinxOh i iUH'b oxz ^LU'UO /\u0026lt; 810 Wp^r Markham ISKI \\^\\ T T^i. n . .1. An X-iuLie iVMVjS., Direct Phone: Cximniunicarions Office: (50i) 447-1030 (501) 447-1025 DATE: January 23, 2003 UUX OZ.H XU4,d TO\nFROM- Central xVrkansas Media Cynthia Kowell, Arkansas Dernocrac-Gazeite Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SDEJECT: Special School Board Meeting Situation MESSACiE: Meiitberf of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will participate in rhe Strategic Planning .sessions next week. Because more tlian one Board member will participate, we are notifying the media regarding the dates, times and location of die meetings. The Strategic Planning Team will meet at die Greater Second Baptist Church Eeliowship Hall, 5615 Geyer Springs Road, as loUows\nMonday, January 27 5 pul Tuesday, January 23 3 aixi Wednesday, Januar\n29 8 am  Pages Imclucling cover) Ar, Individual A\nI o hix # 1 each to a World ot KnowledgeLittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT February 19, 2003 received FEB 2 0 2003 DESEGflEGATION MONITORING Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I am writing to express my sincere appreciation of your service to the Little Rock School District through your dedicated work as a member of the Strategic Planning Team. You brought sound advice and good insights to the planning process. Enclosed is a draft of the work produced at the January session. We are now following up on your recommended strategies as action teams are formed to develop action plans. Action teams leaders have been appointed for the six strategies and will participate in action team leader training on February 25'^' Action teams will be working over the next 234 months to design detailed plans for each proposed strategy. You will receive a copy of the proposed action plans for your review on May 28^' If you are interested in serving on an action team please contact Linda Austin at 447-1125. We look forward to seeing you at the follow up session on June S* and 6. The session will again be held at Greater Second Baptist Church, 5615 Geyer Springs Road. We will be sending more meeting details closer to the actual meeting date. Again, thank you for your service and commitment to the Little Rock School District. Sincerely, T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002STRATEGIC PLAN INTRODUCTION The Little Rock School District utilizes the strategic planning process as a planning and decision-making strategy to ensure that our students are ready to meet the diverse demands of a changing world. The development and implementation of a Strategic Plan serves as a primary guide. The Little Rock School District Strategic Plan, developed by hundreds of volunteers in the community, was originally adopted in 1996 and updated in 1998. On Jan. 27-29. 2003. a 30-member Strategic Planning Team composed of parents, community members, teachers, students, Board members and school administrators came together to review and update the plan. The Team arrived at consensus in identifying common beliefs, creating a mission for the school system, setting parameters and developing objectives and far-reaching strategies for accomplishing the mission. For each of the strategies identified by the Planning Team, an Action Team will be formed to develop plans for implementation. This step in the process will occur from March 2003 to May 2003. This Is where you can make a difference. The Little Rock School District invites you to participate on an Action Team. Your perspective will help design a school system that will prepare our students for a successful future in a diverse and changing world. Simply complete the attached application of interest and return it to the Little Rock School District. You will be contacted by the Director of Planning and Development. Thank you in advance for your sincere interest and willingness to make a difference. s c s o o 2 n\u0026gt; c \u0026gt; 5 3 2 NJ 05  ro r . o 5^ )B DRAFT: 2003-05 STRATEGIC PLAN Mission Statement of the Little Rock School District PARAMETERS  We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual.  We will accept no new program or service unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.  We will retain no program or service unless benefits continue to exceed cost, and it continues to make an optimal contribution to the mission.  We will ensure school improvement plans are always consistent with the Strategic Plan.  We will ensure effective implementation and equitable distribution of technology throughout the district.  We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget.  We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee. I  We will honor the provisions identified in the Covenant for the Future. TTie mission of the Little Rock School District, an educational partnership of C ft Si. 7S \" c o (Z OQ  B\u0026gt; 2 o 3 the entire community, is to prepare and inspire all students to achieve academic excellence and persoruil fulfillment while becoming contributing citizens by offering open access to an innovative, challenging curriculum in a nurturing, disciplined environment that embraces diversity. 73 o 5 B I 3 cS 5- 3 n 3 T. Kenneth James, Ed.D. Superintendent of SchoolsOUR BELIEFS OBJECTIVES STRATEGIES We believe:  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with elfort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality public education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence on the development of a child.  Each student will be required to set and achieve challenging educational and personal fulfillment goals tailored to his or her interests and abilities related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship and service to others.  All students will meet or exceed graduation requirements or complete the provisions identified in their individual achievement plans.  By 2009, 100% of our students will perform at or above the proficient level identified on applicable state-approved examinations. Little Rock School District Board of Directors  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to foster the health of a democracy. Dr. Katherine Mitchell Zone 1  Embracing cultural and racial diversity enriches and strengthens our community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a persons life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  A sense of self-worth allows each individual to develop unique capabilities and to aspire to excellence.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community. R. Micheal Daugherty Zone 2 Judy Magness Zone 3 H. Baker Kurrus Zone 4 Larry Berkley Zone 5 Tony Rose Zone 6 Sue Strickland Zone 7  We will develop and implement plans to acquire and effectively utilize the financial resources needed to achieve the strategic objectives of the district.  We will hire, train, motivate and evaluate all employees to ensure optimal contributions to our mission and objectives.  We will ensure all teachers are using effective, research-based instructional strategies and assessment data to help each student perform well academically.  We will build effective partnerships with our community to address economic and social issues that interfere with student learning and success.  We will assist and engage parents as full and equal partners in educating their children.  We will develop and implement practices and procedures to create optimal learning environments that embrace diversity. Special thanks to the parents, business and community leaders, students. district staff and School Board mem-bers who volunteered their time in January to begin the LRSD Strategic Plan Update process. S s Pi O p. Pi w w Z J O \u0026gt; s H Z O 11 H O I \u0026lt;ED EE \u0026lt;u .1 o = 3O (S cco 1o2 o MO Q \"oc y as V O fES Z Z a Xi fig X ra E U \u0026lt; O) \u0026lt;Vu. a = -g OJD C . c 3 9C s E oE I uE \u0026lt;000 cco UI 1 \"l I 2 cu 0e0 0c0 'E uu C3 oc 0B0 s Ia s BCS i J 'Sb S wu II Is  ^6 1 I  \u0026lt;5 I ,2 11 u Sil 2\u0026lt;3 a ts 2  g H-.2 I -- O-o P sa  O O =s  .1   .5 f-\n. Little Rock School District I --------------- OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT July 17, 2003 received Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Deseg. Monitoring 1 Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 2 1 2003 DESEGREGAWHMONITORIMG Dear Ms. Marshall, Thank you for your participation on the Strategic Planning Team for the Little Rock School District. Your personal commitment of many long hours and thoughtful vision resulted in an outstanding framework for the Strategic Plan. As you know, the next step is to present the draft to the Little Rock School District Board of Education and seek adoption of the proposed Strategic Plan. The presentation is scheduled to occur at the Board meeting at 5\n30 p.m. on July 24*^ in the Board Room at 810 West Markham. We hope that you will attend this important meeting, attendance. Please call Linda Austin at 447-1126 to confirm your Enclosed is a copy of the proposed Strategic Plan 2003-2008 that includes the beliefs, mission, parameters, objectives, strategies and action plans. The detailed action steps serve as administrative guidance and do not require Board approval. Therefore, these are not included in this document. You will receive a copy of the detailed action steps in August. Again, thank you for your service and commitment to the Little Rock School District. Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D. Interim Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 447-1002 BECEl\u0026gt;/tU JUL 2 1 2003 desegregation moniiorino A Vision For The Future Little Rock School District Proposed Strategic Plan 2003 - 2008 A. mission statement is a broad statement of the unique purpose for which the district exists and the specific function it performs. Mission Statement The mission of the Little Rock School District, an educational partnership of the entire community, is to prepare and inspire all students to achieve academic excellence and personal fulfillment while becoming contributing citizens by offering open access to an innovative, challenging curriculum in a nurturing, disciplined environment that embraces diversity.Beliefs are a statement of the districts fundamental convictions, values, and character. Beliefs We believe:  All people have equal, inherent worth.  Every individual can learn.  Higher expectations coupled with effort stimulate higher levels of performance.  Attitude always influences behavior.  All citizens share the responsibility to ensure that quality public education is available to the children of our community.  Excellence in education and fairness for all (equity) are both compatible and inseparable.  The family is a primary influence on the development of a child.  Educated and involved citizens are necessary to foster the health of a democracy.  Embracing cultural and racial diversity enriches and strengthens our community.  Education can enhance every aspect of a persons life.  With every right comes a responsibility.  Actions speak louder than words.  A sense of self-worth allows each individual to develop unique capabilities and to aspire to excellence.  Every individual is responsible for contributing to the general welfare of the community.Objectives are an expression of the districts desired, measurable end results of student success, performance and/or achievement. Objectives  Each student will be required to set and achieve challenging educational and personal fulfillment goals tailored to his or her interests and abilities related to meaningful work, higher learning, citizenship and service to others.  All students will meet or exceed graduation requirements or complete the provisions identified in their individual achievement plans.  By 2009, 100% of our students will perform at or above the proficient level identified on applicable state-approved assessments.Si Parameters are the guiding principals that establish the framework within which the district will accomplish its mission. Parameters  We will not tolerate behavior that diminishes the dignity or self-worth of any individual.  We will accept no new program or service unless it is consistent with the Strategic Plan, benefits clearly exceed costs, and provisions are made for staff development and program evaluation.  We will retain no programs or services unless their benefits continue to exceed cost and they make an optimal contribution to the mission.  We will ensure school improvement plans are always consistent with the Strategic Plan.  We will ensure effective implementation and equitable distribution of technology throughout the district.  We will maintain a positive fund balance in the operating budget.  We will not tolerate ineffective performance by any employee.  We will honor the provisions identified in the Covenant for the Future.Strategies are the means by which the district can accompiish its objectives. Strategies  We will develop and implement plans to acquire and effectively utilize the financial resources needed to achieve the strategic objectives of the district.  We will hire, train, motivate, evaluate and retain employees to ensure optimal contributions to our mission and objectives.  We will ensure all teachers are using effective, researchbased instructional strategies and assessment data to help each student perform well academically.  We will build effective partnerships with our community to address economic and social issues that interfere with student learning and success.  We will assist and engage parents and families as full and equal partners in educating their children.  We will develop and implement practices and procedures to create optimal learning environments that embrace diversity.We will hire, train, motivate, evaluate and retain employees to ensure optimal contributions to our mission and objectives. strategy 2 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Update and redesign the employment application forms for certified and non-certified positions. X 2. Increase the number of National Board Certified teachers in the Little Rock School District. X 3. Implement an employee referral program for teachers.IVe will ensure all teachers are using effective, research-based instructional strategies and assessment data to help each student perform well academically. strategy 3 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Realign the districts curriculum with the States curriculum frameworks based on the grade-specific information. X X 2. Ensure the implementation of a common core curriculum in all schools that is fully aligned with the districts curriculum standards and those effective research-based instructional strategies included within the Professional Teacher Appraisal System (PTAS). X 3. Establish research methodology to investigate the relationship of *PTAS scores with academic gains by students on approved measures of achievement. X 4. Investigate the relationship of *PTAS scores with academic gains by students on approved measures of achievement. X 5. Include *PTAS implementation indicators as a component on the formal evaluation of the Principals Appraisal System. X 6. Ensure inter-rater reliability of the *PTAS Assessment Process. X 7. Develop high quality professional development activities, including models and resources for professional development, which are aligned with *PTAS and the districts curriculum.X X 8. Develop school improvement plans that guide daily work and activities and are based specifically on the needs reflected in student assessment data and that incorporate effective, research-based instructional strategies and high quality professional development. X X 9. Develop a relational student database. X X 10. Develop a web-based system for disseminating and reporting student data to teachers, administrators and parents. *1 Use of PTAS evaluation subject to approval of the LRSD Board of Directors and Classroom Teachers Association.We will build effective partnerships with our community to address economic and social Issues that Interfere with student learning and success. strategy 4 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Lead a coalition of community partners to improve the service delivery systems to enhance academic, social and economic opportunities for students and their families. X 2. Design, implement and sustain an assets-based out of school program for all students to include:  Health and fitness  Academic enrichment  Mentoring  Arts and culture  Leisure time activities  Homework help and tutoring  Character development activities X 3. Establish, in collaboration with the community, a health task force to enhance an infrastructure for coordinated school health system to improve health status and reinforce healthy behaviors with PreK-12 students.We will assist and engage parents and families as full and equal partners in educating their children. Strategy 5 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Establish a family advisory group. X 2. Develop parent and family involvement vision. X X 3. Create opportunities to assist and engage parents as full and equal partners in the education of their children. X X 4. Develop a wide-ranging parental communication system for a diverse mix of parents of children in the school system. X X 5. Establish a parent and family information resource center in each school. This plan is consistent with Arkansas Legislative Act 603 of 2003 We will develop and implement practices and procedures to create optimal learning environments that embrace diversity. strategy 6 Action Plan Year 1 Year 2/3 Year 4/5 X 1. Establish building level, school-wide positive behavioral/ social skills support systems for students and staff that address discipline. X 2. Establish small learning communities in secondary schools that provide nurturing and supportive environments for all students. X 3. Provide every student the opportunity to form a continuous relationship with a caring adult throughout students school career. X 4. Ensure all students receive support to succeed academically in their educational endeavors, PreK-12. X 5. Implement the Personalized Career/Education/Planning (PCEP) process at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. X 6. Establish a transition program that ensures the successful assimilation of students from level to level and campus to campus. X 7. Collaborate with area businesses to provide workbased learning opportunities for students. X 8. Improve family involvement in students school activities. I X 9. Improve communication with families and students. X 10. Provide customer-friendly, professional environment on every campus. This plan is consistent with Arkansas Legislative Act 603 of 2003Arkansas Demcx:raf:^(i^azcttc | FRIDAY, APRIL 14, 1995 M.. A I mia DaaV Mowanan*** 1'**' LRSD will use TV to involve public The Little Rock School District will use its cable television channel over the next week to explain plans to develop long-term operations for the district and to recruit volunteers to help with that planning. Information on the strategic plan will be broadcast on cable television Channel 4 in Little Rock at 9 a.m. today and again at 2 p.m. Beginning Monday, the district will broadcast an hourlong program on the strategic plan. That video will be shown at 8:15 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. each workday next week The tape is of a community meeting earlier this month on the planning process. The school district is seeking more than 200 people to serve on 11 action teams. To learn more or to volunteer, people should contact Linda Young at the school district Administration Building at 810 W. Markham SL in Little Rock. The teams will begin work this spring on plans for the school board to consider in October.8B  TUESDAY. APRIL 18,1995 Arkansas Democrat '^(gazette Tucker vetoes bill giving teachers 3 more days to prepare BY ELIZABETH CALDWELL Democrat-Gazette Oapitot Bureau Public school-teachers will not get an additional three days to plan for the 1995-96 school year. Gov, Jim Guy Tucker vetoed the bill Monday that granted the extra days. Senate Bill 539 by Senate Education Committee Chairman Lu Hardin, D-Russellville, would have reduced the number of days that teachers have contact with students from 178 to 175 during the next school year. Tucker said that would amount to a reduction of more than $14 million in teaching time. For students having difficulties or students in courses such as foreign languages, this reduction of time in contact with teachers can be very harmful,\" Tucker wrote in a veto letter released Monday. Hardin said he was extremely disappointed.\" He said the bill was intended to send a message to teachers that we believe they are professionals.\" Hardin said the le^slation arose out of a meeting with Russellville teachers, who asked for more time to comply with a 1991 act requiring major curriculum changes. - Tucker said he has asked Gene Wilhoit director of the General Education Division of the state Department of Education, to work with the state Board of Education on ta^eted waivers. Hardin said waivers might be a solution if Tucker and Wilhoit will take an active role in encouraging districts to apply. The key here is morale,\" Hardin said. Tucker vetoed another bill Monday that would have changed the way Southland Greyhound Park at West Memphis distributes money from racing days that are set aside for charity. Because there was not an accompanying appropriations bill, none of the money actually would have been available. Tucker said. Currently, Southland contributes about S500.000 annually for indigent health programs. House Bill 1946 by Rep. Ben McGee, D-Marion, would have set aside 3200,000 of the money for emergency medical services for Crittenden, Cross. Lee, Mississippi. Poinsett and St. Francis counties. It was just an oversight, McGee said of the missing ap- propriations bill. Other vetoes Tucker an- nounced Monday were:  HB 1267 by Rep. Keith Wood. D-Hope. which would have exempted the state Physical Therapy Board from certain laws concerning professional services contracts. Tucker said the bill would have exempted the agency from purchasing, personnel, budgetary and accounting regulations designed to ensure the proper expenditure of public funds.  HB 2127 by Rep. Claud Cash. D-Trumann, which would have licensed mobile manicurist units. Tucker said the state Board of Cosmetology requested the veto because of increased administrative costs and the increased risk of the spread of nail fungi.  HB 2087 by freshman Rep. Sue Madison, D-Fayetteville. which dealt with cruelty to animals.  HB 1269 by McGee, which would have exempted contractor licensing surety bonds from income. sales and use taxes.  SB 236 by Sen. Jay Bradford. D-Pine Bluff, which would have made it illegal to replace insurance policies over and over again to receive higher commissions. The following bills were vetoed because similar bills already have been signed into law:  HB 1872 by Rep. Larry Goodwin, D-Calamine. which would have increased the waste tire fee on truck tire sales.  HB 1207 by freshman Rep. Ted Thomas. R-Little Rock, which would have allowed juveniles with two previous felony convictions to be tried as adults. These bills were vetoed Friday:  HB 1556 by Rep. Bob McGinnis. D-Marianna. which would have required small and insufficiently funded police and fire pension funds to be administered by the Arkansas Local Police and Fire Retirement Systems. Similar legislation already has been signed into law.  SB 726 by freshman Sen. John Brown. R-Siloam Springs, which dealt with the release from escrow of funds paid to providers under the state Continuing Care Provider Regulation Act Tucker said he needs more time to study the issue./. SUNDAY, JULY 16, J. \"LR schools to outline long-range plih  The IJttlA Rrv*1r .^hzw\\l _______:ii______. a * I Little Rock School District teams will report on their worl wm The teams are developing^Yec- nvities and the development of a riculum and raise student?' tet P  enhance school desegrega- 5^ V c- tion, establish financial stability-in\ni\u0026amp; the school district, train staff/tm- public, will be broad- prove school safety and expand television in Little the use of technology . More than 200 volunteer 'and  P^^P^^''es finm almost a district staff members are serving zen strategip nlann.n^ octicM on the action teams. will present a status report iW^esday on desegregation ac- long-range strategic plan for oper- dozen strategic planning action ^.r J 5Arkansas Democrat SR O^azcttc FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 1995 -5 LRSD team addresses I compliance Brainstorming tickles desegregation decree BY MARION GAMWLL Democrat-Gazette Staff Vrtter About half the Litle Hock School District Strategic Planning Team No. 2 mei at Hall High School on Thursday to begin working on a plan of action that will comply with a court-ordered desegregation decree. The Little Hock datrict is involved in a 12-year-ld federal school desegregaion lawsuit. While the distfct operates under a court-jpproved desegregation plan witten in 1989. parts of the plainre open to change. The team is one ofa dozen citizen committees hdping to develop a long-range strategy for the district. All conmittees will present their reiommen- dations to the school roard in the fail. Seventeen people were at the meeting. The teams Jerry Peters led a long brainstorming session where members made more than 50 proposals for meeting their objective, which Peters defined as developng the means to successfulb' implement or modify the cesegrega- tion plan in order b achieve unity as well as conply with the (federal court) phn. Members suggesUd, among other things:  Encouraging onmunity and parental involveiaent.  Analyzing the feasibility of different approaches.  Compiling demographic and educational inforaation.  Working closel\nwith neighborhood groups.  Defining school district responsibility more charly. Baker Kurrus said he team needs to bring aboad more black members to \"broden its base. Kurrus said tie team should have an outlim of proposed actions by the eid of the next meeting, set for Jily 13. Al that session, Hus Mayo, assistant superintencent for desegregation, will pnsent results of a study on howthe district can comply with he court plan. Mayos office is acepting proposals from the piblic for modifying the plan. The members briefV talked about U.S. Supreme Courts decision this month the limiting federal judge abilities to propose remedes in a Kansas City, Mo., deegrega- tioii case. While the \u0026lt;ase differs significantly fron Little Rocks, team membw John t Burnett said, the high -ourt \"is sending a strong messige that courts in administeing decrees have gone too far and need to stick more ebsely to improving the originjl problem. A heated discussiot of the value of neighborhoodschools and the prevalence of inequal . treatment of black stulents in I the school system lastd about half an hour after thi meet- ing*s official adjounment. KurruS said the team rill discuss those matters in nore detail in July.Arkansas Democrat/^(ijinzelk f . . THIIRSnAY IIILY.2Q-.19a5 What must LRSD do? 2,097 things Desegregation suit spawns obligations BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Dnrrw.ral Gnzette EducaWon Writer When Little Rock School District ollicials can't sleep, they may count desegregation obligations instead of sheet). Dr. Russ Mayo, the school district's associate superintendent for desegi egation, told a group of about 60 school district cmployee.s and connnunily members Wednesday night that the district has 2,097 individual desegregation obligations. Mayo announced the count during a short presentation on the sta tus of the districts desegregation effoi'Is. He acknowledged that he doesn't know the answer to the desegregation question everyone asks: When will the Little Rock disliict be released from federal court supervision in the 12 year old Pulaski County desegregation lawsuit? \"I don't know, but we're closer than we've ever been before,\" Mayo said, adding that the district will ask for release from supervision on some obligations at an Aug. 30 court hearing before U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright. Wright monitors the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. According to Mayo.s count, the district ha.s completely complied with 42 percent of its obligations, or 695 of the 2,097 items. Another 1,078 of the obligations, ,52 percent, are ongoing commilmenLs, such as racially balancing enrollments at each school. 'The district is just beginning to by to meet 74 obligations, Mayo said. Another ,50 were overlooked in the past and are being added to the districts list of things to do. Most  1,784  of the districts obligations are contained in the desegregation plan.s that district ofti ciaLs wrote in 1908 and 1989. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St Ix\u0026gt;nis ultimately approved those plans in I9t)2. The district has its own plan and an interdistrict plan written by all the parties in the lawsuit. Once the parties agreed to the plans and the courts approved them, the plans became binding. The remaining obligations are the result of court orders issued by Wright and the 8th Circuit and of recent agreements negotiated among the three school districts and the attorneys for the black children and the teacher unions, who are intervenors in the case. The district will never meet ,some of the obligations, Mayo said, because of changed circumstances, shilling demographics, changes in laws or better methods of doing things.Arkansas Democrat\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_1509","title":"Student handbooks, assignment, Little Rock School District","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":["1993/1995"],"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","Education--Arkansas","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School attendance","School enrollment","School integration","School management and organization","Students","Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_title":["Student handbooks, assignment, Little Rock School District"],"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/1509"],"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":["handbooks"],"dcterms_extent":["2 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":663,"next_page":664,"prev_page":662,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":7944,"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}}]}}