{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1094","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1995"],"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","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1094"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLR-C-82-866\nexhibit numbers 281-342\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1082","title":"Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School integration","Court records"],"dcterms_title":["Exhibits: Pulaski County desegregation case"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1082"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["exhibition (associated concept)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLR-C-82-866\nexhibit numbers 343-389\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_434","title":"Finances","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":["1992/2002"],"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","Education--Finance","Educational planning","School management and organization","Education--Evaluation"],"dcterms_title":["Finances"],"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/434"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nTable 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS SETTLEMENT LOAN PROCEEDS 12,559,250 3,000,000- 8,356,778 3,000,000 8,637,482 6,000,000 TOTAL REVENUE 15,559,250 11,356,778 14,637,482 EXPENSES: RUN BUS SYSTEM ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION AREA SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ART AVIATION AND TRANSPORTAT BADGETT THEME BEFORE AND AFTER SCHOOL CURRICULUM AUDIT DATA PROCESSING DEBT SERVICE DIVISION OF SCHOOLS DOWNTOWN EARLY CHILDHOOD DUNBAR ENGLISH ENHANCEMENT SCHOOLS SPEC ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE MA EXTRACURRICULAR COSTS FOREIGN LANGUAGE FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM GRANTS PROCUREMENT OFFIC HEARING OFFICER c f''\" HOMEWORK CENTERS HUMAN RELATIONS H.I.P.P.Y. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS INFORMATION SYSTEM JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURIN LIBRARY LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL MATH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY PROG METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR MINORITY RECRUITER MULTI-ETHNIC CURRICULUM MUSIC OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 22,300 308,373 48,739 474,100 85,800 28,920 2,363,885 600,000- 800,000 75,000 400,000 22,300 15,000 50,000 292,854 50,000 75,000 942,481 43,800 400,000 399,000 45,920 618,000 800,000 77,250 500,000 22,300 1,700,000 25,000 301,640 24,806 1,442,481 35,800 420,000 300,000 39,920 c t: / PAL r PARENT CENTERS PARENT INVOLVEMENT PARKVIEW SCIENCE PLANT SERVICES -POSITIVE STUDENT DISCIPL PRECOLLEGE TESTS 21,190 431,313 144,805 15,000 120,000 11,190 556,313 208,156 360,000 27,000 110,493 40,279 143,000 9,510 470,302 3,750,834 48,755 37,133 293,340 40,000 149,149 50,000 220,645 2,894,240 200,000 848,000 370,800 10,000 19,000 25,000 110,493 42,696 500 9,510 588,520 2,750,184 20,000 51,680 215,580 310,940 15,000 50,000 200,000 120,000 11,190 681,313 45,000 42,400 153,624 50,000 233,884 2,126,067 . 250,000 893,000 381,924 12,125 25,000 110,493 45,257 9,510 623,831 2,848,154 25,000 54,781 113,225 329,597 15,000 50,000 /Table 8 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION BUDGET 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 READING ROMINE SAFETY SCIENCE SECONDARY ALTERNATIVE PR SOCIAL STUDIES SOCIAL WORKERS/COUNSELOR SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFF DEVELOPMENT SUMMER SCHOOL UNIVERSITY LAB SCHOOL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION WASHINGTON 113,120 35,000 9,750 102,490 317,297 80,000 800 113,120 50,000 800,000 15,750 300,000 15,575 200,000 82,940 386,335 90,000 17,000 113,120 50,000 824,000 10,875 318,000 14,225 300,000 107,940 409,515 200,000 185,000 155,000 TOTAL EXPENS 10,086,683 16,161,516 18,260,247 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 5,472,567 (4,804,738) (3,622,765) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE (5,500,000) (27,433) (4,832,171) ENDING FUND BALANCE (27,433) (4,832,171) (8,454,936)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 310 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 18, 1992 TO: FROM: Board of Directors Pat Kumpuris SUBJECT: SPECIAL BOARD MEETING After the Board Committee meeting Thursday, received FEB 1 9 Office of Desegregation Monitoring we will convene a special meeting to conduct an employee hearing and to consider approval of a Resolution Authorizing Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes. I am enclosing a copy of the Resolution. cc: Management Team LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHT^M STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 February 20, 1992 TO: Board of Directors FROM: J im V Ivey, Manager of Support Services THROUGH: SUBJECT: Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent^!)^ Resolution Approving the Issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes Attached is a resolution approving the issuance of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Promissory Notes in the principal amount of approximately $15,000,000 necessary to pay the expenses of operating and maintaining the District through June 30, 1992. This issuance is the second year of the program that began in 1991, at which time the Board approved a similar issuance. It is recommended that the Board approve the resolution as submitted and direct the administration to proceed with necessary documents. execution of theRESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION PROMISSORY NOTES IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $15,000,000\nAND PRESCRIBING OTHER MATTERS PERTAINING THERETO. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors (\"Board\") of Little Rock School District of Pulaski County, Arkansas (\"LRSD\") that: Section 1. Recitals. The Board finds and determines that: (a) LRSD will not have sufficient cash receipts during the remainder of the school year ending June 30, 1992 (\"Fiscal Year 1992\") to pay the expenses of operating and maintaining the school system for the remainder of Fiscal Year 1992. (b) It is necessary and in the best interest of LRSD that funds to supplement cash receipts in order to pay expenses for Fiscal Year 1992 be borrowed pursuant to 6-20-402, Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated. (c) Stephens Inc. has proposed to underwrite tax-exempt tax and revenue anticipation promissory notes (\"Notes\") of LRSD in order to provide additional funds for payment of expenses for Fiscal Year 1992. Section 2. Approval of Issuance of Notes. The issuance of Notes in the principal amount of approximately $15,000,000 is approved. Section 3. Negotiation of Terms\nFinal Authorization. The Superintendent of Schools and her designees are authorized to negotiate with Stephens Inc. concerning the terms of the Notes and the terms of their sale, and to make recommendations to the Board. The terms of the Notes and of their sale shall be subject to the approval of this Board. Section 4. repealed to the extent of the conflict. All resolutions in conflict herewith are Section 5. Effective Date. full force and effect from and after its adoption. This resolution shall be inCERTIFICATE I, the undersigned, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the above District, certify the foregoing to be a true copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board at a special) meeting of the Board held on the (regular or 1992 . The Resolution appears minutes of the meeting which are in my custody. in the day of of f icial meeting the duly elected (or appointed), At the time of the gualified and serving members of the Board and their respective votes on the adoption of the Resolution were as follows: Director Vote (Ave, Nay, Abstain or Absent) I further certify that the meeting of the Board was duly convened and held in all respects according to law\nthat to the extent required by law due and proper notice of the meeting was given to the members of the Board and to the public\nthat the meeting was open to the public\nthat a legal quorum was present throughout the meeting\nthat all other requirements and proceedings under the law incident to the proper adoption and passage of the Resolution have been duly fulfilled, carried out and otherwise observed\nand that I am authorized to execute this Certificate. CERTIFIED under my hand and seal of the District this day of 1992. (SEAL) SecretaryOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: January 3, 1992 To: Judge Wright From: Subject: Brown Follow-up on LRSD Budgeting Process Last week. Bob Morgan and I met with our consultants from the Arkansas Financial Group to discuss the next steps regarding the LRSDs finances and budgeting process. Ive talked this over briefly with Greg, too. Heres our thinking along with some suggestions for what you may wish to include in an order: 1. The attached addition to the LRSD May Submission wasnt discussed during the hearing. This \"note\", added in two places in the LRSD plan (after page 132 and page 286), states that the cost figures origin^y submitted with the LRSD desegregation plan are outdated and that \"revised cost figures will be provided in a separate desegregation budget.\" To date, no revised figures have been received here and Greg isnt aware of any that have been filed with the Court. As a first step, LRSD should be given a period of time (30 days is probably reasonable) to submit these revised cost figures. Since LRSD high-handedly stressed in court that the budget ODM was discussing wasnt even prepared for the settlement plan, they set themselves up for the obvious: where is their budget for the plan they are now following? Its certainly interestingand chagrining-to note that the LRSD budget (the one which wasnt prepared for the settlement plan) had to have been prepared after the December 12, 1990 order was issued by the Circuit Court. They really have no excuse for having run for over a calendar year on two separate school year budgets that evidently bear no relationship to the plan theyve been ordered to follow. Unless LRSD submits a budget that is based upon the settlement plan they are required to implement and we are required to monitor, we will not be able to effectively carry out our monitoring duties. The budget must be directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\neach budget component should be referenced to plan page numbers and be reflected on the implementation timelines which are contained in the plan.January 3, 1992 Page Two 2. Not only should the LRSD be required to submit a 1991-92 budget for the settlement plan, they also should have to submit a long range budget projection on a per annum basis for the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (PCSSD has such a projection so it certainly can be done. An examples attached.) This budget shouldnt be for \"Code 13\" (the desegregation budget\") alone since the district maintains that settlement monies must be supplemented with \"regular\" budget funds in order to fulfill the desegregation obligations. So, in order to paint the whole picture of the districts financial planning in relation to the entire desegregation plan, theyll need to identify whats over and above Code 13. There should also be a long range revenues projection covering the same period of time. It should include anticipated revenues not only from the settlement monies and Ioan, but also show state and millage revenues and any other money sources as well. This projection should enable the district to predict when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any necessary millage should be indicated along with the date when it needs to kick m. To force them to do these budget and revenue projections is really in their best interest: unless they soon have a rendezvous with reality and see when they are going to run out of money, it will be too late to prevent the enormous shortfall that is, at this point, inevitable. 3. Since the LRSD has stated that a major portion of desegregation costs has been expended for \"start up\", its reasonable to ask them to specifically identify (a) which costs are start up and (b) when these start up costs will terminate. The fact is that new expenditures for personnel, not program or facility start up costs, account for the bulk of financial outlay. Ill be in California at my parents Golden Wedding Anniversary celebration beginning January 8 and will return on the 14th. Ill talk with you before I leave and when I get back. Polly will know where to reach me if you should need me while Im on the west coastI PLEASE NOTE\nTwo areas of information contained in the \"Implementation Timeline\" for this section sxibmitted with the original LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan have been omitted from this timeline submitted May 1, 1991. These are heading information found above the columnar timeline which listed the plan date and the person, division and prcgram/area responsible, and a \"cost\" column in the timeline. The information that was in the heading area is - now either out of date or is repeated in a column in the timeline. outdated. The cost figures previously provided are Revised cost figures will be provided in a iseparate desegregation budget. The columnar heading \"Completion Date\" has been changed to \"Ending Date.\" For the sake of clarity, all timeline headings have been changed to LRSD Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline.\" I5Z/ //I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ,T(i C CONTINGENCY REVENUES\nPROPERTY TAXES OTHER LOCAL REVENUE COUNTY REVENUE MIN. FOUND. PROG. AID TRANSPORTATION AID ST. DESEG. SETTLEMENT OTHER STATE AID UNRESTRICTED FED. AID NON-REV.A TRANSF. REC. TOTAL RECEIPTS TOTAL REC. \u0026amp; CONT. EXPENDITURES\nSALARY FD. EXPENSE: AMOUNT OF RAISE TEACHER SALARIES ADMIN. SALARIES OTHER SAL. FD. EXP. TOTAL SAL. FD. EXP. OPERATION EXPENSE: AMOUNT OF RAISE SALARIES: OTHER OPERATION EXP. TOTAL OPERATION EXr' ALL SALARIES\nDEBT EXPENSE: TOTAL DEBT EXP. CUR. NEW DESEG COST NEW DEBT TOTAL NEVVDESEG_EXP. I of AL FXPffjSES CONIINGENCY I) 1909-1990 ($1,576,291) SWITCH .OIOM $24,003,281 $2,900,911 $80,551 $36,103,754 $2,910,418 $4,000,000 $1,756,845 $1,592,873 $501,287 $73,849,920 $72,273,629 3.50% $34,744,905 $3,916,830 $3,260,457 $41,922,192 3.50% $9,262,038 $12,992,868 $22,255,706 $47,924,573 $5,591,688 $69,769,586 $2,5()4.()4,3 PULASKI COUNTY special SCHOOL DISTRICT LONG RANGE BUDGET PROJECTIONS E F G II I J K 1990-1991 1991-1992 1992-1993 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-199C $2,504,043 $2,464,501 $16,269 ($2,686,894) ($5,227,820) ($6,396,037) $21,757,960 $3,169,317 $80,801 $37,423,541 $3,251,781 $4,500,000 $2,701,773 $1,086,128 $379,165 $74,350,467 $76,854,510 2.00% $36,871,144 $4,561,235 $3,148,830 $44,581,209 PRE AUDIT 2.00% $9,932,471 $14,451,800 $24,384,271 $51,364,850 $5,424,529 $74739(LO()9 $2,464,501 $21,995,000 $2,682,000 $79,000 $42,535,873 $3,345,000 $5,200,000 $2,868,451 $1,010,000 $280,000 $79,995,324 $82,459,825 13.05% $41,405,290 $5,644,377 $3,511,000 $50,560,667 5.00% $10,878,767 $15,568,197 $26,446,964 $57,928,434 $5,435,925 _______ $0 $82,4471,55(1 $16,269 $22,654,850 $23,334,496 $24,034,530 $24,755,566 12/07/91 1996-1997 ($9,381,269) ASSUMPTIONS GROWTH RATE\n00:01 L % RAISE 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 1 2 3 4 5 6 $2,557,191 $81,370 $43,811,949 $3,445,350 $5,200,000 $2,954,505 $1,000,000 $288,400 $81,993,615 $82,009,885 $2,594,377 $83,811 $45,126,308 $3,548,711 $5,200,000 $3,043,140 _$_1,000,000 $297,052 $84,227,894 $81,541,000 _$2,180JG1 $85,325^ $46,480,097 $3,655,172 $5,200,000 $3,134,434 _$ 1,000,000  $305?964 $06,076,603 $00,84(L863 $2,207,750 $88,915 $47,874,500 $3,764,827 $2,700,000 $3,228,467 $1,000,000 \" ~$31s7i'4'2 $85,93M60' $79,539,131 GTHRATE* L.R.DUT GROWTH RATE\nGROWTH RATE: GROWTH RATE: ACTUAL PAYM T GROWTH RATE: NOGROWril GROwfiinATE: 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.00% 7 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.00% 3.0014 8 9 10 11 12 J 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 $41,835,290 $5,734,377 $3,616,330 $51,185,997 $42,265,290 $5,824,377 $3,724,820 $51,814,487 $42,695,290 $5,914,377 $3,836,564 $52,446,232 $43,125,290 $6,004,377 $3,951,661 $53,081,329 $430,000 PER YR. STEP $90,000 PER YR. STEP GROWTH RAfr? \" T 3.00% 20 21 22* 23 24 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25 $11,198,767 $16,035,243 $27,234,009 $58,768,434 $11,518,767 $16,516,300 $28,035,067 $59,600,434 $11,038,767 $17^11.789 $207050^56 '$6074487434' $12,158,767 $17,522,143 $29,680,909' $61,200,434 $320,000 PER YR. STEP GROWTH RATE\n3.00% 26 27' 28 $5,026,772 $5,069,266 $3,898,113 $3,908,162 STEP  RAISE FROM SCHEDULE 29 30 31 $500,000 $75(L000' ~$L2M,OOO $n4\n096^779 ($2,686,1194) $1,200,000 $G50,000 _$M50^_ T()G7G(LO2O '($5,227\n020) $1,400,000 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;55'0,000 $2,O5oT66o $87,244,901 ($6,396,037) $1,600,000 '$2r2\"503Tdd $n892()',466 ($9,381,269) 32 EST. NEW DBT/VOTED MILLS 33 34 35 36LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 June 1, 1992 Deceived JUN 1 1992 , Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge and Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Office of Desegregalicn Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: Attached are budget projections for the Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan as specified in the January 21, 1992 Court Order. The Order's requirement for a revised 1991-92 budget is met by Exhibit A showing the projected cost of certain desegregation programs in this year through agreement with Mr. Bob Morgan of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. list of notes and assumptions is included and is an integral part of the document. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD is committed to the programs of the Desegregation Plan, these figures should not be viewed as precise commitments of funds. It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. A Also attached is a procedure that the LRSD will use in future desegregation budgeting so that these costs can be more accurately known. The formats and procedures shown have been reviewed with Mr. Morgan, and we believe he understands and approves. We have stated to Mr. Morgan, however, that we view this as only a step in the process of working with his office on the definition and tracking of desegregation costs, and we will continue to work with him to perfect this process to our mutual benefit. Sincerely, (Jim Ivey 'J^anager of Suppdjr' t Services JI/ch Attachment cc: R. R. Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring w/attachment c:\\project.wpdLRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97 Response to Federal Court Order Dated January 21, 1992 Assumptions/Notes: 1. The years of the projection and the formats used were done through consultation with the Office of 2 . 3 . 4. 5. Monitoring (ODM). Desegregation Although the LRSD implemented the Tri- District Plan and double funded the incentive schools in 1990- 91, these figures are not included. These projections are estimates based on current information. Although the LRSD Desegregation Plan, is committed to the programs of the precise commitments of funds. these figures should not be viewed as It is our hope that the objectives of the Plan can be met in more cost-effective ways. The LRSD is in the process of negotiating labor contracts with teachers and support personnel at this time. Consequently, projection of any salary costs starting with 1992-93 cannot be done with accuracy, and for the District administration to do so precludes good faith negotiation. The ODM understands this problem but feels that projecting no increases presents an unrealistic picture. a 3% annual increase in these costs. Consequently, they have asked us to use We agree to do that but wish to publicly state that this represents no commitment or intent on the part of the LRSD. If the Court desires, we can present updated projections when these figures are known. have also used a factor of 1 non-salary costs. We for inflationary increases in The LRSD is currently working to produce a balanced budget for 1992-93. Although this cannot be completed until union negotiations are settled, programs must be reviewed and some must be cut in order to meet the legal requirement of a balanced budget. The projections herein assume that sufficient reductions will be made to balance the 1992-93 budget. These reductions will not result in violation of the Desegregation Plan nor of State law. shown as a line item entitled II These reductions are 1992-93 Budget Reductions\". If the Court desires, we will define these reductions for the Court when they are known. As stated in the previous paragraph, it is assumed that $7.7 million in expense reductions will be implemented in 1992-93 and carried forward. Additional shortfalls will further reductions or increased revenues are not found. occur if We are assuming a millage increase of five mills in September, 1993 . be found. This will not be required if sufficient reduction can Note that the projections do not show use of the Desegregation loan in the revenues. It is our intent to use that as a reserve in the event that we cannot get millage rates increased at the time desired. The $1.5 million available in 1992-93 may, however, have to be used to balance the budget.LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense Page 2 6. Program discussion. #51-75, Incentive School Programs, requires 7. 8 . 9. 10. 11. 12 . 13. 14. cost of programs In the years through the 1991-92 school year, the in the Incentive Schools exceeded the mandatory level of two times the area school instructional cost per student. Since the programs are now functioning and the mandatory level is increasing, the mandatory funding level will exceed program costs in 1992-93 and beyond. Therefore, we have shown the cost of Incentive School programs in 1991-92 and have shown the mandatory funding level differential in 1992-93 and beyond. The projections show the cost of programs that are funded by the revenue sources shown. Federal funds are utilized in some programs but are not shown in the expense. We don't show federal funds in our operating budgets and to do so' here, we believe, would create confusion for the Court and for the public. Court desires. We can provide information on federal funds if the Another program that will grow further is the 4-year old program. This has been projected based on the requirements of the Desegregation Plan and previous submissions. Any required new construction will be paid for with capital improvement funds from previous bond issues. of this is planned for. second-lien issues. The 1993-94 reduction We believe most Any additional will be covered with in Programs, equipment. equipment. reflects the program completion #10, Academic Support of payments for PAL Some funding is added for replacement of this The Desegregation Plan includes certain programs that require funds but are not included in the projections because they are funded by federal grants or because their cost is small and the cost of information, broken out. tracking them exceeds the value of the The costs are not omitted\nthey are just not The operating costs of the new King and Stephens Schools are shown as opening at the times requested in motions before the Court. If these motions are not granted, revised budgets if the Court desires. we can submit Operating costs in other schools are reduced somewhat upon the opening of these schools because 400 students will move to each of the new schools from others in the LRSD. The fifth and sixth positions (from the left) of the LRSD standard account code will be used for coding desegregation expenses. The Desegregation program numbers shown on the spread sheets are the codes to be used. The Order specifies that start-up costs be identified. Since most of this has been expended in previous years, the only significant one remaining is the PAL cost discussed above.Desegregation Budgeting Description - Future Year Procedures A. B. C. D. A list of Desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number, so that costs may be charged to a Desegregation program from various operating units and functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. After the normal budget planning process is complete, a memo will be sent to each budget manager telling them what costs or types of cost may be charged to Desegregation and how they are to be coded. This will be agreed to by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Manager of Support Services. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation will review Desegregation expenses monthly to assure proper charging.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 05-29-92 1991-92 1992- 93 1993-94 1994 - 95 1995- 96 1996 - 97 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN UEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTERESTON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 38,196,979 21,081,833 3,900,000 140,000 400,000 224,667 420,850 300,000 85,000 39,088,120 21,736,595 3,500,000 140,000 365,000 225,000 461,000 300,000 85,000 40,093,227 25,253,744 3,805,000 141,400 368,650 227,250 484,050 309,000 86,700 45,616,117 25,996,645 3,819,150 142,814 372,337 229,523 508,253 318,270 88,434 47,086,512 26,766,307 3,933,725 144,242 376,060 231,818 533,665 327,818 90,203 48,506,276 27,518,335 4,051,736 145,685 379,820 234,136 560,348 337,653 92,007 TOTAL 64,749,329 65,900,715 70,769,021 77,091,542 79,490,349 81,825,996 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 73,419 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD ORPHAN CHILDREN TRANSPORTATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 28,118,907 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,419 1,474,485 629,752 147,050 3,000 2,983,190 874,311 1,798,665 624,119 28,118,907 8,926,606 28,759,387 8,094,112 29,419,081 6,042,591 30,102,462 3,829,942 30,862,449 683,125 TOTAL 49,864,380 73,419 1,500,000 675,000 147,050 3,000 3,100,000 875,000 2,490,900 653,094 73,419 1,545,000 742,500 154,403 3,000 3,348,000 918,750 3,248,910 672,687 73,419 1,591,350 816,750 162,123 3,000 3,615,840 964,688 3,760,540 692,867 73,419 1,639,091 898,425 170,229 3,000 3,905,107 1,012,922 4,140,580 713,653 73,419 1,688,263 988,268 178,740 3,000 4,217,516 1,063,568 4,491,150 735,063 46,562,976 47,560,167 47,142,248 46,488,830 44,984,560 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 44,625 111,453 800,000 40,000 112,000 600,000 35,000 116,480 400,000 30,000 121,139 300,000 25,000 125,985 200,000 20,000 131,024 100,000 TOTAL 956,078 752,000 551,480 451,139 350,985 251,024 TOTAL REVENUE 115,654,206 113,300,110 118,965,087 124,769,348 126,414,583 127,146,000UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY 05-29-92 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 94 1994-95 1995- 96 1996- 97 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES SUPPLIES \u0026amp; MATERIALS OTHER OBJECTS CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY BUDGET REDUCTION 67,748,508 7,808,935 16,910,424 6,791,207 3,817,539 887,696 1,606,543 8,718,196 0 71,437,088 9,022,067 19,141,451 6,992,544 3,927,703 755,079 1,621,715 9,597,115 500,000 (7,700,000) 73,765,037 9,202,508 18,887,119 7,202,320 4,045,534 777,731 1,670,366 9,090,123 600,000 (7,931,000) 75,316,854 9,386,558 22,144,629 7.418,390 4,166,900 801,063 1,720,477 8,845,248 700,000 (8,168,930) 76,822,807 9,574,289 24,940,080 7,640,942 4,291,907 825,095 1,772,092 8,258,921 800,000 (8,413,998) 79,373,940 9,765,775 25,864,401 7,870,170 4,420,664 849,848 1,825,255 8,041,468 900,000 (8,666,418) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 114,289,048 115,294,762 117,309,739 122,331,190 126,512,136 130,245,103 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE 1,365,158 (1,994,652) 1,655,348 2,438,158 (97,553) (3,099,103) BEGINNING FUND BALANCE 634,842 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 ENDING FUNO BALANCE 2,000,000 5,348 1,660,696 4,098,855 4,001,302 902,199Prog # Pago # Doseription Unit/FunH # 1 2 5 0 7 8 0 10 12 13 14 15 10 17 18 10 21 22 24 25 20 27 28 20 32 33 34 35 49 51 -75 5 6 28 28 30 44 40 48 03 82 80 114 120 120 143 148 148 224 227 1-0 03 34 35 28 100 1-56 131 125 00 Hippy 4 Yr Old Programs Student H \u0026gt;ring Officer Office of Desegregation Extra  Cu rricu lar T' ch er Recruiter Staff Development Academic Support Multlcultral Programs Incentive Grants Original Magnets Sp Ed Learning Center Security Data Processing System M lo-M Magnet Schools King School Stephens School Monitoring Activities Computerized Transportation Romine Themi Community School In School Suspension Job Pair Testing Assistance Library Services Parent Recruiting VIPS  Recruiting Prejudice Reduction To Be Allocated Incentive School Programs TOTAL 70 1105 121 04 81 50 1580 75 42 87 82 35 41 71/75 82 40 12 14/08/120 00 60 00 72/45 73 75 SETTLEMENT PLAN BUDGET 1 ~02 02-03 03-rO4 0ft~O6 ge-07 244.077 204,350 101.048 432,504 110.000 46.782 418,570 2,084.728 200.005 738,732 3,800,000 103,415 080,002 200,835 400,272 0 0 345,320 10,000 17,207 270,002 741.217 1.500 12,850 501,404 52,000 62,688 50,000 200,000 4.128.058 10,010,424 252,320 502,073 102.477 430,148 110,000 40.020 507,074 2,730,374 200,005 800,000 3,800,000 110,342 704.553 410,304 1,330,038 0 0 300.270 10,000 70,000 270,002 760.381 1.500 11,350 580.017 52,000 04,048 5.000 200.000 4,437,312 10,141,451 250.800 857.450 105.552 462,323 113,300 48.337 584,704 2,102,810 278,002 0 3,014,000 113.053 818,300 422.074 1,013,020 0 0 401,004 10,500 81,370 285,271 782.102 1.545 11.001 508,035 53,560 66,807 5,000 200,000 4.614.378 18.887,110 207,003 1.286,131 100.718 405.802 110.000 40.787 002.245 2.250.505 280,342 0 4,031,420 117,002 842,042 435.355 1,440,552 2,003,300 0 414,043 11,025 83,811 203,820 806,027 1.501 12.041 015.077 55,107 08,004 5.000 200,000 4,050.880 22,144,620 276,724 1,184,723 111.080 470.800 120.200 51.281 020,313 2.320,353 204,032 0 4,152,303 120,574 808,230 448.415 1,404,007 2,707,432 2,707,000 428,405 11.570 80,325 302,044 820.700 1.030 12.402 034,450 50,822 70,071 5,000 200,000 4.307,028 24,040.080 283,005 1.232,112 116,330 404,205 123,800 52.810 038,022 2,300,143 303,780 0 4,270,033 124,101 804,277 401.808 1,484,110 2,815.720 2.815.280 430.250 12,155 88.015 311,723 054.000 1.088 12.775 053,400 58,520 73,100 5.000 200.000 4,030.500 25.864.401Exhibit A 1105 1110 FOUR YR OLD PROGRA KINDERGARTEN 1120-99 REGULAR PROGRAMS 1210-99 SPECIAL ED PROGRAM 1320-99 VOCATIONAL PROGRAM 1410-99 ADULT EDUCATION 1510-99 COMPENSATORY ED 1910 GIFTED \u0026amp; TALENTED 2110-90 PUPIL SUPPORT 2210-99 STAFF SUPPORT SERVI 2310-20 ADM SUPPORT SERVIC 2410 PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE 2510-99 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2610-99 CENTRAL SUPPORT 3000'S COMMUNITY SERVICES 5100 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPENDITURE PROJECTION BY FUNCTIONAL AREA 1991-92 TEACHER SALARY 52,349.84 2,795,060.64 28,811,085.64 4,037,827.87 4,071,829.27 756,490.90 1,156,944.86 2,598,700.99 2,684,664.92 183,975.48 3,939,101.54 290,883.38 BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OPERATING FUND 44,337.94 325,000.00 7,562,955.21 1,224,081.75 1,238,599.52 698,543.12 537,715.75 214,094.16 1,102,812.86 2,077,880.91 734,945.29 1,861,405.13 16,625,075.77 2,194,315.26 839,750.00 8,718,196.00 DESEG FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL 204.356.00 6,686,389.30 11,626.28 118,050.36 35,608.75 1,649,581.34 317,475.66 1,653,162.72 4,265,335.80 107,044.21 710,699.21 510,528.09 640,566.28 362,373.04 351,162.00 130,509.54 3,522,602.96 67,162.00 428,580.73 444,781.18 115,554.79 425,733.12 9,069,517.95 273,945.79 601,212.16 6,880.00 187,848.98 651,786.63 423,530.00 3,000.00 464,212.24 TOTAL 1,195,556.85 1,051,829.76 301,043.78 3,545,793.76 52,129,948.10 5,909,854.73 6,380,853.31 864,661.41 6,473,270.95 1,626,050.00 5,099,356.87 7,284,019.73 5,299,811.36 7,103,107.73 18,390,604.74 2,995,726.73 1,944,528.52 8,718,196.00 51,378,915.33 45,999,708.67 16,910,424.00 5,889,938.48 13,887,841.24 134,066,827.72ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  MONDAY, JUNE 15. 1992  Desegregation costs helped $7.7 million shortfall, Steele create BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-GazeWe Staff Writer The Little Rock School Districts projected $7.7 million budget deficit for next year is largely the result of implementing parts of two desegregation plans while trying to meet other financial demands, Superintendent Ruth Steele said last week. Friday, Steele released a 17- page chronology of budget-related events that date back to July 1989, when she became superintendent. The superintendent said 9 her report was not an attempt to cast the districts financial problems in a better light or to shirk responsibility for the districts financial condition. On several occasions re- cently, questions pertaining to the districts financial situation have been raised, Steele said. Specifically, several district employees and one board member on a radio talk show have asked why we now face budget problems after an 8- mill tax increase was obtained in a successful election a little over two years ago. says The question deserves response. a Steele, who is retiring from the district June 30. said she thought the explanation of the complex finances would be helpful to her successor. Dr Mac Bernd of San Marcos Calif. Bernd said last week that balancing the budget will be a top priority. In her report. Steele said the districts financial position IS actually better than it was projected to be in 1989. But, See SCHOOL, Page 3A--npg^^CL 3 2^ 2 3 Si o .5 O (fl  ?2 3 ^3 3. 7 3 3 _ 3\" 2  S' 2 S o H X g g *0 o  5 5 o w *5 \"O *\u0026lt; \"O S . O n e 2- o o \u0026lt;\u0026gt; c \u0026gt; 3 \"J. S CT z 0.^0 ^.- J..O 2- 2\n2 00.  o* 9   tn 9 o 3 9* 3 71 3 g 9 3 9 ft q-S-2.   - o --  srnaf* kJ *\u0026lt;332 -  fD OO o 5-0 a a a a* a- 3 'S I * a a  = 8.5 8  \"Xa 3c- 3 9 p g 9:\u0026lt; = S9- Cl pb!Dg-.a.2 2 5wgg\u0026lt;5^ o 9 o o V Q .a 3 S e-r. t^i L? ffQ \u0026lt;5 o O o w rt\u0026gt; o o c 9 f\u0026gt;  tn r* p ^3 p \u0026gt; \u0026lt; 3* Q 3 w Z- o *\u0026lt; 3 Ui rt) 3 g era 3 o 9 c 2.5: o \u0026lt;  c 3 trt rt O p 3 g (D r* 3 1/1 9 XJ \u0026gt; f^ Co 0,09 3'PoH--^'O,4 5ttS\u0026amp;5i5|3'S P-  sr-o ^oo^39-^cs: O,,,^3^S,2.3- 92.33-\n-^\"g ^5\" p 3 O O o 2- r 9* era (D n\u0026gt; * a Cl c O      S - 3 i- 5 3 o o O S ' 3 *9 M X33ao29 ^P    5'sg tn 9 3 O 2. 3 2 3 2,0 O o\u0026gt; a 9 i? 2 tn O 3 p p - 0\u0026gt; Rj .3. tn Si 5.S2S- ssg-$s 9 ? o P 9 V) O O 9. O rt\u0026gt; UI  -* c. a 9 9 3 0$ \u0026gt; P \u0026lt; o 3 5. Q cz\u0026gt; w 9\" . - N 3 O- .O 7. 3 2. \" 3 y, P 2^ 5 S  S' s\n= O P \u0026gt;-1 fV OQ CU O p o O 9\" x M 9 V Q is   Ji 9 rt\u0026gt; SSg-g. cn .-o S  3 g '* r\nn o = \u0026lt;\u0026lt;9 c c ti\u0026gt; 9 5ggg 3 O m UI c 9 3 8 g _ .a 5 u .3 3^ .^32, - ft_R OJ'TXP \u0026lt;0 p3'\u0026lt;^\nS^3.9S-S *2ft2 Jft  tnto 2,3 w 5.^3(xa  - '- - 3  3 H 3 2 3* w o. 0 - ^i-O r* a ft -t- 5 .,2.0 3 53 g jS-o 3-  S\u0026lt;?.EiJ-S9ft-~33 TftOc-RV* -      ^0 3 c\n3- 9*\u0026lt; 2 c::3 2 5 o to o o X \"O w O \u0026lt; o fi\u0026gt; U) := fij C/3 CtJ? o' O S D\u0026gt; a C ? a a 4, a G f? a a a Oo .s '-^ a a O* a o ?r c -S 00 5 o 3  9 O :. V) a H. 3 tn _ O. P TS 3- (Xa tn o tn 3 52Orj- r-- 3 M- \u0026lt;-\u0026lt; v\u0026gt; cn p  \" 2  3 E:r 3 x 3^ p era TO 3 3 o 9 o  tn 9- n o \u0026lt; 3 O 9  tn 3 J2  o ,-. 3 5 3 2 3 3 Ui 9 U) ft) tn CD (XQ O HQ P p 5 o P UI p to 3 O 9 O o 9 o n Si g g \u0026lt;9* 2^3 3i o-^ 0 0 3^ w O Xj 5. 3  ft p 3 3 S Ei O Ei 9 2-3^*0 3^ 9 ..  i3E:bSo2SCi2'.- S *^S-^ o^.^Oco ,2 3  0) cn tn St O*Xa3uj(IQpEJ- -*O .^3ag9-3oo2.-i- s 3 o Ei 0 $= g ? \" *3 P 9 \"ft Ui S  ^9  S S  og-\"?' \u0026gt;SS \u0026gt;b a . s:- O ft) X, so-O * 5? Ei 52. H 0) W ft M r ft O t-i 2 n o 2 2 9 ft ito'to' fl) 3-9- p Q) sg rp 9   3 3 ^.  o Ui 9 9 \u0026lt;352.^w23Mft-S9'bi *37i -^sr3,^3,  i'-\u0026gt;9323XJ hr\u0026lt;-n P 9 p 3 . P y,' O 9. '3 7:\"ft9 3 .2 C Si 3- Ei ^Oc.- 9 ft^9^tnft9\u0026lt;^ft9ftft g B b' S..g - S.ZS -^  -  ?S3'ggS'. ex ft Q si^  r cz) CA f\" 9 o 9^ O 3 ?3 \u0026amp; - 3 cn S^S.a-2 2^ Q o P o \u0026lt;1 o o X3 3 9 CA SS - \u0026gt; 3 - 3 Q =Ss  3   3 2 p \u0026lt; 3 5 2 o \u0026lt; o era 9 _ Ui 3 tn  o o O 3 p \u0026gt;-] m 3 O.  O Q 5 9* oa 52- p -J \u0026lt;z 9 0, 2. O tn  ev O tn wcn OOra C?3-9\nO -------------3\n323tnO ii) 3 9 0^ -n  u: _ tn \"-I 3Po39tn^r  \"^^.1^9 0 K- o 9 2 - 9 O 3 X-5- gSSvS^- W'\u0026lt; 5 o-ira p\no. eo w 9 eo n (i\u0026gt; (T\u0026gt; (la o o O OQ P *-| (A O (TO g X 3 o o 9 Sg 3 3ft '\u0026lt; _ S 3 Si3 O'S fto g ft r-*' tn 9 r* O P 9 \u0026lt; tn cn JT s g-S- Ui M A n p p C p 1 o 3 2^ o 3- p  3 S- 3-2 2 0* n\u0026gt; T -j Sg'Sg S \u0026gt;g.-e  3 o o \u0026lt; x- 9- 9.X) CT :\ng g q 2.= n. 3 0-. \" 5' ora \u0026lt;5 3 =* r-^O o  \"O o o 9 =\"52 p .- *** 3 3 _ *-\u0026gt; (n G o -gSS S gg O 3 O2.^o O O O \"\u0026gt; go sra'g.eg- i5o2--S8 P 3 tn O 0,3 to *9 (ra p .-\u0026lt;- 3 3 g.g o Ui o ft p Ui fSS 2 3 o X **\u0026lt; ^ p P cn rt O  = \u0026amp; o o UI -\u0026gt;^2  S^ 0-3 p o  o\u0026gt; 2 9 o o s 9 p cn era P-- sr 3  w O o tn y tf Ui CO 9  2,\u0026lt; $ 9 cn tn er ,. B\u0026gt;  o 75 9. o 3 9 O- t9 9 - 2-2^-3 O 3 tn p s (la to o p 2 Q 9 cj da O'  9 9* tn O 2 S w 9 * Q g* 9 CL? 5:? p 3 O OS 9' O O _ CL O P g.R.,9O.fti_aP CT-Cl'9 O tn 5 CO 9.3 Si n. 3  3 UI ^ Ui  22 0.3^ H. \" S  g  S S-2. \u0026lt;: cl\n-. 2 - \u0026lt;0  3 57 3- 9 O o o tn P O  3 o c  3 3 p JJ. O- o, O 3 EJ Sera 2: p 3 5 p 3 O (fl tn 95 w ? Sg B gw -. c g ? 5sg!??S:s- S.s'g o 9 O rt\u0026gt; ft) P O O ? 9 3- O p P p o 2 tn P 2. S 3 . s s  _ \u0026lt;t 3 [-\u0026gt;  0\u0026gt; Q r ^\n3 5-^S s 3-8-3\u0026gt; ? 5 -J SJCX*1O'XJiW* SCOQ 3 oO 9-3'9fl !=r^\u0026gt;:rt3 P 9.0Q \u0026lt;OfD(raO_. X\"-* O B- e\u0026gt;q 5'^ *\u0026lt; Er 3 X  3 J I ft- 9 ' ft '' -4 ' ^ ( w'O 33-?j35ftp9R, ^Ss\u0026amp;SgB.slSXs-^S^SS ,..^3^3 ft, ftft32-.22 . CZ3 i-h fO M M (0 2 rr gera c r* 9  STP  2L 2 sr 9 3 3, O P (t\u0026gt; 3 9 O a* (A 9 Oi exQ P 9 cn C M o _  -baS-SS -\" o b g,-2,5. b 5 339.3_. O-.-MEX.,\u0026lt; ^'-JPt_^39g--'~ \".g = -i\u0026lt;JSgOgWB Ogg\u0026lt;g-c-.O Cv^9 99C.O_n9323T,9^OirX9S9 Ego, ^30 0^^ 9\u0026lt;X5^ 29.y\u0026gt;5 \u0026amp;g-5 h = K \"ss  31 \"s=s ^3 S.3 3 ^g-?\u0026amp;3 Si 0-73 \"O 3 _ ^\u0026lt;30.2-9SoO) P\"^oCoengt^f-* S  3 0 St \u0026lt;  \u0026lt; o p '. 9- ?. C 3 003 3 9 P M 3 (Zl5' o o g g ng's g s F ? g^ p  0 3 o tn O- 52. ' ^ ^3 9 p 3 3- O X o 9 CL n\u0026gt; c 3 , n 3 O - S3 g 3 J O 3 3 9 O 5^,2 3 9 p Q. 1 \"O O A,  . Ui O P 9 Lo 9 W (XQ O p  ?' 2 3 Ol. 5 co  3 2 ^3 9 E* ^00 I rt\u0026gt; rt) Q O\u0026lt;^ S' a * Sac a a a 9 O e, .* ez) 0 ft 9* o.  __ -b, \"\u0026gt;TO 9 2 ? 3 BS:: i\na 5- s a r. o tn a '1 p Q 9 ^l\u0026gt;ftp  -- - oa ft 3 cn ex x^jS 2.0a 3 PXp9rt'-'9- -., 3 i-'i r- o 2 3  9 W 3 p  5. 3 P Slg^a.S-o2  \"O 3 M P  o X3 tn tn : 3 3 Pt 3 a i'? L a o - 9 y c i Q ft) s \"S. s- 5  SS'o g's- a  . ,. _ 3 23 gprS'oE.g.g' o a 5 o a. g  cn ^ , 3 tn S cT a' a a - a . S 5 S'5g' F 3  o s 9 p Q a. a w o 3 g- o  , r *-t- 3 1:^0 5^ sX' 2^ 3 3 p 0 3  a. a o a o  K tn 3 3- c gw p \" 2-O2*3 2:2.0 s\na 5 3 a o UI \u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026lt; r4' 3- O 2 O p 3- 3 3 \u0026lt; pO99crao3\u0026gt;3 \u0026lt; 9 cn O 3 i-j 9 O.\" ? S' Q n 5=^3 2 t\u0026lt;\nffa ex tn X3 P 3 ------- g-era 3 O' g 3  2 9 \u0026lt;'^3 2 X5 3 3 S 9\" o 7^  3tn3c,j:fpO,y,\u0026lt;-* 5 co H 9 a (D 2.P S P (X 9 \u0026lt; O 9 O tn _''9- 9-0 tn 9 3 O J2 3- 9- O-. fi^cra ss g\np 3 3 fc Ui fu p a- a- a- a O ft) S' 9. 9 O H. S 3 2\nS''f igp =-o tw 9 \u0026lt;* 9 to 3. 3 r-i CX^ 9-S-(WrT 7 o 2 5- T 0 3 0 9 9 = fD CT 9  ' G g2 'H-'H-rt 9- 9H9-i9-pg. 39-oPOjj ,22pp2333 era 33oexa3oerapg^,^ dgo.33cX3-^\u0026lt;3o.X^2tnj\n rc9- go o  SoS Sob 'g-' 2q9'q9\u0026lt;b3 9 rm rt X (TO n g-g as'^s g' S. -T- 3 era tn p Op S 9 9 3 0 2 CfQ - .9 9. C. O  ?r 03 $ P ^^o^E? 0^3\n p 3l  M n.2 \u0026lt;  9 9. in t^S O Sg o P O -o 0*3 'I W 03 O '\u0026lt; g -o \" So 9*S^ ^0-03(b9mo eZ\u0026gt;.32t23^\u0026lt;3 9'*3 ^-*3a2. o^Qog cren -  h^S-o =r 2- 5 w 3 \u0026lt;\u0026lt; UI Q,(xa . J* . O cn 3^ 3 9 O P 0-3 TO o cn Q w -K  71 O' O 9 (0 O o 2. o -J ft)  r \u0026gt;Xi!i35?i3P^ 32^w^3X5*\n\u0026lt;2  tn . -, cn 3 9 2. S o S  C 3xj -* h^9 0 \u0026gt;1 3 TO 9 o UI O 9 5)\nfO rt- 3' 9 O p C S  P -o  U. 3 2m p 3 -2(0 S 9 fj O o . 9 o\u0026lt;a 3- * 3 o' 9- ' S 3 \u0026lt; S S ^^,3-0-gg 9 o 0 P 3 o 9 P j^fio _ - 00 CO w ^g H. s|.-= o 3  S    '^2  3-90^ - r*era 3-_ 2 p 3 3 -3 2-'  tn 3 3 3 2. ri 3 o 3 3 g SoS a'= s' p \u0026gt;1 tn '1 3 JO ^crg o 9 O 0'^2tn3O\u0026gt;p,,. gSS.s^.^g- p 9 t\u0026lt;3S5.g S 3 9-3 9 --t- C_i 9 3 o' O Q  3 \u0026lt; ' \u0026gt;tn 3 2. 3 cn 3 -- ex 2 5 P 0\u0026gt; 9  3\no sr g  O 9 U. 9. 3 - P  O _ 3^S7o3\u0026lt;-O. 5t-r oZs.\u0026gt;Sr)0 tn02. 3 \u0026gt;'  M 40 3 tn 3 r 3\no o 3 9 M 2 9-3 3-^^  C:: 3 9 o to 0^ J2 w \u0026lt; '? PT '-I 5 3 to O- ? s:: ? -^ o 2.9* O 3 9 ffO 2 3 3 23 32 co to O9.Q--O^O- gs-gS' ^S' = 2 \u0026lt; \u0026gt;-j tn 3 (XQ Ui o o o o - 5 .S 3  S'^ g.o O s 9 n 9- tn O Q :'3 co \u0026lt; U! o 3 p 9. o O 3 5 5fi  ft\u0026gt; tn P UI O S fl) p tn 4, g p ^-57 g 2 3 \u0026amp; g.za o Lra 3 - cn o 3 3 2^ o o  P X w o 3 p o OhO^ 52. 3 c -- 2 raoiffiajg-sxs:. *53 9 I.  S ES \u0026lt;- P tn 3 ff^ .sl^Sog- '|g=3S co 2-0 o 3 So \"o  **: 2 9 to tn 9 , 9'0 3 c t- _ 39 *33 c w fo 5 3 2.era ftfnft-_.9J^ 3 -3 g g^w 0 ft ?52of?SoF^S.p. o 2-0 5?392 fU 3 O 9 (XQ P p 5 9 ? o p ? o  ? g 9 XJ 9- UI tn 3-O P 2 3 5* S  ^^^^3 \"  5'gS'\n5 S5'g RoE'5'\u0026lt; b.-' Sg 2.g 3 B s SS^S-'S o 9 o |(X0 UI ^2'^S9 '5'\u0026lt; 3^ 3 I 9 (3 3 SI g 2 3 O 3 e I-.- f* CO 9 % /T\u0026gt; fn C 3 UI M O JT 2 Q O ft 3 3 3  ^ g-^JE-^^g^ 0 3 3* O 3 3 s s.^ S- n\u0026gt; - m ff. O 9 ^2. - bSXss ...?2'3 39g^g^3-ft^3 O era o Q p r\" .. 3 2  \" o . 5. 9 o S a P rt o o  P'S O g-'s^w'\" a. gpssSsffSg-g 3\u0026lt;3' \u0026lt;^9^ ftoe/eR\u0026gt;- 2 0 3^ 9 . 3 9 o i- o slg.s'^e-i 2- \"S 3: Etoo'S g 0.3 o 2-o - 9 3 tn O o o Q ex 9:o\u0026gt; 3 J? o tn 3- 9^ K- P 9 n 3 E s: sS- 9  ^ _____ P ? O) 3 ci i- 9 P 9 3 tn o p 3 N 03 S - 2 c\u0026lt; O ra 3 S.g.^ O O 3^9- \u0026lt; 3 goSiS 3 57 0) 9 0^9 2 52 9 9 w n 9 era J* 3_ p O W 3-3335.0.2? O 2 '\nS *0 ? 7 3p5 \u0026lt;'^-a933^3-PO,.^t-^9-j--g.oa\u0026lt;p M3^-CXS*2.33r-r-- OSS:cnrfooP3E33g'2- 3c33.3 S3p3.'*3X  ^XJ 2^ 3  S 3 *3 3 \u0026lt; oo 2.  9 \u0026lt;- ES i tn 2 (ra O(^ o. \u0026lt; S O\u0026lt;--n s B EoS'\u0026lt; o--0^oj^--q w ? D, '5' ffq 5^  S o' S ,- n 'c \"S5'2oS\"\u0026amp;=\"3ooi: O 5'0 s 5'0 g-S ss\u0026gt; o ra Ui O P P cn' O .qs era o  M/ J3 o 3 3 O n tn e S- CL era .^o p (D o o (XCi o 3 cn ft ^ \u0026gt; '5:o'S5-Sb- HS3-^.8^3Sg 2 . so -- y o 2 O Ui 9 o p era o to p-, Ui o  iS p X lJ. 9. O 0-9 0 0.^ 9 g  p iw 3. 9 en'o Sterji'^ Ei* ' fn ft g p |J5 9: -e ii iiP'C t i n TT c o s -3^ S3x2, iOSa - STotnx.  tn I  p 9 tn i-jl o co TO i ri 3 3 9 0 S: 9 9 :. a2^- 3 tn tn - - .tihj- ^3'1.3E2}3  3O-\u0026gt;-j2 i ?. -h3\u0026lt;?07:cn P-PP \u0026lt;3 TJ ** ^OotnpSTtnqf-o 5  B  g.S^ K 3 2 2- O* 3 S' o (w C3 o ra o \u0026lt;- o   !. ts3  o 1 B $  9 o ^2 W 3 w 01 . \u0026gt; o O- cn ^- r--  - 9 0^9 9 O o tn TO S 2 _.. 9- -r 00  00^3 - (O 9- p 3 i *3 f o Q  g S^era o o y? \u0026lt;t\u0026gt; o o o 2 2 9 P1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET RECEIVED TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, AR June 18, 1992 Board of Directors 72201 JUN 1 9 1992 Office of Desegregation uiOfni. 1-3 Ivey, Manager of Support Services Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent . Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent (a))\u0026gt; Proposed Budget for Annual School Election Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-622 (1951) states \"The requirement of Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 40, for publication of the budget shall be discharged by the board of directors of each school district by publication of its budget one (1) time...not less than sixty (60) days before the annual school election.\" It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed budget of expenditures for 1993-94 as attached. c:\\memos\\elecbud.wpdPROPOSED BUDGET OF EXPENDITURES WITH TAX LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 1993, TO AND INCLUDING JUNE 30, 1994 The Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County, Arkansas in compliance with the requirements of Act 403 of 1951, as amended by Act 117 of 1979 and Amendment 40 to the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, has prepared, approved, and does hereby make public a proposed budget of expenditures for the District in 1993-94 together with a supporting tax rate follows: as Salaries \u0026amp; Fringe Benefits Purchased Services, Supplies, Capital Outlay Debt Service $ 82,967,545 25,252,071 9,090,123 To provide for the foregoing proposed budget of expenditures, the Board of Directors proposes a total tax levy of 43.9 mills. This total tax levy includes 34 mills for the maintenance and operation of schools and 9.9 mills for debt service previously voted as a continuing levy pledged for the retirement of existing bonded indebtedness. Surplus revenues produced each year by debt service millage may be used by the District for other purposes. Given this 18th day of June, 1992. Little Rock School District No. 60-01 of Pulaski County 0. G. Jacovelli, President Patricia Gee, Secretaryet _ ' TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 18, 1992 Board of Directors rasa '^.ID w .-.7 f \u0026gt;-. JUN 1 8 1992 C!fic3 of uoso^rev\n.\nn Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools APPOINTMENT OF EX OFFICIO FINANCIAL SECRETARY Because the current Ex Officio Financial Secretary will leave the District on June 30, 1992, appointed to begin serving on July 1, 1992. it is necessary to have a successor Bernd concurs, I recommend, and Dr. that the Board approve the appointment of Mark Milhollen as the District's Interim Ex Officio Financial Secretary effective July 1, 1992. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RECEIVED OCT 1 5 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring October 15, 1992 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Gary E. Jones,/Manager of Resources and School Support THROUGH: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Proposed Refinancing of Bonds It appears that the District could realize an estimated savings of $323,632 by refinancing the May 15, 1988 bonds. The Department of Education requires that a refunding produce a $100,000 savings or a five percent reduction in debt service. whichever is less. criteria. This proposed issue meets both refunding In order to initiate this process, the Board will need to adopt an intent resolution. With the State Board of Education approval, the bond forms will be filed in February, 1993. Should interest rates increase between now and the time the bonds are scheduled to be refinanced. the District can cancel the refinancing proposal. In the event this refunding cannot be sold so as to produce sufficient savings, there will not be any charge for the services of Stephens, Inc. I recommend that the Board approve proceeding with the refinancing of this debt by adoption of the attached resolution.NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE REFUNDING BONDS TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: A meeting of the Board of Directors of Little Rock School District was held at the Administration Building in Pulaski County, Arkansas on the 15th day of October, 1992, at the hour of p.m. All members of the Board had due notice of the time and place of said meeting, and the purpose thereof, and a quorum consisting of the following members were present: After consideration, the Board adopted a resolution reading as follows: \"This School Board will authorize Stephens Inc. to file application with the State Board of Education to issue bonds in the estimated amount of $5,500,000 for the purpose of refunding the Districts bonds issue dated May 15, 1988. The sale of the proposed issue is subject to determination by the Board that the savings generated is adequate to justify the issuance of the refunding bonds.\" BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS By: President By: , SecretaryRESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District continues to be alarmed at the violence and drug activity that threatens the safety and well-being community and in our schools\nand of our students in the WHEREAS, it is the belief of the Board of Directors that the presence of police officers in secondary school buildings would be of great value to the students\nand IT IS, THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the Board of Directors remains committed to the Police Resource Officer Program which was approved by the Board on December 19, 1991, as follows: \"...that the Police Resource Officer Program be piloted at one senior high school (J.A. Fair) and at one or more junior high schools (Henderson, Cloverdale, Pulaski Heights, and Mann) during the 1992-93 school year, ....and that the program be evaluated very carefully and see if it has a positive impact on our students... and assuming that half the costs can be paid by the City of Little Rock.\" ADOPTED this day of October, 1992. BOARD OF DIRECTORS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT O. G. Jacovelli, President Pat Gee, SecretaryLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 RECEIVED November 12, 1992 NOV 1 6 IW2 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mark D. Milhollen, Controlle: THROUi lary E. Jones, Manager of Resources \u0026amp; School Support SUBJECT: interim Millage Adjustment Attached is a resolution approving the personal property and real estate millage rates for the year 1992. We recommend that the Board of Directors approve the resolution as submitted.RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPERTY MILLAGE RATE FOR THE YEAR 1992 WHEREAS, the Pulaski County Quorum Court will levy county, municipal, and school taxes for the year 1992 as required by Ark. Code Arm. 14-14-904\nand WHEREAS, Ark. Ann. 26-73-202 requires that the governing body of any taxing entity approve the applicable taxes prior to the adoption of the county levy\nNOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District of Pulaski County approves the established level of 43.9 mills for personal property and 43.9 mills for real property within the district for the year 1992. President Secretary AdoptedTO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: RECE3VEE5 NOV 1 ft LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS NOVEMBER 19,1992 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MARK MILHOLI GARY E. JON^ ONTROLLER (R Office of Desegregation Monitoring lANAGER OF RESOURCES \u0026amp; SCHOOL SUPPORT C.M. BERND, SUPERINTENDENT FINANCIAL REPORTS WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL REPORTS BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIPTS-OPERATING, DEBT SERVICE AND DESEGREGATION FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 APPROVED BUDGET YTD RECEIPTS REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK EXCESS TREASURERS FEE DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS TOTAL 39,088,120 4,250,186 21,694,578 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 66,559,408 5,333,750 1,157,371 58,215 134,097 6,683,434 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX TOTAL 73,419 11,000 84,419 0 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION COMPENSATORY EDUCATION TOTAL 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 3,000 229,403 2,692,563 2,490,900 697,589 548,034 46,367,563 8,568,212 18,357 272,783 57,351 328,503 137,991 9,383,197 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED. GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 21,795 1,179 22,974 TOTAL REVENUE 113,913,390 16,089,605EXPENDITURES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 INCOME 1992-93 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES END BALANCE 1992-93 1992-93 10-31-92 PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 32,467.82 32,467.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,467.82 32,467.82 7,640,000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 2,750.00 95,425.80 185.97 4,426.69 102,788.46 0.00 0.00 3,731.00 3,731.00 2,750.00 95,425.80 185.97 695.69 99,057.46 S.400.000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 63,413.03 63,413.03 0.00 0.00 57,113.00 57.113.00 6,300.03 6,300.03 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS WATERTOWER ENERGY GRANT MT CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139,833.50 541.84 55,114.00 196,120.00 1,264,140.62 1,655,749.96 103,414.00 0.00 0.00 55,114.00 213,670.45 53,832.05 426,030.50 36,419.50 541.84 0.00 (17,550.45) 1,210,308.57 1,229,719.46 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON W(X)DRUFF MABELVALE ELEM FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK 9,209.59 16,725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 542,520.84 102.50 29,744.43 144,154.27 13,684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 0.69 5,042.20 (23,584.00) 40,860.38 123,266.92 56.94 1,739.42 2,247.19 23,584.00 25.00 75.00 552.00 9,209.59 16,725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 24,282.50 501,660.46 102.50 29,744.43 20,887.35 13,684.67 959.62 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 18,701.79 975.52 0.00 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 32,325.18 56,344.93 67,175.73 59,056.84 0.69 5,042.20OPERATING/DESEG BUDGET FUND EQUITY-BEGINNING 2,321,865 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31.1992 MAGNET FOOD SERVICE SPECIAL REVENUE CONSTRUCTION ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL 2,321,865 2,355,488 2,355,488 150,322 150,322 22,156,036 22,156,036 REVENUE CURRENTTAXES DELINQUENT TAX 40% PULLBACK OTHER TOTAL LOCAL MFPA VOCATIONAL TRANSPORTATION OTHER SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN TOTAL STATE FEDERAL OTHER 39,088,120 4,250,186 21,694,578 1,526,524 66,559,408 27,042,713 1,341,887 2,692,563 4,948,213 8,926,606 1,500,000 46,451,982 40,000 862,000 5,333,750 1,157,371 192,313 6,683,434 8,568,212 272,783 328,503 213,699 9,383,197 21,795 1,179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 600,000 600,000 318,180 318,180 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,288,783 1,250,843 963,717 153,696 TOTAL REV \u0026amp; FUND EQUITY 116,235,255 18,411,470 0 0 9,644,271 3,606,331 1,114,039 304,018 22,756,036 22,474,216 EXPENDITURES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PUR SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 15,923,816 2,202,011 3,088,946 8,064,997 1,559,766 2,425,430 317,036 2,672,143 589,630 561,778 116,010 122,629 31,369 798,620 211,646 961,054 4,730,606 1,651,892 755,448 960,041 153,547 22,756,036 3,622,349 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 115,872,561 30,839,537 0 3,703,521 9,644,271 1,433,237 1,114,039 1,163,813 22,756,036 3,622,349 FUND EQUITY-ENDING 362,694 (12,428,067) 0 (3,703,521) 0 2,173,094 0 (859,794) 0 18,851,867i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 EXPENDITURES WAKERELD WATSON EAST SIDE FOOD SERVICE KING STEPHENS CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 6,721.04 1,324,021.19 3,400,000.00 0.00 6,177,454.31 INCOME 1992-93 0.00 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES 1992-93 1992-93 3,186.12 639,403.72 1,467.44 0.00 812,880.13 END BALANCE 10-31-92 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 3,534.92 684,617.47 3,398,532.56 0.00 5,364,574.18 5,100,000BOND ISSUE BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CHICOT DODD FOREST HEIGHTS FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT GARLAND GILLUM HALL IRC ISH JEFFERSON KING FAIR MABELVALE ELEM MABELVALEJR MANN MCCLELLAN MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF METROPOLITAN OTTER CREEK PARKVIEW PULASKI HGTS ELE PULASKI HGTS JR PURCHASING ROMINE TERRY WATSON WILLIAMS SUBTOTAL 178,948.99 214,365.00 45,391.65 219,655.92 250,000.00 243,114.24 3,826,719.79 60,500.00 8,493.28 10,000.00 57,960.00 472,265.84 1,649,619.53 40,512.65 739,616.31 2,350,000.00 47,528.82 197,962.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 186,272.00 27,974.19 400,000.00 63,400.00 24,000.00 55,000.00 207,541.65 57,240.00 50,000.00 186,256.06 31,704.50 175,489.82 350,000.00 13,383,170.45 (400,000.00) 400,000.00 (23,584.00) 23,584.00 0.00 0.00 123,345.56 62,183.93 31,735.10 14,435.63 101,113.08 935,241.44 30,911.00 9,996.55 263,835.08 30,750.70 58,393.54 37,790.00 74,384.00 856.50 143,978.59 16,124.00 17,817.02 28.50 1,529.00 6,855.00 3,118.67 80,824.00 131,504.57 61,047.79 2,237,799.25 55,603.43 152,181.07 13,656.55 205,220.29 250,000.00 142,001.16 2,891,478.35 29,589.00 8,493.28 3.45 57,960.00 208,430.76 1,249,619.53 9,761.95 681,222.77 2,750,000.00 9,738.82 123,578.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 42,293.41 11,850.19 382,182.98 63,400.00 24,000.00 48,145.00 180,838.98 0.00 50,000.00 54,751.49 31,704.50 114,442.03 350,000.00 11,145,371.20 REVENUES SALE OF PROPERT PROCEEDS-FIRE L HENDERSON HENDERSON WATE ECM GRANT METRO GRANT INTEREST 145,201.50 101,932.75 4,100.00 95,082.51 394,674.74 45,000.00 8,647.80 76,147.50 65,525.00 207,654.79 145,201.50 101,932.75 36,352.20 4,100.00 18,935.01 65,525.00 602,329.53i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31,1992 EXPENDITURES SUBTOTAL BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 740,991.50 INCOME 1992-93 318,179.79 TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES 1992-93 0.00 1992-93 84,795.30 END BALANCE 10-31-92 974,375.99 GRAND TOTAL 22,156,035.53 318,179.79 0.00 3,622,349.18 18,851,866.14Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 18, 1993 The Honorable Jim Guy Tucker Governor of the State of Arkansas State Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Governor Tucker: 1 was pleased to have the opportunity to talk with you last week about the Pulaski County school transportation system and other desegregation matters. As promised, Im enclosing a chart showing the schedule of the States Settlement payments to the Little Rock School District (LRSD). This chart is based on the terms and payment schedule described on pages 22-27 of the 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement. The Settlement monies due the other two county districts are so much less than those to LRSD that 1 have not prepared similar charts for them\nhowever, if it would be helpful to you, 1 will be happy to have graphs drawn up. The chart for LRSD shows that, by June 30, 1993, the district will have spent between 66% and 68% of the Settlement funds to which it is entitled. (The difference in the total percentage spent at fiscal year end depends upon the extent to which the LRSD uses the available portion of the $20 million State loan for which it is eligible.) In other words, by the end of Year Two of the six year desegregation planone-third the targeted time periodthe LRSD will have used two-thirds of its Settlement money. Unfortunately, LRSD has not fulfilled anything even approaching two-thirds of its desegregation plan obligations. The district is making very little progress toward achieving its desegregation goals. Progress in the other two districts is also very slow. Moreover, all three districts are experiencing well-publicized financial difficulties. If the Settlement Agreements were to collapse because of a districts financial insolvency, or a districts failure to otherwise fulfill Agreement terms, the State would be left ultimately \"holding the bag.\"Page Two Februaiy 18, 1993 Obviously, it is in the best interests of us all for the Settlement Plans to work. Thats why ADEs role is so important. As you and 1 discussed. Im very concerned about how the State is keeping the commitments it made as a party to the 1989 Agreements. 1 have not seen evidence that ADE is doing all the Settlement requires of it, particularly that which is set forth in the Settlement Agreements Section 111, entitled \"States Role in the Desegregation Process.\" This section obligates the State and ADE to specific action in addition to routine monitoring and enforcement requirements. 1 am forwarding the 1989 Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to Deborah Walz, along with the other four volumes of the desegregation plans the Pulaski County districts are obligated to implement. Please let me know how 1 may be of further help. Very truly yours, Enc. cc: Deborah Walz Compensatory Education Funds Provided By Settlomonl Al Final Approval 4,475,000 January Payment June Payment Total Ally Fee Adv/Popay- Nolo* total Selllenienl Receipts Cumulative SelllemerrI Receipts Remaining ArrxrunI of Setllernenl Funds Available I o.art Hr aw 4,475,000 4,475,000 4,475,000 59,129,886 Schedule of Payments to LRSD State Settlement Funds Fiscal Year 89-90 Fiscal Year 90-91 Fiscal Year 91-92 Fiscal Year 92-93 Fiscal Year 93-94 Fiscal Year 94-95 Fiscal Year 95-96 Fiscal Year 96-97 Fiscal Year 97-98 1/29/93 Fiscal Year 98-99 3,475,000 4,609,250 3,609,250 4,747,528 3,747,528 4,889,954 3,889,954 5,036,652 4,036,652 4,057,460 3,057,460 2,985,131 1,985,131 1,844,811 844,811 1,266,770 266,770 152,387 152,387 8,084,250 8,084,250 12,559,250 54,654,086 8,356,778 2,000,000 10,356,778 22,916,028 46,570,636 6,000,000 8,637,482 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 8,637,482 31,553,510 36,213.858 4,500,01X1 8,926,606 40,480,116 27,576,376 1,500,000 8,094,112 48,574,228 18,649,770 6,042,591 54,616,819 10,555,658 3,829,942 58,446,761 4,513,067 2,111,581 (1,428,456) 683,125 59,129,886 683,125 419,157 (419,157) 0 59,129,886 0 152,387 (152,387) 0 59,129,886 0 Selllerrrent Plus Loan Draw Fiscal Year To Dale-2-1-93 Draw Down on Selllemenl To Date -2-1-93 Draw Down on Settlement Plus Loan Year End Total of Selllemenl Draw Down Year End Total of Settlement Draw Down Plus 12 Million Loan (Available Loan Amount Is 20 Million) 16,356,778 13,137,482 10,426,606 35,443,464 47,443,464 40,480,116 52,480,116 59.94% ot total settlement 59.96% o( selllemenl plus loan 68.46% \u0026lt;- End of June '93 66.32% \u0026lt;- End of June '93 Budget 14,356,778 15,703,006 17,013,029 Actual Expenditures Cumulative Expenditures 5,471,069 8,434,586 13,905,655 14,598,588 28,504,243 15,997,240 44,501,483 Additional Payments per pg 24 ol Financial Settlement not included in code 13 accounting 2,000,000 Cumulative 2,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 6,000,000 2,000,000 8,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,870,114 10,000,000 12,000,000 13,870,114 'Note: Fire setitlernent provided Itiat the attorney fee would be advanced from tire settlement monies and recaptured from the last years ot payment. Prepared by the OfTice of Desegregation MonitoringCF: l/Vr I JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR,  Also admitted to Practice in Georgia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Ajtorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 722116 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 April 2, 1993 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear Judge Wright: RECEIVED APR 5 Office of DesegregaSon Mcnitoringj I have reason to believe that the Little Rock School District may be destroying certain financial records and other documents. I am, therefore, asking you appoint the ODM to determine whether document destruction has occurred with respect to financial records for the past three years. I am also requesting that you conunission an audit the district's finances for that same period of time to determine whether the finances of the district have been legitimately spent as required by law and by the Desegregation Plan. In ray work on a related matter, I have discovered that school district officials do not routinely reimburse the district for their personal long distance telephone calls. Dr. Bernd has apparently now recognized that after I requested his personal and cellular phone bills and has devised a \"quarterly\" repayment policy for the staff. the last several months. That policy was not enforced prior to my letters in It stands to reason that if district officials do not routinely repay telephone advances, they engage in similar practices in other areas. Another reason for the request is Dr. Bernd's statement earlier in Court that he did not know how many district employees the district had. If that knowledge escaped him, then it is reasonable to believe that payments were being made to some persons who were not district employees or for activities or invoices that were directors. not properly approved by the school district board of Moreover, the administration of the district does not have the power to circumvent the bidding policies of the district. I am prepared to share with the ODM information that I have to the effect that at least one district employee in the business office rather routinely allowed contracts between the school district and a family member or members. If this in fact is substantiated, then further inferences attach to the manner in which the business affairs of the district have been conducted.Judge Wright April 2, 1993 Page 2 plan My concern for raising these issues is that the settlement contemplations of double funding, including scholarship promises to the incentive schools and their children, stand to be diminished if not aborted by school district spending practices. Although the audit will cost some money, I believe that its yield will be well worth it. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Verj truly yours, John W. Walker JWW:Im cc: Mr. Chris Heller All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann Brown Dr. C.M. BerndJOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED MAY 7 1993 Office cf Desegregation JZoniioiing JOHN W. WALKER R/\\LPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR, AUSTIN PORTER. JR.  Abtn ailtnitlrtl b\u0026gt; Pnilin* in it the Distrirt of ColumiMa. May 6, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Bobby Lester Pulaski County Special School District 924 East Dixon Road Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. James Smith North Little Rock School District 27th \u0026amp; Poplar North Little Rock, AR 72115 Gentlemen: Pursuant to Arkansas FOIA, this request secure copies of documents from January 1, is being made to 199 0 to date which represent bills for legal services rendered to your respective school districts related thereto. including itemized statements and all costs Please let me know when someone from my office can come by your respective offices to secure. Sincerely Sincerely, 75\u0026gt;nn W. Walker J JWW:js cc: All Counsel of Record Ms. Ann BrownLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUNE 24,1993 RECEIVED JUN 2 5 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: THROUGH: MARK MILHOLLEN, CONTROLLER GARY E. JONES, MANAGER OF RESOURCES \u0026amp; SCHOOL SUPPORT C.M. BERND. SUPERINTENDENT SUBJECT: FINANCIAL REPORTS WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL REPORTS BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.INCOME-SOURCES LOCAL COUNTY STATE OTHER TOTAL INCOME BEGINNING BALANCE BUDGET TOTAL EXPENDITURES SALARIES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DESEG-SALARIES DESEG-EMP BENEFITS DESEG-PUR SER,SUPP,EOUIP PUR SER.SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY TOTAL EXPENDITURES NET ENDING BALANCE BUDGET TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT GENERAL FUND BUDGET SUMMARY FOR THE ELEVEN MONTH PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 ADOPTED BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET TRANSACTIONS ENCUMBRANCES BALANCE 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 113,913,390' 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 113,913,390 47,207,023 91,459 34,333,318 42,045 81,673,845 19,352,385 (7,040) 12,034,245 859,955 32,239,545 2,321,865 2,321,865 116,235,255 116,235,255 65,063,011 9,162,732 6,851,059 1,078,701 9,083,269 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 115,872,561 65,063,011 8,862,732 7,587,909 1,078,701 8,346,419 14,708,182 9,597,115 28,492 115,272,561 62,040,042 8,530,194 7,087,908 1,003,987 3,978,354 10,788,578 9,597,115 103,026,178 362,694 962,694 116,235,255 116,235,255 3,022,969 332,538 500,001 74,714 253,085 2,006,824 0 6,190,131 0 0 0 0 4,114,980 1,912,780 0 28,492 6,056,253'I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 ADOPTED 91/92 ACTUAL 05/31/92 % ADOPTED 92/93 ACTUAL 05/31/93 O.'o FUND EQUITY-BEGINNING 634,842 634,842 2,321,865 2,321.865 REVENUE LOCAL SOURCES COUNTY SOURCES STATE SOURCES OTHER SOURCES 64,590,356 84,419 49,864,380 956,078 44,845,817 73,419 36,777,846 23,820 69.43% 86.97% 73.76% 2.49% 66,559,408 84,419 46,367,563 902,000 47,207,023 91,459 '34,333,318 42,045 70.92% 108.34% 74.05% 4.66% TOTAL REVENUE 116,130,075 82,355,744 70.92% 116,235,255 83,995,710 72.26% EXPENDITURES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGRATION PUR SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY 65,381,149 8,408,935 13,589,306 19,502,985 8,718,196 388,163 56,041,084 6,815,515 11,033,659 12,683,306 7,998,218 85.71% 81.05% 81.19% 65.03% 91.74% 65,063,011 9,162,732 17,013,029 14,536,674 9,597,115 500,000 62,040,042 8,530,194 12,070,249 10,788,578 9,597,115 95.35% 93.10% 70.95% 74.22% 100.00% 0.00% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 115,988,734 94,571,782 81.54% 115,872,561 103,026,178 88.91% FUND EQUITY-ENDING 141,341 (12,216,038) 362,694 (19,030,468)EXPENDITURES LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 INCOME 1992-93 TRANSFERS 1992-93 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 END BALANCE 05-31-93 PRIOR BOND ISSUES PLANT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 32,467.82 32.467.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,467.82 32,467.82 7,640,000 BOND ISSUE AEROSPACE MAGN PURCHASING CARVER CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 2.750.00 95.425.80 185.97 4.426.69 102.788.46 0.00 0.00 3,731.00 3,731.00 2.750.00 95.425.80 185.97 695.69 99.057.46 5,400,000 BOND ISSUE ENERGY GRANT SUBTOTAL 13,745.03 13,745.03 0.00 0.00 10,016.00 10,016.00 3,729.03 3,729.03 8,164,100 BOND ISSUE DUNBAR ASBESTOS WATER TOWER KING ENERGY GRANT MT CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL 139.833.50 541.84 52.358.30 103,414.00 11,306.00 1,210,000.00 138,342.70 1.264,140.62 1,595,216.96 0.00 (1,210,000.00) 0.00 220,091.25 53,947.55 388,758.80 36,419.50 541.84 41.052.30 1.210.000.00 (81,748.55) 193.07 1,206,458.16 16,900,000 BOND ISSUE CENTRAL METROPOLITAN BOOKER DUNBAR FAIR PULASKI HGTS SOUTHWEST MCCLELLAN ALT LEARNING CEN CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM MABELVALE BRADY BADGETT MCDERMOTT BASELINE FAIR PARK FOREST PARK GARLAND GIBBS WESTERN HILLS DODD GEYER SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELE WILSON WOODRUFF MABELVALE ELEM FULBRIGHT 9.209.59 16.725.08 12,463.96 10,279.42 54,236.08 47,866.50 542,520.84 102.50 29,744.43 32,502.88 13.684.67 1,016.56 6,160.02 20,944.74 10,467.20 11,684.73 20,441.21 975.52 2,247.19 4,200.00 33,166.71 2,942.49 85,020.81 8,766.18 56,419.93 67,727.73 59,056.84 0.69 (23,584.00) 23.584.00 0.00 34,339.10 21,523.71 309.73 11,934.70 2,247.19 428.21 1,706.95 75.00 552.00 101.69 9.209.59 16.725.08 12.463.96 10.279.42 54.236.08 24.282.50 508.181.74 102.50 29.744.43 10.979.17 13.684.67 706.83 6.160.02 20.944.74 10.467.20 11.684.73 8.506.51 975.52 0.00 4.200.00 33.166.71 2.514.28 85.020.81 30.643.23 56.344.93 67.175.73 58.955.15 0.69EXPENDITURES OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATSON EAST SIDE FOOD SERVICE KING STEPHENS CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31.1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 5,042.20 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,390.96 6,721.04 1,324,021.19 3,400,000.00 0.00 6,065,802.92 INCOME 1992-93 0.00 15.100,000 BOND ISSUE BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CHICOT DODD FOREST HEIGHTS FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT GARLAND GILLUM HALL IRC ISH JEFFERSON KING FAIR MABELVALE ELEM MABELVALE JR MANN MCCLELLAN MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF METROPOLITAN OTTER CREEK PARKVIEW PULASKI HGTS ELE PULASK] HGTS JR PURCHASING ROMINE TERRY WATSON WILLIAMS SUBTOTAL 139,679.88 214,365.00 45,391.65 219,655.92 250,000.00 243,114.24 3,636,783.65 60,500.00 8,493.28 10,000.00 57,960.00 449,977.88 1,649,619.53 40,512.65 739,616.31 2,350,000.00 47,528.82 197,962.71 944,562.50 11,075.00 99,231.00 27,974.19 400,000.00 63,400.00 24,000.00 55,000.00 207,541.65 57,240.00 50,000.00 177,508.29 31,704.50 126,029.47 350,000.00 12,986,428.12 0.00 TRANSFERS 1992-93 0.00 (1,040,000.00) 1,040,000.00 (23,584.00) 23,584.00 0.00 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 360.00 308.00 3,186.12 1,324,021.19 1,467.44 1,402,561.03 90,132.72 69,829.10 33,483.50 31,407.49 172,358.45 2,719,765.90 32,719.27 9,996.55 11,336.60 266,876.97 47,414.75 30,750.70 58,393.54 452,428.05 46,190.00 81,930.16 5,301.21 856.50 56,937.59 16,124.00 37,780.79 63,400.00 2,029.00 10,741.62 4,169.45 80,824.00 147,406.49 4,506.61 15,580.10 4,600,671.11 REVENUES SALE OF PROPERT PROCEEDS-FIRE L HENDERSON HENDERSON WATE ECM GRANT METRO GRANT 145,201.50 101,932.75 4,100.00 70,201.51 45,000.00 65,525.00 9,145.80 51.266.50 30,687.59 END BALANCE 05-31-93 4,682.20 83,630.49 17,422.54 68,082.96 3,534.92 0.00 3,398,532.56 0.00 4,663,241.89 49,547.16 144,535.90 11,908.15 188,248.43 250,000.00 70,755.79 917,017.75 27,780.73 8,493.28 3.45 46,623.40 183,100.91 609,619.53 9,761.95 681,222.77 2,937,571.95 1,338.82 116,032.55 939,261.29 10,218.50 42,293.41 11,850.19 362,219.21 0.00 21,971.00 44,258.38 179,788.20 0.00 50,000.00 30,101.80 27,197.89 110,449.37 350,000.00 8,385,757.01 145,201.50 101,932.75 35,854.20 4,100.00 18,935.01 34,837.41EXPENDITURES INTEREST SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MAY 31. 1993 BEG BALANCE 07-01-92 394,674.74 716,110.50 INCOME 1992-93 545,656.64 656,181.64 TRANSFERS 1992-93 EXPENDITURES 1992-93 0.00 91.099.89 END BALANCE 05-31-93 940,331.38 1,281,192.25 21,512,559.81 656,181.64 0.00 6,436,837.83 15,671,903.62LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 June 24, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools C-SUBJECT: 1993-94 Budget I am submitting for your review a summary of all requested budget changes since the submission of the April 26, 1993 Tentative Budget document. These requests have been categorized by the major expenditure classifications as required by our chart of accounts. The final budget we are asking you to adopt is the same as the tentative budget with the exception of the changes listed herein. _______Operating Budget_______ Salaries Fringes Serv,Supp,Equip Desegregation Budget May 27. 1993 Additions Director of Human Resources Assistant Principal - Central High Communications Assistant CA time) Minority Recruiter Instructional Materials Center EPA Department Police Resource Officer 50,000 36,000 9,290 31,073 37,964 61,500 5,000 4,000 710 4,115 4,671 8,057 * 77,432 * Addition to original amount of $203,000 Additional Requests Administrative Salary Proposal Media Clerks/Computer Lab Assistants Lease Purchase Refinancing Property Insurance Premium Adjustment King Staffing 157,175 10,907 26,010 340,691 Totals 383,002 37,460 (428,459) (200,000) 100,000 (628,459) 544,133 A final document will be printed incorporating Board approved changes and the format revisions suggested by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 991-94 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 3) 06-24-93 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET REVISIONS REVISED 1993-94 REVENUE - LOCAL SOURCES CURRENTTAXES 40% PULLBACK DELINQUENT TAXES EXCESS TREASURERS FEES DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISC. AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 31,899,357 20,601,593 3,214,974 118,998 317,646 120,412 317,978 141,376 91,322 38,196,979 21,081,833 4,250,186 140,858 241,476 224,667 406,878 354,446 100,857 39,088,120 21,694,576 4,250,186 140,000 300,000 224,667 461,000 300,000 100,857 41,027,982 21,420,949 4,277,692 145,690 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 102,874 225,000 41,027,982 21,420,949 4,502,692 145,690 303,000 245,162 484,050 350,000 102,874 TOTAL 56,823,656 64,998.180 66,559,406 68,357,399 225,000 68,582,399 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL___________ SEVERANCE TAX TOTAL 73,971 16,232 90,203 73,419 15,350 88,769 73,419 11,000 84,419 73,419 18,000 91,419 73,419 18,000 91,419 REVENUE -STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN_________ APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL_______________ HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD_________ ORPHAN CHILDREN_________ TRANSPORTATION__________ COMPENSATORY EDUCATION M TO M TRANSFERS ADULT EDUCATION 22,037,764 10,356,778 6,000,000 73,971 1,265,710 602,063 0 8,820 2,885,960 609,943 1,007,481 624,119 27,264,460 8,637,482 4,500,000 73,426 1,513,699 824,870 147,050 3,000 2,379,879 858,743 1,770,486 697,589 27,042,713 8,926,606 1,500,000 73,419 1,341,887 821,449 229,403 3,000 2,692,563 548,034 2,490,900 697,589 27,142,713 8,094,112 3,000,000 0 1,341,887 1,210,000 240,873 3,000 2,700,000 575,435 2,883,425 768,715 540 27,142,713 8,094,112 3,000,000 ________0 1,341,887 1,210,000 240,873 3,540 2,700,000 575,435 2,883,425 768,715 TOTAL REVENUE- OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 45,472,609 28,585 95,588 613,166 737,339 103,123,807 48,670,684 9,385 129,428 394,675 533,488 114,291,121 46,367,563 40,000 262,000 600,000 902,000 .113,913,388 47,960,160 30,000 1,250,000 400,000 1,680,000 118,088,978 540 10,000 100,000 110,000 335,540 47,960,700 40,000 1,250,000 500,000 1,790,000 118,424,518LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1991-94 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE PROJECTION (DRAFT 3) 06-24-93 ACTUAL 1990-91 ACTUAL 1991-92 BUDGET 1992-93 PROPOSED 1993-94 BUDGET REVISIONS REVISED 1993-94 REVENUE-FEDERAL GRANTS CHAPTER I CHAPTER II TITLE VI B OTHER TOTAL REVENUE-MAGNET SCHOOLS STATE/LOCAL TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS DESEGREGATION SERVICES,SUPP,EQUIP DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS EXPENSES-MAGNET SCHOOLS TOTAL EXPENSES INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING TOTAL 2,886,618 227,900 468,964 974,090 4.557,572 12,571,785 12,571,785 120,253,164 56,996,869 7,312,664 14,598,558 17,053,677 6,646,769 0 102,608,537 4,369,442 \\2,57-\\,7a5 119,549,764 703,400 185,838 119,574 373,968 634,844 1,008,812 3,275,099 224,423 558,810 1,164,511 5,222,843 13,887,841 13,887\u0026gt;1 133,401,805 65,368,035 8,020,788 15,997,240 15,267,935 7,950,100 0 112,604,098 5,111,131 13,887,841 131,603,070 1,798,735 373,968 634,844 485,680 2,321,867 i2,807,547 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,278,796 14,278,796 134,471,434 65,063,011 8,862,732 17,012,939 14,236,764 9,597,115 500,000 115,272,561 6,764,930 14,278,796 136,316,287 (1,844,853) 485,680 2,321,867 0 962,694 962,694 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,707,160 14,707,160 139,075'388 67,397,356 8,934,265 18,207,812 14,638,463 8,870,123 1,000,000 119,048,019 6,279,250 14,707,160 140,034,429 (959,042) 0 962,694 0 3,652 3,653 335,540 383,002 37,460 544,133 (628,459) 336,136 336,136 (596) (596) 4,288,755 215,020 589,011 1,186,464 6,279,250 14,707,160 14,707,160 139,410,928 67,780,358 8,971,725 18,751,945 14,010,004 8,870,123 1,000,000 119,384,155 6,279,250 14,707,160 140,370,565 (959,638) 0 962,694 0 3,056 3,056Date: 06/23/93 Time: 21:27 Little Rock School District Line Item (Object) Summary Actual 1991/92 Budget 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 TW 0115 0117 0130 0135 CERTIFIED REGULAR CERTIFICATED CERTIFIED INSTRUCT. ASST. STIPENDS SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS-SHORT SUBST. CERTIFIED LONG TER CERTIFIED TOTAL $8,212.70 $1,229,076.61 $871,099.40 $326,189.12 $56,324,204.58 $0.00 $1,743,639.54 $900,000.00 $0.00 $56,335,335.62 t57,4S!,W.7S $0.00 $453,431.31 $926,321.00 $0.00 $60,863,732.04 0120 0121 0124 0140 0145 NON-CERTIFIEO REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED MAINTENANCE CLERICAL OVERTIME SUBST NON-CERTIFIED-SHORT SUBST. NON-CERTIFIED LONG NON-CERTIFIED TOTAL $15,076,554.61 $1,129,828.37 $91,812.91 $540,253.81 $28,557.67 $16,867,007.37 $16,818,713.84 $0.00 $0.00 $350,000.00 $0.00 $17,168,713.84 $15,209,953.76 $1,136,945.28 $0.00 $416,844.45 $0.00 $16,763,743.49 TiTnr 0220 0230 0240 0250 0290 BENEFITS SOCIAL SECURITY TAX TEACHER RETIREMENT PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREHE INSURANCE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BENEFITS TOTAL $?\n5 75,^5. $0.00 $171,904.40 $3,036,037.39 $153,797.29 $60,097.43 $8,992,742.29 $7775377507 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $160,000.00 $73,462.00 $9,962,190.24 $6,882.48 $148,194.77 $4,349,655.31 $195,000.00 $60,000.00 $10,268,023.46 0310 0311 0312 0313 0314 0316 0318 0319 0321 0322 0323 0324 0325 0326 0327 0328 0329 0331 0332 0333 0334 PURCHASED SERVICES PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION SERVICES INSTRUCTIONAL PROG IMPROV PUPIL SERVICES_____________ STAFF SERVICES DATA PROCESSING SERVICES BOARD OF ED SERVICES OTHER PROFESSIONAL \u0026amp; TECH UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC UTILITY SER-WATER/SEUAGE/ CLEANING SERVICES REPAIRS-BUILDINGS REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT RENTAL OF LAND \u0026amp; BUILDING RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT \u0026amp; VEH OTHER PROPERTY SERVICES PUPIL TRANSPORTATION TRAVEL-PAYROLL_____________ TRAVEL OFFICE EXPENSES $327,016.05 $13,309.42 $1,052,785.32 $44,070.20 $40.00 $7,529.35 $57,237.67 $91,162.34 $563,340.02 $2,651,690.07 $173,066.98 $0.00 $519,413.12 $470,552.36 $50,770.81 $23,214.29 $126,364.09 $710,448.27 $2,555.64 $92,165.12 ($80.00) $586,390.00 $1,000.00 $691,900.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $366,862.00 $70,000.00 $28,000.00 $3,531,500.00 $5,500.00 $15,000.00 $501,558.00 $596,964.28 $42,000.00 $18,464.00 $275,500.00 $562,036.00 $21,120.00 $73,600.00 $0.00 $621,800.00 $21,015.00 $761,357.00 $53,440.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $752,500.00 $72,100.00 $826,700.00 $2,879,165.00 $209,950.00 $400,000.00 $200,300.00 $506,300.09 $135,700.00 $15,050.00 $128,650.00 $633,067.30 $24,160.00 $71,343.63 $0.00 Page 1Date: 06/23/93 Time: 21:27 Little Rock School District Line Item (Object) Summary BKAIBH 0542 0543 0545 0548 0550 0551 06177 0620 0630 0635 0640 0641 0642 0649 0660 0690 Page 3 EQUIPMENT (NOT INVENTORIE EQUIPMENT (REAL PROPERTY) EQUIPMENT LEASE PURCHASE EQUIPMENT VEHICLES SUPPLY CENTER VEHICLES LEASE PURCHASE CAPTIAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS REDEMPTION OF PRINCIPAL INTEREST DUES \u0026amp; FEES DUES \u0026amp; FEES - NCA INSURANCE PROPERTY INSURANCE LIABILITY INSURANCE OTHER INSURANCE IMPROVEMENT TAX OTHER EXPENSES OTHER OBJECTS TOTAL TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TOTAL Actual 1991/92 $836.27 $91,527.78 $1,350,643.15 $0.00 $152,106.60 $906,669.49 $3,959,731.36 $3,^93,324.59 $4,904,977.12 $54,716.42 $12,950.00 $1,196,236.20 $50,000.00 $1,817.08 $51,804.85 $8,971.34 $3,738,667.07 $13,413,464.67 $112,604,098.14 Budget 1992/93 $0.00 $92,000.00 $1,489,020.00 $136,302.00 _________$0.00 $910,000.00 $3,120,046.84 Budget 1993/94 $0.00 $60,000.00 $926,742.00 $52,093.00 _________$0.00 $0.00 $1,738,382.50 $4,597,115.00 $5,000,000.00 $40,645.00 $26,000.00 $1,018,440.00 $0.00 $0.00 $54,775.00 $0.00 $4,690,713.00 $15,427,688.00 1^7753?^ $4,074,616.00 $4,785,507.40 $57,339.50 $17,000.00 $400,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $54,775.00 $15,000.00 $5,148,290.00 $14,552,527.90Date: 06/23/93 Time: 19:47 Little Rock School District Function Summary Function 1105 1110 1120 1125 1129 1130 1132 1135 1137 1140 1145 1146 1151 1152 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1190 1191 1193 1195 1196 1199 1210 1220 1230 1240 1290 1292 1321 1322 1331 1332 1333 1341 1351 1352 1353 1354 1360 1362 1371 1392 1393 1410 1420 1430 1440 1445 1490 1550 1560 1570 1580 1595 1910 2111 2113 2114 2120 2121 Description FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM KINDERGARTEN ELEMENTARY ELEMENTARY MAGNET SPECIALTY PROGRAM MIDDLEXJUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL JUNIOR HIGH JUNIOR HIGH MAGNET________ JUNIOR HIGH RESTRUCTURE HIGH SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL MAGNET HIGH SCHOOL STANDARDS BOYS ATHLETICS GIRLS ATHLETICS____________ FOOTBALL/HINOR SPORTS VOLLEYBALL BASKETBALL TRACK,TENNIS,GOLF \u0026amp; SUIMH BASEBALL OTHER REGULAR MULTI-ETHNIC PROGRAM TRAVELING TEACHERS________ ACCELERATED LEARNING ACCELERATED LEARNING SUBST ITUTES-1NSTRUCTI ON ITINERANT INSTRUCTION RESOURCE ROOM SPECIAL CLASS______________ HOMEBOUND AND HOSPITAL OTHER EXTENDED YEAR HAND. SERVI MARKETING/DIST ED-COOP MARKET ING/D1ST ED-EXPL BUSINESS ED COOP BUSINESS ED EXPL___________ BUSINESS ED-SKILL TR HEALTH COOP TRADE \u0026amp; IND-COOP TRADE \u0026amp; IND-EXPL TRADE \u0026amp; INO-SKILL TR YOUTH APPRENTICESHIP HOME ECONOMICS CONS/HMKG CAREER ORIENTATION________ COORD CAREER-COOP LOORD CAREER-EXPL ADULT BASIC EDUCATION ADULT GENERAL EDUCATION ADULT VOCATIONAL PROGRAM SPECIAL PROJECTS WORKPLACE LITERACY OTHER ADULT EDUCATION EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION READING MATHEMATICS ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS COMPENSATORY EDUCATION GIFTED AND TALENTED SERVICE AREA DIRECTION SOCIAL WORK SERVICES PUPIL ACCOUNTING SERVICES GUIDANCE SERVICES SERVICE AREA DIRECTION Actual 1991/92 $312,429.70 $3,107,993.07 $18,957,936.89 $24,950.47 $978,337.42 $8,134,324.61 ___________$0.00 $71,943.05 $429,684.81 $7,856,636.53 $42,226.16 $2,300.61 $42,098.02 $43,559.23 $47,638.98 $6,490.16 $42,794.32 $9,066.81 $8,946.68 $63,857.99 $690.88 $21,042.56 $2,283,175.79 $17,394.73 $1,393,301.78 $943,193.30 $2,065,293.61 $1,253,039.78 $255,077.13 $823,730.20 $14,151.72 $197,722.24 $2,869.04 $191,121.48 $853,847.88 $970,157.41  $58,755.33 $193,754.91  $619,807.20  $1,016,956.63 ' $41,764.48  $38,946.63 ' $670,989.72 ' $230,724.89 ' $201,795.03  $0.00  $437,414.74 ' $186,704.13  $18,949.50  $28,974.75  $25,545.75  $35,631.06  $930,948.93  $11,216.41  $288,660.42  $658,575.23  $967,023.83  $1,327,011.59  $11,321.52  $0.00  $145,479.23 \" $1,561,832.32 \" $8,639.40  Budget 1992/93 $1,479,804.31 $3,253,398.91 $21,904,944.99 $265,892.02 $0.00 $8,635,782.29 ___________$0.00 $212,863.97 $492,021.18 $8,264,041.10 $273,095.96 ___________$0.00 $44,620.00 $13,230.00 $49,680.00 $7,200.00 $45,540.00 $11,160.00 $10,800.00 $37,696.84 $0.00 $12,000.00 $2,275,181.26 $0.00 $1,096,370.00 $901,880.14 $2,189,284.37 $1,296,582.62 $240,565.63 $435,287.20 __________$0.00 $194,886.18 $0.00 $190,480.17 $575,813.91 $965,541.57 $50,996.02 $189,221.26 $537,358.99 $852,818.65 $46,025.56 ' $36,683.42  $664,130.37  $224,651.50  $203,203.43  $21,518.34  $404,251.48  $180,760.35  $39,221.06  $10,001.85 ' __________$0^' $0.00  $0.00  $280,068.49  $21,519.20  $320,000.00  $862,437.52 ' $646,481.75  $5,150.00 ' $0.00  $14,700.00  $2,475,037.42 ' $12,850.00  Budget 1993/94 $1,681,072.65 $3,328,323.45 $23,073,155.13 $173,979.01 $86,475.45 $8,790,806.29 $26,783.84 $440,972.56 $545,069.55 $8,780,756.57 $100,000.00 __________$0.00 $44,797.00 $4,798.20 $49,680.00 $7,416.00 $45,880.20 $11,354.40 $10,800.00 $18,697.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $1,332,756.42 $0.00 $1,111,585.20 $1,147,624,46 $2,268,606.18 $1,377,005.08 $324,980.11 $997,814.22 $5,705.28 $208,184.71 $0.00 $202,595.86 $652,853.50 $1,021,150.81 $31,974.81 $204,169.82 $558,050.96 $933,655.63 $119,623.23 $0.00 $734,449.69 $250,098.90 $215,630.04 $0.00 $427,317.98 $328,075.39 $2,280.00 $953.04 __________$0.00 __________$0.00 $245,468.62 $22,400.00 $12,000.00 $320,000.00 $1,102,804.02 $1,136,731.95 \u0026gt;5,150.65' $122,361.81 $123,025.50 $2,863,409.70 $10,850.00 Page 1Date: 06/23/93 Time: 19:47 Little Rock School District Function Summary Function 5100 6000 Description BONDED INDEBTEDNESS PROVISION FOR CONTINGENCI LITTLE RXK SCHOOL DISTRICT Actual 1991/92 $7,950,100.01 $0.00 $112,604,098.14 Budget 1992/93 $9,597,115.00 $700,000.00 $115,272,560.34 Budget 1993/94 $8,870,123.40 $1,000,000.00 $119,384,154.77 Page 3Jw/y \u0026gt;^enc(4 RECBIVBD LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUL 2 3 1998 Off ICE QI- (JSESREGAWH WQHITOWMS July 23, 1998 TO: Board Of Directors FROM: THROUGH: ^Mark D. Milhollen, Manager, Financial Services Leslie V. Gamine, Superintendent Of Schools SUBJECT\nFinancial Reports We recommend that the attached financial reports be approved as submitted. 1I I J :'SiW *W#COMBINED\nSTATEMENT OF REVENUES^EXPENDITURES AND.tHANGESlN FUND BALANCE^^g jjr APPROVED 1996/97 RECEIPTS 06/30/97 % COLLECTED DRAFT 7 1997/98 RECEIPTS 06/30/98 % COLLECTEC REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40%. PULLBACK EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS ATHLETIC RECEIPTS ITOTAL-^^j^^^g^, REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION SUMMER SCHOOL WORKER'S COMPENSATION 46,211,535 4,150,000 25,553,182 170,000 400,000 160,000 250,000 625,000 100,000 77,619717\n45,086,233 4,744,367 25,194,504 169,094 404,117 160,511 241,088 301,827 117,968 76\n4'19\n707j 97.56% 114.32% 98.60%. 99.47%. 101.03% 100.32% 96.44% 48.29% 117.97% .^?98.'45% 49,248,043 4,650,000 26,202,284 170,000 405,000 160,000 260,000 350,000 108,000 W-8lt553^7i 48,632,501 5,266,906 25,148,513 185,618 525,161 176,515 303,653 559,105 120,587 4^80,918\n560' 98.75% 113.27% 95.98% 109.19% 129.67% 110.32% 116.79% 159.74% 111.65% a^'99\n22% 68,649 18,000 ^S:^86.649i 41,530,927 683,125 3,000,000 1,000,000 2,200,000 245,000 2,856,453 3,326,654 857,560 0 637,781 342,998 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM OTHER FUNDS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TRANSFER FROM MAGNET FUND S^JTOT ^56:680X98\n30,000 200,000 0 741,261 i^?tS^97B26l\n67,890 20,113 98.89% 111.74% 68,000 20,250 69.255 101.85% fi^j^88,^3y ji^1Oil''56/o Wg^88,250: jiS^^69i255^ SS^8?48% 43,350,510 683,125 3,000,000 1,067,268 1,500,429 233,992 2,966,526 3,548,125 968,176 67,795 637,781 428,505 104.38% 100.00% 100.00% 106.73% 68.20%. 95.51% 103.85% 106.66% 112.90% 100.00% 124.93% 43,257,881 0 2,000,000 1,250,000 1,800,000 233,992 3,059,584 3,895,429 934,186 137,814 0 349,330 43,662,233 2,000,000 1,914,484 1,779,632 233,992 3,238,875 3,475,326 934,186 149,413 100.93% 100.00% 153.16% 98.87% 100.00% 105.86% 89.22% 100.00% 108.42% ^58352\n230j ^66r9T8\n216? 382,146 ^5^770)286? 109.39% |goiao% 213,031 824,092 ^^^^JO37^123 106.52%. 111.17% 28,000 250,000 0 850,000 IW7Q0O5 3,240 391,473 11.57% 156.59% 1,284,189 ^^fe\n678\n9p2^ 151.08% ^^48:84% T0TAL\nREVEN0E-0RERATING^^^^|^35.358a25?|li^5:997,iD63i|^Ppg73S[OW:fe87\n79S|g^0137-003]|lE(iro^ REVENUE-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS  lirf 6,508,656 16,620,205 6,557,858 16,422,402 100.76%. 98.81%. 6,439,580 16,776,091 6,838,643 18,159,205 106.20% 108.24% JOTAt-\u0026gt;--^a^g^g|^23.'128,86ia M22\n:98Pg60\ng^99.364 W^3\n2Y5\n67i: lg24\n997,848. ^07:68% TOTAL REVENUE 58,486,986 | .^158,977,323 | -ffgl00.31%[ '162,903,464'f ..165,434,852 | ^\nT101.557! APPROVED 1996/97 EXPENDED 06/30/97 9997rAND.1998 % EXPENDED DRAFT 7 1997/98 EXPENDED 06/30/98 % EXPENDEL EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS PURCHASED SERVICES MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES CAPITAL OUTLAY OTHER OBJECTS DEBT SERVICE 74,864,664 21,353,655 18,654,143 3,432,024 2,540,360 6,722,833 7,104,457 76,032,027 21,027,425 19,007,021 3,250,464 2,346,558 6,274,158 6,981,748 101.56% 98.47% 101.89% 94.71% 92.37% 93.33% 98.27% 78,786,916 21,757,036 19,736,390 4,206,694 3,321,203 6,817,039 6,136,091 78,377,854 21,180,016 20,804,218 3,921,906 2,186,168 7,007,446 6,129,738 99.48' 97.35' 105.41? 93.23' 65.82' 102.79' 99.90? J-0TAt5EXE\u0026gt;ENSES:QI?EBATIN(3^O|^)M672a3^|^g^19\u0026gt;bs}a^m8?$t^40^6i\n369\n|^39:6d7^7U|^^99:^83 EXPENSES-OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS MAGNET SCHOOLS 7,167,441 16,620,205 6,507,301 16,386,065 90.79% 98.59% 7,148,922 16,812,428 6,628,468 18,123,058 92.72? 107.80? (^3\n787i646\nW22\n893^ ^fe3.'961^50: .1^4.75i\n526, i^l03:30\u0026gt; ^TOTAeEXPENSES^I^^gl^^^^ .1|I58:459?78^ W57^812?766': S^64:722'?749: ^64358.872^ S^I^'9.785 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN FUND BALANCE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING ENDING FUND BALANCE FEDERAL OPERATING 27,204 658,785 256,656 0 942,645\n^g^\u0026amp;42,645'. 1,164,557 658,785 256,656 745,679 1,334,319 ^^\n079\n998, (1,819,255) 1,075,979 745,679 1,334,319 0 260,743 4Og\n260,743i 745,679 1,334,319 992,002 2,163,976 ^^Jl 55,977^ JPROJECT I $16,900,000 BOND ISSUE SOUTHWEST WAKEFIELD EAST SIDE STEPHENS FOOD SERVICE CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $15,100,000 BOND ISSUE BALE DODD FOREST HEIGHTS MABELVALE JR MCCLELLAN OAKHURST M.L. KING ROMINE HENDERSON CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL REVENUES SALE OF PROP/MISC PROCEEDS-FIRE LOSS HENDERSON HENDERSON WATER GETTY GRANT DUNBAR PROJECT CENTRAL GRANT METRO GRANT INTEREST SUBTOTAL GRAND TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,1998 BEG BALANCE 07-01-97 218,878.93 3,300.00 3,035.61 3,022,409.73 5,577.23 132.21 3,253,333.71 1,243.30 24,258.45 1,100.00 403,239.98 65,000.00 13,000.00 7,000.00 0.00 0.00 34,037.16 548,878.89 254,098.59 59,408.81 853.71 4,100.00 0.00 0.00 20,000.00 36,998.72 944,876.74 1)320,336.57 5.122.549.17 INCOME TRANSFERS EXPENDITURES ENCUMBRANCES 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 1997-98 END BALANCE 06-30-98 0.00 0.00 100.00 25,000.00 215,560.81 240,660.81 240.660.81 (1,401.00) (3,035.61) 11,555.00 1,899.00 1,755.00 5,577.23 207,323.93 0.00 0.00 3,020,654.73 0.00 4,436.61 0.00 20,786.23 0.00 4,568.82 3,232,547.48 (1,243.30) (2,465.35) (28,286.64) 2,060.25 (85.00) 4,835.00 1,000.00 24,185.04 0.00 19,988.97 1,100.00 15,899.94 36,713.36 15,060.25 6,915.00 4,835.00 1,000.00 101,512.52 254,198.59 5,222.90 0.00 1,804.13 0.00 387,340.04 0.00 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 596.85 10,000.00 25,596.85 599.84 20,000.00 0.00 58,222.20 447,366.37 0.00 54,185.91 853.71 4,100.00 0.00 9,400.16 0.00 (10,596.85) 0.00 305,618.18 0.00 36,998.72 1,149,840.70 1,255,379.20 0.00 427.916.93 0.00 4,935.293.05Ann Marshall From: Sent: To: Subject: Skip Marshall [marshall@arsba.org] Friday, May 17, 2002 9\n29 AM asbrown@aristotle.net Fwd: Legal Clips \u0026gt;From: JUndenwood@nsba.org \u0026gt;To: \"School Finance\" \u0026lt;schoolfinance@lists.nsba.org\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Subject: Legal Clips \u0026gt;Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 15:52:19 -0400 \u0026gt;List-Unsubscribe: \u0026lt;mailto:leave-schoolfinance-2941704S@lists.nsba.org\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Reply-To: JUnderwood@nsba.org \u0026gt;Status: \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Below please find this week's Legal Clips. Please note that if you are not \u0026gt;receiving Legal Clips directly into your emailbox and would like to, just \u0026gt;send me an email with subscribe in the Subject line. Thanks and happy \u0026gt;reading. \u0026gt;Julie \u0026gt;Julie Underwood \u0026gt;General Counsel \u0026gt;National School Boards Association \u0026gt;(703) 838 -6710 \u0026gt;junderwood@nsba.org \u0026gt; LEGAL CLIPS \u0026gt;A service of the National School Boards Association's \u0026gt;Office of General Counsel \u0026gt;May 16, 2002 \u0026gt;TOP STORY: U.S. Supreme Court rules that Child Online Protection Act's use \u0026gt;of \"community standards\" to define Internet material that is harmful to \u0026gt;minors does not violate First Amendment free speech protections. But the \u0026gt;Court remanded the case and allowed the injunction to stand. \u0026gt;See Technology: Ashcroft v. ACLU \u0026gt;TECHNOLOGY \u0026gt;The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Child Online Protection Act's (COPA) \u0026gt;use of \"community standards\" to define material harmful to minors does not \u0026gt;renderthe Act unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to material \u0026gt;disseminated over the Internet. The Court concluded that COPA's reliance on \u0026gt;\"community standards\" to identify what material \"is harmful to minors\" does \u0026gt;not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment \u0026gt;purposes. The Court, however, expressed no view as to whether COPA violates \u0026gt;the First Amendment for reasons other than its use of \"community standards\" \u0026gt;and remanded the case on those issues, allowing the injunction on \u0026gt;enforcement to stand pending further proceedings. \u0026gt;Ashcroft V. ACLU No. 00-1293 (U.S. Sup. Ct. May 13, 2002) Link to full \u0026gt;opinion \u0026gt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;vol=000 \u0026gt;\u0026amp;invol=00-1293 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;vol=00 \u0026gt;0\u0026amp;invol=00-1293\u0026gt; \u0026gt;link to case summary: http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/ACLU.htm 1\u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/ACLU.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;LIABILITY \u0026gt;Ty Hull, a student at Wellston High School in Lincoln County, Oklahoma, \u0026gt;suffered an intra-cerebral hemorrhage while participating in a football \u0026gt;scrimmage between Wellston and Bethel High School's varsity teams. As a \u0026gt;result of his injury, Ty was permanently disabled. Ty's mother filed a \u0026gt;negligence suit against the school district. The Oklahoma Court of Civil \u0026gt;Appeals ruled that under state law the school district was immune from \u0026gt;liability for Ty's injury because it occurred while he was participating in \u0026gt;an interscholastic event sponsored by the school district. The court \u0026gt;rejected Ms. Hull's attempts to get around the state's immunity law by \u0026gt;recasting her claim as either negligent or wanton hiring, retaining, \u0026gt;training and supervising of its football coaches. Further the court found \u0026gt;that even if Ms. Hull could prove that the school district was guilty of \u0026gt;negligent or willful and wanton hiring, retaining and supervising of the \u0026gt;coaches that conduct was not the proximate cause of Ty's injury. The court \u0026gt;pointed that the sole proximate cause of Ty's permanent disability was the \u0026gt;injury he received while participating in the scrimmage. \u0026gt;Hull V. Wellston Independent School District, 2001 WL 1836289 (Okla. App. \u0026gt;December 14, 2001) \u0026gt;STUDENT RIGHTS AND DISCIPLINE \u0026gt;A new invention called the \"smart locker\" would allow principals across the \u0026gt;country easy access to lockers and even monitor how often and when students \u0026gt;use them. Opened with \"swipe cards,\" rather than padlocks, these lockers can \u0026gt;be operated from a computer in the central office where they can be opened \u0026gt;individually or all at once. \u0026gt;The Christian Science Monitor by Patrick Jonsson link to full story\n\u0026gt;http\n//www.csmonitor.com/2002/0507/p02s02-ussc.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http\n//v7ww.csmonitor.com/2002/0507/p02s02-ussc.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Several students and their parents filed an action challenging the City of \u0026gt;Waterbury School District's (CT) dress code. The claims centered on the \u0026gt;students' and parents' liberty and privacy interests. The court rejected \u0026gt;both claims, concluding that the school district's interest in preventing \u0026gt;disruptions in school caused by disputes arising from taunts and envy over \u0026gt;jeans outweighed the students' right to wear the clothing of choice. Turning \u0026gt;to the parents' claim, the court rejected the contention that parental \u0026gt;autonomy is absolute. It stated that the parents' right is subject to \u0026gt;reasonable restrictions within the school context. The court concluded that \u0026gt;\"[a]bsolute exercise of parental autonomy within the public school program \u0026gt;would very likely cause total chaos as conflicting parental visions \u0026gt;collided.\" \u0026gt;Byars v. City of Waterbury, 2001 WL 1830017 (Conn. Super. 2001) \u0026gt;RELIGION \u0026gt;The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit in Louisiana challenging \u0026gt;federally funded sexual abstinence programs. The primary allegation is that \u0026gt;the state has used tax dollars to promote religion. The ACLU contends that \u0026gt;Louisiana has spent money on \"Christ-centered\" skits, religious youth \u0026gt;revivals, biblical instruction, and prayer vigils at abortion clinics. The \u0026gt;suit focuses on what the ACLU contends is a misuse of public funds. \u0026gt;Washington Post by Ceci Connolly \u0026gt;link to full story\n\u0026gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56003-2002May8?language=printer \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http\n//www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56003-2002May8?language=printer\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Education writer Richard Rothstein's editorial on the voucher case pending 2\u0026gt;in the Supreme Court questions whether the outcome will really have any \u0026gt;significance whatsoever. He states in part, \"Advocates and opponents of \u0026gt;vouchers await the ruling with great excitement or dread. But the decision \u0026gt;may be less important than they think. Whatever the ruling, constitutional \u0026gt;policy will change little because the government already supports religious \u0026gt;schools by providing them with busing, textbooks and remedial aid. But \u0026gt;the main reason the court's ruling will have little impact is that private \u0026gt;schools' attraction as a way to improve education is beginning to wane.\" \u0026gt;The New York Times by Richard Rothstein \u0026gt;link to full story: \u0026gt;http\n//www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/15/educ \u0026gt;ation/15LESS.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://wwzw.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/15/edu \u0026gt;cation/15LESS.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;DISCRIMINATION \u0026gt;The NAACP is threatening to file complaints against 22 states that have \u0026gt;failed to respond to their challenge to address racial disparities in public \u0026gt;schools. Last November, the civil rights group asked states to target 14 \u0026gt;areas which needed improvement, including the over-representation of \u0026gt;minorities in special education programs, under-representation in gifted and \u0026gt;talented programs, and disparities in testing and graduation rates. The \u0026gt;NAACP plans to file racial discrimination complaints against states and \u0026gt;school districts or begin \"proactive ballot initiatives\" in elections. The \u0026gt;states targeted are Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, \u0026gt;Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, \u0026gt;North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, \u0026gt;Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming. \u0026gt;USA Today by Tamara Henry link to full story\n\u0026gt;http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020516/4116534s.htm \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020516/4116534s.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;A Utah parents' group and the Navajo Nation are in agreement in their \u0026gt;opposition to the \"Red Devil\" mascot of Springville High School. The \u0026gt;parents' group objects to the mascot, believing it represents the devil and \u0026gt;evil as a symbol of the school. The Navajo Nation is opposed to the use of \u0026gt;the term, \"red devil\" which they find derogatory and offensive. \u0026gt;ABC News by Dean Schabner link to full story: \u0026gt;http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/red_devils020508.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/red_devils020508.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;When James Ranieri, the boys' varsity basketball coach at James O'Neill High \u0026gt;School (New York), was ousted from his coaching position in favor of a \u0026gt;younger candidate, he filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment \u0026gt;Act (ADEA). The school district contended that he did not have a valid claim \u0026gt;because both individuals were protected by ADEA, both being over the age of \u0026gt;40. The federal district court found that the 10-year age difference was \u0026gt;sufficient to state a claim of age discrimination. However, the court \u0026gt;dismissed Mr. Ranieri's suit because he was unable to refute the legitimate, \u0026gt;non-discriminatory reason articulated by the district for not rehiring him. \u0026gt;Specifically, Mr. Ranieri could not show that the stated reason for \u0026gt;replacing him, i.e. the team's failing record, was a pretext for age \u0026gt;discrimination. \u0026gt;Ranieri v. Highland Falls Fort Montgomery School District, 2002 WL 745576 \u0026gt;(S.D.N.Y. April 18, 2002) \u0026gt;The Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, the \u0026gt;University of Michigan Law School admissions policy case. The court ruled, \u0026gt;based on Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke, that the use of race in a \u0026gt;schoors admissions process for the purposes of achieving racial diversity \u0026gt;in its student body is constitutional. The court went on to find the law 3\u0026gt;schoors admissions policy was narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of \u0026gt;diversity across the student body. As a result it concluded that the policy \u0026gt;passed constitutional muster under the Equal Protection Clause. \u0026gt;Grutter v. Bollinger, 2002 FED App. 0170P (6th Cir. May 14. 2002) link to \u0026gt;full opinion: \u0026gt;http://caselaw. Ip.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;no=02a \u0026gt;0170p \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=6th\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;no=02 \u0026gt;a0170p\u0026gt; \u0026gt;link to case summary: \u0026gt;http://www.nsba.org/cosa/lawlibrary/whatsnew/grutter2.htm \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.nsba.org/cosa/iawlibrary/whatsnew/grutter2.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;SCHOOL REFORM \u0026gt;Charter school owners are coming under fire from Arizona state officials. \u0026gt;The schools are privately run as non-profits businesses. They use public \u0026gt;state education money but have fewer regulations than traditional district \u0026gt;schools. Two years ago, lawmakers gave state boards the power to withhold \u0026gt;state money to bring errant charter schools into line. This year a number \u0026gt;of charter schools face fines, and some may face closure, because of late \u0026gt;audits, missed testing requirements and financial fraud. Officials are \u0026gt;considering discipline against 31 of 288 charter school owners. \u0026gt;The Arizona Republic by Pat Kossan \u0026gt;link to full story: \u0026gt;http://wvw.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0513charterlaw13.html \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://wv7w.arizonarepublic.com/arizona/articles/0513charterlaw13.html\u0026gt; \u0026gt;Nearly every student at Summit Academy, a charter school, in Akron, Ohio is \u0026gt;reported to have a special education problem, even though most of them \u0026gt;didn't carry that designation when they were enrolled in public schools. \u0026gt;Allegations that Summit Academy has intentionally misidentified students \u0026gt;with special education disabilities have drawn unscheduled audits from the \u0026gt;Ohio Department of Education at two schools. In question is whether millions \u0026gt;in tax dollars that flow into the eight Summit Academy charter schools in \u0026gt;Ohio have been properly obtained and used. \u0026gt;The Beacon Journal link to full story: \u0026gt;http://vAvw.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/3248196.htm \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/3248196.htm\u0026gt; \u0026gt;LEGAL SYSTEM \u0026gt;A professor in the Georgia state university system, filed a state-court suit \u0026gt;against the board of regents and university officials alleging that the \u0026gt;officials had violated state tort law and 42 U.S.C. 1983 when they placed \u0026gt;sexual harassment allegations in his personnel files. The defendants removed \u0026gt;the case to federal district court and then sought dismissal. Conceding that \u0026gt;a state statute had waived Georgia's sovereign immunity from state-law suits \u0026gt;in state court, the state claimed Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in \u0026gt;the federal court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state waives its \u0026gt;Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to \u0026gt;federal court. \u0026gt;Lapides v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia, No. 01-298 \u0026gt;(U.S. May 13, 2002) \u0026gt;Link to full opinion: \u0026gt; \u0026gt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case\u0026amp;vol=000 \u0026gt;\u0026amp;invol=01-298 \u0026gt;\u0026lt;http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US\u0026amp;navby=case8ivol=00 \u0026gt;0\u0026amp;invol=01-298\u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt;Copyright @ 2002 the National School Boards Association. All Rights Reserved 4\u0026gt;To edit member settings, view archives, or unsubscribe login at: \u0026gt;http://spirit.sparklist.com/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=schoolfinance 5FINANCIAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE REPORT PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR Committee Members: Loretta Hendrix, Edward Jacobs, Jane Markham, Vernon Markham, Rev. Charlie McAdoo, Danny Sullivan, Toni Sullivan, Gary Tucker, Ashvin Vibhakar (Chairman), and Harry Ware. Also present at all of the meetings were Mark Milhollen and Chip Jones of the Little Rock School District. The committee wishes to express its appreciation for the valuable assistance provided by Mark Milhollen and Chip Jones. They significantly aided in our understanding of the Little Rock School Districts finances, patiently answering numerous questions and prompt-ly providing projecltiioonnss rreeqauueesstteedd bbvy tthhee ccoommmmiitttteeee.. T...h..e.. ..c..o..m....m...i.t.t.e..e.. ..f.e..els that without their assistance, the task of the committee could not have been accomplished. After lengthy discussions and deliberations, the committee has developed the following list of concerns and recommendations. These concerns and recommendations are based on our understanding of the charge to the committee, which was to evaluate the financial matters and not the merit of the desegregation plan - except where financial matters are the overriding issues. CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE 1. The committee feels that the proposed plan cannot be implemented without additional resources and would require a significant increase in millage. Given the current state of public opinion regarding public schools in Little Rock and Pulaski County, we feel that a significant, voluntary increase in millage would be difficult to obtain. In addition to this general negative attitude, the plan itself incorporates ob-two items which aggravate this polarity: a. b. A perceived disparity between the basic educational programs provided by magnet and non-magnet schools, resulting in the publics perception of inferior nonmagnet education and excessive magnet cost, and. The \"informed\" publics negative perception of academic progress grants. 2. While the committee feels that a millage increase is needed, this option appears difficult or unlikely unless public perception is improved. TTie best source for this improvement would be increased parent and teacher involvement. For this reason, the committee recommends that the District and Metropolitan Supervisors Office immediately form two parent/teacher committees for the following purposes: a. A committee to evaluate the proposed programs, both prior to implementation and then during their operation. This committee would make recommendations to the district for implementation, scale down, or elimination of the programs. b. A commiftee to improve the public image and perception of the school district. In addition to helping with passage of necessary millage increases, this com-mittee could also assist in soliciting corporate grant sponsors. 3. The committee recommends that the District increase its efforts to seek and obtain outside sources for capital expenditures and special programs. While it may be desirable to establish a separate group of concerned business people, the committee noted in 2.b. would be a good place to start. -Page 1- 4. Certain programs created under the old desegregation plan and many proposed under the new desegregation plan appear to be expensive. It further appears that there may be existing schools where the operational costs are too high relative to the desegregation impact achieved. The committee feels that a comprehensive evaluation and review of all proposed and existing programs and schools is needed. In order to accomplish this, the committee recommends that a review board, as noted in 2.a., be established. This review board should be composed of school administrators, teachers, and parents. The purpose of the committee should be to make certain that the programs and schools being provided, best utilize the scarce dollars available. Since public acceptance of the proposed plan is so critical to the plans success, the involvement of parents in this review structure is considered essential. 5. New programs, once implemented, should include a system for monitoring the ongoing costs and benefits. If it is found that programs are not achieving the stated objectives, it is recommended that some mechanism be established whereby the funds can be diverted from ineffective programs, to those where they could be better utilized. 6. The costs of existing and proposed magnet schools, specifically the Aviation Magnet, need to be carefully studied further. The Aviation Magnet should be implemented only if outside resources, such as corporate donations, can be secured for constructing and equipping the school. The feasibility of obtaining grants or other funding sources to cover operational expenses of the school should be investigated by the District and Committee noted in 2.a. Otherwise, the potential cost of such a magnet school is unjustifiable, considering the scarcity of available resources. 7. The committee recommends that: i) the near-term need for Aviation and Zoo Magnet Schools be re-examined, ii) the District should prioritize its plans of action, and iii) the District consider serious cost-cutting where feasible (such as closing schools which are not cost effective). 8. The committee recommends that the decision-making process for significant financial issues should include consultation with District personnel and other individuals possessing relevant professional training and expertise. We specifically recommend against such decisions being made in isolation by educators/administrators who are not equipped with such expertise. Examples of such matters would include the settlement, as well as new programs which require a large commitment of resources. The committee also feels that the administrators/educators should maintain regular contact with the financial managers of the School District regarding all major cial decisions and their potential impact on the Districts finances. egi fir inan- The current proposed teacher salary plan could result in a large deficit in the near future, assuming that such plan is accepted by the teachers. Unless new revenues are forthcoming to support the proposed teachers salaries, the effect of that package could be to make financial resources unavailable for the proposed new programs. 9. The constant fighting between teachers and administrators has created a negative public image for both groups. Both teachers and the public need to be better informed about the Districts financial situation, in terms of both revenues and expenses. This can be accomplished via the noted committees and involvement of teachers and pa- rents in the financial decision-making process. This could help regain teacher trust, their demands, and make future re- add a measure of discipline and public oversight to venue increases less difficult to pass. -Page 2-. TUESDAY, JUNE 2, ,992 L. 1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LRSD desegregatioifto cost taxpayers $26 million a year by 96- 97 VA too. . . ................................ multicultural education proBY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer The cost of the Little Rock School Districts dese^ega- tion plan will be $19.1 million next year and almost $26 million by 1996-97, according to budget projections filed Mon- ^y in federal court i * The documents, submitted  Discipline problems on rise, districts teachers say in survey 1B to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, spell out publicly for the first time the anticipated costs for about 30 de- j^gregation-related programs and the districts share of those costs. Wright has set a July 17 hearing on district budget matters. The judge had required the district to submit the projections because of her concern that it was quickly depleting itsrstate desegregation financing. The desegregation-related programs include the Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters, the early childhood education program for 4-year-olds. double-figram and majority-to-minority interdistrict transfer students. The state pays part of desegregation costs because of a 1989 financial settlement nego- nanced elementary incentive The setUemTnt was schools, a teacher recruiter, the state. The ^tt ement was magnet schools.,, school secur- , approved by the 8th U.S. Cir ity officers, the\nexpansion of a \u0026gt; See SCHOOLS/. Page 5A Schools The states financial obliga- the settlement decreases each tion under .5^!untU 1996-97 when the year until laao-vi amount owed will be $683,12b. the state money for  Continued from Page One cuit Court of Appeals in 1990. The state is to pay the district $8.9 million next year as a result of the financial settlement, plus $2.5 million toward the education of the majority- to-minority transfer students. The state also is providing a $20 million loan, $1.5 million of which will be available next year. The maximum available is I $6 million every two years. The  loan does not have to be re- i paid if the average score of I black students reaches 90 percent of the average score of white students by 2000. The Little Rock districts share of the $19.1 million in desegregation costs next year could range from $5 million to $7 million, depending on the loan. As a result of using a $4.5 million loan, the districts share of the $16.9 million desegregation costs this school year was about $2 million. District officials acknowledged in 1989 that state financing would not cover the total cost of the desegregation programs. However, lu. majority-to-minority students is expected to increase to $4.5 million that same year. It is now $1.8 million. The total cost of the deseg- regation programs a Monday included projected in 1996-97 is projected S25.9 million. The most expensive of the desegregation programs is the double instructional financing per student at the seven incentive schools. The financing is double the amount spent on instruction per child at the non- and non-magnet .VlUllLiaj ----------- *  ,, . operating budgets for the next five years. The revenues range from $113 million next year to $127 million in 1996-97. Those revenues assume the passage of a 5-mill tax increase in Sep- tember 1993. Jim Ivey, the district mana- oer of support services, said Monday night that the budget assumption should not be taken as an announcement ot a millage election. The assump- tion was made to show that in 1993 to 1995, the district must find new revenues, either through budget cuts or tax increases. an 8-mill Voters approved tax increase in April 1990. incentive schools. Incentive schools are supposed to use the extra money to improve the achievement levels of black pupils and attract white pupils to the hard- to-desegregate buildings. The incentive schools cost will be $4.4 million next year. District officials noted in the documents Monday that the mandatory double financ- exceed the actual at the the ing will costs for the programs incentive schools next year. Besides the desegregation budgets, the documents filed 1 1 i t t10. ^e desegregation settlement was based on the old plan and not the new plan. The 'committee was not clear as to exactly how the settlement amount was derived. However, the committee strongly feels that the desegregation settlement is highly inadequate. It further appears that the new plan includes certain capital expenditures which were not previously considered in the settlement. 11. The committee feels that the formula by which the State of Arkansas determines the tax revenue allocated to each school district is unfair. i It particularly penalizes Iso the districts with the school districts with a heavy population density. It is al the heaviest population density that have the desegregation problems, which normally result in heavier transportation costs. The committee recommends that the Metropolitan Supervisors Office study this matter further and consider recommending or requiring a change in the State allocation formula. -Page 3-students' pennies add up kansas Democrat (gazelle TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1993 .'  to $10,000 Donations help LRSD pay part of substance abuse insurance installment BY DANNY SHAMEER Democral-Gazelte Education Writer When students in Little Rock were asked to chip in their pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters to help pay for their own substance abuse insurance, they came through with a whopping total. Little Rock School District students brought at least $10,000 in loose change to class in February, said Wendy Salaam, executive director of the city of Little Rocks Fighting Back Initiative*. Salaam said the money raised through the classroom campaign  Pennies for Pasta: Your Change for Change  helped the city pay a quarterly installment of $45,205 one week earlier than its Monday due date. That insure!\ncoverage will The classroom has been one of the bright spots of the financially struggling fund-raising effort called * Fight Back! Insure the Children.' continue for at least three more months, Salaam said. Though she wont know until 'riiiirsday exaclly how much the classroom campaign ha.s raised, the figure already calculated means the effort has been a big success, she said. The Pennies for Pasta theme refers to the offer of  a free 1 uncli at the Olive Garden restaurant in Little Rock for the class raising the most money. eamnamu t, c'^ssroom campaign has campaign been one of the bright spots of the financially struggling fund- raising effort called Fight Back! Insure the Children. The insurance plan began with great fanfare in 1991, when a group that included then-Lt. Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and former Arkansas first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton announced a campaign to raise money to cover every child enrolled in the Little Rock School District for sub- stance-abuse treatment and counseling. Tucker is now governor. Clinton, now the nations first lady, chairs a national task force on health-care reform. Donations from parents lagged from the start and reached a critical stage last fall, when city officials threatened to suspend coverage by the second semester because of a shortage of money. They decided to offset the donation shortage by using cit.v funds to pay for the opening six months of coverage for the 1992 93 school year, with coverage slightly trimmed to give fundraisers a better chance to make less-expensive quarterly payments for the remainder of the year. The cutbacks dropped the annual premium from $373,000 to $277,910. Shortly afterward, officials began the classroom campaign to supplement other fund- raising efforts. The classroom campaign ended Friday. But the fight for money to continue the program through the summer isnt over. Another $45,205 is due bv May 31.\u0026gt; WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15,1993 3 school districts divide $41,506 . The Pulaski County Board of Education voted to transfer $41,506.96 from the County Common School Fund to the three local school districts Tuesday. The distribution, based on enrollment:  Little Rock School District  $18,302.58.  North Little Rock School District  $7,117.10. , ..  Pulaski County Special School District $16,087.28. SATURDAY. JANUARY 8,1994  6 I Collectors office trying to learn - h: where $816,788 is supposed to gd 1 BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Pulaski County collectors office has $816,788.79 in tax money that it doesnt know what to do with. Officials havent handed the money out yet because they arent sure where the money is supposed to go. They discovered the problem after distributing $151,099,613.06 in taxes to municipal governments and school districts last month, then finding tax money left over in the bank. Jim Osburn, Pulaski County Collector, said he doesnt know why that happened. But he suspects the problem occurred during the transfer between two different computer systems. The collectors staff is trying to track the system to find where the error cropped up. The money will be sent, with interest, to the appropriate municipal government and school district accounts. Osburn said the money is not missing, and the receipts add up to the proper amount. A spread sheet showing the difference in what was recorded and what was actually collected shows the majority of the $816,788.79 would go to the three Pulaski County school districts. More than half that amount  $465,495.09  would appear due the Little Rock School District, according to the spread sheet. But Osburn cautioned that the disbursement figures may not be correct, and officials must still check the numbers to make sure. The collectors office was the target of a criminal investigation leading to three arrests for theft before Osburn took over in 1992. The investigation led to guilty pleas by former Collector Ed Maples and his chief deputies, Margaret Kay Wyse and Mitchell H. McCollum. A Pulaski County grand .jfiry report in 1993 found no problems with procedures in place since then. The money has been sitUng in the bank at least a monthT\nI---------------------------------------------------------------- IArkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1994 State aid for LRSD tops projection by $339,332 \nDemocrat*Gazette Staff The Little Rock School District got some good news about its 1994-95 budget woes. When the state Department of Education released $25 million more in preliminary Minimum Foundation Program Aid for the states 312 school districts Monday, the Little R\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_433","title":"Four year old program, enrollment","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":["1992/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Childhood development","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Four year old program, enrollment"],"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/433"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nTEL: Jul 21,92 16:53 No .002 P.Ol SCHOOL Bald Badgett Franklin Garland Cloverdale Mitchell Rockefeller Goyor Springs Rightsell Romine Stephens Washington Wilson Woodruff Ish Watson 7/21/92 FOUR-YEAR-OLD ASSIGNMENTS 1992-93 BLACK OTHER TOTAL 9 9 27 9 9 9 25 9 11 9 9 18 9 9 9 9 9 7 27 2 9 8 29 9 0 9 1 18 9 9 1 9 IQ 16 54 11 18 17 54 10 11 18 10 36 18 18 10 184: (1^ I ! t I LITTT.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSICNMP.MT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 January 18, 1994 1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Polly Ramer, Office of Desegregate on Monitoring Sue Pedersen, Student Assignmnet Office, LRSD 3990-91 Four-Year-Old Enrollment WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL ISH 1 11 12 ROCKEFELLER 19 32 51 WASHINGTON 18 21 39 SCHOOL BADGETT BALE BASELINE BRADY CHICOT CLOVERDALE FAIR PARK FRANKLIN CARLAND GEYER SPRINGS KING MABELVALE MITCHELL RIGHTSELL ROCKEFELLER ROMINE WASHINGTON WATSON WILSON WOODRUFF TOTAL based on total capacity *AS OF 8/31/95 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FOUR YEAR OLD ASSIGNMENTS FOR 1995-96* ENROLLED CAPACITY 36 36 36 18 18 54 36 72 18 36 72 18 18 18 54 36 54 36 18 36 BL 20 16 19 8 8 25 17 34 9 16 36 7 9 9 22 18 28 19 10 18 348 NBL TLT VACANCIES % BLACK 7 16 7 7 6 9 19 5 5 16 27 8 2 3 25 8 22 8 7 16 223 SEP 27 32 26 15 14 34 36 39 14 32 63 15 11 12 47 26 50 27 17 34 571 rar- J 1995 0/fice of Oessgregaiicn 9 4 10 3 4 20 0 33 4 4 9 3 7 6 7 10 4 9 1 2 149 56 45 53 45 45 47 48 48 50 45 50 39 50 50 50 50 52 53 56 50 49LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT KINDERGARTEN ASSIGNMENTS AT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS FOR 1995-96* ENROLLED SCHOOL CAPACITY BL NBL TLT VACANCIES % BLACK FRANKLIN 100 53 59 41 53 GARLAND 40 25 25 15 63 MITCHELL 40 29 29 11 73 RIGHTSELL 40 19 20 20 48 ROCKEFELLER 60 40 18 58 67 TOTAL 280 166 25 191 89 60 based on total capacity J (1 SEP Office of Desesregauofi Monitoring *AS OF 8/31/95 6 0 0 1 2 7LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD THIRD DAY REPORT BLACK WHITE TOTAL P1 P2 11 P3 13 TOTAL 13 19 32 SEP 1 1995 4 4 3 8/31/95 4 7 5 8 OftiCQ of Desegregation MonitonngLittle Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting February Tl, 1997 REGISTRATION Registration for all new and kindergarten smdents to the LRSD and those smdents opting for transfer options began January 21, 1997, and continued through January 31, 1997. The following information will provide an update concerning kindergarten registration. KINDERGARTNERS Tear 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 Black 890 851 910 Non-Black 600 557 546 Total 1490 1408 1456 Attachment 1 is a Projection by School for the 1997-98 school year as of February 21, 1997. These numbers do not include NLRSD and PCSSD or Four-Year old students. Assignment letters for all kindergarten, new smdents, and smdents requestins options will be mailed to parents on March 5, 1997. The secondary desegregation transfer application period will be March 10, 1997 - March 28, 1997. Assignment notification letters will be mailed to parents on April 9, 1997. Four-Year old applicant numbers will be available for the board meeting in April. Notification letters to parents of Four-Year old applicants will be mailed on April 18, 1997. LRSD BIRACIAL COMMITTEE The LRSD Biracial Committee met on February 4, 1997. The committee unanimously voted to accept the new bylaws proposed by the comminee. Attachment 2 is a copy of the newly adopted bylaws. The next meeting will be held March 4, 1997, at 6:00 p.m.\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_69703014","title":"From the dream of the Sixties to the vision of the Nineties : the case for an Alabama human relations commission","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Alabama Advisory Committee"],"dc_date":["1992"],"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":["Discrimination--Government policy--Alabama","Civil rights--Alabama","Administrative agencies--Alabama"],"dcterms_title":["From the dream of the Sixties to the vision of the Nineties : the case for an Alabama human relations commission"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr12r273z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_69703014"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["63 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47540","title":"[Girl scouts at program featuring Rosa Parks, Arizona Cactus-Pine Girl Scout Council, 1992] [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":["1992"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff.","\"Seattle filmworks 27Jan92\"--printed on back."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Girl Scouts"],"dcterms_title":["[Girl scouts at program featuring Rosa Parks, Arizona Cactus-Pine Girl Scout Council, 1992] [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.47540"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_461","title":"Green factors","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":["1992/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Green factors"],"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/461"],"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\nRE: MEMORANDUM April 10, 1992 Supreme Court Decision Concerning Desegregation of DeKalb County, Georgia Public Schools.________ On March 31, 1992, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Freeman v, Pitts, a school desegregation case from DeKalb County, Georgia. The Freeman decision reaffirms seve-ra-t-impOLr.arLt_s.choo.l-deseg.rega-t-ion principles set forth in prior Supreme Court opinions. including that sehoo-1dis-fer-icts operating under -court- supervision -have an aff-i-rmatiwe-duty-ho- eliminate-all vestiges- of illegal segregation to the extent practicable and to comply-in- good faith with--a-l-l cou-rt- orders\nthat, when evaluating whether a school district should be declared unitary, the district court should review the six so-called \"^reen^ factors student assignments, faculty, staff, transportation, physical facilities. and extracjurricular^achivrties  to ensure the effects of prior discrimination have been remedied\nni that the quality of education for minority students is an important ----T- r-.i n, I. . . - . .. __   -lit,. MM II and relevant ^r^uiry_ when^^detejinji^ng whether a school district, or aspects of its operations, should- herelea.sed from c 0 ux-1spe^w.i s i o n. At the same time, the Court ruled that school districts are respons-ib-lef-or~remedying resegregation that results from- demographic- conditrons-thafct h eydrd- \"not'cause. and that court-ordered school desegregation plans are not perpetual, but rather are \"intended as a temp5jLaj:y_measure.\" Specifically, the Court's holding in Freeman reject^d the Elevenths Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the-DeKalb County School System (\"DCSS\") could not be declared with respect to some areas of its operations-while unitary the court maintained supervision of other aspects of its- administration which still were not free from the ef-feets of prior -de-wr-e segregation. Instead, the Court held that the transition from a coxrttsupervisedr- segregated- school system, to a \"unitary\" system free of court scrutiny may beaocorap-lished incxementally, in a series of steps, where the trial court finds that to be an appropriate process. It ruled, however, that prior to releasing particular areas of a school district operations from court supervision, a district court must ' s- consider ^hree factor'^\nGwhethex_tbe-sehoel-dist-rict-has comp.lied_ f u 1 ly ,wi.th. the^ court-o-rdered- deseg-regationp-1 ainthe a reas of sChoo 1' administration- to- be-'re-tingu-Mhed-f-ronj-fehe '^o^^-tjA-juxi-Sdiction\n^^ether judieia 1\" supervistoni-sneeded in an_.axea--thatotherwise could~be- released, to-bring-about compliance with the plan in other areas of the school -a- district's operations\nand,'-Tihether the_achoo-l-district-has demonstrated~agood faith commitment-to- the- court' s desegregation orders and the U.S.-eonstitntron. 2Although the Supreme Court generally affirmed existing desegregation principles, the Freeman decision could have an impact on current desegregation cases. The precise impact, however, will \\ay from district to district depending on the facts of the case and the status of desegregation. I. The Court's Decision The DCSS is located in a suburban county east of Atlanta. It serves approximately 76,000 students in over 90 schools. In 1969, a federal district court approved a desegregation plan developed by DCSS which was designed to remedy the effects of prior jure segregation. Under this plan, DCSS closed several historically African-American schools, implemented a neighborhood school student assignment policy, and established programs to improve the academic achievement of African-American students. Between 1969 and 1986, the demographics of the school district changed dramatically, as migration by African-American families -into DeKalb County caused the African-American student population to rise to a level of 47%, with most African-American students attending predominantly African-American schools in the southern portion of the County. Most white students in DCSS went to predominantly white schools in the northern portion of the County. In 1986, DCSS sought an end to court-ordered desegregation. The District Court found DCSS-had-eliminated 3 w he vestiges of segregation in student assignments, physical f aciLi-ties, extracurricular activities, and transportation. In particular, the court held DCSS had no. role in bringing about resegregation of the county schools or related population shifts. The court found DCSS had fulfilled its constitutional Obligation to achieve maximum feasible desegregation in this area and the three others, and that DCSS should be free to manage these operations on its own. The court retained jurisdiction over DCSS, however. because it foi^d that additional measures were^necessary to-..integ.tate-facxiLty and staff _and .-tO-\u0026amp;giLa.l-ze ,,resQurrAs . Itfll The U.S. Court of Appeals for the E1 eye^nth Circuit reversed, holding that release_from_a^desegreg-ation order cannot-be achieved incrementally. Only after a school district has eliminated discrimination simultaneouslyin-a-1-1areas identified as appropriate by the-trial court can a school district become unitary, the Court said. It added that all tinges of discrimination ^ust be eliminated simultaneously for a period of not less than thr.ee-years. so as to_d.emo.nstrate both a district's good-f-aith- and a likelihood that ..the. district will not regress once court monitoring ends. The Court of Appeals declared DCSS had an aftirmativecdiuty to take all steps necessary to eradicate segregation including segregation solely attributable to demographic changes. The Supreme Court disagreed, and held that \"a federal ^^y-^court in a school desegregation case has the discrAti nn to 4order an incremental or partiaL-withdrawal-of its supervision andcontrol. \" The Court rej,ected as \"formalistic\" the notion that a district CQiii_mu.s.t_ma_i.nt.ain,actiy_e. supervision over every aspect of school operations unti_l_a school district has become unitary in alL.respects. It ruled that a district court choosing to approve incremental withdrawal of its supervision must consider three questions before issuing such an order: (1) \"whether there h^s t^en complete and satisfactory pt^e^/M^dLcomplijn^ the court-ordered desegreqatioD_p_Lan in the rea ,.of schoo.]operations where-supervisien-wi-l-l-be-w-tthcdrawn\nf (2) whether...iudic_ial control in the area to be released \"is necessary or practicable to -achieve compliance.' with the plan in other areas of school district-operations\nand (3) whether^ the school district has demonstrated a good faith commitment tc^ court's decree, and to its duties under the Constitution,* which were the basis for the Court's intervention in its affairs. Regarding the District Court's findings that DCSS was once desegregated, and that its resegregation resulted solely from demographic changes, the Supreme Court declared: \"Once the racial imbalance due to the de jure violation has been remedied, the school district is under..no. duty.to. remedy imbalai^e_jcaused-by,demogr-apiiio\u0026lt;-feaGfeors.\" The school_di.strict had- met-its burden, the Court said, to show that \"current [conditions of racial] imbalance [were] not traceable . . [its] prior violation.\" . to 5The Supreme Court sent the Freeman case back to the Court of Appeals to consider further proceedings to resolve at least two issues: i_rs^, whethe-r .rniirtQj.dered rslipf in t-h? 6 ( a ^e_a. o^taLtieii,t_aasi9nmen.ts_is_need.e\u0026lt;i_.in-..o-rdeE=^.to.- cu re-other 1 the-jCQurt' s desegr-ega^ionplan\nand s. , whetherDGSS-.has .[made] an affirmative commitment to comply in good faith with the of [the] desegregation-pTsn-so-ihat-parent s-r-atudents and the public.have_assurance-aganstfurther~TiT5ir]ries' or stigma. \" II. Freeman's Implications As noted above, the precise impact of the Freeman decision will vary from district to district depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. We can, however, provide some general guidance regarding the meaning and possible impact of the case. Set forth below are answers to some frequently asked questions. (1) Did the FtegmgQ decision change the law of desegregation? Answer: While it clarified some new issues, the Freeman decision reaffirms basic desegregation principles established since Brown. First, the Court reaffirmed the principle that school districts that once operated racially dual school systems have \"an affirmative duty\" to-e-liminate the vestig_es.r_.of segregation \"to the extent practicable.\" Second, 6the Court reminded lower federaL .courts that in determining whether a school system is unitary. it is to review all \"facets.\" of district operations, including student assignments, faculty, staff, physical facilities, transportation and extracurricular activities. And finally, the Court reiterated'' what it said last year in Board of Education of Oklahoma Citv Dow'^1, namely, that court-ordered desegregation plans are not perpetual and that, in order for school systems to be relieved of federal court supervision, they must demonstrate \"a good faith commitment to the entirety of a desegregation plan so that parents, students, and the public have assurance against-further injuries or stigma.? While the Court previously had not addressed the issues of incremental unitariness and demographic changes, these holdings were foreshadowed in the Court's 1976 decision in Pasadena Board of Education v, Spangler and already had been stated as the law in some federal courts of appeals. (2) Does the Court's ruling regarding \"incremental\" unitariness mean that districts can be relieved more easily from federal court jurisdiction? Answer: Possibly. It is certainly true that the V , Court held that the Court of Appeals' blanket rule that school systems must eliminate all vestiges of segregation in all the so-called \"Green* factors simultaneously was wrong as a matter of law, and this could mean that some school systems could be relieved of federal court supervision more readily, on a 7step-by-step basis. without ever simultaneously satisfying all of the Green factors. However, the Court also ruled that the Gre^--factors-are \"interrelated,\" and that federal courts cannot withdraw theix. supervision, of. school, districts in one Green area if continued supervision is required to ensure compli^ce_ in_other areas. school system of supervision Also, whether a court can relieve a . regarding one Green factor depends upon whether the school system can satisfy the court of \"its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" (3) Does the Court's ruling regarding demographic changes in DeKalb County mean that school systems are no longer responsible for residential segregation that occurs implementation of a court order? after the Answer: The answer to this question depends upon the facts of each case. In Frogman, the Court ruled that the DeKalb school system, which it noted achieved desegregation in the area of student assignments in the first year of the remedy, was noJi- responsible for racial segregation that occurred since the entry of the decree because- there was no' Xi^?,^ce that the school system\"'IraTd 'caused thedemogr-a-phic changes--or contributed to* the-'reseqreq3ti\"on''b'f\"''its'\"s'ch'ooIs The Court made it clear, however, that such evidence does exist, the school systenL,Md-LU-he.~hA.T-d- responsible-unle^s-'it carries the burden of showing that it did not-cause'that 3resegregation. This point was made particularly clear in the con,qurring opinions of Justice Souter (\"[rjacial imbalance in student assignments caused by demographic change [residential segregation] is\nnot insulated from federal judicial oversight where the demographic change..i,s_jLtseLf-caused---by_past segregation) and Justice Blactoiun (\"[i]t is not enough. however, for DCSS to establish that demographics exacerbated the problem\nit must prove its own policies did not contribute\") . (4) Does the Court's reference to the quality of education expand school district responsibility under desegregation plans? Answer: It has been clear since the Supreme Court's 1977 decision in\nMilliJ\u0026lt;en,' v. Bradlev that. in addition to correcting the racial isolation that results from past segregation, school systems a.re..required .to_correct.^the \"educationaL deficits,\" as well. By \"educational deficits,\" the Court was referring to inadequacies in the education provided to minority children that are inherent in a dual system. Speci-f rc~educa-tional_ programs ..a.nd...jsurr iculum..of f erings may be required to remedy these \"inadequacies\" or \"deficits.\" Since Ml1liken. the-dower federal court^'have ordered school systems and state governments to fundatvariety-of*educational programs, such as early childhood education, smaller classes. etc., to correct educational deficits flowing-from past segregation. 9It was on the basis of these well-established principles that the Freeman Court ruled that,[when a federal court considers whether__t_o_relinquish ^supervision over all or part of a school district' s.-operations ,-\"quality of education [is] a legitimate inquiry in determining-[a school district's]* compliance with the desegregation decree.\" It was for this reason that the Freeman Court pointed with approval to the district court's order requiring DeKalb County to equalize the allocation of resources between predominantly African-American and predominantly white schools. (5) What does a school district have to prove to be unitary? Answer: As the Supreme Court said in its Oklahoma City decision last year and reiterated this year in Freeman. in order to be nitar a school_ system iSu^ demonstrate that it. has_ eliminated thg.^es.tj.ges^f-seg-geg-a-t-jon^-to the- eafae-nt P^spfe.icable, that it will nut rotti-rn tVTftS\" 'foiiiitfr discjriminatocy ways, and that it has compliad with- oou-rt-egder s in good faith. With respect to the demonstrating ^ood fai^, * the Court added in Freeman that J_'B.ystpm has* tin bad.,aitb'*.ti,ft=Ju3drr-STrf^ci?gnt. Instead, a schooli system must demonstrate \"jwa affi-gfliafc-ive ommi-bmen'\u0026amp;^o-'compf'ry ini go In order for a district court to find a school* district unitary with respect to one of the Green factors. the 10Court established a three-part test, specifically: \"whether there- hasbeen~f tri-l-a-nd~s-afe-irS-f-ac-to-E.y~GorapJ-Lan.cg_wiiiL-_tlie_iecree in thos-easpeets_athesystem-where-superv-i-s-ienis te-Joe withdrawn\n\" (2) whether retention of judicialcontro-t-is necessary or practicable to- achieve-comp-l-ianee~withthedec-ree in nf thp.-5w^hnn1-\u0026lt;\nyrt-pTn-\n\" and (3) \"whether the school district-h-asdemonstratedto--thepub-l-ic-and*tcthe paren-t-s-andstirdent3~of~the once disf avored' race\", 'its'good  aith-eommitme\u0026amp;ttote-he-who-leo-ftheGou-rt-'-sdecree^.and to tho5.ep-r-ovisions of the law and the constitution -that, were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance.\" (6) Does the Freeman case mean that school systems which are receiving state desegregation aid for plans including educational components will lose that support? Answer: The Freeman decision signals strong support for those court orders that have required state governments to provide support for educational programs as part of a desegregation decree, since the Court emphasizes in Freeman the importance of ensuring that the \"educational vestiges\" of segregation have been eliminated. It is these \"vestiges\" that state governments have been ordered to help correct, and the Freeman case reaffirms the appropriateness of this approach. School districts that are examining their position under Freeman should pay particular attention to this aspect of the case. 0326m 11 Op E  391 U.S. 430 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO., VA. 1689 ! 11 1 1 t rr 1 391 U.S. 430 Charles C. GREEN ct al. V. Cite as 88 S.Ct. 1089 (1968) den of establishing that additional time to abolish segregated public school systems is necessary to public interest and 1 c f I 1 j f 1, rs )- is i- )- tr t. d IB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY, VIRGINIA et al. No. 695. Argued April 3, 1968. Decided May 27. 1968. Proceeding attacking as deprivation of constitutional rights a freedom of choice plan allowing each pupil to public school he would attend. TThhee is consistent with good faith compliance at earliest practicable date. Const. Amend. 14. U.S.C.A. 3. Schools and School Districts =13 In context of longstanding state-imposed segregated public school system. fact that in 1965 school board opened doors of former white school to Negro children and of Negro school to white children under its freedom-of-choice plan permitting each pupil to choose :tul o ino United Eastern States District Court for the District of Virginia entered judgment adverse to plaintiffs. The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, 382 F.2d 338, affirmed in part and remanded and certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Brennan, held that where in three years of operation of freedom of choice plan, not a single white child had chosen to attend a former Negro public school and 86% of Negro children in system still attended that school, the plan did not constitute adequate compliance with school board s responsibility to achieve a system of determining admission to public schools on nonracial basis and board must formulate new plan and fashion steps promising realistically to convert promptly to desegrated system. Judgment of Court of Appeals vacated insofar as it affirmed district court and case remanded to district court for further proceedings. 1. Schools and School Districts \u0026lt;^13 Unitary, nonracial system of public education is the ultimate end to be brought about under Supreme Court de-i : - I*! ''\u0026gt;w Si school he would attend did not establish board had taken steps adequate to abolish its dual, segregated system. U.S. cisions declaring unconstitutional segre- C.A.Const. Amend. 14. 4. Constitutional Law =220 School boards operating state-com-pelled dual systems of public education\n,,e affirmative duty of taking whatever steps might be necessary to convert have to unitary system in which racial dis-crimination would be eliminated. U.S. C.A.Const. Amend. 14. .5. Schools and School Districts =13 In determining whether respondent school district by adopting its freedom-of- choice plan met its obligation to take whatever steps might be necessary to convert from dual system to unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated, it was relevant that adopting of freedom of choice plan did not come until ten years after second Brown decision directing prompt and reasonable start of desegregation. 6. Schools and School Districts G=13 Governing constitutional principles precluding dual systems of segregated public education no longer bear imprint TH n c: irvTi O rriI cn gated school systems established under compulsion of state laws. U.S.C.A.Const. Amend. 14. 2. Schools and School Districts =13 Constitutional rights of Negro chil-dren require school officials to bear bur- 88 S.Ct.106Va i of newly enunciated doctrine and delays elimination of unconstitutional dual system are no longer tolerable. 1. Schools and School Districts =13 Public school plan failing to provide meaningful assurance of prompt and 3 II jiii k' Sil! * h I I'flj lil'ii' 1.1 If\n1-' i 1690 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER effective disestablishment of dual system of segregated schools is intolerable. 8. Schools and School Districts =1.3 Time for mere deliberate speed in elimination of segregation in public schools has run out. 9. Schools and School Districts =13 Burden on school board today is to come forward with plan that promises realistically to work to eliminate segregation in public schools and promises realistically to work now. ence method. 391 U.S. 430 for the apparently less effective 15. Scliools and School Districts =13 Any plan adopted to disestablish state-imposed segregation in public schools must be evaluated in practice and federal district court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state-imposed segregation has been completely removed. lol it- - 10. Schools and School Districts \u0026lt;=13 Federal district courts have obligation to assess effectiveness of proposed plan to achieve desegregation in public schools. h\n 11. Scliools and School Districts ==13 Effectiveness of proposed plan to desegregate public schools must be assessed in light of circumstances present and options available in each instance. 16. Schools and Schixil Districts =1.3 In desegregating a dual system of public education, a plan utilizing student \"freedom of choice is not an end in itself but is only a means to constitutionally required end, the abolition of system of segregation and its effects, and, if it proves effective, it is acceptable, but, if it fails to undo segregation, other means must be used to achieve that end. i W.f  12. Scliools and School Districts @=13 It is incumbent upon school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation in public schools. 17. Scliools and School Districts \u0026lt;5=13 School officials have continuing duty to take whatever action may be necessary to create a unitary nonracial public school system. i is! t ( It b l' \u0026lt;1 . sb -1, I .-J 13. Scliools and School Districts =13 Federal district court in assessing effectiveness of proposed plan to desegregate public schools must weigh claim of school board in light of facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. 14. Scliools and School Districts =1.3 Where federal district court finds school board to be acting in good faith anj its proposed plan has real prospects for dismantling state-imposed dual system of segregated education at earliest 18. Schools and School Districts =13 Where freedom of choice plan offers real promise of converting state- imposed dual system of segregated public schools to unitary nonracial system, there may be no objection to allowing such device to prove itself in operation, but if there are reasonably available other ways, such as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school system, \"freedom of choice must be held unacceptable. 19. Schools and Sclrool Districts =13 Where in three years of operation of \"freedom of choice plan, allowing each pupil to choose public school he would attend, not a single white child had chosen to attend former Negro public school and 85% of Negro children in system still attended that school, the practicable date, then plan may be said to provide effective relief, but if other plan did not constitute adequate compli- more nromising courses of action are ance with school board s responsibility to promising open to the board, that may indicate lack of good faith or at least place heavy burden upon board to explain its prefer- achieve a system of determining admission to public schools on nonracial basis and board must formulate new plan and t I I I I .  t. te-. r-i  ''1^: . 1 391 U.S. 433 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO., VA. cite as 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1988) 1691 fashion steps promising realistically to convert promptly to desegregated system. 4k i? 431 Samuel Tucker, Richmond, Va., for petitioners. Frederick T. Gray, Richmond, Va., for respondents. Louis F. Claiborne, Washington, D. C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. (Also in Nos. 740 and 805) the \"school system serves approximately 1,300 pupils, of which 'i40 are Negro and 550 are White. The School Board operates one white combined elementary and high school [New Kent], and one Negro combined elementary and high school [George W. Watkins]. There are no attendance zones. Each school serves the entire county. The record indicates that 21 school buses11 serving the Watkins school and 10 serving the New Kent schooltravel overlapping routes throughout the county to transport pupils to and from the two schools. HJIi 4 li W-'i  - - S Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court. The question for decision is whether, under all the circumstances here, respondent School Boards adoption of a \"freedom-of-choice plan which allows a pupil to choose 432 his own public school constitutes adequate compliance with the Boards responsibility to achieve a system of determining admission to the non-racial basis \u0026lt; public schools on a  * * \" Brown v. Board of Education * \" of Topeka, Kan., 349 U.S. 294, 300-301, 75 S.Ct. 753, 756, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (Broum //). Petitioners brought this action in March 1965 seeking injunctive relief against respondents continued main- The segregated system was initially established and maintained under the compulsion of Virginia constitutional and statutory provision.s mandating racial segregation in public education, Va. Const., Art. IX,  140 (1902)\nVa.Code  22-221 (1950). These provisions were held to violate the Federal Constitution in Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, decided with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, 487, 74 S.Ct. 686, 688, 98 L.Ed. 873 (Brown /). The respondent School Board continued the segregated operation of the system after the Brovm, 433 decisions, presumably on the authority of several statutes enacted by Virginia in resistance to those decisions. Some of these statutes were held to be unconstitutional on their face or as applied.* One 51 r tenance of an alleged racially segregated statute, the Pupil Placement Act, Va. school system. New Kent County is a rural county in Eastern Virginia. About one-half of its population of some 4,500 are Negroes. There is no residential segregation in the county\npersons of both races reside throughout. The school Code  22-232.1 et seq. (1964), not repealed until 1966, divested local boards of authority to assign children to particular schools and placed that authority in a State Pupil Placement Board. Under that Act children were each year automatically reassigned to the school previ- system has only two schools, the New Kent school on the east side of the county ously attended unless upon their applica- and the George W. Watkins school on the tion the State Board assigned them to west side. In a memorandum filed May another school\nstudents seeking enroll- 17, 1966, the District Court found that ment for the first time were also as- I. E. g., Griffin v. County Scliool Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 81 S.Ct. 1226, 12 L.Ed.2d 256\nGreen v. School Board of City of Roanoke, 304 F. 2d 118 (C.A.4th Cir. 1962)\nAdkins v. School Board of City of Newport News, \u0026gt; 148 F.Supp. 430 (D.C.E.D.Va.), affd, 240 F.2(l 325 (C.A.4th Cir. 1957)\nJames V. Almond, 170 F.Supp. 331 (D.C.E.D.Va. 1959)\nHarrison v. Day, 200 Va. 439, 100 S.E.2d 030 (1959). \u0026lt;:\u0026gt; ITI SITI  nr5 o s 3 I it fe- 4 d ! i!  '11  I5\n U! IL 1692 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 391 U.S. 433 I I f- f  i\u0026gt; signed at the discretion of the State Board. To September 1964, no Negro pupil had applied for admission to the New Kent school under this statute and no white pupil had applied for admission to the Watkins school. The School Board initially sought dismissal of this suit on the ground that petitioners had failed to apply to the State Board for assignment to New Kent school. However on August 2, 1965, five months after the suit was brought, respondent School Board, in order to le- main eligible for federal financial aid, adopted a freedom-of-choice plan for desegregating the schools. Under that 434 plan, each pupil, except those entering the first and eighth grades, may annually choose between the New Kent and Watkins schools and pupils not making a choice are assigned to the school previ- i\" * ously attended: first and eighth grade * * * also to set up procedures for pupils must affirmatively choose a school, periodically evaluating the effectiveness After the plan was filed the District choice Court denied petitioners prayer for an injunction and granted respondent leave to submit an amendment to the plan with respect to employment and assignment of teachers and staff on a racially nondis- criminatory basis. The amendment was duly filed and on June 28, 1966, the District Court approved the freedom-of- choice plan as so amended. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, en 382 F.2d 338, affirmed the F banc, District Courts approval of the freedom- of-choice provisions of the plan but remanded the case to the District Court for entry of an order regarding faculty 435 which is much more specific and more comprehensive and which would incorporate in addition to a minimal, objective time table some of the faculty provisions of the decree entered by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F.2d 836, affd en banc, 380 F.2d 385 (1967). Judges Sobeloff and Winter concurred with the remand on the teacher issue but otherwise disagreed, expressing the view that the District Court should be directed * * * of the [Boards] freedom of choice' [plan] in the elimination of other features of a segregated school system. Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County, Va., 382 F.2d 326, at 330. We granted certiorari, 389 U.S. 1003, 88 S.Ct. 665, 19 L.Ed.2d 598. i*\u0026gt; J ^4 i I' IP. 11/ \u0026lt;  : . - p- -i  A*.?.I 2. Congress, concerned with the lack of progress in school desegregation, included provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deal with (he problem through various agencies of the Federal Govern- in ent. 7S Stat. 246. 252, 266, 42 U.S.C. 2(X10c ct seq., 2000d et swp, 200011-2. In Title VI Congress declared that No person in the United Stales shall. on the ground of race, color, or national origin, he excluded from partieipatiou in, he denied the benefits of, or be subjected to diseriinination under any program or .activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C.  2000(1. The Dciiartruent of Health, 3^r1u\u0026lt;.'ation, and Welfare issued regulations covering racial discrimination in federally aided school systems, as directed by 42 U.S.C.  2000(1-1, and in a statement of policies, or guidelines, the Department s Office of Education established standards according to which school systems in the process of desegregation can remain qiinlified for federal funds. 45 CFR  80.1-80.13, 181.1-181.70 (1067). Free- dom-of-choice plans arc among those considered acceptable, so long as in oper- ation such a plan proves effective. 45 CFR  181.54. The regulations provide that a school system subject to a final order of a court of the United States tor the desegregation of such school * * system with which tlie system agrees to comply is deemed to be in compliance with the statute and regulations. 45 CFR See also 45 (IFR  181.G.  .80.4(c). See gcncrnlly Dunn, Title VI, the Guide- lines and School Desegregation in the South, 53 Va.L.Rev. 42 (1067)\nNote, 55 Gco.L.J. 325 (1066)\nComment, 77 Yale L.J. 321 (1907). 3. This case was decided per curiam on the basis of the opinion in Bowman v. County Scliool Board of Charles City County, 382 F.2d 326, decided the same day. Certiorari has not been sought for the Bowman case itself.391 U.S. 437 GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO.. VA. Cite fts 88 S.Ct. 1089 (1908) 1693 ti j  bii The pattern of separate white and \"Negro schools in the New Kent County school system established under compulsion of state laws is precisely the pattern OIVU Vi OV14VW of segregation to which Broivn I and Brown II were particularly addressed, and which Brown I declared unconstitu- tionally denied Negro school children equal protection of the laws. Racial identification of the systems schools was complete, extending not just to the composition of student bodies at the two schools but to every facet of school operationsfaculy, staff, transportation, extracurricular activities and facilities. In short, the State, acting through the local school board and school officials. or- ganized and operated a dual system, part ............ . .J__*.  white and part Negro.' [1,2] It was such dual systems that 14 years ago Brown Z held unconstitu- tional and a year later Brown II held must be abolished\nschool boards operating such school systems were required by Brown II to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. 349 U.S., at 301, 75 S.Ct. at 756. It is of course true that for the time tern.  i school problems. Id., at 299, 75 S.Ct. at In referring to the personal in- 756. terest of the plaintiffs in admission to immediately after Broion II the concern was with making an initial break in a long-established pattern of excluding 436 practicable on public schools as soon as nondiscriminatory basis, we also noted a that [t]o effectuate this interest may call for elimination of a variety of ob- stades in making the transition * * \u0026gt;\u0026gt; Ne- gro children from schools attended by white children. The principal focus was on obtaining for those Negro children courageous Yet we Id., at 300, 75 S.Ct. at 756. emphasized that the constitutional rights of Negro children required school officials to bear the burden of establishing that additional time to carry out the ruling in an effective manner i.s necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date. Ibid. We charged the district courts in their review of particular situations to consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a -n  * enough to break with tradi- tion a place in the white schools. See, ., Cooper V. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 e. g., Under Brown S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5. // that immediate goal was only the first system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the foregoing problems. They will also consider the adequacy of any plans the 437 defendants may propose to meet these problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. Id., at 300-301, 75 S.Ct. at 756. [3, 4] It is against this background that 13 years after Brorm II commanded the abolition of dual systems we must n J Ci. TU ni inra 52 Jf \u0026lt;3 J A * The transition to a uni- step, however. tary, nonracial system of public education was and is the ultimate end to be brought about\nit was because of the \"complexities arising from the transition measure the effectiveness of respondent School Boards freedom-of-choice plan to achieve that end. The School Board contends that it has fully discharged its obligation by adopting a plan by which i student, regardless of race, may svstem of public education freed of every -------- , ................. .... freely choose the school he will attend. to a X------ , racial discrimination that we prtivided for \"all deliberate speed in the imple- The Board attempts to cast the issue in its broadest form by arguing that its X 7 \\ r^rinpinlpq of Brown 1. its broadest form by arguing mat ns ST^ffsT at 299-301, 75 S.Ct. at 755. freedom-of-choice plan may be faulted Thus we recognized the task would neces- aarily involve solution of varied local ment as only by reading the Fourteenth Amend- universally requiring compul- g ,1 I 4-1 iw I: 1694 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 391 U.S. 437 Bl a I 'LW, - - \u0026gt; it I I sory integration, a reading it insists the wording of the Amendment will not support. But that argument ignores the thrust of Brown //. In the light of the command of that case, what is involved here is the question whether the Board has achieved the racially nondiscrimina-tory school system Brotm II held must be effectuated in order to remedy the established unconstitutional deficiencies that Brown II commanded school boards to bend their efforts.'* [5-9] In determining whether respondent School Board met that command by adopting its freedom-of-choice plan, it is relevant that this first step did not come until some 11 years after Broivnl was decided and 10 years after Brown II directed the making of a \"prompt and reasonable start. This deliberate per- I i 39 of its segregated system. In the context petuation of the unconstitutional dual of the state-imposed segregated pattern system can only have compounded the of long standing, the fact that in 1965 the Board opened the doors of the former white school to Negro children and of the Negro school to white children merely begins, not ends, our inquiry whether the Board has taken steps adequate to abolish its dual, segregated system. Brown II was a call for the dismantling of well-entrenched dual systems tempered by an awareness that harm of such a system. Such delays are no longer tolerable, for the governing constitutional principles no longer bear the imprint of newly enunciated doc-trine. Watson V. City of Memphis, supra, 373 U.S. at 529, 83 S.Ct. at 1316\nsee Bradley v. School Board, City of Richmond, Va., supra\nRogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198, 86 S.Ct. 358, 15 L.Ed.2d 265. Moreover, a plan that at this late date co th at U1 di p! T tl ti i) li i d t c i t I 1 complex and multifaceted problems would fails to provide meaningful assurance of 1 arise which would require time and flexibility for a successful resolution. School boards such as the respondent then operating state-compelled dual system.s were nevertheless clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to 438 prompt and effective disestablishment of a dual system is also intolerable. The time for mere deliberate speed has run out, Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 234, 84 S.Ct. 1226, 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 256, the context in which we must interpret and apply this language [of Brown II] to plans for desegregation has been significantly altered. 3 -i Si, Ft if.'? , I - : 7  \u0026lt; I it. t i . .. : t.i pv *f4 convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch. See Cooper v. Aaron, supra, 358 U.S. at 7. 78 S.Ct. at 1404\nBradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Va., 382 U.S. 103, 86 S.Ct. 224, 15 L.Ed.2d 187\ncf. Watson V, City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526, 83 S.Ct. 1314, 10 L.Ed.2d 529. The constitutional rights of Negro school children articulated in Brown I permit no less than this\nand it was to this end 439 Goss V. Board of Education of City of Knoxville, Tenn., 373 U.S. 683, 689, 83 S.Ct. 1405, 1409, 10 L.Ed.2d 632. See Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U.S. 263, 84 S.Ct. 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 288. The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now. ^13 \"i S 4 5 S i 4. We bear in mind that the court has not merely the power but the duty to render a decree which will so far as possible eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimina-tion in the future. I^)iiisinna v. United .States. 3S0 U.S. 145, 154, 85 S.Ct. 817, 822, 13 L.Ed.2d 709, Compare the remedies discussed in, e. g., NLRB v. Newport News Shipbuilding \u0026amp; Ury Dock Co., 308 U.S. 241, GO S.Ct. 203, 84 L.E'(U219\nUnited States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173, 0,5 S.Ct. 254. 89 L.Ed. IGO\nStandard Oil Co. v. United States. 221 U.S. 1, 31 S.Ct. 502, 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 834. See also Griffin v. County Scliool Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U. S. 218, 232-234, 84 S.Ct 122G, 1233- 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 25G. Ai .jt 1- 1   1 ? 5 *5 - V\n4 37 591 U.S. 440 GREEN v. COUNTY SCHOOL BD. OF NEW KENT CO., VA. Cite ns 88 S.Ct. 1689 (1968) 1695 Is [10-15] The obligation of the district courts, as it always has been, is to assess the effectiveness of a proposed plan in d 1, \u0026gt;t I / d achieving desegregation. There is no universal answer to complex problems of desegregation\nthere is obviously no one plan that will do the job in every case. The matter must be assessed in light of the circumstances present and the op- lions available in each instance. It is tion of Gould School District, 391 U.S. 443, at 449, 88 S.Ct. 1697, at 1700, 20 L.Ed.2d 727. [1618] We do not hold that freedom of choice can have no place in such a plan. We do not hold that a freedom- of-choice plan might of itself be unconstitutional, although that argument has been urged upon us. Rather, 440 it g HI 61 tv 11 e e ? r 4 - incumbent upon the school board to establish that its proposed plan promises meaningful and immediate progress toward disestablishing state-imposed segregation. It is incumbent upon the district court to weigh that claim in light of the facts at hand and in light of any alternatives which may be shown as feasible and more promising in their effectiveness. Where the court finds the board to be acting in good faith and the proposed plan to have real prospects for dismantling the state-imposed dual system at the earliest practicable date, then the plan may be said to provide effective relief. Of course, the availability to the board of other more promising courses of action may indicate a lack of good faith\nand at the least it places a heavy burden upon the board to explain its preference for an apparently less all we decide today is that in desegregating a dual system a plan utilizing freedom of choice is not an end in itself. As Judge Sobeloff has put it,  Freedom of choice is not a sacred talisman\nit is only a means to a constitutionally required endthe abolition of the system of segregation and its effects. If the means prove effective, it is acceptable, but if it fails to undo segregation, other means must be used to achieve this end. The school officials have the continuing duty to take whatever action may be necessary to create a unitary, nonracial sys- tem.  Bowman v. County School  effective method. Moreover, whatever plan is adopted will require evaluation in practice, and the court should retain jurisdiction until it is clear that state- Board of Charles City County, 382 F. 2d 326, 333 (C.A. 4th Cir. 1967) (concurring opinion). Accord, Kemp v. Beasley, 389 F.2d 178 (C.A. 8th Cir. 1968)\nUnited States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, supra. Although the general experience imposed segregation has been completely been such under freedom of choice to date has removed. See Raney v. Board of Educa- ness as a as to indicate its ineffectivetool of desegregation, there tl :ti \"n pl .ij \"Th 3- Sil cj:\u0026gt; M 52 co wl j- i,'. .'*1 fj IS*.' (SO 5. Tlie views of the United States Commission on Civil Hights, which we neither adopt nor refuse to adopt, are as follows: Freedom of choice plans, which have tended to perpetuate racially identifiable schools in the Southern and border States, require affirmative action by both Negro and white parents and pupils before such disestablishment can be achieved. (b) During the past school year IlOOi!10(i71, as in the previous year, in some areas of the South, Negro families with children attending previously all- white schools under free choice plans wcre targets of violence, threats of vio- Tliere are a nnnihcr of factors which have prevented such affirmative action hy substantial numbers of parents and pupils of both races: (a) Fear of retaliation and hostility from the white community continue to deter many Negro families from choosing formerly all-white schools\nlence and economic reprisal by white persons and Negro children were subjected to harassment by white classmates notwithstanding conscientious efforts by many teachers and principals to prevent such misconduct: (c) During the past school year, in some areas of the South public officials improperly influenced Negro families to keep their children in Negro schools and excluded Negro children attending for- I  7^]9 \u0026lt; '9  *1 ! I 1! Si i\n! ,1 f 1 f I S- A \u0026lt; is\nHl 1696 may 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTER well be instances in which it can serve as an effective device. Where it offers real promise of aiding a desegregation 441 program to effectuate conversion of a state-imposed dual system to a unitary, non-racial system there might be no objection to allowing such a device to prove itself in operation. On the other hand, if there are reasonably available other ways, such for illustration as zoning, promising speedier and more effective conversion to a unitary, nonracial school system, freedom of choice must be held unacceptable. [19] The New Kent School Boards \"freedom-of-choice plan cannot be accepted as a sufficient step to effectuate a transition to a unitary system. In three years of operation not a single white child has chosen to attend Watkins school and although 115 Negro children enrolled in New Kent school in 1967 (up merly all-white schools from official func- tiun.s\n(d) Poverty deters many Negro families in the South from choosing formerly nn-white sebools. Sonic Negro parents are embarrassed to permit their children to attend such schools without suitable clothing. In sonic districts special fees are asae.sse\u0026lt;l far cauraes which arc avail- ai)lc aniy in the white scliaols\n(e) Irnproveinonts in facilities and equipment * * have been instituted in nil-Negro .scliools in some school districts in a manner that tends to discon rage scdiools. Negroes from selecting white Southern School Desegregation, 19G6- 1907. at 88 (1907). Sec id., at 45-09\nSurvey of School Desegregation in the Southern and Border States 1965-19G0, at 30-44. .51-52) U. S. Commn on Civil Rights J9CC). 6. In view of the situation found in New Kent County, wh^re there is no residential segregation, the elimination of the dual school system and the establishment of a unitary, non-racial system could be readily achieved with a minimum of administrative difficulty b.y means of geographic zoningsimply by assigning students living in the eastern half of the county to the New Kent School and those living in the western half or the county 391 U.S. 440 from 35 in 1965 and 111 in 1966) 85% of the Negro children in the system still attend the all-Negro Watkins school. In other words, the school system remains a dual system. Rather than further the dismantling of the dual system, the plan has operated simply to burden children and their parents 442 with a responsibility which Brown // placed squarely on the School Board. The Board must be required to formulate a new plan and, in light of other courses which appear open to the Board, such as zoning, fashion steps which promise realistically to convert promptly to a system without a white school and a Negro school, but just schools. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated insofar as it affirmed the District Court and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. to the Watkins School. Although a geographical formula is not universally appropriate. it is evident that here the Board, by separately busing Negro children across the entire county to the Negro school, and the white children to the white school, is deliberately maintaining a segregated system which would vanish with non-racial geographic zoning. The conditions in this comity present a classical case for this expedient. Bowman v. County School Board of Charles City County, supra, n. 3, at 332 concurring opinion). Petitioners have also suggested that the Board could consolidate the two schools, one site (e. g., Watkins) serving grades 1-7 and the other (e. g., New Kent) serving grades 8-12, this being the grade division respondent makes between eleinen- tary and secondary levels. Petitioners contend this would result in a more efficient system by eliminating costly duplication in this relatively small district while at the same time achieving immediate dismantling of the dual system. These are two suggestions the District Court should take into account upon remand, along with any other proposed alternatives and in light of considerations respecting other aspects of the school system such as the matter of faculty and staff desegregation remanded to the court by the Court of Appeals. I I 391 U. Artli The GO c of m schoo Court sas d appea F.2d grant tice I deseg sistir and 1 in di. quatc syste estab erati' in a Negr at al verse Cour 1. Aj choic prop issue plaii dent boar gate was cidei peak 1?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: 1. Student Assignment 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Faculty Ratios Staff Ratios Transportation Extracurricular Activities Facilities Student Achievement FEB 9 1995 Ofic3 QI Oe\nicC. The work of the committees will be coordinated by Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, and the Student Assignment Office. B. C. 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. Identify the funding source for the committees The Green Factor Research Committees will be financed with funds from the LRSD legal fees account. Approximately $12,000 - $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.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. B. C. Establish, committees to research specific areas, Green Factors, that have potential for achieving unitary status Committees will be established to research the following areas: 1. Student Assignment 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Faculty Ratios Staff Ratios Transportation Extracurricular Activities Facilities Student Achievement The work of the committees will be coordinated by Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, and the Student Assignment Office. 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. Identify the funding source for the committees The Green Factor Research Committees will be financed with funds from the LRSD legal fees account. Approximately $12,000 - $15,000 is anticipated for this activity. pzy'CMvmztlti. fTimpfrnmp. 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.! Arkansas Democrat (gazette THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 1995 I Itu Copyrigw O Uttle Hock Newspaoera. '\"O- I Long negotiations end as district, NLR teachers agree on contract BY SUSAN ROTH Democrat-Gazette Education Writer North Little Rock teachers finally have a tentative contract, five months into the school year. The Classroom Teachers Association settled for a 2,9 percent raise with conditions in a meeting with North Little Rock School District negotiators Wednesday, Im pleased with the settlement and I think the teachers will be, too, said Louene Lipsmeyer, the unions president and chief spokesman for its negotiating team. The two sides began negotiating the one-year contract last summer in what Lipsmeyer said was the longest process she could remember. The contract still must be ratified by the school board and union membership to take effect, Lipsmeyer declined to reveal the teachers original salary proposal, but she said the unions last offer was a 4 percent raise. The teachers group accepted a 2.9 percent increase, retroactive to the start of the school year in August 1994, with the stipulation that teachers will make more money if additional revenue is collected. For each $82,500 collected above revenue projections, another $50 will be added to each teachers annual salary. The contract contained a similar arrangement for the last three years, Lipsmeyer said. Other sticking points involved extra pay for teachers who spend extra time at work. While most teachers salaries are based on 187 workdays, some teachers, such as athletic coaches, receive supplemental pay because they come to school early for practice or stay late, or both, Our policy says those positions had to be negotiated, Lipsmeyer said. We had asked for a list of those positions but were never able to get it or find out the number of extra days pay they were getting. The most contentious point, however, was the school boards proposal to increase the stipend for high school drama teachers from 4 percent to 15 percent. Board members felt those teachers give much more of their time than others. We felt that was way too much of an increase over what was proposed for other teachers, Lipsmeyer said. But the union agreed to a one-year-only 15 percent stipend for the drama teachers, on condition that the next contract be more equitable for all.\\ I, f \u0026gt; (L^tzx Ji (rfc^ Jrs hVl Jt Mj JUcv c bb n* 9 ' 5*  b a s k - i * . \u0026lt;' f'?\n,'1 - i : J ' t ij J Ms J ^1 . -^1 'M tj :t L-! /'Mii   V j fl i J? \u0026gt;f \u0026gt;' ^5 rs .:3 .i I 'liI Arkansas Democrat 7^ ((jazelk FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1995 iZCtk Williams proposes 7 panels to assess integration advance DY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democraf-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams proposed Thursday calling OU committees of em- ployee.s and community members to research how well the school district meets its desegregation obligations. Under Williams plan, the district would establish seven committees of 10 to 15 teachers, ad- niinislralors and residents. Those panels would assess the district's progress in eliminating all vestiges of what was once legal racial segregation and dis- crimination schools. in the public That work will help the district identify what must be done before it can ask U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to release the district from federal court supervision, Williams told members of the school board Thursday night. Wright is presiding in the district's I2-year-old school desegregation lawsuit. She monitors the district's compliance with its desegregation plan. Committee members would be paid for the extra work, William.s said. That would cost the district from $12,000 to $15,(X)0 per committee, or as much as $10.5.000 overall. 'rhe committees would be given six weeks to conduct research and submit reports to the board. Dr. Russ Mayo, the districts comniitlee plan on the U.S. Supreme Courts so-called Green factors. The high court has said in other desegregation cases that federal courts must consider a districts efforts in those ar- ea.s before releasing the district from supervision. The school board is considering paying Williams a bonus of 5 percent of his annual base salary of $115,(X)0 for each area in which the district is released from court supervision. For example, if Wright finds that the districts staff is racially balanced. Williams would get a bonus of $5,750. Achieving all the proposed goals would net him more than $50,000 in bonuses. The board delayed voting Thursday on the superintendents incentive pay until possibly the Feb. 23 board meeting, Board member Katherine Mitchell said she disagreed with a proposed incentive to give the superintendent a 5 percent bonus for every 5 percent increase in white students in the district, up to 50 percent white. District enrollment is 35 percent white and 65 percent black. Mitchell said she didnt think the goal was attainable, and she would rather pay Williams for closing the disparity gap in test scores for black and white students. In other business Thursday, the board:  Voted to rebuild Chicot El- associate superintendent for de- ementary School, damaged by ar- segregation, would oversee the son last year. The school will be committees. Each would be co- rebuilt with walls dividing the chaired by a district adminis- classrooms at a cost of about Irator and someone selected by $150,000 to the district. Except Williams. for the walls, insurance will pay to replace the school, where fur- The committees would research, respectively: niture and book shelves once  Student assignments to separated classrooms. schools.  Faculty hiring and job assignments.  Listened to a presentation from a representative of Ser- viceMaster, a Chicago-based pri-  Support staff hiring and job vale company interested in con- assignments. trading with the district to pro-  Transportation  making vide custodial and maintenance sure that the burden of mandatory busing doesnt fall disproportionately on one race.  Student participation in extracurricular activities. services. The company would manage, train and equip current employees to do the work more efficiently at a cost to the district ___ similar to whats now spent.  The physical condition of They would remain district em- school buildings in various neighborhoods.  Student achievement.  Delayed action on an ad- Williams generally based the ministrative proposal to elimi- ployees and there would be no layoffs. nate the Learning Foundations class at four junior high schools starting next year. The mandatory course was designed to help students develop strong study skills.  Reviewed a proposed code of conduct obligating board members and the superintendent to conduct business in an open, constructive and positive manner.\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":"nge_ngen_m-8733","title":"Hamilton Holmes and Charlayne Hunter-Gault","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Clarke County, Athens, 33.96095, -83.37794"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":["Hamilton Holmes and Charlayne Hunter-Gault, the students who desegregated the University of Georgia in 1961, returned in 1992 to speak at the first annual Holmes-Hunter lecture. Holmes, a prominent orthopedic surgeon in Atlanta until his death in 1995, was named the first African American member of the university foundation's board of trustees in 1983.","Photograph of Hamilton Holmes and Charlayne Hunter-Gault, the students who desegregated the University of Georgia in 1961, in 1992 speaking at the first annual Holmes-Hunter lecture. They stand at a podium adorned with an image of the arches that serve as a symbol of the University of Georgia. Holmes, a prominent orthopedic surgeon in Atlanta until his death in 1995, was named the first African American member of the university foundation's board of trustees in 1983."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/hamilton-holmes-1941-1995","Forms part of: New Georgia Encyclopedia"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/hamilton-holmes-1941-1995","Forms part of: New Georgia Encyclopedia"],"dcterms_subject":["University of Georgia","Physicians--Georgia--Athens","African American physicians--Georgia--Athens","Men--Georgia--Athens","African American men--Georgia--Athens","Surgeons--Georgia--Athens","Orthopedists--Georgia--Athens","Women--Georgia--Athens","African American women--Georgia--Athens","Journalists--Georgia--Athens","African American journalists--Georgia--Athens","African American women journalists--Georgia--Athens","African Americans--Civil rights--Georgia--Athens","Civil rights--Georgia--Athens","Segregation in education--Georgia--Atlanta","College integration--Georgia--Athens","Racism--Georgia--Athens","African Americans--Race discrimination","African Americans--Social conditions","Speeches, addresses, etc., American--Georgia--Athens"],"dcterms_title":["Hamilton Holmes and Charlayne Hunter-Gault"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/hamilton-holmes-1941-1995/m-8733/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":["Courtesy of the University of Georgia Photographic Services","The University of Georgia owns the rights to all photographs in the UGA Photographic Services archives. Permission to use any of these photographs is limited to a one-time use for news purposes and internal UGA publications and promotions. Separate permission is required to use any of the archived photographs for any other purpose, including but not limited to, commercial, advertising or illustrative purposes","Courtesy of University of Georgia Photographic Services"],"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["color photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Hunter-Gault, Charlayne","Holmes, Hamilton, 1941-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_427","title":"HIPPY program","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":["1992/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Student assistance programs","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["HIPPY program"],"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/427"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham - Little Rock, Ar. 72201 HOME INSTRUCTION PROGRAM FOR PRESCHOOL YOUNGSTERS lAOl Scott - Little Rock, Ar. 72202 RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1991 TO: Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services THROUGH: Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent of Educational Programs from: Parian Shead, Supervisor of HIPPY DATE: October 17, 1991 SUBJECT: General Information For Office Of Desegregation Monitoring For the 1991-92 program year, HIPPY areas of concentration are Southwest Little Rock and the shadow area of the Major Incentive Schools (central Little Rock). The projective participation hundred twenty (420) families. gender per area serviced. for the 1991-92 program is four Included is a chart of race and (Attachment)t OF t t OF suL\n!Husr TAKr T*?\nIcxE S VCZZ 5 S TEAS 'ar 'TT' wi^Hw? OF yworr.'^ gyntAL H WHHK CF MAT5^ TOTAL 128 208 19 21 36 ly6 6 3 n 1 25 2k 53 53 t OF k 31 38 51 t OF WT-TT 4 ^'Ar C'?' 1 6 8 10 k ICTAL TEAS 38 57 61 frrHnt 0 0 2(5yr.\u0026gt; l(4yr.) TOTAL 63 68 110 .120 361PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST March 31, 1992 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1991-92 school year: POSITION: Coordinator - Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Elementary certification preferred or major experience and primary responsibility in working with younger children. hildren. 2. Evidence of a strong commitment to parent involvement in the education of his/her child. 3. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 4. Evidence of good written and oral conununication skills. 5. Evidence of interest in the main profclems/educational care in disadvantaged areas. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS to\nProgram Supervisor - Home Instruction for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\n1. Conducting home interviews of mothers. 2. interviewing and selecting community aides. 3. Dealing with specific problems concerning the conduct of the program in the home. 4 . Instructing the aides in the course of their work. 5. 6. Planning and guiding group meetings. Coordinating between the various community elements involved with the program. 7 . 8. Keeping budgetary records. Regular reporting to the Program Supervisor and/or the Department of Curriculum and Instruction.Coordinator HIPPY SALARY AND TERMS: 53-0001 Salary Schedule - A Twelve (12) Month Position, plus Benefits Package. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Support Services Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE\nApril 8, 1992, or any time later until a satisfactory applicant is recommended and approved. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO\nLynda C. White Director, Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone 324-2085 NOTE\nINDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN IN- DIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development.07/13/93 16:34 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 July 13,1993 ^3 Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE a For more information\nJeanette Wagner, 324-2020 PRE-REGISJ ration FOR HOME BASED PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAM. The Little Fock School District announces the pre-registration of four and five year-old children for HIPPY program for the 1993-94 vear. The Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters or HIPPY is a home-based education program where children are taught by parents. The HIPPY curnoilum provides the skills needed for children to be successful first in Kindergarten and throughout their education experience. m If you are interested in assisting your child in preparing for school or applying for possible job training employment, come to the HIPPY office at 1401 Scott Street, Room 208, Little Rock or call 324-2266 for more information.07/13/93 16:34 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001/002 DATE: TO: FROM: SENDER'S PEONEii\nSUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 -Al) 3 1 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: -Ro^.a 1 f- Number of Pages (include cover page Speed Dial ' Fax Phone Number^^Ol ?  n :i i J If R b i-CKCBB8S Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE May 16,1994 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 LRSP HIPPY GRADUATION PROGRAM PLANNED LITTLE ROCK - Students of the Little Rock School District Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) wiU participate in commencement exercises Sunday, May 22. The graduation ceremony wiU be held at 3:00 p.m. in the auditorium of Horace Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet Junior High School. The graduates, aU 4 and 5-year-olds, will be dressed in caps and gowns to receive their diplomas. The guest speaker for the afternoon will be Reverend Hezekiah Stewart. HIPPY is a home-based education program where children are taught by their parents. The program strives to effectively improve self-image and attitudes toward education of the child as well as the parent. As effective home educators, parents learn the importance of being actively involved in their child's learning. ### 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000' * *) ijo I .i(OAUG-28-95 HON 11:47 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.Ol EXILED U.S. DISTRICT CQUnT eastern district Arkansas IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS AUG 2 3 1595 WESTERN DIVISION JAM6S W. WcCCRMACK, CLuAK By: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Oi?CU.XK PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ST AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, AL. INTERVENORS LRSD^5 MOTION FOR PARTIAL UNITARY STATUS The Little Rock School District (LRSD) for its motion states: 1. LRSD moves that this Court withdraw supervision with regard to the following aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan: a. Home Instructional Youngsters (HIPPY)\nProgram for Preschool b. c. d. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program\nParkview Science Magnet Program\nand, Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (JTPA). 2. LRSD has substantially complied in good faith with the requirements of the LRSD Desegregation Plan with regard to those aspects of the plan identified in paragraph 1. for a reasonable period of time. 3. Continued judicial supervision of those aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan identified in paragraph 1. is not necessary to achieve compliance with other aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan.AUG-28-95 HON 11:48 SUSAN H WRIGHT FAG{ NO. 5013246576 P. 02 4. LRSD has demonstrated to the public and to black parents and students its good faith commitment to the whole of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and to a course of action that gives full respect to the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution. 5. LRSD has eliminated to the extant practicable the vestiges of past discrimination with regard to those aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan identified in paragraph 1. 6, There are additional aspects of the Plan with which LRSD has substantially complied LRSD Desegregation in good faith, and LRSD reserves the right to move that this Court withdraw supervision with regard to additional aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan in the future. LSSd has prepared for the presentation of evidence with regard to only those aspects of the plan identified in paragraph 1, because of the limited amount of time scheduled by the Court. Although the Court has scheduled three days for the submission of evidence, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD have agreed (subject to this Court's approval) to allow one day for each district. LRSD will begin on August 30, 1995. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District moves that thia court withdraw supervision with regard to the following aspects of the LRSD Desegregation Plan: w uxa a. b. c. d. Home Instructional Youngsters (HIPPY)\nProgram for Preschool Rockefeller Early Childhood Program\nParkview Science Magnet Program\nand, Job Trailing Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (JTPA). 2AUG-28-95 MON 11:48 SUSAN H WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 03 Respectfully suhwt Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ZLDRZDGE i CLARK 2000 First Comnercial Building 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 501/376-2011 72201-3493 Attorneys for LRSD By\nChristopher HeUair/ Bar No. 31083 ( 3AUG-28-95 HON 11:4S SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 CgRTITICATB OP aBRVICg a copy of the foregoing motion has on the following counsel on this 23rd day of August,\nI been served 1995. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (MAILED) Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Steve Jonas JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Reck, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite SIO 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) CHRISTOPH HEL^ir / ----------_ 1mnr. 123 4Evaluation of HIPPY Program Little Rock, Arkansas A Look at Outcomes for Children at the End of Grade and 6th Grade Dr. Ed Williams, Evaluation Specialist Planning, Research, and Evaluation Department Little Rock School District Dr. Les Camine, Superintendent July, 1999Introduction This report describes an evaluation of the HIPPY Program administered by the Little Rock School District Planning/Research and Evaluation Department. HIPPY is a home-based educational enrichment program. HIPPY is designed to prepare 3, 4, and 5 year-old children for school readiness. Home Visitors work with parents weekly using packets of preplanned activities and storybooks. They demonstrate use of the activities, which the parents are to use with their child. The Little Rock School District was one of the four sites in Arkansas where HIPPY was first implemented. Children who participate in HIPPY enter the program with one or more of the following criteria qualifications: Low birth-weight Low income Education of parent Substance abuse Teenage mother Developmental delayed Other referrals The question addressed in this evaluation is whether participation in HIPPY has long-term benefits for children. More importantly, do children who participate in HIPPY do better in school than children who have no formal schooling experience prior to kindergarten? Or do children who participate in HIPPY do as well as children who have participated in a group-based formal preschool experience? Study Design Participants Hippy Students in 3^*' and 6**' Grade. At the time of this study, school year 1998-99, there were 102 3* and 48 6* grade enrolled in the District who had participated in HIPPY. Demographics for the 3\"* grades are 47% female, and 88% Black, 9% White, and 3% Other Ethnicity. Demographics for the 6* graders are 54% female, and 96% Black and 4% White. 2Description of Sample for Achievement Studv. Current 3\"^ and 6* grade students participating in the HIPPY program (see above description) were matched to Non-HEPPY students on gender, birth month, race, and SES as measured by those receiving fi'ee or reduced lunch. In addition to these variables, students had been matched on same school, however the sample size was to small, 19 and 8 respectively. Sample participants were 3 (N = 79) and 6* (N= 30) graders enrolled in the Little Rock School district (LRSD) during the 1998-99 school year. The 3*^ grade sample was 48% female and 99% Black, and 1% White. The 6* grade sample was 57% female and 100% Black. Measures This evaluation focused exclusively on student outcomes in third grade. Five categories of outcomes were examined: 1) school attendance\n2) official actions taken by the school district that affect the students experience in school (i.e., suspensions, retentions in grade, placement into special education\n3) classroom grades\n4) achievement test scores\nand 5) school behavior. Information on the first 4 categories was available through school record. Information about school behavior was obtained from the childs third grade teacher. Attendance, Suspension, Retention in Grade. Placement into Special Education. Information regarding actions on suspension, attendance, retention in grade, and special education placement were obtained through a review of individual childs teacher and information kept by the principal at the school building level. Grades. Year-end grades in Reading, Math, and Language Arts were used for purposes of this evaluation. In addition, an overall grade-point average was computed. Achievement Test Scores. LRSD administers the Stanford-9 Achievement Test (SAT-9) battery during the fall of each school year. Scaled scores (SS) in Reading, Math, and Language Arts were used for purposed of this evaluation. Scaled scores are the only scores generated by the SAT-9 that can measure growth. Two years of SAT-9 data were used to determine if any differences existed between groups (i.e., HIPPY v. Non-HEPPY). The 3\" grade sample was compared on current year and 2\"' grade SAT-9 scores. The 6* grade sample was compared on, since they did not take the SAT-9 during the 98-99 school year, 4* and 3\"^^ grade SAT-9 scores. Third grade students did not take the SAT - 9 during the grade and 6** grades were administered the SAT-8 in the 2^ grade, thus limiting the analysis to the above years. Using and controlling for previous years scores is analogous to a pre/post-test design. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) adjusts the means on the dependent variable based on the differences between the two group means (HIPPY v. Non-HIPPY) on the covariate. The dependent variables for the two samples are the 3\"^ and 5* grade SAT-9 scores. The covariates for the samples are the 2\"'^ and 4* grade scores. In comparing only the dependent means, the comparison does not account for how participants scored on a similar measure at a previous point in time. 3Teacher Ratings of Student Behavior. Items in this section of this evaluation were\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Enjoyment of books and reading Listening and paying attention Task orientation Self direction Seeking and using assistance Curiosity Initiative Interest in school work Abihty to get along with peers 10. Overall adjustment 11. Overall academic performance Results School Attendance Retention, Suspension. Special Education Classroom Grades For each student, final grades for the year were obtained in Reading, Math, and Language Arts. These grades were converted to the traditional 4-point system (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=l, F=0) for purposes of analysis. An overall grade point average (GPA) was then computed from the three grades. Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for each of these grades. It also displays the results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) run on the final grade for each subject. The results show that both HIPPY children and non-HIPPY children reveal similar outcomes, however HIPPY children show a difference in reading and math in the 3rd grade and a difference in reading, math, and language in the 5* grade. Achievement Test Scores The HIPPY students had higher mean/average scaled scores on all subject areas except the 3* grade students in language (see Table 2). In addition, 3\"* grade HIPPY students had significantly higher scores in reading and 5* grade HIPPY students had significantly higher scores in math than Non-HIPPY students. Significance indicates that any difference is not by chance. Given the matching of students by a number of variables, it can be presumed that participation in the HIPPY program contributes significantly to the variance in scores. 4Not only did the HIPPY students have higher scores on the dependent variable (i.e., 3\"^ and 4* grade scores)\nthese students also demonstrated more growth than the Non-HIPPY students. In all subject areas, the HIPPY students had lower scores than Non-HIPPY students on the covariate (i.e., 2\"* and 3\"* grade scores). Lower scores on the covariate and higher scores on the dependent variable, while not significant in several of the subject areas, is indicative of a trend towards faster growth among HIPPY students than Non-HIPPY students. Table 2 Student Mean Scaled Scores on the SAT-9 3\"^^ Grade Students * HIPPY Reading' 2nd/3nl 515/568 Non-HIPPY 523/562 Math Qiid 507/550 513/549 Language 2*/3\". 541/572 546/573 5* Grade Students HIPPY Reading 4th/5th 587/621 Non-HIPPY 589/619 Math* 4*/5* 569/603 578/601 Language 4th/5th 591/618 594/610 * p # .05 Teacher Rating of Student Behavior They vary fi'om student to student. However, HIPPY students appear to be curious, self-directed, have improved listening skills, initiative, and has the ability to get along with their peers. Conclusions A. School attendance - Showed no significant difference between the groups 5B. Retention - It appears the HIPPY students are less likely to be retained - only 1% was noted C. Grades - The statistics indicate the non-HIPPY student may have had a slight edge at the beginning of the 2\"'^ grade, but the HIPPY students did have considerable gains by the end of the 3\"^ grade as well as the 5* grade. D. HIPPY students are growing faster in reading, math, and language subject areas than Non-HEPPY students. In two subject areas (i.e., 3*^ grade reading and 6* graders in math), HIPPY students are growing at a statistically significant faster rate than Non-HIPPY students. E. classroom behavior CAVEATS 1. 2. 3. The design used in this study was not a true experimental design with randomized assignment of children to HIPPY, other formal preschool, and no formal preKindergarten educational experience groups. Therefore the internal validity of the study is potentially compromised. The methods of identifying and selecting eligible Students for the program may have resulted in a selection bias that could account for all observed differences. Although there is no evidence to support any particular selection bias, the children who had no preschool experience may have had parents who were less motivated or competent. There could even have been a passive discouragement of some parents because they were considered less good candidates for the program. The children with no preschool experience may also have come from neighborhoods or contexts that are generally less supportive of school performance. These possible selection factors (and a host of others not described) are unknown and probably unknowable. However, selection bias remains a potential alternative explanation for the differences observed. The sample size was relatively small, meaning that the study had low power to detect first, Small effects (i.e. differences between groups.) This limitation cuts two ways\nit may obscure even a greater number of differences between HIPPY and comparison groups. Second, it may obscure some differences between HIPPY children and children with other formal preschool experience (however, the observed differences between these two groups were always small and inconsistent with respect to direction). No effort was made to determine whether the HIPPY program differentially benefited one sub-group more than another (i.e., makes more than females, all participants were black). Given that there were no prior hypotheses suggesting that gender or race or anything else would make a difference in 6program effects and given the size was relatively small, it seemed that testing for such differential effects may lead to unreliable results. Nonetheless, future studies of the HIPPY program should consider resting for such moderating effects. 4. The study was done only on children who received HIPPY from the Little Rock School District. Even though the children from the cohort who were students in the Little Rock School District at third grade also, in terms of race, family income and school, it is difficult to know how generalizable the findings are. 5. It is not appropriate, from a statistical point of view, to assume that each of the statistical tests done on these data represent independent tests of program effects. Running a larger number of tests increases the odds of capitalizing on some chance difference between groups. Nevertheless, we did not make corrections in the p-values used to establish differences between groups given limited power we had to detect differences of even a moderate size (i.e., 14 standard deviation). Therefore, it is possible that some of the differences represent chance finding. Nevertheless, the consistency of findings for HIPPY students makes it appear likely that a significant difference between HIPPY and comparison groups were observed on both math and science achievement test scores. 7REFERENCES Table 1 (3*^^ Graders) Differences in grades between children who participate in HIPPY, Children who attended preschool, and comparison children with no preschool experience Mean Standard Deviation F-Value P-Value Reading HIPPY Comparison Mathematics HIPPY Comparison Language Arts HIPPY Comparison Grade Point Average HIPPY Comparison 8 1 2Table 2 (6* Graders) Difference in achievement test scores between children who participated in HIPPY, children who attended preschool, and comparison children with no preschool experience Mean Standard Deviation F-Value P-Value Reading HIPPY Comparison Mathematics HIPPY Comparison Language Arts HIPPY Comparison Composite Scores HIPPY Comparison 1. 9I *^2A  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  WEDNESDAY, MAY 27. 1992 HIPPY enrolling 4-year-olds in LR The Little Rock School Districts Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters is now enrolling 4-year-olds for the 1992-^3 school year. HIPPY lets parents prepare children for school by providing information and supplies to work with children at home. For more information, call the HIPPY office at 324^ 2266. 20A  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SUNDAY, JULY 5,1992   SPECIAL REPORT: BILL CLINTON  PROMISES \u0026amp; PERFORMANCE 75 preschoolers learn ABCs of education School districts, enrollment The number of public school districts and average daily membership has declined since the 1978-79-School year In Arkansas: Districts:  385 I I I i I I with summer school BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Stall Writer Members of the Cave City School Districts Class of 2005 are spending this summer in school so they will be ready for kindergarten in the fall. The children go to preschool for a full day, eat lunch, take naps and learn the basics for becoming a successful 4- or 5-year-old - such as identifying shapes and colors, differentiating between left and right, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, telling a story, using good manners and even standing in line. The public-school preschool program in Cave City is free. It is among about 75 preschool programs that were offered this past school year through the Arkansas Better Chance program, which is administered by the states Early Childhood Commission. About 4,400 children were served last year by 63 ABC grant recipients. The number of children served could grow to as many 7,400 in 1992-93. The ABC program was treated by Act 212 of 1991 to provide grants to any non-profit early childhood program that serves educationally deprived children ages 3 to 5. The ABC program was adopted by the Legislature at the urging of Gov. Bill Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president. In his national campaign, Clinton has called for preschool programs for all who need them and for full funding for Head Start, a federally financed education program for 4- and 5-year olds. Arkansas ABC program is an effort to ensure that all children enter school ready to learn, which is one of six National Education Goals for 2000. Glenda Bean, executive director of the Early Childhood Commission, said that about 12,000 children are served by ABC and Head Start in Arkansas. Its not the total answer, Bean said about ABC. It wont solve all the problems of poverty, but it does provide a level playing field for children the small children during the when they start school.* The more we can do to prepare a child for school, the greater our success will be with our students, David Green, superintendent of the Cave City district, said recently. ABC is designed to be flexible. About a third of the ABC pupils participate in centerbased programs. Two-thirds are served in their homes by their mothers through the six- year-old Home Instruction Program for Pre-school Youngsters (HIPPY). The early childhood education programs are offered by school districts, cities, universities, day-care centers, educational cooperatives, and community development agencies. Bean said. Greens district is offering a summer program this year because the district didnt have adequate classroom space for 375 365 355 345 335 325 315 Ox ENROLL, (thousands) 455 450 445 440 435 430 425 0 1452,6101 School year\n78-79 79-80 80-81 61-82 62-83 83-64 64-65 65-86 66-67 87-86 88-69 89-90 90-91 91-92 SOURCE: Annual Report of the public schools of Arkansas regular school year. The space is now available and the program will be offered to 20 pupils during the coming year. Green has a $53,000 grant for the summer program and $55,000 for 1992-93. The money enabled the district to meet requirements for a certified teacher and an aide, as well as provide instructional materials and do some renovation work. The district had to provide funds and services equal to 40 percent of the grant request to get the grants. Five million dollars was budgeted for ABC last year and $10 million will be available in .fiscal year 1993, Bean said. Some of the money will be used to evaluate the ABC programs, and to give technical assistance to those programs and to private childcare providers who serve more than 60,000 Arkansas children. We want all children to be 321 1429.7611 T M. STOREY / Democrat-Gazette prepared for school, Bean said. ABC provides up to $2,500 per child. With the matching money and services provided by a school district or other agency, the amount spent per child can be as much as $4,000, Bean said. The program includes health screenings for the children. ABC programs must serve children whose families meet requirements related to low income, low education level, or low baby birth weight. Not all children in the programs have to meet the requirements, however. In the Little Rock School District, for example, preschool programs are open to all children but not all children are funded by ABC. The Little Rock district uses ABC money for preschool programs at selected schools and for HIPPY.Arkansas Democrat WC^azcttc WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1993 Copyhght O 1993, UWe Rock NowsBapers, h Inc. a Graduation today for HIPPY youths Graduation ceremonies begin at 7 p.m. today at Horaice Mann Magnet Junior High School, 100 E, Roosevelt Road, for 4- and 5-year-olds enrolled in the Little Rock School Districts Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters Pulaski County Circuit Judge Marion Humphrey will be the commencement speaker. HIPPY is a home-based edu- 1 cation program in which school district aides train parents to teach their children the academic skills needed for success in school.Aikansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, MAY 18,1994 I HIPPY plans graduation for children The Rev. Hezekiah Stewart will be the guest speaker Sunday at a Little Rock School Dis- J trict program honoring children and families who completed the districts Home Instruction Pro- gram for Preschool Youngsters. The commencement ceremonies for the 4- and 5-year-olds will be at 3 p.m. in the auditorium of the Mann Arts and Sciences Magnet Junior High School. The children will wear caps and gowns to receive their diplomas. HIPPY is a home-based education program where children are taught by their parents. The parents get help and materials from instructional aides who visit the parents in the homes.1 1 Arkansas Democrat j FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1995 Copyright  Uttle Rock Newspapers. Inc. hippy graduates to march at Mann Rock school Distrwt-S Home CbUd,aPned..beb^^. Instruction Program graduate in commencement pxercises at 2 p.m. Sunaa.y in vne \u0026gt; Magnet Junior High and sciences  6n.du..es, ail Mear-clds J11 'S and Bacb^ra Gillie,, the reglo.al n'isThomf^based pro^m where district-employed - to show parents make penodic aisj,\" S?,eild cSaiT,^, S pn\u0026lt;SS.'cSSTls-aet childs learning.A p r i I 5. 2 0 0 1 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEVE KEESEE side Gov. Mike Huckabees office at the state Capitol, state protesting a plan to cut millions from the HIPPY program. Barbara Gilkey of the states Home Instruction Program for along with a crowd of preschool workers from around the Pre-school Youngsters talks to reporters Wednesday out- $7.1 million cut from HIPPY cues chorus of protests from advocates BY SETH BLOMELEY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Gov. Mike Huckabee may have picked the wrong time to announce a $7.1 million cut to in-home preschool programs for low-income Arkansans. The nonprofit advocacy group Home Instruction Program for Pre-School Youngsters (HIPPY) just happened to be holding its national convention Wednesday at Arkansas Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock Of the 600 or so preschool advo- HOUSE OKs bill to halt self-dealing in schools. Page 8A. cates and caseworkers assembled, about 50 of them based in Arkansas, all women, went to the state Capitol and planted themselves in folding chairs in front of Huckabees office to voice their outrage. One even hollered through the door from the lobby to the staff offices in the governors office suite to complain about the cuts. The governor didnt stop to chat. Huckabees state police security guards and the State Capitol Police whisked him through the crowd upon returning from his Wednesday morning radio call-in show in Little Rock. Huckabee ducked into the Governors Conference Room, which leads to a side door to his personal office. One officer said the preschool workers didnt notice the governor until he was safely See PROTESTS, Page 4A Protests  Continued from Page 1A tucked away. Democracy is sometimes a messy process, Huckabee said later. Its not always pretty. Its never pleasant when you dont get what you want for Christmas. Theres no way to make everybody happy. Weve got to make some tough decisions. I dont want to tell anybody no. The Joint Budget Committee on Wednesday received more details about the governors $63 million cuts in his proposed budget for 2002 and $84 million for 2003. The administration has blamed a souring national economy for the governors overestimated projection in his original budget proposal for those two fiscal years. The committee plans to further discuss the cuts today. Some preschool workers in the HIPPY program say they dont understand the funding priorities of the Legislature and the governor. Both branches of government firmly support a plan to give teachers $3,000-a-year raises by the end of the coming biennium. We definitely support teachers raises, but it has to be done a different way, said Carolyn Cross of Russellville, a HIPPY coordinator. Cutting other services to children and families is not the right way to do it. Cross said the cut for HIPPY represents more than half of the programs budget in Arkansas. She estimates job losses in the hundreds for preschool workers statewide that serve 8,000 Arkansas families. While waiting for Huckabee, some HIPPY workers sang Happy Days are Here Again under the watchful eyes of Capitol police. But the state coordinator for the program, Barbara Gilkey of Little Rock, soon broke up the gathering. She said she wanted to state the groups case privately with administration officials. Then members of the group formed a circle and held hands, bowing their heads in prayer. Rich Huddleston of Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families said the program is essential for helping toddlers prepare for kindergarten and elementary school. If this program goes, I dont know what itll do for school readiness in this state, he said. Huckabee didnt offer any olive branch to HIPPY but did talk to some preschool workers later as he walked through the Capitol. He said hes committed to state scholarships and teacher raises, which he contends will lead to better teacher recruitment and keep college- educated students in Arkansas. We can respectfully disagree, Huckabee said of those opposing his priorities. Department of Education Director Ray Simon said he wasnt giving up the idea of funding the program if other budget items in his department dont need as much money during the next two Ray Simon years as hes projected. He said he has nothing bad to say about the HIPPY program. He said the department received dozens of phone calls and faxes from unhappy in-home preschool workers who didnt like Huckabees proposed cut. The program is doing good things, Simon said. The issue here is the availability of revenues and the two priorities of protecting teacher raises and protecting [money to school districts]. Other cuts for 2002 include $18.5 million from the Department of Human Services, which handles a variety of welfare programs and had a proposed general revenue budget of $680 million. Of the cuts, $7 million comes from Medicaid. Were trying to protect as many recipients as we possibly can, department Director Kurt Knickrehm said. He said he wants to first make up the money through decreased staff travel, not filling vacant job slots and buying fewer computers. He also wants to see if theres any duplication in services that can be eliminated. Lawmakers have complained that the governor is shortchanging the Department of Human Services, which helps the poor in Arkansas, to shore up the Governors Distinguished Scholarships, given to students with a 32 ACT score but not restricted by family income limits. Knickrehm declined to comment. Huckabee acknowledged late Wednesday that he may lose the fight to inject another $5 million into the Academic Challenge Scholarship program for students with at least a 2.5 grade point average provided their family incomes do not exceed $70,000 a year. Earlier Wednesday, a Senate committee overwhelmingly voted to reduce funding for that scholarship. Department of Health Director Fay Boozman, who had a proposed $54 million budget, will lose $2.1 million for grants to community programs. He said the department runs dozens of programs, and he may not make the decision until July 1, the beginning of the 2002 fiscal year, which to cut. Fay Boozman The Department of Finance and Administration proposed cuts based on information from state agencies about the importance of various programs. The governors priorities are set forth in the proposed Revenue Stabilization Act. The state expects the top categories in the act  A and B  to be funded. If theres a greater revenue shortfall than expected over the next two years, all B category programs will be cut by an equal percentage. In 2002, the funding (and, therefore, spending) projected in the A and B categories totals $3.39 billion, up from the current fiscal years projected funding-and-spending total of $3.25 billion. In 2003, the A and B funding and spending totals will rise to $3.54 billion. In the A category, Huckabee has placed money for teachers raises, which will cost $122 million when fully funded in 2003, and a 2.6 percent annual cost-of-living raise for state employees, among other priorities. The proposed Revenue Stabilization Act also contains a B-1 category and a C categoiy. They contain programs that were cut from the original budget, such as the HIPPY preschool service. State officials dont expect money to come in for these programs, but they would be eligible for funding if revenue exceeds expectations. Senate President Mike Beebe, D-Searcy, has said he expects the Legislature to go along with most of the governors recommended cuts with the possible exception of the additional scholarship money. House Speaker Shane Broadway, D-Bryant, said hes giving up his proposal for adding another scholarship program, this one to help working adults returning to college.\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":"wsh_turningpts_tp233000","title":"Impact of school desegregation in Milwaukee public schools on quality education for minorities-- 15 years later","collection_id":"wsh_turningpts","collection_title":"Turning Points in Wisconsin History","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, Milwaukee, 43.0389, -87.90647"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Wisconsin Advisory Committee"],"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":["The NAACP in Milwaukee initiated school desegregation as a legal issue in 1965, setting off a decade long legal struggle to integrate public schools. In January of 1976, Federal Judge John Reynolds ruled that Milwaukee Public Schools were segregated unlawfully. In response, the Wisconsin Legislature enacted a program to aid in the implementation and promotion of integration in Milwaukee schools. The plan was approved by Judge Reynolds in 1979. Fifteen years later, the Wisconsin Advisory Committee began studying the effects of the desegregation program and its impact on the quality of education received by Milwaukee students.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Washington, D.C.? : The Commission"],"dc_relation":["Forms part of the Turning points collection (Wisconsin Historical Society)"],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["School integration--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Public schools--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Educational change--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","Race discrimination--Wisconsin--Milwaukee","African Americans--Civil rights--Wisconsin--Milwaukee"],"dcterms_title":["Impact of school desegregation in Milwaukee public schools on quality education for minorities-- 15 years later"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Wisconsin Historical Society"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/tp/id/62159/rec/2"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["books"],"dcterms_extent":["36 p. ; 30 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_69247067","title":"Impact of school desegregation in Milwaukee Public Schools on quality education for minorities-- 15 years later","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, Milwaukee, 43.0389, -87.90647"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Wisconsin Advisory Committee"],"dc_date":["1992"],"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":["School integration--Wisconsin--Milwaukee--Longitudinal studies","Minorities--Education--Wisconsin--Milwaukee--Longitudinal studies","African Americans--Education--Wisconsin--Milwaukee--Longitudinal studies"],"dcterms_title":["Impact of school desegregation in Milwaukee Public Schools on quality education for minorities-- 15 years later"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr12m64z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_69247067"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["36 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_485","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Mitchell Incentive School, Parent-Student Handbook-92-93''","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":["1992/1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Parents","Students","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Mitchell Incentive School, Parent-Student Handbook-92-93''"],"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/485"],"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\nMitchell Incentrive School Parent - Student Handbook-92-93 Theres Magic at Mitchell SchoolMITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL Dear Parents and Students: On behalf of the staff at Mitchell School I would like to welcome all students and their parents to the 1992-93 school year. We are eager as we begin this year, because we know this is going to be an exciting year. You This handbook is prepared to inform you about our school, will find that the information provided here together with the rules and regulations that govern each of us will insure that we I know you will take time to read this book carefully with your parents. Of course, if you have any questions, feel free to ask vour teachers, counselors. have a successful year. course, feel your administrators, or other staff members. I want you to : our best to ensure know that the staff at Mitchell and I will do that each student achieves his/her highest This will require the combined efforts of students, staff, and parents. We need parents to be involved with our Your ideas and suggestions are essential in developing a strong team working in the best interests of each student. potential. program. We I am We know this is going to be a magnificent year at Mitchell, looking forward to working with each of you individually and collectively. Sincerely, Donita Hudspeth Principal I I I I I1 MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL FACULTY AND STAFF PRINCIPAL Donita Hudspeth SECRETARY Sandra Johnson 4 Year Old Program Jeanne Hoover MATH SPECIALIST Janice Lewis... Rm. 102 KINDERGARTEN Melanie Hale . . . . 1 Rm. 2 READING SPECIALIST Susan Hestir...... Rm. 101 GRADE 1 Jo Hestir... Bobbie Govan Rm. 3 Rm. 4 LIBRARIAN Kenny Sutton GRADE 2 Barbara Banks.. Teresa Hamilton ART SPECIALIST Ken Milton Rm. 104 Rm. 106 MUSIC SPECIALIST Shirley Allen GRADE 3 Patricia Ross. Charlotte Guin Rm. 107 Rm. 103 COUNSELOR Mary Smith GRADE 4 Jimmy Calhoun........ Gertrude Stubblefield Rm. 20A Rm. 201 GIFTED/TALENTED Sylvia Tyler GRADE 5 Najmah Cooksey Mildred Walker Rm. 205 Rm. 202 PHYSICAL EDUCATION SPECIALIST Mary Ann Hansen AOXILLIARY TEACHER Kim Dade GRADE 6 Brenda Hipp. Linda Hamlet Rm. 203 Rm. 206 SPECIAL EDUCATION Margaret Regnier. Rm. 105 RESOURCE TEACHER Katie Pace...... Rm. 110 SPEECH THERAPIST Valerie Eastman. Rm. 110SUPPORT STAFF INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES Danyelle Allen Shirley Austin Larry Batch Becky Estes Nettie Irby Delores Iverson Davyda Howard Kevin McFadden Clarence Miller Yvette Williams Patricia Taylor Lillian Bunn LIBRARY CLERK Angela Moore COMPUTER LAB Joe Ann Johnson NURSE Estella Lee CUSTODIANS Ellis Flowers Aaron Johnson Flossie Murray FOOD SERVICE Mary Reese, Manager Valerie Burns Barbara HendersonMITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL 1992-93 PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATION Janice and Leotis Nichols are P.T.A. Co-Presidents for the 1992-93 school year, during registration. Our Membership Drive Kick-Off will begin Please plan to become an active member. We value your support and involvement as active partners in education. P.T.A. membership is very important to incentive schools. is to have each student represented by a parent. $3.00. P.T.A. Our goal dues are P.T.A. OFFICERS OFFICE NAME ADDRESS PHONE Co-Presidents Janice Nichols Leotis Nichols 1212 W. 36th St. 72206 376-8280 First Vice Pres. Vera Brownlee 1904 Rice St. 72202 376-8372 Second Vice Pres. Andrew Lockhart 3101 Marshall St. 72206 375-5619 Third Vice Pres. Joe Ann Johnson 24 \u0026amp; Battery St. 72206 324-2415 Recording Secy. Linda Abrams 1105 Ringo St. 72202 375-0722 Corresp. Secy. Tracey Noel 2412 Marshall St. 72206 375-2032 Treasurer Sandra Johnson 2317 Schiller St. 72206 374-0966 IMPORTANT DATES School Registration August 13-14 Parent Night September 8 Open House September 22 American Education Week November 16-20 P.T.A. Meeting November 17 Holiday Program December 18 Holiday Parties December 22 Valentine Parties February 12 P.T.A. Meeting February 23 P.T.A. Meeting May 18LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS MITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1992-93 SCHOOL CALENDAR August August August 13-14 24 31 September 7 September 8 September 22 September 28 October October October November November November November November November December December December January January January January January February February February February March March March April April April April April April May May May May June June 12-16 19 24-November 1 3 4 4-5 16-20 17 26-27 18 22 23-January 3 4 18 27 28 29 1-5 9 12 23 1 2 8-19 1 2 5-9 12-23 14 21 4 7 13 31 9 10-11 Registration Teachers Report First Day for Students Labor Day Parent Night Open House Extended Day Begins National School Lunch Week Parent Conference Day Red Ribbon Week End of First Nine Weeks Teachers' Work Day AEA Teachers' Meeting American Education Week P.T.A. Meeting Thanksgiving Holiday Holiday Program Holiday Parties Holiday Break School Resumes Martin Luther King Holiday Nurse Appreciation Day End of Second Nine Weeks Teachers' Work Day National School Counselor's Week P.T.A. Founders Day Valentine Parties P.T.A. Meeting Parent Conference Day Teacher Appreciation Day AMPT Testing End of Third Nine Weeks Teachers' Work Day Spring Break Standford Test Custodians Appreciation Day Bus Drivers Appreciation Day National Teachers Apprec. Day National School Volunteer Day Food Service Appreciation Day Memorial Day Last Day for Students Teacher Work DayMITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DAILY SCHEDULE 1992-93 7:30 7:45 Breakfast 7:45 Teacher Arrival 9:00 10:00 7:50 8:00 9:30 10:15 First Bell Tardy Bell (Lunch count, Attendance, etc.) 4 year old recess Grades 1, 2, and 3 recess 10:30 11:30 Lunch for 4 year olds and Kindergarten 11:00 11:45* Lunch for 1 and 2 11:30 12:15* Lunch for 3 and 4 12:0 5 1:05 Lunch for 5 and 6 2:10 2:25 Sustained Silent Reading 2:35* Dismissal 2:35 3:05 Teacher Planning and Conference *DENOTES RINGING OF BELLPHILOSOPHY OF THE LITTLE ROCK_SCHOOL DISTRICT A sound and comprehensive philosophy, based on the personal and educational needs of students, is essential to a viable and The Little Rock School District effective public school program. statement of philosophy is hereby presented to promote a better understanding of and appreciation for the principles on which the present and future programs of the district are being developed. The school district instructional and supportive programs should. 1. i: !  li !  t *1 i ! 2. Be designed, organized, and implemented to provide all students with success-oriented, comprehensive, and sequential educational opportunities. Emphasize and continually reinforce the values of our democratic society, worthy citizenship and ethical behavior. I I ! 1 1 i J I 1 t i i' ! J 1\n3. 4. 5. 6. * J I I i ft Provide each student with the opportunity for maximum intellectual and inter-personal development. Reinforce positive goal-oriented learning by systematically recognizing and rewarding student success at all levels of achievement. Place emphasis on an intra-competitive system of education wherein each student competes'with his'  own potential to enhance internal motivation and positive self-image. Fxcodt a diversified curriculum, under the', board career education concept, to provide students with Present a a maximum range of options in choosing careers.  IPHILOSOPHY OF MITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL We, at each student. Mitchell Elementary School, recognize the uniqueness of We believe we must enable all students to develop all that makes them unique to the maximum of their abilities. We believe that Mitchell Elementary School should create an environment which encourages our children to develop as thinking. caring individuals. We provide learning experiences that stimulate our students to communicate their intellectual, emotional, social and creative strengths in speaking, writing, and listening. We believe a positive self-concept is of great importance in the development of each student\ntherefore, we encourage each student to have worthwliile goals, self-discipline, concern a dedication to our democratic way of life. for his fellowman and Although we realize that our goals and objectives must be flexi ble so that our students will be prepared for a constantly changing society, we also realize that making our philosophy compatible with that of the Little Rock School District is essential in order to assure continuity between Mitchell and other schools in the District expecially when our students leave our school and transfer to other elementary schools in the District or go onward toward the secondary level of learning ex^ieriences. -It is our intention to do all in our power to assist our students in learning how to best serve themselves as well as their conmunity.MITCHELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OBJECTIVES The objectives of Mitchell Elementary have been formulated to give each child the opportunity to learn, grow, and function in his present and future environments. 1. 2. Develop Develop positive self-concepts. the student's capacity to discipline 3. himself Develop to work. study, and play constructively. the social skills necessary for adjusting and adapting to our ever changing world. 4. Encourage mutual respect and concern for others. 5. Provide situations in which problem solving skills are encouraged. 6. Increase efficiency in all areas of instruction. 7. Enhance an appreciation for the multf-cultural heritage in our world. 8. Provide opportunities for creative expression in speaking, writing, and listening. 9. Encourage bill ties each child to recognize his responsi- as a citizen of the community and country. 10. Provide opportunities for exposure to enriching experiences in and around the community.PARENT CONTRACT An important part of the philosophy of Mitchell Elementary School is that the education of a child is the responsibility of both the school and the parents. Every parent is required to sign a contract at the beginning of each school year. A sample contract is included here. My child (Complete Name) is presently enrolled in the grade at Mitchell Incentive School. As a parent I agree to support the provisions of my child's educational philosophy, program, and goals of Incentive School. I will: *attend regularly-scheduled and specially-called teacher/parent conferences\n*cooperate with the school when disciplinary actions are necessary\n.*support school rules and policies\n*ensure the student's compliance with the dress code policy\n*provide a proper study environment and require completion of homework as assigned\n*ensure prompt and regular school attendance\nand *be an active member of the parent/teacher organization and attend all meetings and other school function. I agree with the fundamental principles as stated above and will assist the staff with my support. I am aware that my child's success Mitchell____ Incentive School is contingent upon my honoring this contract. Date Parent/Guardian's Name Parent/Guardian's Signature Address (Home) Telephone // (Work)GENERAL INFORMATION School Hours Students should not plan The instructional day begins at 8:00 a.m. to arrive at school before 7:30 a.m. Students are not to be in the Students go directly to the cafeteria building before 7:45 a.m. until dismissed to classrooms. Breakfast Program Breakfast will be served from 7:20 a.m. until 7:40 a.m. is .50 cents and .30 cents for reduced. The cost Lunch Program All students may participate in the hot lunch program, prepared in the school kitchen. Meals are Application for free or reduced lunch must be made through the Eligibility will be deteirmined according to federal school office, guidelines. Students who wish to pay for their lunches may purchase them daily Weekly lunch tickets may be purchased on Monday. or weekly. Daily rates: Milk .25. Full price lunch $1.00. Reduced price lunch .40. PLEASE NOTE: Candy, gum, etc., may not be brought to school to exchange or to sell to other students. Lost and Found Please be sure your child's belongings are clearly identified with Proper identification can assure the return items should be taken to the cafeteria first and last names. of lost items. II Found *1 where II lost II and II periodically turned claimed. found over It is maintained. Lost items to charitable organizations if are notSchool Visitation The staff of Mitchell Elementary welcomes and appreciates VISITORS MUST CHECK INTO THE OFFICE BEFORE GOING INTO visitors. CLASSROOMS. At tendance When your child is absent or tardy, he/she misses an important part of instruction. Students are expected to be in school except in cases of emergency or for reasons as explained below: 1. Personal Illness - The school may require a doctor's statement or other supportive data verifying the reason for the absence to be presented to the attendance office on the day the student returns to school. 2. 3. 4. Illness in the family - All school work should be kept current. Quarantine in the home - The absence arising from this condition is limited to the length of quarantine as fixed by the proper health official. Death of a relative - The absence arising from this condition IS limited to three days, unless reasonable cause may be shown 5. 6. by parent on a longer absence. Observance of a religious holiday - Any student of any religion shall be excused if his absence was for the purpose of observing a religious holiday consistent with his creed or belief. ANY OTHER REASON MUST BE EXCUSED BY THE SCHOOL PRIOR TO THE ABSENCE. Absences A written excuse is required for each absence and should be presented to the child's homeroom teacher. the responsibility of the school to make a reasonable such as calling by telephone, to notify the parent when the student is absent from school if the parent has not contacted HOWEVER, WE ASK THAT YOU CALL THE OFFICE WHEN YOUR It is effort, the school. CHILD IS ABSENT. PLEASE NOTE THE TWO LETTERS ON ATTENDANCE THAT FOLLOW!I little rock school district ELEMENTARY SCHOOL---------------------------------- ---------------------DATE To the Parent of Dear Parent: Grade ID# (16) years, (5) and sixteen th (17th) birthday is Students between the ages of five both inclusive .x.lud.a reached), who have be in attendance at school daily. Little school, must that absences from Rock School District Policy maintains only when the student is ill, unusual cause acceptable to the building P school are acceptable vzhen a family emergency exists, school sponsored or cipal and/or by the principal. In accordance with Little Regulations, the following . Parents or guardians acceptable - school related events approved Rock School District Attendance information is provided: of students for whom three(3) unexcused civil semester may be subject to a The school recorded in a axcy ..V. - exceed $500 plus costs of court. triCt shall notify the city attorney whenever number of unexcused absences. absences are penalty not to dis a exceeds the allowable shall take whatever action is attorney penalty. necessary to student The city collect the absent four (4) times during a  shall notify the student s parents, or guardians (or persons in loco parentis) of the number of _ and will request a l the student's attendance problems. . When a student has been quarter, the school office (or persons absences address parent/administrator conference to of the first and second unexcused  shall advise the . Upon the establishment semester, the school office absence during a students parents, guardians (or Persons in the third, unexcused absence, the parents loco parentis) that upon -- be referred to the city attorney. guardians will This letter is ha * been absent^____ school year and a written notice that your child ----- , ---- times during the ____ quarter of the conference must be held to address the student's attendance problems. has unexcuse semester. Upon be made. the \"third unexcused absence d absence(s) during this a court referral will Please contact me if you have questions concerning this notice. Yours truly, PrincipalLittle Rock School District PARB'TT NOTICE OF COURT REFERRAL (COMPULSORY SCHOOL-AGE STUDENTS) SCHOOL DATE To the Parent of Grade ID// Dear Parent: Students between the ages of five (5) and sixteen (16) years, both inclusive (until the seventeenth (17th) birthday is reached), who have not been officially excluded from school, must be in attendance at .school daily. Little Rock School District Policy maintains that absences from school are acceptable only when the student is ill, when a family emergency exists, unusual cause acceptable to the building principal and/or school sponsored or school related events approved by the principal. In accordance with Little Rock School District Attendance Regulations, the prin cipal is required to send written notice to the parents advising them that referral is being made when the student's absences are deemed excessive. a court This letter is your written notice that you and yovu: child are being referred to court as of date for violation of the School Attendance Laws of the State of Arkansas. Yours truly, Principal 010 West Mnrkhnin Street Little Kock, Arkaiir-.TS 72201 (501)574 33G1 k r Conferences We encourage regular parent/teacher conferences because we feel it If you should desire a is important and necessary to COMMUNICATE, conference with your child's teacher to discuss his/her progress. please contact the teacher. specially called teacher/parent conferences. Conferences may be scheduled and Parent-teacher conferences will focus on the skills being taught throughout the curriculum and the individual student's progress. arent/teacher conferences dates are October 19 1993. Special 1992 and March Parent Volunteers Mitchell Elementary considers its parent volunteers as a very special resource. Parents are encouraged to help in all classrooms, programs, and extracurricular activities. Please call the office if you have time or skills you can share to make our school a better place for students to learn and grow. Reporting Guidelines and Interim Reports Report cards are issued every nine weeks. The main purpose for report cards is to indicate to the parent(s) the child's achievement. report card. Letter grades are assigned for every subject on the GRADING SCALE 93-100 percent 83- 92 percent 70- 82 percent 60- 69 percent 0- 59 percent and below A B C D F Interim reports are sent home during the fifth week of each NINE weeks for children working below their capacity and/or any other time a student's average drops below 72%. A parent conference is required after every unfavorable interim report and when a It tl or It is recorded on the report card. D F PLEASE NOTE THE COPIES OF THE REPORT CARD AND INTERIM REPORT ON THE TWO PAGES THAT FOLLOW!LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS ELEMENTARY TEACHERS INTERIM REPORT TO PARENTS Dale Pupils Name Teacher School Grade_ A check mark below indicates a need for improvement in that area. I I Stays on task................................ Follows directions......................... Completes work on time............. Works independently................... Has necessary materials............... Completes and returns homework Has self control........................... Control.s talking..................... Shows respect for adults....... Show.', respect for students .. Follows .school rules............... F0II0W.S classroom rules ........ Is on lime to school and class Attends school regularly........  Teachers Comments: I I I Conference Requested: Teacher requests a conference at the earliest possible time. I Teacher s signature Principal s Signature ELEMENTARY TEACHERS INTERIM REPORT TO PARENTS To the Parent: I Please sign and return this report. Write any comments that would be helpful to the teacher on the back of this repot I ' suggest a time when you could come for a conference. must r this report to the teacher as soon as pos.sible. I\nI 11 t ii Date Parent's signature I ! I i i  EZI Parent requests a conference at the earliest possible time. Copy to: Parent, Childs Teacher, Principal 27. FOR?STUDENT NAME PRESENT GRADE_ SCHOOL YEAR__ SCHOOL PRINCIPAL TEACHER NAME READING BOOK LEVELS FOR EACH SCHOOL YEAR: 1 S T GRADE K 1 READING BOOK Ready steps GETTING READY TO READ BELLS DRUMS TRUMPETS PARADES CAROUSELS LEVEL R R GRADE 2 \u0026lt; iGrade Level 1-6 READING PPI PP2 PP3 P I 3 4 5 6 Nine Weeks 1 \u0026lt; READING BOOK ADVENTURES DISCOVERIES CARAVANS JOURNEYS FLIGHTS EXPLORATIONS CELEBRATIONS LEVEL 2' 2 3' 3 4 5 6 Teacttcr Signature 9 W E E K S '2 N D 9 Teacher Requests Conference  2 3 4 Teacher Signature Book Level. Achievement Grade: Little Rock School District 1-6 ENGLISH ____________ 2 6 SPELLING 1-6 MATHEMATICS 1-6 SCIENCE  1-6 SOCIAL STUDIES * 1-6 MUSIC ______________ 1-6 HANDWRITING  4-6 ART__________________ 4-6 PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRESS REPORT Dr. Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools Achievement Grading System  First grade students will not receive a grade for the first nine weeks. A B C D F 94-100% Excellent 85-93% 72-84% 63-71% 0-62% Good Average Below Average Failing WORK HABITS ANO CITIZENSHIP S = Satisfactory N = Needs Improvement U = Unsatisfactory Nine weeks 1 2 3 4 S - Satisfactory N  Needs Improvement U - Unsatisfactory NOTE: A grade of D. F. or U requires a parent conference. An asterisk (*) after a grade indicates that the child is working below grade level in that subject. REPORTING PERIOD 1 2 3 4 W E E K S 3 R D 9 W E E K S4 T H 9 W E E K S Teacher Requests Conference  Teacher Signature Teacher Requests Conference  Teacher Signature Teacher Requests Conference L STUDENT'S PLACEMENT FOR NEXT YEAR: GRADE READING MATH Listening Skills_________ ___________ Slays on Task____________ ________ Follows Directions_____________ Completes Work on Time Works Independently______________ Completes and Returns Home Work Has Self-Control_______________ Controls Talking___________________ Shows Respect for Adults__________ Shows Respect for Students_______ Follows School Rules _______ Follows Classroom Rules DAYS PRESENT DAYS ABSENT TIMES TARDY Conference Requested (Student promotion in danger because of attendance laws). PARENT COPY - This Report is Your Copy to Keep at Home. DETACH AND RETURN THIS SIGNATURE/COMMENT SLIP I Student's Name____________ Parent / Guardian Comments: Parent Requests Conference  I have reviewed this progress report. PARENT I guardian signature 5 5 I c. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: lABC Adopted: 8/22/91 J STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES  The Board believes that students should leave school i possessing the skills and knowledge they need to have successful experiences in higher education and in the workplace. These exit outcomes should be reflected in the goals and objectives established for each curriculur program, level/course, unit, and lesson. The District has the following outcomes for all students by the time they graduate from the 12th grade. Students will: 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7. s I* Adequately master reading, writing, speaking. listening creative thinking. (communication), critical sufficient functioning. and mathematical and skills for effective. efficient 9  I Locate and use needed information from printed materials and/or other resources. Identify problems and needs, apply problem solving strategies, and analyze information for meaning and/or action. Use tools of technology at an effective. efficient, flexible, and adaptable level. Have geographic, knowledge of basic political, literary. historical, and scientific information, and use such knowledge in day-to-day decisions. Appreciate' and understand cultural differences, the arts and humanities, current happenings, and ways to predict or influence future events. Establish and maintain effective and supportive intrapersonal, interpersonal, and cooperative relationships, social responsibility. and civic and 'S SI i 41 I 'i j r I I EPS CODE: Paqe 2 I ABC 8. Demonstrate self-direction as an active lifelong learner and demonstrate self-respect, self-esteem, self-understanding, and a physically and mentally balanced healthy life. II 1 little rock school district i EPS CODE: PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF STUDENTS IKE me Liuic S^H^ul District Board of Directors requires standard levels of achievement for students at each grade level as a prerequisite for The Board advocates minimal use of The Little Rock School promotion to the next grade level, social promotion of students. Exceptions Students will normally progress annually from grade to S^ade. peDtions may be made when, in the judgment of the professional staff, such exceptions are in the best educational interest of the student involved. Exceptions Exceptions are in the best eoucationai inieresi, me aeuucnv will be made after prior notification and explanation to each student parents. Exceptions to the established criteria for Promotion are defined ir, ..oniiiafinnc\" hnwpvpr. the final decision is with the Little Rock bcnoo in regulations\nhowever, the final decision is District. Adopted: January 26, 1939I Kev. 4-b-y I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT REGULATION EPS CODE: IKE-R STUDENT PROMOTION I. PURPOSE The purpose of the following regulations is to provide guidelines for teachers and administrators to use in promoting a student from one instructional level or grade to the next. II. REGULATIONS A. Promotion in Elementary School 1. Students being promoted from one elementary grade to the next should have completed the adopted reading curriculum materials for current grade placement, demonstrating at least 80 percent skills mastery. 2. If a student has not achieved 80 percent skills mastery of current grade-placement materials, he/she may be promoted based on an evaluation (by the teacher and principal) of the following: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Criterion referenced tests Placement inventories Standardized tests Teacher, principal anecdotal information Student characteristics (physical, emotional, and social) Scheduled parent consultation Attendance record 3. Accelerated Promotion The decision to promote a child to the fourth grade in fewer than three years, or to junior high school in fewer than six years, will be made in consultation with the parents(s), teacher, principal(s), elementary supervisor, and the Associate Superintendent for Curriculum and Special Programs. The Associate Superintendent, Division of Schools, and the appropriate Assistant Superintendent will be advised.J 1 li _(_F\u0026lt;egtJkit i iHi'^ 1 I r I.ITTLE ROC I' SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: IKB R 1 I . II. HI. HOMEWORK RECOMMENDATIONS 1 .s Purpose To set forth the piocedures governing homework in the Little Rock School District. Included in the recommendations will be procedures for teachers to follov/ in assigning homework to students. Procedures (General) (1) (3) (4) (5) (6) Each teacher giving an assignment from the text in a class where only classroom sets of books are available will make provisions for books to be taken home. Teachers will present mimeographed materials that can be seen clearly and have instructions to be used in completing them. Homework assignments will emphasize the application of concepts and skills previously introduced. Homework will be considered in the grading of students. Homework should provide immediate feedback to the teacher on areas of weakness in the students' understanding of concepts and/or acquisition of skills. The type of homework assignments should be varied. Procedures ( Specific) (1) The following guidelines should be followed in giving homework assignments at the Primary Level : Kindergarten - Generally, students are not given home- Primary I - Primary II - work assignments at the kindergarten level. Students may be assigned homework for 15 to 20 minutes a night. Students may be assigned homework for 20 to 30 minutes a night. Primary HI - Students may be assigned homework for 30 to 40 minutes a night. {3'1 Homework assignments for Intermediate Level students should not be ny longer than one hour. Homework assignments for the Secondary Level should be given with an average of no more than thirty (30) minutes required for each of the subject areas. Secondary principals shall work with building committees to help coordinate long-term assignments or projects which might conflict. 1 I I i  jl ij s ' I I P J 5 * g J E ii I \u0026gt;.   I J-SMX. .Homework assignments of Intermediate Level students should not be any longer than one hour. The purpose of homework is to reinforce and extend what your child has learned in class and to develop a sense of self discipline. personal responsibility, and independent thinking, material is not assigned for homework. As a rule new We hope the following information and suggestions will be helpful to you. In order to give pupils an opportunity to develop various kinds of skills, teachers will give many types of homework assignments, some of which may not be written assignments. may be to read, to cut out, to collect. research. to interview. to listen to a particular radio or TV program. to do They I The school's policy is, generally, not to give homework on weekends. The reason for this is to give pupils a reward for a week's work well done and to allow them time to take part in family experiences such as trips, visits, outings, etc. You can help your child develop some routines that will be of assistance in successfully completing homework assignments, following suggestions are offered for this purpose. The 1. Ask your child if he or she has homework that day.______ that homework is generally assigned every day except Friday or the day before a holiday. Be aware By asking your child about homework, you are helping him or her to remember that there is an assignment to be completed. 2. Become interested in your child's homework. Ask him or her to show the homework to you and to explain what the work completed was about. Sharing your child's work with him or her reinforces the importance of homework and helps the child to understand that you are interested in his or her progress, looking at your child's homework also keeps you informed about the progress of the child and the way in which your child is able to complete the work assigned. I I JF 3. Remember that homework is your child's work not yours. You should not do the work for the child\nrather, you should be concerned with whether or not your child did the work. If your child has trouble with a homework assignment and cannot complete it, write a note telling the teacher about the problem. It is the teacher's responsibility to make the homework assignment clearly understood by each student. 4. Help your child set a regular homework time each day and remain with that commitment, responsiblities at that time. Free your child of other 5. Provide your child with a quiet place to work and study where he or she is not disturbed by younger children or pets. Homework will help your youngster grow and develop. Please feel free to consult the school whenever there is a question about homework, which, after all is intended to be a help, not a burden. Study Skills Specific skills and techniques can make learning easier and more enjoyable. good study habits. The following are student guidelines for achieving 1) Come to class prepared with pencil, paper, and other necessary materials. 2) Be an active participant in class, in class. Listen well and take part 3) Ask questions to clarify problems. 4) Plan your day and schedule time for homework. 5) Use what is learned and apply it to new situations. 6) Strive to do the very best work possible, is not a worthwhile goal. Just \"getting by\"* Textbooks All basic textbooks are loaned to students for their use during the school year. Workbooks are provided for students. Other    Textbooks are to supplies are paid for by the student or parent. be kept clean and handled carefully. t\nname, grade, and school are written in the book in case the book Students will be required to pay for lost or Please be sure the student's is misplaced, damaged books. Buses Please refer to the bus schedule to note pick-up points and the time schedule. NOTE: Please have your child at the bus stop a little earlier than the designated time in the event the bus should arrive early. Should your child miss the bus, please try to get him/her to school. It is very important that your child attend school every day. Proper behavior is expected at all times for safety reasons. Discuss the bus rules with your child. Bus Conduct The following rules have been established in order to insure the safety of all students who ride busses. 1. 2. 3. Use only the bus and bus stop assigned. Orderly behavior is required at the bus stop. Remain seated, facing front, when the bus is in motion. 4. 5. Talk quietly and make no unnecessary noise. Do not talk to the driver unless it is necessary. 6. Keep head and arms inside the bus. 7. Do not litter the inside of the bus or throw anything out the 8. window. Be quiet when the bus is crossing railroad tracks. Infractions s of the above rules will be brought to the attention of Continual abuse of the bus privileges will result in the parents. denial of transportation. bSCHOOL BUS INCIDENT REPORT LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS Sus No. School Name Date ^11 DEAR PARENTS: ... ^11 students in our School System who ride a bus to school are subject to regulations until they get off at their school or the bus stop near their home. Any misbehavior which distracts the driver is a very serious hazard to the safe operation of the vehicle, and as such, jeopar- iizes the safety of all passengers. We are asking that you take the necessary action to insure that future misconduct of this nature does not reoccur. Thank you for your cooperation. has been cited for an infraction of the rules :hecked below: ' ) 1. Disobedient\nrefusal to cooperate with dri ver [ ) 2. Moving around in bus\nrefusal to stay seated\n) 3. Extending arm/head out window I ) 4. Excessive talking, uncessary loud noise ( ) 5. Tampering with bus or equipment or di struct!on of any part of bus ( ) 6. Smoking or lighting matches ( ) 7. Scuffling or fighting 8. Using obscene language\nsigns or gestures ( ) 9. Throwing items inside bus or out wi ndows ( ) 10. Littering the bus/eating on bus ( ) 11. Misconduct on bus stop ( ) 12. Deliberate delay in loading or unloading ( ) 13. Other For the first infraction of any one or any combination of the rules, a conference If the student persists PENALTIES: shall be held with parents, maybe by telephone, and with the students. in infractions, the following minimum schedule should be adhered to: Infraction 2: 3-5 days 5us suspension\nInfraction 3: 2 weeks bus suspension\nInfraction 4: 9 weeks bus suspension\ninfraction 5: 18 weeks bus suspension\nInfraction 6: indefinite suspension of bus privileges. driver's statement of incidents: date of this offense_______ PRINCIPAL'S ACTION: ( ) Conference with student ( ) Conference with parent ( ) Phone call to parent ( ) Other__________________ First offense ( ) Second offense ( ) Third offense ( ) Other( ( ) Bus suspension for ___ ( ) Sent Home Notice ( ) Suspension from school days, beginning Si gnatures: Route No. Student Principal Parent WHITE COPY to parent. YELLOW COPY to transportation after action is taken. PINK COPY retained for school record. GOLD COPY to driver. Ftoute No. Date, Driver School Name Student This portion of WHITE COPY rptiirned Io transportation bv driver # 510V Bus Route and Operating Policies Bus routes and stops are planned and established by the administration's transportation department. Safety, economy. efficiency, and allocation of resources are some of the considerations which must be evaluated in determining bus operation policies. Parents who wish to make requests for changes in routes or stops should contact the school principal. Students and parents are encouraged to notify the school immediately of any safety hazards which they have observed during bus operations. School Guidance Counselor Many parents have asked me for an explanation of the duties performed by our school guidance counselor, elementary guidance counselor does include: Some things an 1. Help students understand their abilities and limitations, adjust to a new school, find answers to their concerns, learn to make decisions, develop skills in getting along with others, talk with students who have experienced a death, injury, or serious illness ofpet, friend, or relative, and help students cope with parents separating or divorce. 2. Talk with you about your child's progress in school, abilities and limitations, growth and development. 3. Help teachers understand and meet individual student needs, provide classroom guidance in such areas as self-understanding, decision making, and values, find special help for students when needed, and plan units on guidance-related topics. 4. Consult with parents and teachers in private conferences about their children. 5. Coordinate referrals to school and community agencies when school personnel and parents agree this is needed. 6. Talking with children individually or in small groups. The child may request the counseling or may be referred by parents or teachers. Counseling is a voluntary service\nno child is required to talk with the counselor. Should you have any further questions, you may call the guidance office at 324-2415 and request to speak with Ms. Mary Smith.F BUILDING RULES 1. Be respectful to all adults and classmates. 2. Show pride in Mitchell School. 3. Settle conflicts without fighting. 4. Display proper behavior at all times. Students' Rights and Responsibility Handbooks will be distributed early in the school year and discussed throughly with all students.CAFETERIA RULES 1. Follow directions of all lunchroom adults. 2. Speak using your inside voices. be used. At any point quiet-time will Quiet-time is the last 5 minutes of the lunch period to assist in an orderly dismissal. 3. Children will stay in assigned seats until dismissed by lunchroom aides. 4. Lunchroom aides will be in charge of dismissing children: a. b. c. One table at a time\nbeginning with most quiet table\nthen, second most quiet and so on. 5. Children are responsible for removing all trays and trash. a. b. when table is dismissed, children will clear all trays and trash. walk quietly out to play area. PLAYGROUND RULES 1. Play in assigned areas only. 2. Follow directions of supervisors. 3. Come in when the bell rings. 4. Be silent on the cement areas between the building. 5. No fighting of any kind. 6. Throw nothing on playground except authorized playground equipment designed to be thrown. CAFETERIA AND PLAYGROUND CONSEQUENCES Warning Name on Aides notepad. Name with 1 check Time out for 10 minutes. Name with 2 checks Time out for remainder of recess. Behavior Document sent home by Instructional Assistant and returned signed by parent. Continued Misbehavior Lunch De tention/Office ReferralREWARDS 1. Student of the Week. 2. 3. Outstanding Student of the Day (periodically). Special recognition for doing something good/change in behavior (periodically). 4. Monthly recognition of students identified as II Good Citizens\". 5. Monthly recognition of students who have behaved according to expectations. 6. Movies 7. Popcorn/Coke Parties 8. Special Field Trips 9. Caught Being Good - A spontaneous and positive recognition of students. 10. Positive Phone Calls to parents. DETACH THIS PORTION AND RETURN PARENT SIGNATURE STUDENT SIGNATURE dateMITCHELL ELEMENTARY SUPPLY LIST SOLD EACH DAY 7:45 7:55 A.M. Pencils it2............................... Primary Pencil........................... Red Lead Pencil.......................... B Tablet.................................. J Tablet.................................. J Sprial Tablet.......................... C Tablet.................................. C Practice Writing Paper (in plastic). D Practice Writing Paper (in plastic). D Spiral Tablet.......................... Notebook Filler Paper (40 count)...... Subject Notebook Spiral (50 count).... Folders with pockets.................... Rulers (wood)............................ Scissors (sharp point)................. Scissors (blunt point)................. Elmers Glue 1^ oz....................... Crayons (16 count)...................... Crayons (Jumbo, 8 count, Kindergarten) Poster Board....... ...................... Erasers 15c or 2 for .25C .15 .20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . 50 .75 .30 .25 .50 . 50 .50 .75 .75 .50 .05 ************************************************* PARENTS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE PARENTS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE PARENTS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE PARENTS CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE PARENTS CAN' MAKE A DIFFERENCE15 WAYS TO HELP CHILDREN LIKE THEMSELVES ^1/ 1. Reward children. Give praise, recognition, privilege for a job well done. Emphasize good, not the bad. A 2. 3. 4. Take their ideas, emotions, and feelings seriously. Define limits and rules clearly, and enforce them, allow leeway for your children within these limits. Be a good role model. Show that you feel good about Do 5. yourself. Teach that everyone can learn from mistakes. Teach your children how to deal with time and money. Help them spend time wisely and budget money carefully. 6. Have reasonable expectations for your children. Help e 1. them to set goals for themselves that they can attain. Help to develop tolerance toward others with different values, backgrounds, and norms. Point out strengths. I 8. ) 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Give your children responsibility. Be reasonable. They will feel valued. Give support .when children need it. Show them that what they do is important to you. their activities, do things together. Express your values. Attend Tell of experiences, decisions. reasons for your values, beliefs and feelings. Spend time together. Share favorite activities. Discuss problems without placing blame, attacking character. Use phrases that build self-esteem. Avoid phrases that hurt self-esteem. Show how much you care about them. Hug them, they are terrific and that you love them. REMEMBER THE POWER OF PRAISE ! fl Tell them 4K A T Say love you^^ in many ways  Spend time with your child doing what he or she wants to do.  Give honest praise in the presence of others.  Say Tm sorry when you are.  Forgive when he or she hurts or disappoints you.  Take time to LISTEN.  Respect your childs opinions.  Show physical affection ^did you hug your child today?  Let gifts be symbols, not proofs of love. L ENCOURAGE YOUR CHILD You can help your child succeed in school by building his or her self-confidence at home. Use these guidelines: Respect your child by treating him or her with the dignity you would a friend. Have faith in your child. Don't be afraid to give your child increasing responsibility and independence. Concentrate on the positive\navoid using discouraging words or actions. Recognize your child's efforts, not just his or her accomplishments. Build self-esteem and feelings of adequacy by using positive phrases as: \"I can tell you worked very hard on that.\" \"You're getting much better at that.\" \"I appreciate what you did. II \"You really handled that situation well.\" Discourage competition (in all forms) between brothers and sisters. REMEMBER: Don't feel guilty if you \"blow it\", but use your energy to try again more effectively. Discipline Home = Behavior in School I i I Never punish in anger and remeniber that punishment does not mean abuse, rather restriction of activities or reduction of privileges. How parents handle discipline at home translates into a childs behavior in school. Suggestions for parents to follow in order to provide better discipline practices include\n Use a positive approach. Say do this more than dont do that.  Say what you mean...and mean what you say. And dont fool yourself, a child knows the difference. I I  Be dear- A child should never be confused about the rules. Rules should be simple and explained carefully. Be reasonable and understanding. When possible, explain why things have to be the way they are. And try to understand your childs feelings about how things are.  Remind yourself that children are different What works with one child may not  Be work with another. II I ii  Set an example for your children. Your own behavior is the base for establishing your expectations of them.  Set limits on your childrens behavior. Agree with your children on the tats and make it clear what the consequences are for breaking the rules. Enforce the conse-quences when necessary.  Be certain that you punish when you say you will. I . Planish as soon as the misdeed is done...dont put the punishment off for a later time or to another person. I bi IC wx VM lAXAW ---------- ri . Stick to your decision Never let a child talk you out of a punishment you feel is nec-essary.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":682,"next_page":683,"prev_page":681,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":8172,"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}}]}}