{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"noa_sohpcr_m-0024","title":"Oral history interview with John Jessup, January 11, 1991","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Wells, Goldie F. (Goldie Frinks)","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Forsyth County, Winston-Salem, 36.09986, -80.24422"],"dcterms_creator":["Jessup, John"],"dc_date":["1991-01-11"],"dcterms_description":["John Jessup recalls his experiences as a black principal and public school administrator. He entered the teaching profession in 1964 as a high school English teacher in Virginia, became a principal of a North Carolina high school in the late 1970s, and moved into the Winston-Salem public schools personnel department by 1991. Diversity within courses became a major goal in the mid-1980s public school system. As a black administrator, Jessup discovered that discipline played a large role in his relationship to students and teachers. He had to demand the students' obedience to school policy, and likewise he had to make sure teachers applied school policy fairly. Some teachers resented Jessup's encroachment on their previous authority over students. Black students, on the other hand, appreciated Jessup's attempts to establish trust between students and the administration. Jessup also describes the advancements that occurred during his academic tenure as principal. He discusses his role in introducing walkie-talkies to the administrative staff as well as hiring an athletic director. Jessup explains that school desegregation posed problems for black teachers and students. The students felt ostracized from extracurricular activities in integrated settings, while the teachers lost prestige (and some lost their jobs) during the desegregation process. Jessup contends that black students require more attention because of their minority status within the school.","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":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American school principals--North Carolina--Winston-Salem","High schools--North Carolina--Winston-Salem--Administration","African Americans--Education (Secondary)--North Carolina--Winston-Salem","Race relations in school management--North Carolina--Winston-Salem","Teacher-principal relationships--North Carolina--Winston-Salem","Student-administrator relationships--North Carolina--Winston-Salem"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with John Jessup, January 11, 1991"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/M-0024/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on November 20, 2008).","Interview participants: John Jessup, interviewee; Goldie F. Wells, interviewer.","Duration: 01:18:48.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jessup, John"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"gsu_ajc_14819","title":"NAACP branch President Ben Marsh at the Clayton County headquarters during a meeting, 1991","collection_id":"gsu_ajc","collection_title":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution Photographs","dcterms_contributor":["Ross, Dwight, Jr."],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Atlanta Journal-Constitution"],"dc_date":["1991-01-05"],"dcterms_description":["Printed on assignment sheet: \"After elections Saturday morning in the Clayton County Branch of the NAACP, new president Mr. Ben Marsh, on left with arm extended, conducts the business part of the meeting. Woman in red and black dress is Mary Harris, a member of the executive council. Woman partially hidden behind her is Delores Marsh. Woman with arms crossed wearing the blue or green dress and with the white turtle neck is Johnnie Jackson, also a member of the Executive Council. 1991-01-05. Photog: Dwight Ross Jr.\" Caption: \"Ben Marsh will lead the Clayton NAACP at a time of heightened racial tension. Sunday January 6, 1991 JC.\""],"dc_format":["image/jp2"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Atlanta Journal-Constitution Photographic Archive;"],"dcterms_subject":["Community activists","Civil rights workers","National Association for the Advancement of Colored People"],"dcterms_title":["NAACP branch President Ben Marsh at the Clayton County headquarters during a meeting, 1991"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Georgia State University. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digitalcollections.library.gsu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ajc/id/14819"],"dcterms_temporal":["1990/1999"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: AJCP268-023l, Atlanta Journal-Constitution Photographic Archives. Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library."],"dlg_local_right":["This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. In addition, no permission is required from the rights-holder(s) for educational uses. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s)."],"dcterms_medium":["color photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"suc_abaker_4410","title":"Letter, 1991, Linda F. Crismond to Augusta Baker","collection_id":"suc_abaker","collection_title":"Augusta Baker papers, 1911-1998","dcterms_contributor":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Illinois, Cook County, Chicago, 41.85003, -87.65005","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, 34.0218, -80.90304","United States, South Carolina, Richland County, Columbia, 34.00071, -81.03481"],"dcterms_creator":["Crismond, Linda F."],"dc_date":["1991-01-04"],"dcterms_description":["Letter from Linda F. Crismond, Executive Director of American Library Association, to Augusta Baker, enclosing her 1991 Membership Renewal Form. She relates that, as an Honorary Member, all dues are complimentary. She encloses a copy of the newsletter Memberline."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Columbia, S.C. : University of South Carolina. South Caroliniana Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998","Augusta Baker Papers, 1911-1998, Box 2, Folder 147. Accession 11770"],"dcterms_subject":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998--Correspondence","African American women librarians","Children's librarians","African American librarians","Women librarians","Crismond, Linda F.--Correspondence","American Library Association"],"dcterms_title":["Letter, 1991, Linda F. Crismond to Augusta Baker"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of South Carolina. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://cdm17173.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/abaker/id/4410"],"dcterms_temporal":["1970/2025"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright Not Evaluated. For further information please contact The University of South Carolina, South Caroliniana Library, Columbia, SC 29208."],"dcterms_medium":["correspondence","newsletters"],"dcterms_extent":["1 item","5 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","Crismond, Linda F."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"noa_sohpcr_m-0007","title":"Oral history interview with Leroy Campbell, January 4, 1991","collection_id":"noa_sohpcr","collection_title":"Oral Histories of the American South: The Civil Rights Movement","dcterms_contributor":["Wells, Goldie F. (Goldie Frinks)","Southern Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, North Carolina, Iredell County, 35.80708, -80.87344","United States, North Carolina, Iredell County, Statesville, 35.78264, -80.8873"],"dcterms_creator":["Campbell, Leroy"],"dc_date":["1991-01-04"],"dcterms_description":["After traveling the world, Leroy Campbell entered the education field motivated to share his experiences. He became a high school principal at the all-black Unity School in Iredell County, North Carolina, in the mid-1960s. In this interview, he responds to the interviewers' checklist of questions and offers his thoughts on the effects of desegregation on Iredell schools. Understaffed and underfunded, Campbell found support in a cohesive black community and a relationship with a county official who provided him with new school buses to drive the convoluted routes necessary to maintain segregation. The core of this interview may be Campbell's description of the black community's anxieties about desegregation, including the fear that the process would splinter the community and affect the quality of education. Their fears were well-founded, and Campbell ends the interview by recalling the closing of Unity School, the dispersal of its students, and his departure from the profession.","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":["text/html","text/xml","audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of Oral histories of the American South collection."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American school principals--North Carolina--Iredell County","School principals--North Carolina","African American schools--North Carolina--Iredell County","High schools--North Carolina--Iredell County--Administration","African Americans--Education (Secondary)--North Carolina--Iredell County","Race relations in school management--North Carolina--Iredell County"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Leroy Campbell, January 4, 1991"],"dcterms_type":["Text","Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Documenting the American South (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://docsouth.unc.edu/sohp/M-0007/menu.html"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["transcripts","sound recordings","oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":["Title from menu page (viewed on Dec. 2, 2008).","Interview participants: Leroy Campbell, interviewee; Goldie F. Wells, interviewer.","Duration: 01:10:40.","This electronic edition is part of the UNC-Chapel Hill digital library, Documenting the American South. It is a part of the collection Oral histories of the American South.","Text encoded by Jennifer Joyner. Sound recordings digitized by Aaron Smithers."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Campbell, Leroy"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"umc_awr_50472","title":"Ad Hoc Labor Committee, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Hospitality Checks","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1995"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1956-1999\" series from the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department records"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Labor movement","Civil rights"],"dcterms_title":["Ad Hoc Labor Committee, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Hospitality Checks"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/50472"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1012","title":"Aerospace Magnet grant proposal","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"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","Education--Evaluation","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Magnet grant proposal"],"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/1012"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Review of Aerospace Technology Magnet Grant Proposal 1. LRSD Aerospace Magnet Grant Proposal Statement, Page 20: \"The ten magnet schools currently in Little Rock serve all three districts. The magnet schools are as follows: Booker Fine Arts\nCarver Math-Science\nGibbs International Studies\nRockefeller Early Childhood\nWashington Math-Science\nWilliams Basic Skills\nDunbar Jr. High International Studies/Gifted and Talented\nMann Jr. High Arts and Math-Science\nCentral High International Studies\nParkview High School Arts and Science.\" ODM Comment: To list Rockefeller and Central as magnet schools in the context of this page is inaccurate and highly misleading. Rockefeller is actually an Incentive School which presently has only an early childhood education magnet program for infants through K. Only the early childhood program is racially balanced\nthe upper grades are predominantly (80%) black. Central has a very limited international studies magnet program. The district has been unable to provide ODM with the number of students in the program, the racial balance of program participants, nor the number of M-to-M students who participate in the program. 2. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The District submitted revised desegregation plans to the Federal Court in 1989 and in 1990. Both plans included the continuation of the interdistrict magnet schools. The 1990 plan included the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace Technology Program that would be housed in a new school facility.\" ODM Comment: These statements falsely imply that an Aerospace Magnet has been in the hopper for some time, indeed has been before the Court since 1989. The desegregation plans which were submitted to the Court by the LRSD in 1989 were those of January 31, 1989, followed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan of February 15, 1989 (both part of the \"Settlement Plans.\") Settlement plans do not refer to any sort of aerospace or aviation program or school. As a matter of fact, page 5 of the Interdistrict Plan states that \"The Little Rock District shall continue to operate the six present magnet schools\" ( emphasis original.) There is no mention of additional magnets in the LRSD. The only plan submitted to Court in 1990 was the Desegregation Plan crafted by the OMS. This plan Aerospace/Technology and Pre-Engineering Magnet, for to open in 1991-92 in a new facility near the airport. in December 1989 at Mr. Reville's request, the LRSD 1 Tri-District proposed an grades 7-12, Previously, submitted to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor a revised preliminary desegregation plan which proposed an \"Aviation and Transportation/Math-Science Magnet\" for grades 7 and 8 in 1991-92, expanding to include grade 9 in 1992-93. The LRSD proposed that \"if sufficient interest is shown, a specialized high school program will be implemented\" based on a 91-92 survey of students. 3. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The December 12 order allows the parties in the case to agree to adjust the Settlement Plan 'to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.' One of the proposed adjustments to the Settlement Plan includes the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace/Technology Magnet Program that will be offered in three schools in the District.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD implies that the Aerospace Magnet \"adjustment\" has been agreed upon by the parties and also proposed to the Court. This section also refers to an aerospace magnet program being offered in three schools, the first mention of this number to our knowledge. 4. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 23: \"Recently, the Magnet Review Committee which has been part of Little Rock Desegregation plans since 1986, assessed the magnet school program. As a result of that assessment, the Committee have made the following recommendations/statements: ... \" A list of six provisions of the Tri-District Plan follows, including one which calls for sibling preference in magnet schools. ODM Comment: These \"recommendation/statements\" are not from the Magnet Review Committee. They came from the parent committees which helped to write the Tri-District Plan. LRSD has been vehemently opposed to granting sibling preference at magnets and vigorously lobbied Mr. Reville not to include it in the TriDistrict Plan. Page 4 of the LRSD January 31, 1989 (Settlement) Plan states: \"Sibling transfers do NOT apply to magnet schools\" (emphasis original.) To our knowledge, the MRC never officially endorsed the magnet provisions of the Tri-District Plan. We are unaware of any record which substantiates the Grant's assertion that the \"recommendations/statements\" on page 23 were made or endorsed by the MRC. Rather, they are extrapolated from the plan which the LRSD strongly opposed. 2 5. LRSD Grant Statement, Pages 24 and 25: \" ... Two junior high schools ... are to be featured in the first year of the operation of the Magnet School Aerospace Program project ... Forest Heights Jr. High [ and] Henderson Junior High. . . The District proposes to establish aerospace magnet programs at these two junior high schools.\" ODM Comment: Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs have never been previously mentioned as possible sites for magnet programs (aerospace or otherwise) in any plan submitted to this office or the Court. 6. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 26: \"The District proposes to implement a high school program partially at a temporary site, continue planning in the first year of this grant, and implement fully in the second year of the grant an aerospace high school that will be a new program. This school is currently under construction and will open in the fall of 1992.\" ODM Comment: No school is currently under construction. 7. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 27: \"This new school will be racially balanced at a 60:40 ratio ... \" ODM Comment: The 60:40 ratio for magnets is a provision of the Tri-District Plan, a departure from the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Plan which, on page 5, provides that magnets \"shall be racially balanced to a point of between 50% and 55% black.\" The Settlement does allow for 60:40 in new \"Interdistrict Schools,\" but not in magnet schools. 3 8. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"In every case, as noted below, [magnets] were racially balanced the very first year of the magnet program. Rockefeller, 72% black in 1990-91 ... Washington 57% black in 1990-91 ... Central, 60% in 1990-91. ODM Comment: As noted above, both Rockefeller and Central are not magnet schools, but schools with .limited magnet programs. As an incentive school, Rockefeller has attained racial balance only within its early childhood education magnet program which is 59% black\nthe upper grades are 80% black. The LRSD has been unable to provide this office with figures about Central's magnet program, neither the number of students in the program, the racial balance of the program, nor the number of M-to-M students participating in the program. However, from our direct observations in monitoring visits to Central, we are aware of pronounced racial imbalance within the program. Washington Magnet's racial makeup of 57% (black)-43% (white) is an overall figure and does not hold true for the school's first grade classes which are 70% black. 9. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"Central' s program has succeeded in stabilizing the black percentage by attracting White students from the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD is unable to provide data which substantiates this claim. 10. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 31: \"Student recruitment will be carried on within all three districts by the Magnet Education Team (MET) of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC).\" ODM Comment: The MRC was created by the Circuit Court to oversee the original six magnet schools. The Settlement Plans contains language specific to this limited role of the MRC. While this office has no objection to the MRC working on behalf of new magnets, there nevertheless has been no official clarification of the role of the MRC in relation to new magnets nor has there been Court approval for the MRC to expand its oversight or recruitment role to new magnets. To our knowledge, the matter of an expanded MRC role has not been brought before the court. 4 11. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 39: \"Each of the proposed magnet schools will have an Instructional Specialist.\" ODM Comment: The use of the plural \"magnet schools\" raises a question about the total number of schools which are being proposed as magnets in this grant. Are Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs actually to be magnet schools rather than magnet programs? (There are additional referrals to \"Aerospace Magnet schools\" elsewhere in the grant proposal.) 12. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 43: \"The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) ... was established ... to oversee the implementation and operation of the interdistrict magnet schools in Pulaski County.\" ODM Comment: As stated in number 10 above, the relationship or obligation of the MRC to any magnets beyond the six original schools is not clear. 13. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 44: This page is a \"Management Time line\" which enumerates certain tasks. Whether these tasks relate to the proposed aerospace magnet high school and/or to one or both of the two junior highs is not specified. ODM Comment: The numerical sequence of the sixteen tasks listed makes neither chronological nor management sense. For example, the first and second items, \"Recruit Students, April-August, 1991\" and \"Assign Students to Programs, May-August, 1991\" come before such basics as number S, \"Develop magnet curriculum, August-June, 1991- 92,\" number 9, \"Develop and Initiate Public Information, October, 1991\" and before number 11, \"Establish District Advisory Committee, September, 1991.\" 14. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 52: \"The District's planning process is designed to utilize a wealth of community resources to plan the new Aerospace High School. The Airport Commission, the FAA, the Air National Guard, and the airlines and concessionaires who serve the Little Rock Airport have all expressed support for the project. Business and community leaders are currently engaged in a fund raising effort to support the construction of the aviation museum which is being built in conjunction with the proposed magnet school. The community is and will continue to be a part of the planning process. A list of business and community members engaged in this effort is included in the Appendices ... The development of the magnet school plan will be a comprehensive community project.\" 5 ODM Comment: The implication here, as elsewhere in the grant, is that there is widespread planning involvement and unilateral support for an aerospace magnet school . However, Joshua has publicly expressed reservations about the school and has (so far as is presently known) withheld endorsement of any new magnet. Furthermore, conversations between this office and chief administrators in NLRSD and PCSSD in late November 1990, revealed that these two districts not only had not been involved in planning for the Aerospace Magnet (as provided in the Tri-District Plan) but were not even aware that planning was going on. Yet, the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Desegregation (Settlement) Plan states on Page 19: \"Joint Pursuit of Federal Magnet Grant: The school districts in Pulaski County including the NLRSD are committed to the joint pursuit of federal magnet grants for the operation of the multi-district Magnet and Interdistrict schools.\" However, the Magnet Review Committee was not informed by the LRSD that a magnet school grant was being written until questioned by committee members on December 4, 1990. As a matter of fact, at a November 20, 1990, meeting of the MRC, the LRSD denied that an aerospace magnet grant proposal was being contemplated by the district even though an LRSD report to its Board of Directors stated that a grant writer had been hired. Not until December 4, 1990, was the MRC informed that a grant proposal was being prepared and that a letter of support for the grant was being requested by the LRSD from the MRC. (The MRC did provide such a letter on December 6, 1990.) 15. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 36: \"The Aerospace/Technology Program will require students to have a firm grasp of basic skills. Students with low basic skills would be at a disadvantage in participating in the program and in keeping up in class. In order for the school to foster the success of every student in mastering the subject matter, effort will be made to bring students up to the standard of the school ... For this to be done the district will support and accelerate the learning of the student who is behind and provide new skills and techniques to the teachers. \" Also LRSD Grant Statement, Page 58: \"To improve minority achievement, the District will use a variety of methods that have been proven to improve academic achievement. There will be a summer school program available for all students enrolled in the magnet school program. This will allow students the opportunity to catch up on any work from the school year and to do advanced work. The summer school will also reduce the drop in retention usually experienced by students over the summer. \" 6 ODM Comment: We have serious concerns about how successful the district will be in assuring that black children are adequately prepared for the sophisticated classes proposed for the aerospace magnet. Unfortunately, the district's \"variety of methods\" to improve academic achievement have not proven successful, resulting in a persistant academic achievement disparity between blacks and whites. A curriculum audit of the LRSD (conducted at the request of the LRSD by the National Curriculum Audit Center during 1990 and released to the public in January 1991) states on page 79: \"This disparity in achievement of races is little changed over time, indicating that the Little Rock School District is making little impact on closing the deplorable and unnecessary gap between its student racial groups.\" The disparity history of the LRSD, coupled with the grant's lack of a solid remediation proprarn proposal, leave us unconvinced that black students can expect to fully participate or achieve in an aerospace magnet. 16. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 97: \"Within the District, all curriculum is multicultural in its approach and content. Additionally, no tracking of students occurs in the District as a matter of policy.\" ODM Comment: The ODM has long been aware of and troubled by the uneven teaching of multicultural curriculum and the pervasive tracking of students. The grant's implication that all curriculum is in fact being taught to all students through a multicultural approach is inaccurate. The curriculum audit finds that \"A specific example of inequitable curriculum monitoring is the multicultural curriculum... In many schools, there is no systematic observation of the implementation of this relatively new curriculum. At schools where principals do not monitor implementation of the multicultural curriculum, teachers often did not report a plan to teach the new curriculum. There is also no evidence of a systematic plan to link observed teacher training needs in this new curriculum to current staff development efforts. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any effort to disaggregate and analyze student achievement data for acquisition of multicultural objectives.\" ( Page 54.) Tracking of students in the LRSD may be prohibited as a matter of policy, but it is pervasive as a matter of practice. The same curriculum audit report quoted above finds tracking rampant in the LRSD: \" ... The auditors found a distinct pattern of 'tracking' which was implemented along racial lines for certain course and educational offerings, which had the appearance of 'resegregation' and inequity ... \" (Page 49.) \"According to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, classes in gifted and talented, as well as in special education, were prohibited from being racially identifiable, but the auditors found this mandate was not being followed. \" ( Page 55, emphasis 7 original.) \"Student placement in classes in various basic skill areas (math, English, social studies, etc.) appear to have deleterious characteristics of tracking by ability which results in resegregation of races. ( Page 59.) \"These discrepancies in English classes amount to 'resegregation' or 'tracking' of races on a homogeneous basis, which shows gross inconsistency and wrongful inequities in education opportunities for minority students... The obvious conclusion is that there is great inconsistency and inequity in the assignment of students to classes on the basis of ability resulting in greater racial disparities.\" (Page 60.) Yet the Settlement Plan states: \"There shall be a presumption that racial disparity in programs and activities need not exist ... Special attention shall be given to any imbalance in placement into special education, honors, talented and gifted, advanced placement classes\nextracurricular activities\nexpulsions and suspensions\nand reward and punishment systems.\" ( Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989, page 8.) 17. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 101: \"The staff of the Little Rock School District has extensive experience in and knowledge related to desegregation strategies. Since 1985, the District has devoted considerable time to inservice related to desegregation. ODM Comment: A school district with as much experience, knowledge, and staff development as this statement indicates should be able to document considerable progress in desegregation matters. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, as cited in number 15 above. In monitoring activities during the fall of the 1990-91 school year, the OMS found staff development in the LRSD to be grossly inadequate, both in quality and scope, with little or no link between offered training, desegregation goals, and the learning needs of staff. This inadequacy was also noted by the National Curriculum Audit Center in this summary statement on page 66 of their audit report: \"Staff development is inadequate and provided inconsistently to teachers and administrators in the Little Rock Schools.\" 8 18. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 102: \"Traditionally, the Little Rock District has been a state leader in curriculum development and innovative programs. These programs include ... Program for Accelerated Learning ... [and] Model School Program ( at Central) National Governor's Association.\" ODM Comment: There is no evidence to indicate that the Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) has been even moderately successful in its goals of providing effective remediation for reading and math students and narrowing the achievement gap between the races. However, the program has succeeded in costing millions of dollars in desegregation money. The Model School Program at Central has faltered after a shaky two years, despite some significant progress in positive school climate, student discipline, and faculty morale which can be attributed at least in some measure to the program. The demise of the Model School effort can be directly linked to lack of support from the superintendent and other chief administrators. 19. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 111: \"The cost for the program is high because it includes a brand new full magnet school which requires large start-up costs. This of course will be reduced over a number of years after the program has reached its full enrollment ... For example, once the Aerospace Education Center reaches full enrollment the per pupil cost will drop dramatically to $278.00.\" ODM Comment: It is assumed that \"Aerospace Education Center\" is an alternate name for the Aerospace Technology Magnet School. A drop to \"$278.00 per pupil\" will be dramatic indeed. This amount is unquestionably erroneous. 20. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 121: \"The District has adequate facilities to house the proposed Aerospace Program. Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD has had serious problems with adequate junior high capacity. Last September, in the OMS Preliminary Monitoring Report, we found a decided shortage of seats for junior high students at the beginning of the school year. Eighth graders were particularly affected, many of them remaining out of school for several days because no seats were available. At that time, a LRSD student assignment officer said there were at least 120 more eighth graders than had been expected in 1990-91. (There had been a similar surprise with the number of seventh graders in 1989-90.) 9 At this date, according to LRSD figures, Forest Heights has a capacity of 780. The grant enrollment figures of 754 (69% black) mean the school is at 97% capacity. Henderson has a capacity of 960. Its current 893 students, 75% of whom are black, bring the school to 93% capacity. These figures indicate that there is inadequate capacity for a new magnet program designed to draw white students to the schools. If increased numbers of whites were admitted to the schools, what does the district propose to do with the blacks who must be siphoned off the school roles in order to seat all students? Interestingly, LRSD has recently awarded contracts for a major twostory addition (including 32 classrooms and a library) to Forest Heights Junior High, yet the grant application assures (in the present tense) that there is capacity at the school adequate to house a magnet program. Expansion of capacity at Forest Heights or any other school will require court approval since the Settlement Agreement provides that \"All school construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation\" ( Page 6, Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989.) Expanding the capacity of schools in white neighborhoods does not promote desegregation but does assure that the burden of bussing remains on black children. 21. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"Forest Heights Junior High School is being completely renovated. Plans are already underway for this process which is to begin in the 1991-92 school year. To the extent necessary, the renovation project will include capacity modification at the seventh, eighth and ninth grade levels.\" ODM Comment: This indication of capacity modification conflicts with the earlier grant claim (on page 121) that \"Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" 22. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"The enrollment at Henderson Junior High School has experienced fluctuations since the 1987-88 school year. The enrollment has declined in some years and remained stable in others. Henderson will have adequate space to accommodate the aerospace technology program.\" ODM Comment: How can the LRSD be confident of adequate capacity, given this history of enrollment fluctuations and current Henderson enrollment at 93% of capacity? 10 23. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 130: \"Currently the District provides $3,370 per student in magnet support beyond the regular school costs associated with curriculum, personnel, support services, etc., on average.\" ODM Comment: This statement is false on three counts. First, magnet school per pupil costs are $3,100, not $3,370. Page 3 of the (financial) Settlement Agreement states: \"Magnet Operational Charge: The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Committee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event.\" As the Court is aware, the MRC has proposed an increase to $3,370 per pupil, a change which has not yet gained Court approval to our knowledge. Secondly, the LRSD does not provide $3,370 (or even $3,100) per magnet student. The costs of magnet schools are shared by the three school districts and the State according to the Settlement formula. Thirdly, the per pupil figure is not \"beyond the regular school costs\" but rather represents total costs, not an addition amount above the regular school costs of $2,165 on the average (according to figures quoted in the grant.) 24. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The desegregation plan attached to this application is being implemented by the applicant. It was ordered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 12, 1990. Modifications to include the aerospace theme have been approved by the parties and will be submitted to the District Court for timely approval. The implementation date for the proposed modification to the plan is August, 1991.\" ODM Comment: We are not aware that all parties to this case have been persuaded that an aerospace magnet is an acceptable modification of the Settlement. We are also not aware that an implementation date for any plan modifications has been submitted to nor approved by the Court. The proposed \"Management Timeline\" on page 44 of the grant lists four tasks which are to be undertaken before August 1991. 11 25. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The District will present a modified desegregation plan to the Federal Court by January, 1991, for approval prior to the February 4 deadline.\" ODM Comment: The text of the grant does not explain the \"February 4 deadline\" that is referenced here. It is our understanding, however, that February 4, 1991, is a deadline extension given to LRSD by the federal granters to allow for changes in the grant which may be due to Court action . 26. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 136: \"The Little Rock School District needs federal assistance to implement the Aerospace program described in this application. The program is an expensive one to implement and the District has very limited resources. Although the District did realize some financial assistance by virtue of the settlement, those monies were for the most part to defray desegregation costs already incurred under the 1986 ordered plan.\" ODM Comment: We agree that the Aerospace program as presented is indeed expensive. We also agree that it is appropriate and within the bounds of the Settlement to request a financial grant. We do not agree that the District realized \"some\" financial assistance from the Settlement, but rather a great deal of financial assistance. If, in fact, these settlement monies \"were\" for the most part used to defray desegregation costs already incurred, the LRSD may be in violation of the Circuit Court ruling of December 12, 1990, which states on page 50: \" ... a portion of the initial payments from the State may go to retire deficits ... \" (emphasis added.) We sincerely hope that the LRSD remains mindful of the Circuit Court's December 12, 1990, admonition (pages 49 and 50) that \" ... the parties' obligation to abide by these plans is unconditional ... If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action.\" 12 27. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 143: \" ... Parent meetings held during the development of the 1990 Interdistrict Plan led to the choice of this theme.\" ODM Comment: These parent meetings were conducted by Mr. Reville during the fall of 1989. Although the possibility of an aerospace theme was discussed briefly at one or more of the meetings, discussion was initiated not by parents but by members of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society who were lobbying for a magnet school as a means to help finance their dream of an Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. In a July 12, 1989, letter to Mr. Reville, Dick Holbert, Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, stated: \"Earlier this year, the Society commissioned a feasibility study, the results of which concluded that private support did exist to provide a significant portion of the cost necessary to build and maintain an aviation museum at Little Rock's Adams Field. In visiting with Skip [Rutherford], it became crystal-clear to me that a public school, built in conjunction with this museum, would be a tremendous asset to our community. \" 28. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 144: \"The staff of the District uses the available resources very efficiently and effectively.\" ODM Comment: Certainly a highly debatable matter of opinion--as well as record. 13 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Review of Aerospace Technology Magnet Grant Proposal 1. LRSD Aerospace Magnet Grant Proposal Statement, Page 20: \"The ten magnet schools currently in Little Rock serve all three districts. The magnet schools are as follows: Booker Fine Arts\nCarver Math-Science\nGibbs International Studies\nRockefeller Early Childhood\nWashington Math-Science\nWilliams Basic Skills\nDunbar Jr. High International Studies/Gifted and Talented\nMann Jr. High Arts and Math-Science\nCentral High International Studies\nParkview High School Arts and Science.\" ODM Comment: To list Rockefeller and Central as magnet schools in the context of this page is inaccurate and highly misleading. Rockefeller is actually an Incentive School which presently has only an early childhood education magnet program for infants through K. Only the early childhood program is racially balanced\nthe upper grades are predominantly (80%) black. Central has a very limited international studies magnet program. The district has been unable to provide ODM with the number of students in the program, the racial balance of program participants, nor the number of M-to-M students who participate in the program. 2. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The District submitted revised desegregation plans to the Federal Court in 1989 and in 1990. Both plans .included the continuation of the interdistrict magnet schools. The 1990 plan included the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace Technology Program that would be housed in a new school facility.\" ODM Comment: These statements falsely imply that an Aerospace Magnet has been in the hopper for some time, indeed has been before the Court since 1989. The desegregation plans which were submitted to the Court by the LRSD in 1989 were those of January 31, 1989, followed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan of February 15, 1989 (both part of the \"Settlement Plans.\") Settlement plans do not refer to any sort of aerospace or aviation program or school. As a matter of fact, page 5 of the Interdistrict Plan states that \"The Little Rock District shall continue to operate the six present magnet schools\" ( emphasis original.) There is no mention of additional magnets in the LRSD. The only plan submitted to Court in 1990 was the Desegregation Plan crafted by the OMS. This plan Aerospace/Technology and Pre-Engineering Magnet, for to open in 1991-92 in a new facility near the airport. in December 1989 at Mr. Reville's request, the LRSD 1 Tri-District proposed an grades 7-12, Previously, submitted to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor a revised preliminary desegregation plan which proposed an \"Aviation and Transportation/Math-Science Magnet\" for grades 7 and 8 in 1991-92, expanding to include grade 9 in 1992-93. The LRSD proposed that \"if sufficient interest is shown, a specialized high school program will be implemented\" based on a 91-92 survey of students. 3. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 21: \"The December 12 order allows the parties in the case to agree to adjust the Settlement Plan 'to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.' One of the proposed adjustments to the Settlement Plan includes the design and implementation of a 7-12 Aerospace/Technology Magnet Program that will be offered in three schools in the District.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD implies that the Aerospace Magnet \"adjustment\" has been agreed upon by the parties and also proposed to the Court. This section also refers to an aerospace magnet program being offered in three schools, the first mention of this number to our knowledge. 4. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 23: \"Recently, the Magnet Review Committee which has been part of Little Rock Desegregation plans since 1986, assessed the magnet school program. As a result of that assessment, the Committee have made the following recommendations/statements: ... \" A list of six provisions of the Tri-District Plan follows, including one which calls for sibling preference in magnet schools. ODM Comment: These \"recommendation/statements\" are not from the Magnet Review Committee. They came from the parent committees which helped to write the Tri-District Plan. LRSD has been vehemently opposed to granting sibling preference at magnets and vigorously lobbied Mr. Reville not to include it in the TriDistrict Plan. Page 4 of the LRSD January 31, 1989 (Settlement) Plan states: \"Sibling transfers do NOT apply to magnet schools\" (emphasis original.) To our knowledge, the MRC never officially endorsed the magnet provisions of the Tri-District Plan. We are unaware of any record which substantiates the Grant's assertion that the \"recommendations/statements\" on page 23 were made or endorsed by the MRC. Rather, they are extrapolated from the plan which the LRSD strongly opposed. 2 5. LRSD Grant Statement, Pages 24 and 25: \" ... Two junior high schools ... are to be featured in the first year of the operation of the Magnet School Aerospace Program project ... Forest Heights Jr. High [and) Henderson Junior High. . . The District proposes to establish aerospace magnet programs at these two junior high schools.\" ODM Comment: Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs have never been previously mentioned as possible sites for magnet programs (aerospace or otherwise) in any plan submitted to this office or the Court. 6. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 26: \"The District proposes to implement a high school program partially at a temporary site, continue planning in the first year of this grant, and implement fully in the second year of the grant an aerospace high school that will be a new program. This school is currently under construction and will open in the fall of 1992.\" ODM Comment: No school is currently under construction. 7. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 27: \"This new school will be racially balanced at a 60:40 ratio ... \" ODM Comment: The 60:40 ratio for magnets is a provision of the Tri-District Plan, a departure from the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Plan which, on page 5, provides that magnets \"shall be racially balanced to a point of between 50% and 55% black.\" The Settlement does allow for 60:40 in new \"Interdistrict Schools,\" but not in magnet schools. 3 8. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"In every case, as noted below, [magnets] were racially balanced the very first year of the magnet program. Rockefeller, 72% black in 1990-91 ... Washington 57% black in 1990-91 ... Central, 60% in 1990-91. ODM Comment: As noted above, both Rockefeller and Central are not magnet schools, but schools with limited magnet programs. As an incentive school, Rockefeller has attained racial balance only within its early childhood education magnet program which is 59% black\nthe upper grades are 80% black. The LRSD has been unable to provide this office with figures about Central's magnet program, neither the number of students in the program, the racial balance of the program, nor the number of M-to-M students participating in the program. However, from our direct observations in monitoring visits to Central, we are aware of pronounced racial imbalance within the program. Washington Magnet's racial makeup of 5 7 % (black)-43% (white) is an overall figure and does not hold true for the school's first grade classes which are 70% black. 9. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 29: \"Central' s program has succeeded in stabilizing the black percentage by attracting White students from the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD is unable to provide data which substantiates this claim. 10. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 31: \"Student recruitment will be carried on within all three districts by the Magnet Education Team (MET) of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC).\" ODM Comment: The MRC was created by the Circuit Court to oversee the original six magnet schools. The Settlement Plans contains language specific to this limited role of the MRC. While this office has no objection to the MRC working on behalf of new magnets, there nevertheless has been no official clarification of the role of the MRC in relation to new magnets nor has there been Court approval for the MRC to expand its oversight or recruitment role to new magnets. To our knowledge, the matter of an expanded MRC role has not been brought before the court. 4 11. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 39: \"Each of the proposed magnet schools will have an Instructional Specialist.\" ODM Comment: The use of the plural \"magnet schools\" raises a question about the total number of schools which are being proposed as magnets in this grant. Are Forest Heights and Henderson Junior Highs actually to be magnet schools rather than magnet programs? ( There are additional referrals to \"Aerospace Magnet schools\" elsewhere in the grant proposal.) 12. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 43: \"The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) ... was established ... to oversee the implementation and operation of the interdistrict magnet schools in Pulaski County.\" ODM Comment: As stated in number 10 above, the relationship or obligation of the MRC to any magnets beyond the six original schools is not clear. 13. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 44: This page is a \"Management Timeline\" which enumerates certain tasks. Whether these tasks relate to the proposed aerospace magnet high school and/or to one or both of the two junior highs is not specified. ODM Comment: The numerical sequence of the sixteen tasks listed makes neither chronological nor management sense. For example, the first and second items, \"Recruit Students, April-August, 1991\" and \"Assign Students to Programs, May-August, 1991\" come before such basics as number 5, \"Develop magnet curriculum, August-June, 1991- 92,\" number 9, \"Develop and Initiate Public Information, October, 1991\" and before number 11, \"Establish District Advisory Committee, September, 1991.\" 14. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 52: \"The District's planning process is designed to utilize a wealth of community resources to plan the new Aerospace High School. The Airport Commission, the FAA, the Air National Guard, and the airlines and concessionaires who serve the Little Rock Airport have all expressed support for the project. Business and community leaders are currently engaged in a fund raising effort to support the construction of the aviation museum which is being built in conjunction with the proposed magnet school. The community is and will continue to be a part of the planning process. A list of business and community members engaged in this effort is included in the Appendices ... The development of the magnet school plan will be a comprehensive community project.\" 5 ODM Comment: The implication here, as elsewhere in the grant, is that there is widespread planning involvement and unilateral support for an aerospace magnet school. However, Joshua has publicly expressed reservations about the school and has (so far as is presently known) withheld endorsement of any new magnet. Furthermore, conversations between this office and chief administrators in NLRSD and PCSSD in late November 1990, revealed that these two districts not only had not been involved in planning for the Aerospace Magnet (as provided in the Tri-District Plan) but were not even aware that planning was going on. Yet, the February 15, 1989, Interdistrict Desegregation (Settlement) Plan states on Page 19: \"Joint Pursuit of Federal Magnet Grant: The school districts in Pulaski County including the NLRSD are committed to the joint pursuit of federal magnet grants for the operation of the multi-district Magnet and Interdistrict schools.\" However, the Magnet Review Committee was not informed by the LRSD that a magnet school grant was being written until questioned by committee members on December 4, 1990. As a matter of fact, at a November 20, 1990, meeting of the MRC, the LRSD denied that an aerospace magnet grant proposal was being contemplated by the district even though an LRSD report to its Board of Directors stated that a grant writer had been hired. Not until December 4, 1990, was the MRC informed that a grant proposal was being prepared and that a letter of support for the grant was being requested by the LRSD from the MRC. (The MRC did provide such a letter on December 6, 1990.) 15. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 36: \"The Aerospace/Technology Program will require students to have a firm grasp of basic skills. Students with low basic skills would be at a disadvantage in participating in the program and in keeping up in class. In order for the school to foster the success of every student in mastering the subject matter, effort will be made to bring students up to the standard of the school ... For this to be done the district will support and accelerate the learning of the student who is behind and provide new skills and techniques to the teachers.\" Also LRSD Grant Statement, Page 58: \"To improve minority achievement, the District will use a variety of methods that have been proven to improve academic achievement. There will be a summer school program available for all students enrolled in the magnet school program. This will allow students the opportunity to catch up on any work from the school year and to do advanced work. The summer school will also reduce the drop in retention usually experienced by students over the summer.\" 6 ODM Comment: We have serious concerns about how successful the district will be in assuring that black children are adequately prepared for the sophisticated classes proposed for the aerospace magnet. Unfortunately, the district's \"variety of methods\" to improve academic achievement have not proven successful, resulting in a persistant academic achievement disparity between blacks and whites. A curriculum audit of the LRSD (conducted at the request of the LRSD by the National Curriculum Audit Center during 1990 and released to the public in January 1991) states on page 79: \"This disparity in achievement of races is little changed over time, indicating that the Little Rock School District is making little impact on closing the deplorable and unnecessary gap between its student racial groups.\" The disparity history of the LRSD, coupled with the grant's lack of a solid remediation propram proposal, leave us unconvinced that black students can expect to fully participate or achieve in an aerospace magnet. 16. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 97: \"Within the District, all curriculum is multicultural in its approach and content. Additionally, no tracking of students occurs in the District as a matter of policy.\" ODM Comment: The ODM has long been aware of and troubled by the uneven teaching of multicultural curriculum and the pervasive tracking of students. The grant's implication that all curriculum is in fact being taught to all students through a multicultural approach is inaccurate. The curriculum audit finds that \"A specific example of inequitable curriculum monitoring is the multicultural curriculum... In many schools, there is no systematic observation of the implementation of this relatively new curriculum. At schools where principals do not monitor implementation of the multicultural curriculum, teachers often did not report a plan to teach the new curriculum. There is also no evidence of a systematic plan to link observed teacher training needs in this new curriculum to current staff development efforts. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any effort to disaggregate and analyze student achievement data for acquisition of multicultural objectives.\" (Page 54.) Tracking of students in the LRSD may be prohibited as a matter of policy, but it is pervasive as a matter of practice. The same curriculum audit report quoted above finds tracking rampant in the LRSD: \" ... The auditors found a distinct pattern of 'tracking' which was implemented along racial lines for certain course and educational offerings, which had the appearance of 'resegregation' and inequity ... \" (Page 49.) \"According to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, classes in gifted and talented, as well as in special education, were prohibited from being racially identifiable, but the auditors found this mandate was not being followed.\" ( Page 55, emphasis 7 original.) \"Student placement in classes in various basic skill areas (math, English, social studies, etc.) appear to have deleterious characteristics of tracking by ability which results in resegregation of races. (Page 59.) \"These discrepancies in English classes amount to 'resegregation' or 'tracking' of races on a homogeneous basis, which shows gross inconsistency and wrongful inequities in education opportunities for minority students... The obvious conclusion is that there is great inconsistency and inequity in the assignment of students to classes on the basis of ability resulting in greater racial disparities.\" ( Page 60.) Yet the Settlement Plan states: \"There shall be a presumption that racial disparity in programs and activities need not exist ... Special attention shall be given to any imbalance in placement into special education, honors, talented and gifted, advanced placement classes\nextracurricular activities\nexpulsions and suspensions\nand reward and punishment systems.\" ( Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989, page 8.) 17. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 101: \"The staff of the Little Rock School District has extensive experience in and knowledge related to desegregation strategies. Since 1985, the District has devoted considerable time to inservice related to desegregation. ODM Comment: A school district with as much experience, knowledge, and staff development as this statement indicates should be able to document considerable progress in desegregation matters. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, as cited in number 15 above. In monitoring activities during the fall of the 1990-91 school year, the OMS found staff development in the LRSD to be grossly inadequate, both in quality and scope, with little or no link between offered training, desegregation goals, and the learning needs of staff. This inadequacy was also noted by the National Curriculum Audit Center in this summary statement on page 66 of their audit report: \"Staff development is inadequate and provided inconsistently to teachers and administrators in the Little Rock Schools.\" 8 18. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 102: \"Traditionally, the Little Rock District has been a state leader in curriculum development and innovative programs. These programs include ... Program for Accelerated Learning ... [and) Model School Program ( at Central) National Governor's Association.\" ODM Comment: There is no evidence to indicate that the Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) has been even moderately successful in its goals of providing effective remediation for reading and math students and narrowing the achievement gap between the races. However, the program has succeeded in costing millions of dollars in desegregation money. The Model School Program at Central has faltered after a shaky two years, despite some significant progress in positive school climate, student discipline, and faculty morale which can be attributed at least in some measure to the program. The demise of the Model School effort can be directly linked to lack of support from the superintendent and other chief administrators. 19. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 111: \"The cost for the program is high because it includes a brand new full magnet school which requires large start-up costs. This of course will be reduced over a number of years after the program has reached its full enrollment ... For example, once the Aerospace Education Center reaches full enrollment the per pupil cost will drop dramatically to $278.00.\" ODM Comment: It is assumed that \"Aerospace Education Center\" is an alternate name for the Aerospace Technology Magnet School. A drop to \"$278.00 per pupil\" will be dramatic indeed. This amount is unquestionably erroneous. 20. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 121: \"The District has adequate facilities to house the proposed Aerospace Program. Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" ODM Comment: The LRSD has had serious problems with adequate junior high capacity. Last September, in the OMS Preliminary Monitoring Report, we found a decided shortage of seats for junior high students at the beginning of the school year. Eighth graders were particularly affected, many of them remaining out of school for several days because no seats were available. At that time, a LRSD student assignment officer said there were at least 120 more eighth graders than had been expected in 1990-91. (There had been a similar surprise with the number of seventh graders in 1989-90.) 9 At this date, according to LRSD figures, Forest Heights has a capacity of 780. The grant enrollment figures of 754 (69% black) mean the school is at 97% capacity. Henderson has a capacity of 960. Its current 893 students, 75% of whom are black, bring the school to 93% capacity. These figures indicate that there is inadequate capacity for a new -magnet program designed to draw white students to the schools. If increased numbers of whites were admitted to the schools, what does the district propose to do with the blacks who must be siphoned off the school roles in order to seat all students? Interestingly, LRSD has recently awarded contracts for a major twostory addition (including 32 classrooms and a library) to Forest Heights Junior High, yet the grant application assures ( in the present tense) that there is capacity at the school adequate to house a magnet program. Expansion of capacity at Forest Heights or any other school will require court approval since the Settlement Agreement provides that \"All school construction shall be subject to the court's prior approval and shall promote desegregation\" ( Page 6, Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, February 15, 1989.) Expanding the capacity of schools in white neighborhoods does not promote desegregation but does assure that the burden of bussing remains on black children. 21. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"Forest Heights Junior High School is being completely renovated. Plans are already underway for this process which is to begin in the 1991-92 school year. To the extent necessary, the renovation project will include capacity modification at the seventh, eighth and ninth grade levels.\" ODM Comment: This indication of capacity modification conflicts with the earlier grant claim (on page 121) that \"Space is available in the designated junior high schools to house the number of students being projected.\" 22. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 125: \"The enrollment at Henderson Junior High School has experienced fluctuations since the 1987-88 school year. The enrollment has declined in some years and remained stable in others. Henderson will have adequate space to accommodate the aerospace technology program.\" ODM Comment: How can the LRSD be confident of adequate capacity, given this history of enrollment fluctuations and current Henderson enrollment at 93% of capacity? 10 23. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 130: \"Currently the District provides $3,370 per student in magnet support beyond the regular school costs associated with curriculum, personnel, support services, etc. , on average. \" ODM Comment: This statement is false on three counts. First, magnet school per pupil costs are $3,100, not $3,370. Page 3 of the (financial) Settlement Agreement states: \"Magnet Operational Charge: The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Committee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event.\" As the Court is aware, the MRC has proposed an increase to $ 3, 3 7 0 per pupil, a change which has not yet gained Court approval to our knowledge. Secondly, the LRSD does not provide $3,370 (or even $3,100) per magnet student. The costs of magnet schools are shared by the three school districts and the State according to the Settlement formula. Thirdly, the per pupil figure is not \"beyond the regular school costs\" but rather represents total costs, not an addition amount above the regular school costs of $2,165 on the average (according to figures quoted in the grant.) 24. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The desegregation plan attached to this application is being implemented by the applicant. It was ordered by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 12, 1990. Modifications to include the aerospace theme have been approved by the parties and will be submitted to the District Court for timely approval. The implementation date for the proposed modification to the plan is August, 1991.\" ODM Comment: We are not aware that all parties to this case have been persuaded that an aerospace magnet is an acceptable modification of the Settlement. We are also not aware that an implementation date for any plan modifications has been submitted to nor approved by the Court. The proposed \"Management Timeline\" on page 44 of the grant lists four tasks which are to be undertaken before August 1991. 11 25. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 132: \"The District will present a modified desegregation plan to the Federal Court by January, 1991, for approval prior to the February 4 deadline.\" ODM Comment: The text of the grant does not explain the \"February 4 deadline\" that is referenced here. It is our understanding, however, that February 4, 1991, is a deadline extension given to LRSD by the federal granters to allow for changes in the grant which may be due to Court action. 26. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 136: \"The Little Rock School District needs federal assistance to implement the Aerospace program described in this application. The program is an expensive one to implement and the District has very limited resources. Al though the District did realize some financial assistance by virtue of the settlement, those monies were for the most part to defray desegregation costs already incurred under the 1986 ordered plan.\" ODM Comment: We agree that the Aerospace program as presented is indeed expensive. We also agree that it is appropriate and within the bounds of the Settlement to request a financial grant. We do not agree that the District realized \"some\" financial assistance from the Settlement, but rather a great deal of financial assistance. If, in fact, these settlement monies \"were\" for the most part used to defray desegregation costs already incurred, the LRSD may be in violation of the Circuit Court ruling of December 12, 1990, which states on page 50: \" ... a portion of the initial payments from the State may go to retire deficits ... \" (emphasis added.) We sincerely hope that the LRSD remains mindful of the Circuit Court's December 12, 1990, admonition (pages 49 and 50) that \" ... the parties' obligation to abide by these plans is unconditional ... If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action.\" 12 27. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 143: \" ... Parent meetings held during the development of the 1990 Interdistrict Plan led to the choice of this theme.\" ODM Comment: These parent meetings were conducted by Mr. Reville during the fall of 1989. Although the possibility of an aerospace theme was discussed briefly at one or more of the meetings, discussion was initiated not by parents but by members of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society who were lobbying for a magnet school as a means to help finance their dream of an Arkansas Museum of Aviation History. In a July 12, 1989, letter to Mr. Reville, Dick Holbert, Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society, stated: \"Earlier this year, the Society commissioned a feasibility study, the results of which concluded that private support did exist to provide a significant portion of the cost necessary to build and maintain an aviation museum at Little Rock's Adams Field. In visiting with Skip [Rutherford], it became crystal-clear to me that a public school, built in conjunction with this museum, would be a tremendous asset to our community.\" 28. LRSD Grant Statement, Page 144: \"The staff of the District uses the available resources very efficiently and effectively.\" ODM Comment: Certainly a highly debatable matter of opinion--as well as record. 13\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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1010","title":"Aerospace Technology Magnet School, court documents","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, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1993"],"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","Aviation Education Programs (U.S.)","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Magnet schools"],"dcterms_title":["Aerospace Technology Magnet School, court documents"],"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/1010"],"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\nThis transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.\nArkansas Museum of Aviation History OUR DREAMS TAKE FLIGHT. Arkansas Museum of Aviation History OUR DREAMS TAKE FLIGHT. ITS A STORY ABOUT ARKANSAS FIRST. Her people. Her times and the events that made Arkansas what it is today. That's the story of Arkansas aviation. But it is a tale rarely told and seldom heard, yet one filled with vitality, excitement and power in its ability to inspire and educate. This is the need which will be fulfi lled by The Arkansas Museum of '--~!,\"f~C::~ Aviation Histo,y. For this ..... \"\"'~\"\"'_\n, is histo1y in the making. The project has progressed quietly for over almost a decade since the state newspapers heralded the arrival of the first exhibit planes in the early 1980's. But much was to be done in order to achieve the quality facility desired by the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society. And today the Arkansas Museum of Aviation Histo,y is ready to become a reality-a gift to all Arkansans and Arkansas vis itors. The Arkansas Museum of Aviation Histo1y w ill give Arkansas an attraction wonhy of national attention. Unique to this part of America, its exhibits w ill rank with many of those at the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum and the Experimental Aircraft Museum in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Even more impo!tant is the impact it will have on aviation-lovers of all ages. One sight of the aircraft and the senses will be gripped. And one immersion in the stories of the men and women who made aviation history in Arkansas and the spirits will soar. It has been shaped and will continue to be shaped by the aviation enthusiasts of Arkansas to become and remain a unique po1trayal of the history of the men and women of aviation. Its guiding lights have included such leaders as Charles Taylor, Nathan Gordon, Leighton Collins, Cass Hough and Ray Ellis. The story of aviation is the story of what went on at the human level-those who designed, built and flew the craft. At the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History, visitors will experience aviation from this unique perspective. As a result, not only Arkansas but also the times and events of the different eras can be taken in a context that will become a source of pride and inspiration for Arkansans young and old, for those to whom aviation is a second nature and for those who have only dreamed of flying. l J Inside, the museum follows the stream of time from the Wright Brothers though the shuttle age. Displays are Times of pride, power and prowess. arranged as a series of pods, grouped by time, with areas dedicated to a person associated with a paiticular aircraft, plus memorabilia and a1tifacts associated with that personality. Automobiles, antiques, uniforms, actual film footage, whatever is needed to best tell the story of the specific personality will be incorporated into the story. Eve,y aspect of aviation is to be included--design, engineering, testing, military tactics, bamsto1111ing, racing, THE LEGENDS. Here is just a sampling of the pennanent exhibits to be included in the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History: Field Kindley-Arkansas participation in world \\Var I will be represented by this ace and an authentic Sopwith Camel. Pierce McKennon- Visitors will join Arkansas' Ace of Aces in a P-51 strafing run. John Howell-Delta Air Line's first pilot brings commercial aviation to the ma~s in Arkansas. Louise TI1aden-The Arkansab aviatrix flew rings around Amelia Earhan and won the Bendix Trophy. Included in Lhis exhibit would be a Beech Staggerwing and the Travel Aire 4000 which she took to record heights. Earl T. Ricks \u0026amp; Wimpy WilsonArkansas sent two commanders to the U.S. Air National Guard as this exhibit explains the importance of the home force commercial flight and Lranspottation. The unique emphasis of the Arkansas Museum of Aviation I Iisto,y is instantly visible. The craft are there, of course, but the story as ponrayed in the audio/visual programs, a,tifacts and photographs shifts the emphasis back Lo the people who made aviation possible-back to the heros of Arkansas flight. Exhibits have been designed by Maritz Communications of Chicago, whose work has included the Experimental Aircraft Museum in Oshkosh and interpretive displays for the famous Spruce Goose built by I Toward Hughes. in events such as the devastating flood of 1927. James McDonnell-the story of the founder of McDonnell-Douglas Corporation will center around a Phantom jct. Robert Snowden and Albert Vollmecke-----TI1e creation of an aircraft from design through production will be told in thh saga of the Command-Aire manufactured in Little Rock during the 1930's. A special .section of the Museum will be set aside to honor the members of the Arkansas I !all of Fame A colorful portrait gallery wil l enable us to salute those who continue to make aviation history in Arkan .., ,,_,~. A theater is alM\u0026gt; plann\u0026lt;.:.'CI for the sho\\-ving of an orientation film to visitors and which can aho he w,\u0026lt;:d to prc.',(.'nt other noteworthy mimion film.\\. The interior will allo,, \u0026lt;.:hanging exhibit.:,, ~uch a~ tho~c avai lable for loan through the Lnitcd State Air Force: Mu.\\eum and the Smilhsonian. l3ecau!-iC of the time-line organization, tomorrow's cmft can find a space 10 be dramatically displayed. AN ENCOMPASSING FACILITY. The Museum will rest on land et aside by the Little Rock Airport Commis ion on the east side of the Little Rock Airport complex. The main building will house featured exhibits and will also include the Arkansa Aviation Hall of Fame, a restoration work-area, plus an outdoor di play site. The main exhibit will be visible through the glass front of the building. From inside, the glas wall will offer a clear view of the runways and taxiways of the adjacent airport. Designed by athaniel Curtis-Riddick-Heiple Architects, the main building upon it completion will be include more usable area than buildings of imilar size, due to its unique multi-level di play space. Upwards of 80,000 quare feet of display space will enable as many a 40 aircraft and personality displays to function at any one time. CAMPAIGN GOALS. The total amount needed to build the initial phase of the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History is 4.5 million. Many of the craft to be included in the museum now sit in hang r within taxi distance of the project site. All exhibit designs are complete and ready to begin acquisition and construction. m Parking A MESSAGE FROM THE CAMPAIGN CHAIRMAN Dear fellow aviation enthusiast: The contributions of Arkansas people to American aviation should be a source of pride for us all. We have given our country great pilots, inventors, aviation _ ~ authors, aces and leaders of the largest - ~'== aeronautical enterprises. As a result, flying has progressed from an incredible fantasy to a factor of  - - every-day life. The Arkansas Museum of Aviation History finally provides a way to chronicle and display the legacy of those Arkansans who have achieved so much by their fascinating endeavors. As we accomplish our goals with your help, I believe you will see that the we are giving Arkansas more than just a museum. The Arkansas Museum of Aviation History will become a channel of constant esteem and respect, a place to enthusiastically share with visitors from out-of-state and a permanent presentation of the unique Arkansas spirit. Our vision is to become a positive force for aviation in Arkansas by preserving the best of its past. I encourage you to join with me and make our dreams take flight. Together, we can make aviation history happen today. Sincerely, Richard N. Holbert Campaign Chairman 111 - - - Arkansas Museum of Aviation History PO. BOX 3511 UTil.E RCX.K, ARKA. \"SAS 72203 (501\u0026gt; 3753245 MCASCHCL ,-, ,:-11f10AY, PA 8 . S . CL,a.RK R 08CRT V. LIGHT, PA. WILLIAM M. SUTTON, PA, GCOROE  . Pl KC. J R ., PA. ..J4MCS W . MOOR:C BYRON M , EISEMAN, .JR., P 4 .JOE: 0 . BELL, PA. M ICH AC L 0 . THOMPSON , p A .J0'\"'N C. ECHOLS, P 4 JAM CS A . BUTTR:Y, 119 A. FRCOCAICK S . URSERY, p A . H . T LARZCLCRC, PA. OSCAR: . 04VIS, .JR . JAM CS C . CLARK, JR .,\n, 4. THOMAS P LCGGETT, PA. .JOP\"IN OCWCY W4TSON, PA LEWIS M4T .... IS, PA. PAUL 9 . 1!1NHAM 111, PA. LARPYW. 9URK5. P.A. A , WYCKL1,:-,:- NISBET, .JFL, PA. JAMES COWARO MARRIS, PA. .J, P._.ILL, ._, MALCO\"\"' PA. .JAMCS M , St,..FSON. PA MCREOITH P CATLETT, PA .JAM 5 M. SAXTON, ,\u0026gt; A . .J, SMCPHERO RUSSEL~ Ill OONA LO H , BACON, P ,.l,. , WILLI A,.,. THOMAS 8AX.TCR. P ,.l,. WALT CR A. PAULSON II, PA HAND DELIVERED FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF\" INOIVIOUALS ANO PROF'ESSIONALASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT I.AW 2000 F'lRST COMMERCIAL BUILOING 400 WEST CAPITOL I.ITTI.E ROCK, ARKANSAS 722013493 TELEPHONE 501-376-2011 January 16, 1991 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Aerospace Technology Magnet Program Dear Judge Wright: !IARlltY . CO?LIN, PA. RICMARO 0. TAYLOR. PA JOSCP,_. 8 . MURST\", Jl=l . . PA CLIZABCTM J. ROBl!!IC N, P ,.i. CHJ:IISTOPMCR \"\"CLLCR PA LAURA r1CNSLEY SM I - .,., P,.. ROBCR: T S. SHAFE:R, ~ A WILLIAM M , GRl,,-,,-IN Ill, PA THOMAS N. R:OSC , PA. M ICH AELS. MOORE CIA.NC S. MAC KC\"' WALTCR: M . 1[9!.. Ill, P  t(CVIN A. CRASS WILLIAM A. WA00L_, ..,R. ~ ~ CLYOC  TAB\" TURN? CALVIN J. HALL SCOTTJ. l.ANCASTE~ J Ci:tR Y L. ,_.ALONE M . GAYLE CORLV POIIC\"'T 1!1 . l!IICACM , .JR S . RANOO LP'\"' LOON C Y .J . LC 9ROWN .JAMES C. 8At(R , .JI'!' H C'\"'A RLC:S GSCl-1WEN0 , J=! MARRY A. LIQH - SCOTT 1-1 TUCKER MARYL. WISC .... AN GUY ALTON WAOI[ PlltlCl. C 0Allt0NIC\"'TH0MAS ,:- MEEKS J. ,.uci....AEL PtCKc.-...s COUNSl:1,. WILLIAM J. S,.,.ITM WILLI A,_...._ , LORE00 JP.\n, ~ WIL.LIAM L. TE\n:H:tY WILLIAM L. PAfTON. ~ R PA TELCOP1ER t50H 376-2tJ.7 TCLECOPICR 15011 3?8 -8369 370-1506 The Little Rock School District has filed with the U. s. Department of Education a grant application for funds to establish an Aerospace Technology Magnet Program within the Little Rock School District. A copy of Volume I of the grant application is enclosed. Volume II of the grant application is the LRSD Desegregation Plan which you already have. An Aerospace Technology Magnet located in the Little Rock School District is a component of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan found at page 13 of the section on Interdistrict Magnet Schools and Programs. LRSD believes that the Aerospace Technology Magnet, although not required by the Settlement Plans, would compliment those plans and advance the voluntary desegregation efforts contemplated by those plans. We hope to present to the court within the next week a stipulation of the parties in support of the Aerospace Technology Magnet. I thought it best to provide you a copy of the grant application now, however, because the application will remain viable only if the Aerospace Technology Magnet becomes a court approved component of the LRSD Desegregation Plan before February 4, 1991. Yours very truly ~~ Christopher eller CJH/k cc: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Enc. Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, ~..R 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Sharon Streett Arkansas Department of Education #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72205 Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Arma Hart Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR72201 -- - . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS STIPULATION AND CONSENT ORDER REGARDING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY MAGNET SCHOOL The undersigned parties stipulate and agree that the Little Rock School District (LRSD) desegregation plan should be amended to include an Aerospace Technology Magnet School as described in Exhibit \"A\" to this stipulation as modified below to address the concerns expressed by the Court and some of the parties. The parties further stipulate and agree that the Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet School can only be constructed and operated if the Little Rock School District receives approval of first-year funding of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant, for which Exhibit \"A\" is its application, in a total amount of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) for 1991-92 and 1992-93: and if the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society contributes at least Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000.00) as its share of the construction costs of the Aerospace Education Center which will house both the Aerospace Technology Magnet School and the Aerospace Museum. -- The purpose of this stipulation between the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District is to insure by specific outcome expectations that black youth will be at least as well served in educational outcomes, process, treatment, retention, promotion, rewards, awards and opportunities as white youth in the proposed Aerospace Magnet School. The underlying premise of Joshua is that students from higher socio-economic backgrounds, based upon past and present treatment by Little Rock School District, are being and will be well served by the district. The outcome expectations shall be measured . by objective, education related criteria. The results will be subject to further analysis by the Districtwide Biracial Committee and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The Aerospace Technology Magnet School is being integrated into and engrafted upon the Settlement Desegregation Plans of the parties (\"the Settlement Plans\"). The parties stipulate that the Aerospace Technology Magnet School Plans shall be consistent with the objectives of the Settlement Plans. The school shall be planned, opened and hereafter operate on a fully and thoroughly integrated basis in all aspects of its operations and outreach. The district shall accomplish this racially inclusive educational environment by whatever means necessary within federal law and by appropriate state law as well so long as state law does not diminish the remedial and desegregation objectives of the Settlement Plan. The district commits that it will maintain this facility on a racially integrated basis into perpetuity. 2 The Aerospace Magnet School shall effectively be a joint venture between the school district and the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society in certain operational and financing respects. The school district, however, shall have full and final authority for all decisions and conduct of the school including but not limited to its staff, students, programs and activities. The local aerospace community consists of those aerospace technical business enterprises which are located around the Little Rock Regional Airport. it includes the Little Rock Airport Commission, a public enterprise, which operates the Little Rock Regional Airport. The Little Rock Airport Commission and the following private aerospace technical business enterprises hereby make the commitments contained in the statement of support attached to this page and the reasonable inferences which flow therefrom regarding the level and duration of said support. A. Companies 1. Central Flying Service 2. Falcon Jet Corporation 3. Arkansas Modification Center 4. Midcoast Aviation 5. Air Transport International 6. Little Rock Regional Airport B. General Commitment (see attachment to this page) The Co~rt shall be provided affidavits of support from representatives of the local aerospace community, not later than February 19, 1991. These affidavits of support will describe each 3 ---  - Statement in Support of the Aerospace Education CenLer As executives of Little Rock's aviation industries and the-Little Rock Airport C'.ornmission, we endorse and lend our c:ommitment to the planned Aerospace Education Center, combining an Aerospace Magnet lligh School with the Arkansas Museum of Aviation History at Adams Field. The Aerospace Magnet High School will provide the educutionul base in math and science that our companies are looking for in new employees, making it possible for these studcnt_s to pursue careers here in Central Arkansas in our companies as well as other high technology finus. Our companies are willing to provide adjunct faculty to both the high school and to the museum's educational outreach program, and will provide guest ins1rnc1ors, as needed, to enhun~:e curriculum offerings. In addition, we will sponsor and encourage our employees to participate in a mentor progrum, working with students who wish to specialize in specific areas of expertise. While we anticipate the school's graduates becoming a source of our pennanent employees, we also plan to consider, whenever possible, opponunities for purt-time and summer employment of students in aviation-related jobs. We wholeheanedly endorse Governor Clinton's initiative to tlevelop industry apprenticeship progrnms, and pledge our cooperation to affect such a program in our industry here in Little Rock where it mny apply. We feel that apprenticeship programs in aviation-related skills, developed through what will be the excellent facilities of the Aerospace Education Center, could eventually become a significant source of skilled workers for our companies. Little Rock's Aerospace Magnet High School wilt provide new opportunities for disadvantaged 1md minority students, many of whom would have few other opportunities to gain the requisite skills to enrer aerospace or other technology careers. We pledge co recruit disadvantaged and minority graduates from the Aerospace Magnet High School, in conjunction with our companies' respective uffinnative nction pluns. The aviation industries of Central Arkansas have enjoyed phenomenal growth over the pust several years, offering economic benefits for not only our employees, but for the entire community. for this positive trend to continue, we must work together with our schools to provide the skilled people needed for our industry. Therefore, we offer our unqualified endorsement of the Aerospul'e Education Center and pledge the support of our respective companies to ensure its success. fc. Taylor Brown Senior Vice President Falcon Jet Corporation Dennis D. Davis President Arkansas Modification Center O'.V~J1  - A/I~ ~~-~ ~ ~ary DAggers n Richard N. Holbc Senior Vice President and General Manager President Midcoast Aviation - Little Rock Central Flying Service James R. Rodgers M.a nager ~ - President ---- company's present commitments and future voluntary efforts in the following areas: (a) specific employment, hiring and promotion commitments for each of the employers and affect all future employment opportunities\n(b) summer training and employment opportunities for the black pupils who will attend the Aerospace Magnet Technology School\n(c) programs for black pupils year round mentoring and support at the school\n(d) preferential consideration upon graduation for training or apprenticeship programs and employment within these enterprises\n(e) creation of racially inclusive, nondiscriminatory work environments\nand (f) broad based racial and gender representation on appropriate advisory and governing boards of each of the business enterprises. In the event that it is necessary to modify these commitments, notice shall be provided to the parties and efforts will be made to continue the spirit of these commitments. EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES 1. Student Education Plans (SEP's) shall be developed for each pupil who elects to attend the Aerospace Technology Magnet School. The plans shall be developed and then implemented in such a way as to insure that all pupils therein shall be \"mainstreamed\" into regular classes. If additional, out of class work is required in order to promote remediation to pupils to meet classroom work, the district shall offer it as needed at district expense either after school or on Saturdays. A principal objective of the SEP's is to allow the progress of each pupil to be measured periodically. It will also assist in determining individual teacher performance 4 -- for evaluation purposes. 2. The school shall employ a sufficient number of teacher assistants to insure that the serious teaching and learning objectives of the Aerospace Magnet School shall be achieved. 3. It is expected that all pupils who enroll in this school shall be promoted each year and graduate from high school on time and with appropriate educational credentials for further study and/or entry into college type programs. The only possible exceptions to this expectation are those pupils who, by objective standards, considered after sufficient time has expired for the SEP's to work, demonstrate that they do not have either the capacity or interest for the required school work. 4. There shall be no \"tracking\" in the Aerospace Magnet School. Those teachers or other staff who either allow or engage in the practice shall be subject to formal discipline. Any discipline of teachers shall be in accordance with the Professional Negotiations Agreement (PNA). 5. The racial balance of the student body of the Aerospace Magnet School shall bear a reasonable relationship to the racial balance of the other high schools. It initially shall be sixty percent (60%) bl:\"ack and forty percent (40%) white. The racial balance goal of the faculty shall be in reverse ratio due to the acknowledged shortage of black staff members. The district is committed, however, through the Settlement Plans, to increasing black staff by aggressive recruitment and by financial support for teacher aides who commit to obtain college training while on the 5 --- job and a period of employment thereafter for the district. 6. The Aerospace Technology Magnet School shall be operated and supported by the district in those ways which do not diminish the status, faculty or student bodies of the other high schools. 7. All students at the Aerospace Technology Magnet School shall be privileged to participate in all school activities at all times provided their school work is first addressed to the level of their respective capacities and is otherwise acceptable. By agreement and stipulation of the parties, Exhibit \"A\" is modified as follows: PAGE AMENDMENTS Page 19 (Substitute first paragraph under caption \"HISTORY OF DESEGREGATION AND MAGNET SCHOOLS\") In 1986, the Federal District Court approved an interdistrict plan of desegregation between the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts. That . plan provided interdistrict remedies of magnet schools and majority to minority transfers. The percentage of black students in North Little Rock is approximately forty-six (46) and in Pulaski County is approximately thirty (30). Page 26 During the period of construction of the Aerospace Technology Magnet School, it will be sited at the Metropolitan Vocational School located near Interstate Highway Thirty (30) in Southwest 6 --- Little Rock. Architectural Plans are being developed and it is hoped that the school will be opened in the fall of 1992 or soon thereafter. ( As a footnote, the architects who are working on these plans have cornmi tted to make a biracial effort of their further work on this project.) Page 23 SIBLING PREFERENCE There is and shall be no sibling preference for Magnet School assignment. Thus item six (6) on Page 23 is deleted. Page 27 Program Objective II (substituted) The District plan to open the Aerospace Technology Magnet School at Metropolitan High School on September, 1991, provided this grant application is timely approved, with the further expectancy that in September, 1992 or sooner thereafter the new school will be opened. The racial balance of the school shall be a range of black students within fifty-five to sixty-five percent and a range of white students between thirty-five and forty-five percent. Those '\"figures are comparable to the other senior high school enrollments. Page 29 (Last sentence on the page) Central High School has been successful in attracting white students from the Pulaski County and North Little Rock School 7 Districts. -- - Page 32 (Supplement) Other standardized tests confirm the above disparities in test results between at least black and white students. The district is committed to fully addressing and remedying these disparities. To this end outcome objectives shall be formulated and implemented for students at all grade levels. In this way, students may be expected to have their remedial and other learning needs met prior to the 9th and 10th grade transition into the Aerospace program. If those are not met, however, the Aerospace Magnet programs will be designed and implemented in a way to accomplish that objective. Page 36 (substitute) The Aerospace Technology Program will require students to have a firm grasp of basic skills. Those skills will be effectively taught to all students so that they will meet the high school standards in the areas of Algebra, Physical Science and Earth Science. The District will provide special support to underachieving pupils in order that those students may be equally successful in their classwork as the more advanced pupils. Page 52 (New paragraph 2) 8 ---  The planning process was not successful in including black citizens to the extent that it included white citizens as set out in paragraph one, supra. Nor did it include the LRSD Biracial Committee in the process. These unintentional omissions will be corrected forthwith and will not be repeated. The Biracial Committee and Joshua shall be fully represented in the Magnet School Planning Committee described in the next paragraph and shall otherwise be utilized to insure that this school meets its goals and expectations. Paga 58 (a new last sentence on the page) This summer program, which will be at school district expense, shall not be used to defer, delay or withhold ongoing remediation and supplemental assistance to achievement. This is intended to supplement the opportunities students have for maximizing their abilities within the school. Paga 59 (supplementary language) A program of teacher developed incentives will be put into place to assist with the motivation of students at the Aerospace Magnet. Paga 60 (supplementary language to paragraph two) 9 ---  - outreach programs will be provided for all parents to inform them of the content of the aerospace program, opportunities for their students, and programmatic expectations for students' achievement. Special outreach efforts shall be made to parents of black and socio-economically deprived students to introduce these patrons to the program. Page 70 (new last paragraph) The foregoing staff is disproportionately white. The district is sensitive to this fact and shall work to insure that it, too, will be fully desegregated and integrated. Page 77 (supplemental language to paragraph two) The theme and focus shall permeate the entire program. Even courses such as physical education and physiology shall include concepts from math and science such as velocity, vectors, and kinesthetics. Page 91 (new first paragraph} Student Education Plans (SEP' s) will be developed for all students. These SEP' s will vary according to past student achievement. Appropriate intensive counseling will provide assistance and direction to students to insure that their 10 --- potentialities are developed to the fullest possible extent by virtue of their involvement in this program. Special efforts will be made to insure that black and socio-economically deprived students shall have no less opportunity for academic success than other students. Page 106 (last paragraph added) The District will work with the business community in general and specifically with the aerospace/aviation industry to insre summer jobs, part-time employment, mentorships, apprenticeships, and employment after graduation for those students who seek it. Page 108 (addition regarding adjunct teachers) Adjunct staff will include mentors, role models, and guest speakers for students. Seminars will also be held to allow students to interact with minority and female individuals who have careers in science, math, and fields related to the Aerospace Magnet program. Page 111 (addition to end of second paragraph) The figure $278 which is included in the discussion of Magnet program costs refers to the eventual cost of Magnet components only and is to be considered in addition to the per pupil cost which the 11 --- district expends, which is $2,165 on average at non-magnet, nonincentive schools. Page 116 (supplement to paragraph one) Success shall further be determined by analysis of statistics related to: number of program graduates employed in Arkansas aviation industry by race and gender number of program graduates entering post-secondary education especially fields related to math, science, and aerospace technology by race and gender decrease in dropout rate as compared to other high schools such that the number of black students in the graduating class will be equivalent to the percentage of black students enrolled in the program Page 119 (final paragraph) The evaluatOr(s) will work closely with the school staff and be both sensitive and responsive to inquiries raised by the Joshua Intervenors, the district and/or school biracial committee(s) and the Office of Desegregation Monitor(ing). Page 146 (new paragraph three) 12 -- There shall be a collaborative effort between the school district, Henderson State University and the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Arrangements will be sought with these colleges for college credit to be given for certain work completed at the Aerospace Magnet School and for the institutions to assist the magnet graduates with educational career planning. The undersigned parties stipulate and agree that a modification of the Little Rock School District desegregation plan to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School described in Exhibit \"A\" as modified above, subject to the contingencies described above, would largely complement their settlement plans and advance the voluntary desegregation efforts contemplated by those plans, although the parties understand that this program might have a negative impact upon the further desegregation of Fuller Jr. High and Mills High School. It is therefore ordered that the Little Rock School District's desegregation plan is modified to include the Aerospace Technology Magnet School described in Exhibit \"A\", as modified by this Stipulation and Consent Order, subject to the following contingencies: 1. The Little Rock School District must receive the Magnet Schools Assistance Program grant, for which Exhibit \"A\" is its application, in a total amount of Four Million Dollars ($4,000,000.00) for 1991-92 and 1992-93\nand 2. The Arkansas Aviation Historical Society must contribute 13 --- at least Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,500,000.00) as its share of the construction costs of the Aerospace Education Center which will house both the Aerospace Technology Magnet School and the Aerospace Museum. If either of these contingencies does not happen, the Little Rock School District will have no obligation to build the school or implement the Aerospace Technology program described in Exhibit \"A\". JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 BY:Qu.~ ~ WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 MIT L \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third :::cr::_~1 Richard Roachell FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 ~ BY:~ Christophe? H~ JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 BY~tJ~ -{A__ SO ORDERED THIS ~ DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1~91. n . ~ '/ )1/ '4 / // \u0026amp;h,. , /~, ii~ , ~ 1, r= SUSAN WEBBER T GHI' = / I , ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUCGE F R I DAY, ELDRE DGE \u0026amp; CL ARK HERSCHEL H . FRIDA Y, P. A . 9 . S . CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, P. A . WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A. GEORGE E . Fl'IKE , .JR . , P. A . .JAM ES W. MOO RC A PARTN ERSHIP OF INDIVI DUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS A T TORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL  YRON M . E ISEMAN, .JR ., P. A . .JOE 0 .  ELL , P. A . MICHAEL G . THOMPSON, Fl'. A . .JOHN C. ECHOLS, P. A . .JAMES A . BUTTRY, Fl'. A . FREDERICKS. URSERY, P. A . H T LARZELERE, Fl'.A . L I T T LE ROCK, AR KANSAS 7 220 1-3493 TLPHONE 501-376- 2011 OSCAR E . DAVIS , .JR . .JAMES C . CLARK, .JR., P. A . THOMAS Fl'. LEGGETT, l='. A . .JOHN DEWEY WATSON , P. A LEWIS MATHIS1 P.A . PAUL 8 . BENHAM Ill, P. A . LARRY W. BURK5 1 P . A . February 19, 1991 A. WYCKLIFF NIS8ET, JR., Ft. A . .JAMES EOWARO HARRI S , P. A . .J PH IL L I FI' MALCOM, Fl' A . JAMES M . S I MFl'SON, Ft A . MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P. A . .JAMES M . SAXTON, P. A . .J. SHE PH ERO RUSSELL Ill OONALO H . BACON, P. A . WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER , P. A . WALTER A . PAULSON II, P. A . Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg . 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Affidavit of Dick Holbert Dear Counsel: BARRY E . COPL.IN, P. A . RIC HARO O. TAYl.OR, P. A .JOSEPM 9 . HURST, JR., PA. El.lZABETH .J . RO B BEN, PA. CHRISTOPHER MELL.ER, P. A l.AURA HENSL.EY SMITH, PA ROl!SERT S . SHAFER, P. A . Wll.l.lAM M . GRll'\"FIN Ill, P. A THOMAS N . ROSE, P. A . MICHAEL. S . MOORE DIANE S . MACKEY WALTER M . EBEL 111, P. A KEVIN A. CRASS Wll.LIAM A . WA00El.l., .JR., PA CLYDE \"TAB\" TURNER CALVIN .J . HALL SCOTT.J.LANCASTER .JERRY L. MALONE M . GAYLE CORLEY ROBERT B . BEACH, JR. S RANDOL.PH LOONEY .J. LE BROWN .JAM CS C. BAKER, JR. H . CHARL.ES GSCHWEND, .JR HARRY A . LIGHT SCOTT H . TUCKER JOHN Cl.AYTON RANDOLPH MARY L. WISE MAN GUY ALTON WADE PRICE. C. GARONER THOMAS F' MEEKS J M ICHA EL. PICKENS CCUNSl:t.. WILLIAM J. SM ITH WILLIAM A . El.ORE OGE , JR., Fl' A WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR. Fl'.A, TELECOPIER (501\u0026gt; 37621'7 TEL.ECO PIER ( 501 ) 3788369 Willl lTt:illl'S ouu:cr NO. 370-1506 Please find enclosed a copy of an Affidavit filed today in this case by Dick Holbert. Very truly yo ~~ ristoph r CJH/k Enc. cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILED US. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR.I' FASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FEB 191991 LITI'LE RCX:K SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CXXJNl'Y SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSffiJA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL WFSTERN DIVISION LR'-C-82-866 AFFIDAVIT CARL R. 8Rl::NTS, CLERK By: ___ ~---- PIAINI'0i1. CLERK DEFENDANT'S INTERVENORS INI'ERVEOORS I, Richard N. Holbert, after being duly sworn, state under oath: I am the President of Central Flying Service, Inc. Central Flying Service, Inc. is an equal opportunity employer. Central FJ,.ying Service, Inc. does presently offer sunrrer training and arployrrent opportunity on a very limited basis. Central Flying Service, Inc.'s surrmer training and employment opportunities will be made available to black and white pupils who attend the Aerospace Technology Magnet School on an equitable basis. An unrestricted number of employees of the canpany will be available to provide mentoring and support programs on a periodic and voluntary basis for black and white pupils of the Aerospace Technology Magnet School perhaps through programs inaugurated by the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society. Because of the course of study to be offered at the Aerospace Technology Magnet School, and the familiarity with the school's students and teachers that the canpany expects to have, graduates of the Aerospace Technology magnet School should receive preferential consideration upon graduation for training or apprenticeship programs and errployment with the canpany if such programs or jobs are available at the ti.Ire. The ~rk envirornnent at the ccrnpany is and will remain non-discriminatory and the canpany has not and will not establish a racially exclusive ~rk envirornnent. The canpany does not have a governing board or advisory ooard. I, Richard N. Holbert, the undersigned herein, state that the foregoing Affidavit is true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge \u0026amp; belief. Dated this 19th day of February, 1991. ~fj~ Richard N. Holbert SUBSCRIBED AND smRN to before me a Notary Public in and for the Coun~y of Pulaski, State of Arkansas on this Jqtb day of February, 1991. My Ccmnission Expires: cmce JMJ 4 19Jj of OE.segregation Mo::i:orir.g UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTER~ DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL., MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL .. MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., 0 R D E R CARL\n.:?_\n:. ,.!::.~ ~-:\n. CLERK By: '/,\n\\-,1 :71:'.'-:k~ -~ ueP. CL I( PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS I INTERVENORS I INTERVENORS . Following telephone notice to counsel, a hearing is hereby scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Monday, January 25, 1993. One issue to be addressed at the hearing is the Little Rock School District's aerospace magnet school grant application. This Court's Order of May 1, 1992 rejected an earlier proposal to modify the settlement plan to eliminate language concerning the possible construction of a new junior high in the district. The Court, in that order, directed that the \"parties conduct a careful review of junior high capacity and its immediate and long term impact on programmatic needs and/or intradistrict and M-to-M needs.\" Because of its interrelatedness to the aerospace magnet application, the second issue to be addressed at the hearing is the results of the study conducted pursuant to that Order. The parties are directed to provide the Court and the Federal Monitor 1-:i th copies of the proposed grant application and the results o f the jun i or high school study, together with copies of ~$.-~~~?'~ \n.. other proposed exhibits for the hearing and any briefs they feel are necessary, on or before 12:00 noon on Friday, January 15, 1993. It is so ordered this ',x/b. day of December, 1992. United States Dist ict Judge THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET iN ':OMPUANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR ?~a) ~CP ON t] / 3{\nI 012z: BY _ _._._: ____ r,\u0026gt;1 t l Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street  Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 V JAN 2 2 W~5 Olfic, of Desegei:i:'.icn Monitoring Donna Grady Creer Executive Director RESOLUTION Regarding Proposed Aerospace Magnet School (501) 758-0156 WHEREAS, the Magnet Review Committee, a body established by the 8th Circuit of Appeals at St. Louis to oversee the operation of the six interdistrict magnet schools and to make findings concerning the number, location, staffing, racial ratios and themes of magnet schools and to have the furtherance of effective desegregation as its primary objective\nand WHEREAS, the interdistrict magnet schools' host district, the Little Rock School District, has notified the Magnet Review Committee of a projected deficit budget amount of $5,500,000 for the next fiscal year\nand WHEREAS, this projected deficit budget amount will cause the Little Rock School District to be forced to make drastic cuts which may adversely impact existing programs designed to reduce racial academic disparity and promote desegregation\nand WHEREAS, the Magnet Review Committee believes that the total community (parents, students, business, industry, higher education, etc.) should have documented input in the selection and implementation of the theme for a proposed magnet school\nBE IT RESOLVED that the Magnet Review Committee, by formal motion and vote (5 FOR\n1 AGAINST - Little Rock School District cast the dissenting vote) opposes the implementation of an aerospace magnet school at this time. SUBMITTED this 22nd day of January, in the year 1993. ~ Bobby tom, Ed.D., Chairperson Magnet Review Committee gnet Revi F~LED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS 'JAN - 7 1993 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CARL K EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS By: WESTERN DIVISION --\n.. ...... ~u...,~~J.'.,0-- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL,, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL,, 0 R D E R PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS , INTERVENORS , INTERVENORS . A hearing was previously scheduled in this case for Monday, January 25, 1993. Pursuant to the telephone request of the Little Rock School District for additional time to prepare for the hearing, the hearing is hereby rescheduled for Monday, February 1, 1993. Counsel for the Joshua Intervenor has indicated that this change is satisfactory to him. Counsel should be present no later than 9:00 a.m. The Court's Order of December 30, 1992 remains in full force and is modified only to the extent that the documents to be provided to the Court and to the Monitor shall be delivered on or before noon on Friday, January 22, 1992. It is so ordered this t:,-1!-:- day of January, 1993. Q\n~~tJudge THIS DOCUll.11::~1T i::.~'.TERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN GOMPUANCE fir: l RUL::: Ea AND/OR 79(a) FRCP 8N 1- 1- 1:3 sv Ir rJAN 2 2 \\993 .... , , t2! Dcsege~~~on ,ori',ffl1gTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS v--' ,..J WESTERN DIVISION --- ,_, .... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OBSERVATIONS. QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS OF THE PCSSD REGARDING THE PROPOSED LRSD AEROSPACE MAGNET SCHOOL Preliminary Statement The PCSSD has sought to independently evaluate and analyze the continued wisdom and vitality of constructing and operating an aerospace magnet program in LRSD, including in particular the construction of a new high school. The PCSSD has identified at least four areas of major question and concern which it will discuss in this submission. The present areas of concern, inquiry and question of the PCSSD are: I. Whether or not the seemingly accelerating decline in the aerospace industry as a whole, and in particular regarding job opportunities for technicians, vitiates the vitality of this project. II. Whether or not the student transfer projections proposed by the grant document are too ambitious and are not likely to be attained. III. Whether or not LRSD needs additional high school space. IV. Whether or not the LRSD can reasonably fund the maintenance and operation of an aerospace high school, particularly beyond the grant period. The PCSSD will, to the extent feasible, address these issues seriatim. I. Whether or not the seemingly accelerating decline in the aerospace industry as a whole, and in particular regarding job opportunities for technicians, vitiates the vitality of this project. Spurred by local anecdotal and media reports of a \"decline\" in aerospace sales, employment and production, including facilities located in central Arkansas, the PCSSD sought to independently assess, as best it can, the current status of this industry. With research assistance from congressional offices, the PCSSD has obtained certain published information which fortifies its concern in this regard. Attached as Exhibit A is a publication of the Aerospace Industries' Association which contains both the 1992 Year End Review and Forecast as well as the \"Outlook for 1993 11  1 Portions of the summary indicate that during 1992: 1. Aerospace industry sales fell four percent\n2. Department of Defense (DoD) purchases of aerospace products and services fell seven percent\nlExhibit A appears to be a precursor to an about-to-be published book from this organization which, in its last publication, was entitled Aerospace, Fact \u0026amp; Figures 91-92. (Counsel for PCSSD possesses this volume and is informed that the 92-93 edition will be available \"in a couple of weeks\".) 2 3. Sales of military aircraft and parts fell nine percent\n4. Aerospace profits are at their lowest level since 1982\n5. New aerospace orders were down 23 percent\n6. The backlog of unfilled orders for all aerospace products and services should fall 11 percent\n7. Employment during 1992 fell an additional 10 percent\n8. Company forecasts indicate that the aerospace work force will shrink an additional four percent during 1993. The outlook for 1993 includes a projection for another year of industry sales declines of approximately six percent. An additional decline in aerospace employment of four percent is forecast with the employment of technicians and production workers forecast to fall more than five percent. 2 The Aerospace Technology Program (the draft grant application) states at page 11, paragaraph 5: \"The aerospace employment need for a skilled work force is well known in Arkansas.\" The PCSSD was unable to locate any documentation 2rn Aerospace Facts and Figures 91-92, supra, note 1, the Association reported that new orders declined for the first time since 1986 (page 6), that DoD aerospace sales will drop by 1995 to a level 25 percent below the 1990 level, that overall sales will decline seriously but not catastrophically during the next decade (page 7), that industry employment fell by 19,000 in 1990 marking the first reduction since 1983, (page 11), that aerospace industry company-funded research and development in 1991 was expected to drop by more than $117,000,000, (page 102). 3 for this bald statement anywhere in the draft grant application. The accuracy of this statement must at least be questioned given the employment declines described in Exhibit A. The PCSSD is concerned that in light of the Exhibit A projections, the establishment of this school, while it might very well produce an accomplished core of graduates, might yet be targeting an employment market that is shrinking and which cannot absorb those so educated. The only direct projection the PCSSD found in the draft grant application is an expression of intent at page 27 regarding the creation of more than 300 jobs at Arkansas Aerospace. While recognizing that central Arkansas would not likely be the only employment opportunity for such graduates, the statistical fact remains that the one time creation of 300 jobs will do little to satisfy the employment needs of more than 300 graduates per year. PCSSD believes that LRSD has not adequately documented the job market and job opportunities for the school graduates. II. Whether or not the student transfer projections proposed by the draft grant document are too ambitious and are not likely to be attained. As nearly as the PCSSD can determine, the draft grant application contemplates the interdistrict transfer of 325 junior high white students from outside of LRSD and ultimately some 270 white senior high students from without the LRSD. Given the present and projected racial composition of the NLRSD, it seems reasonable to conclude, absent significant 4 transfers from outside the three Pulaski County districts, that the PCSSD is projected to supply almost all of these transferring students. Several historical indicators give the PCSSD pause in endorsing these projections. First, the establishment of specialized programs at Dunbar Junior High and Central High School have proved relatively unattractive to prospective transferring PCSSD students. Conversely, PCSSD has been able to attract relatively and absolutely more black LRSD students to Robinson and Sylvan Hills junior high schools, even absent the presence of a specialty program. The same is true at Robinson High School and Sylvan Hills High School. Additionally, the PCSSD recently completed a survey of all students at Crystal Hill Elementary School, emphasizing in particular the outcomes at grades 5 and 6, and learned that the overwhelming majority of those students expressed both the desire and intent to transfer to a Crystal Hill junior high school if one could be built in the future. Accordingly, based upon the historical information to date, it appears that racial overrepresentation and isolation in the secondary schools in LRSD would m~st likely be ameliorated and reduced by the establishment of additional programs in PCSSD for transferring 5 black LRSD students than efforts to induce large scale transfers of white PCSSD secondary students to programs in LRSD. 3 Further, while program conflict is likely inevitable as additional specialty schools are considered, PCSSD would reiterate its concern, first expressed approximately two years ago in open court, that establishment of the Aerospace Magnet School would likely negatively impact its own efforts to recruit PCSSD white students to Fuller Junior High and Mills High School for the specialty programs presently operated and projected for those schools. III. Whether or not LRSD needs additional high school space. LRSD has consistently reported the need for additional junior high space over the past several years. However, the PCSSD recalls no assertion that it was in need of additional high school space for space's sake. The PCSSD found no analysis of the need for additional senior high space within the four corners of the draft grant application, nor did it 3This should not be interpreted to mean that PCSSD would not work resolutely and diligently to help in attracting students to an aerospace high school. However, PCSSD does not believe it would serve the overall goals and requirements of the desegregation plans to ignore history and projections in this regard. 6 find any analysis of the impact this school would have on the residual enrollments of other present LRSD high schools. Further, PCSSD recalls that for this school year, LRSD experienced an actual enrollment decline, a factor which should be evaluated before this school is finally authorized. IV. Whether or not the LRSD can reasonably fund the maintenance and operation of an aerospace high school, particularly beyond the grant period. At page 2 the draft grant application does identify a source of funds for a portion of the costs to construct the aerospace magnet high school. However, the PCSSD did not locate any source of funding to equip such a highly technical and specialized school nor a source of funds with which to operate the school into the future. It seems reasonable to require that LRSD identify fund sources for the continuous operation of this school into the future and such should be done before it is approved. This Court has recently addressed budget cuts in the LRSD budget and has reluctantly and temporarily approved most or all of them. Upon information and belief, the LRSD will submit additional new budget cuts to this Court during this year for the Court's consideration and approval. If in fact the LRSD does not need additional high school space, it seems anomalous to propose the construction of an expensive new high school when, at the same time, the LRSD has not identified a funding 7 source for the continuous operation of this school and has recently and will likely again ask this Court to approve additional budget cuts. Finally, this high school was not a part of the desegregation settlement plans both approved and then mandated by the Court of Appeals. As such, its establishment should remain squarely within the rubric of analysis laid down by the United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, which case has previously been briefed to this Court. 4 See, PCSSD brief filed February 6, 1992. The PCSSD would submit that if indeed the concerns it has expressed in this submission are legitimate and if the answers to the various inquiries set forth herein militate against construction of this school, that this Court should not approve it, at least under present circumstances. Respectfully submitted, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501} 371-0808 ~- 0 (,, I J'ru-,,.,~- _..,.._ _ M. Samu J nes III #76060 Atto~ eys fr Pulaski\nCounty Sp~_ed .. al School Dis1tr,i'.ct I / 4This assumes the school remains a requirement even though conditions specified by the previous stipulation were not realized or fulfilled. 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On January :\nl..:J. 1993, the foregoing was served by mailing a copy thereof, first class postage prepaid, to: 54041 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 Capitol Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED JAN 2 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Little Rock School District (LRSD} hereby gives notice of the filing of the attached grant application for an Aerospace Technology Magnet Program. The attached grant application is the most recent document prepared by a grant writer engaged by the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society to work as a consultant to the Little Rock School District. LRSD has begun the process of preparing a revised and corrected grant application which will be hand delivered to the Court, the parties and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring no later than Monday, January 25, 1993. Also attached are: ( l} A Resolution in Support of the Aerospace Technology Magnet Program which was adopted by the LRSD Board of Directors on November 24, 1992\n( 2) Proposed exhibits which summarize projected Little Rock School District revenues and budgets both with and without an Aerospace Technology Magnet Program\nand (3) Proposed exhibits which present budgets for an Aerospace Education Center using various assumptions regarding the number of majority to minority transfer students. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 B~~--- Christoph Bar No. 8108 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 22nd day of January, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 -2- l \\ Mr. Richard Roachell 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 BY0~z ~ ' Christopher Rel.Yer / -3- RECEIVED JAN 2 2 19'15 Office of Desegrngation Moilitoring R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors has considered the proposal to build a senior high aerospace magnet school and to offer aerospace technology courses in one or more junior high schools\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is very excited about the potential for unparalleled educational opportunities that such a school and museum partnership could provide the students of the Little Rock School District as well as surrounding school districts\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors commends the business community for its vision and progressive spirit\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is committed to issue second lien bonds in an amount not to exceed $10 million to construct a high school aerospace magnet school on a pre-selected site near the Little Rock Regional Airport adjacent to the proposed Aerospace Museum and to use existing debt service mills to retire the bonds\nand WHEREAS, the Board of Directors is committed to use existing central office administrators and support staff to plan and implement the school subject to the following conditions: 1. that the District receives from the Magnet School Assistance Fund grant a minimum of $8 million covering a two-year term\n2. that seventy percent ( 70%) of the aerospace school's capacity will be initially reserved for Little Rock School District students while the remaining seats may be filled by majority to minority transfer students from outside the Little Rock School District, and that funds to defray the cost of operating the school will be obtained from public and/or private sources\nthat these funds for the school's operation are available for a period of five (5) years beginning with the date the school opens\nthat construction will begin when the five (5) year commitment of operating funds are identified\nand 3. that the District can demonstrate to the U.S. District Court that the school will complement its desegregation plan and receives approval from the Court to modify its plan to include the construction and implementation of the aerospace school. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Little Rock School District enthusiastically approves the Aerospace Technology School in concept subject to the conditions listed above. ADOPTED this 24th day of November, 1992. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 0. G. JACOVELLI, PRESIDENT PAT GEE, SECRETARY LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAN 2 2 1995 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WITH AEROSPACE SCHOOL REVENUE/EXPENSE) Office of Desegregation Monitoring 01-22-93 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 39,088,120 40,793,227 39,416,117 40,786,512 42,206,276 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,250,186 4,600,000 4,700,000 4,800,000 4,900,000 40% PULLBACK 21,694,578 21,633,744 22,396,645 23,166,307 23,918,335 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 140,000 141,400 142,814 144,242 145,685 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 368,650 372,337 376,060 379,820 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 227,250 229,183 231,818 234,136 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 461,000 484,050 508,253 533,665 560,348 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 309,000 318,270 327,818 337,653 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 100,857 100,000 100,000 100,000 92,007 TOTAL 66,559,408 68,657,321 68,183,619 70,466,422 72,774,260 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 27,042,713 27,503,386 28,394,849 30,102,462 30,862,449 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 VOCATIONAL 1,341,887 1,400,000 1,450,000 1,500,000 1,550,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 821,449 850,000 875,000 900,000 950,000 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 EARLY CHILDHOOD 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 TRANSPORTATION 2,692,563 3,300,000 3,615,840 3,805,107 4,017,516 INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 2,490,900 3,248,910 4,206,664 5,046,346 5,843,040 ADULT EDUCATION 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 548,034 565,000 575,000 585,000 595,000 TOTAL 46,367,563 45,965,319 46,163,855 46,772,768 45,505,041 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM FED. GRANTS 262,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 600,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 TOTAL 902,000 700,000 595,000 490,000 385,000 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 113,913,390 115,407,059 115,026,893 117,813,609 118,748,720 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WITH AEROSPACE SCHOOL REVENUE/EXPENSE) 01-22-93 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-FEDERALGRANTS CHAPTER I 4,446,152 4,563,774 4,655,049 CHAPTER II 215,020 219,320 223,707 TITLEVI B 569,986 581,386 593,014 OTHER 1,770,603 1,806,015 1,842,135 TOTAL 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 REVENUE - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 TOTAL REVENUE 135,193,947 137,025,501 137,077,704 EXPENSES- OPERATING SALARIES 65,063,011 68,365,037 69,169,638 BENEFITS 9,162,732 9,202,509 9,120,588 DESEGREGATION 17,013,029 19,148,407 22,515,161 PUA SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP 14,636,674 14,672,774 14,696,830 DEBT SERVICE 9,597,115 9,797,473 9,552,598 CONTINGENCY 500,000 600,000 700,000 TOTAL- OPERATING 115,972,561 121,786,200 125,754,815 EXPENSES-FEDERAL GRANTS 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 EXPENSES - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 EXPENSES - AEROSPACE 1,452,615 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,253,118 143,404,642 149,258,241 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES  (2,059,171) (6,379,141) (12,180,537)  - Budget reductions to comply with State law are not reflected. 1995-96 1996-97 4,748,150 4,843,113 228,181 232,745 604,874 616,971 1,878,978 1,916,557 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 140,305,436 141,690,383 70,892,807 73,443,940 9,166,861 9,213,366 23,246,037 23,732,324 14,725,036 14,755,937 9,120,671 8,901,668 800,000 900,000 127,951,412 130,947,235 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 2,949,249 4,401,864 153,392,488 158,290,762 (13,087,052) (16,600,379) ~ RE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAN c -J JY9.5 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WITHOUT AEROSPACE SCHOOL) Office of Deseg,1 - 1on fllont  01-22-93 \"\u0026lt;-'\"'' , 1 onng 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES 39,088,120 40,793,227 39,416,117 40,786,512 42,206,276 DELINQUENT TAXES 4,250,186 4,600,000 4,700,000 4,800,000 4,900,000 40% PULLBACK 21,694,578 21,633,744 22,396,645 23,166,307 23,918,335 EXCESS TREASURER'S FEE 140,000 141,400 142,814 144,242 145,685 DEPOSITORY INTEREST 300,000 368,650 372,337 376,060 379,820 REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES 224,667 227,250 229,183 231,818 234,136 MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS 461,000 484,050 508,253 533,665 560,348 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 300,000 309,000 318,270 327,818 337,653 ATHLETIC RECEIPTS 100,857 100,000 100,000 100,000 92,007 TOTAL 66,559,408 68,657,321 68,183,619 70,466,422 72,TT4,260 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COUNTY GENERAL 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 SEVERANCE TAX 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 TOTAL 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 84,419 REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA 27,042,713 27,503,386 28,394,849 30,102,462 30,862,449 SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS 8,926,606 8,094,112 6,042,591 3,829,942 683,125 SETTLEMENT LOAN 1,500,000 APPORTIONMENT 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 73,419 VOCATIONAL 1,341,887 1,400,000 1,450,000 1,500,000 1,550,000 HANDICAPPED CHILDREN 821,449 850,000 875,000 900,000 950,000 ORPHAN CHILDREN 3,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 EARLY CHILDHOOD 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 229,403 TRANSPORTATION 2,692,563 3,300,000 3,615,840 3,805,107 4,017,516 INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M 2,490,900 3,248,910 3,760,540 4,140,580 4,491,150 ADULT EDUCATION 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 697,589 COMPENSATORY EDUCATION 548,034 565,000 575,000 585,000 595,000 TOTAL 46,367,563 45,965,319 45,717,731 45,867,002 44,153,151 REVENUE - OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 TRANSFER FROM FED. GRANTS 262,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 265,000 TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT 600,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 TOTAL 902,000 700,000 595,000 490,000 385,000 TOTAL REVENUE OPERATING 113,913,390 115,407,059 114,580,769 116,907,843 117,396,830 LITTI.E ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-97 REVENUE PROJECTION AND BUDGET SUMMARY (WffilOUT AEROSPACE SCHOOL) 01-22-93 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 REVENUE-FEDERALGRANTS CHAPTER I 4,446,152 4,563,774 4,655,049 CHAPTER II 215,020 219,320 223,707 mLEVIB 569,986 581,386 593,014 OTHER 1,770,603 1,806,015 1,842,135 TOTAL 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 REVENUE - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 TOTAL REVENUE 135,193,947 137,025,501 136,631,580 EXPENSES - OPERATING SALARIES 65,063,011 68,365,037 69,169,638 BENEFITS 9,162,732 9,202,509 9,120,588 DESEGREGATION 17,013,029 19,148,407 22,515,161 PUA SER,SUPPLIES,EQUIP 14,636,674 14,672,774 14,696,830 DEBT SERVICE 9,597,115 9,090,123 8,845,248 CONTINGENCY 500,000 600,000 700,000 TOTAL - OPERATING 115,972,561 121,078,850 125,047,465 EXPENSES - FEDERAL GRANTS 7,001,761 7,170,495 7,313,905 EXPENSES - MAGNET SCHOOLS 14,278,796 14,447,947 14,736,906 TOTAL EXPENSES 137,253,118 142,697,292 147,098,276 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES * (2,059,171) (5,671,791) (10,466,696)  - Budget reductions to comply with State law are not reflected. 1995-96 1996-97 4,748,150 4,843,113 228,181 232,745 604,874 616,971 1,878,978 1,916,557 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 139,399,670 140,338,493 70,892,807 73,443,940 9,166,861 9,213,366 23,246,037 23,732,324 14,725,036 14,755,937 8,258,921 8,041,468 800,000 900,000 127,089,662 130,087,035 7,460,183 7,609,386 15,031,644 15,332,277 149,581,489 153,028,698 (10,181,819) (12,690,205) :lsl~T1:\n\\1o1,!!:ts:p\n.i:'@X:-cw.\n.:\n@J-:.:.gL\nFillfilji\u0026amp;ill]fill CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $53 232 1.0 $62,274 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $116 160 3.0 $135 891 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO) OTHER (60) Project Director 1.0 $39 460 1.0 $46163 Curriculum Specialists 5.0 $202 820 5.0 $237 271 Counselors 3.0 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 Media 1.0 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 Foreiqn Lanquaqe Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186 043 Enqlish Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Math Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Science Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186 043 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 $53 010 2.0 $62 014 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 Phvsical Education/Life Sports 3.0 $79 515 3.0 $93 021 Special Education Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 lanquaqe Arts Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Substitutes $0 $0 Fringe Benefrts(20)  .......... , ,. $318,000 .,,,'.-:s-:s-:-:.  $412,000 TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 Reaistrar 1.0 $15943 1.0 $18651 Princioal's Secretarv 1.0 $14 803 1.0 $17 317 General Office Secretarv 1.0 $14 234 1.0 $16 652 Bookkeeoer 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14 085 Attendance Secretarv 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 Counselor Secretary 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 Media Clerks 2.0 $21 946 2.0 . $25 674 Nurse 1.0 $22 607 1.0 $26 447 Buildinq Enqineer 1.0 $23 000 1.0 $26 907 Custodians 7.0 $83 300 7.0 $97 449 Camous Securitv Officers 2.0 $23 878 2.0 $27 934 Resource Officer 1.0 $18 591 1.0 $21 749 Project Director's Secretarv 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14 085 Instructional Aides 10.0 $97 130 10.0 $113 628 Frinqe Benefits(20) ,.,.,,_.,.,.,.,,:-,-,,,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., $72,000 ,,,.,.,-:,,,.--,-:-,,, . ,,..w.,, $90,100 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31 .0 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 TOTAL (10 20) N.''H' :. $3 291 985\n~ $3 897 012 Utilities Travel Maintenance Aqreements Other TOTAL (30) Princioal's Office Reaular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) Equipment Building Repair etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other flight lessons TOTAL (60) TOT AL (30 60) TOT AL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE GRAND TOTAL $210 000 .,,, ... ,,,.,,,.,.,.'' $245 670 $0 ' $0 $0 ., $0 $48 700 ......, ..., .. ..... ,,. . -:.,:,....... $56 972 $258 700 .... , '. ' ,. $302 642 $0 :, $0 $1 00 850  -:-:-- ,,:.:,:-:-:-:::-:-:,:-:-:-. $117 980 $17 000 . .,ww.: $19 888 $0 $0 $117 850 $137 868 $0. $0 $0  $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $0 $0 :, $0 $50 000 $58 493 $50 000  $58 493 $426 550 $499 003 118.0 $3 718 535 118.0 $4 396 015 $5 000 :,rn,: .,.,.,.... ........ $5 849 $3 723 535 -.. ...  ',/' $4 401 864 RECEIVE JAN 2 2 199j Office of Desegregation Monitoring- :::,,,,hi?t:rnw::t'Ii.:tWWM+rrn::::::::,une11emoa,11f.,rr:i::.,.=:::::,:.= 1992-93 1996-97 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services $5,000 $5,849 Reading Science English Special Education i,::--\n.:,rmar.un1Jtims\\'w:\\i\" :\u0026gt;~~/t\"::--rw::sasdoo STUDENT ENROLLMENT 900.0 900.0 Total Costs $0 $4,401,864 fflPu1:m:eost::\\faf!tt:rn::nrnt::mmW mm:,,:='=ttJlYJ@NM:=:t:MJO, ,ftttM%1iM@1,\n.eg1: LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 0% 0.00 M TO M REIMBURSEMENT $0 NET OPERATING COST $3 723 535 SALARIES: SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: 0.00 $0 $4 401 864 CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL. M TOM ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% !lllllfd ~rntti?k@H CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $53,232 1.0 $62,274 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $116160 3.0 $135,891 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (50) OTHER (60) Proiect Director 1.0 $39 460 1.0 $46 163 Curriculum Specialists 5.0 $202 820 5.0 $237,271 Counselors 3.0 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 Media 1.0 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 Foreian Lanauaae Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Enalish Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Math Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279,064 Science Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279 064 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 $53,010 2.0 $62,014 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31,007 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 $26,505 1.0 $31,007 Physical Education/Life Sports 3.0 $79 515 3.0 $93 021 Special Education Teachers 4.0 $106,020 4.0 $124,028 Lanauaae Arts Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 $106,020 4.0 $124 028 Substitutes $0 $0 Frinae Benefits(20)  ' $318,000 ,  , .... ..... $412,000 TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 Reaistrar 1.0 $15 943 1.0 $18,651 Principal'sSecretary 1.0 $14,803 1.0 $17317 General Office Secretary 1.0 $14 234 1.0 $16 652 Bookkeeoer 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 Attendance Secretary 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 Counselor Secretary 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 Media Clerks 2.0 $21,946 2.0 $25,674 Nurse 1.0 $22,607 1.0 $26,447 Building Engineer 1.0 $23 000 1.0 $26 907 Custodians 7.0 $83 300 7.0 $97 449 Campus Securitv Officers 2.0 $23 878 2.0 $27,934 Resource Officer 1.0 $18 591 1.0 $21 749 Proiect Director's Secretarv 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14 085 Instructional Aides 10.0 $97,130 10.0 $113 628 Fringe Benefrts(20) .,.,.,,.,., .. , . ,.,,,.,,.,........ $72,000 :::::''',':'''',':''',':'''',: $90,100 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31.0 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 TOTAL (10 20) .......... ,   $3,291,985 :~ $3,897,012 UlilltO,s $210,000 $245,670 ~\n~~~nance Ai:ireements :' ... $ 48 ,Jg ..... ,  $ 56,J~ TOTAL (30) $258,700 '\u0026gt; . .  $302 642 ~~~~i~~1i1a~:~~:m ''' ,,, $100,8:~IIII, $117 9:~ Media .,,., $17,000 ,,,  .......  $19,888 Other $0 ..   $0 Eauipment Buildina Repair etc. Other TOTAL (50) Dues and Fees Other fliaht lessons TOTAL (60) TOTAL/30 60) TOTAL (10-60) TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE GRAND TOTAL - w w ---- w w .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,., .,.,,,,,,,,:,:,:,:,. $50 000 $58 493 ................ ,:x,,,,,y $50 000 $58 493 $426 550 ..  $499 003 118.0 $3 718 535 118.0 $4,396,015 $5 000 :!::::::::-:-:-:.:::::-:::::: $5,849 $3 723 535 -:-:-:-:-:,:,:,\n,:,:-:,:.,::::::,-: $4,401,864 :r\"'s \u0026lt;t .. LinetmC.ftt\u0026gt; Le\u0026lt;:\n\u0026gt; 1992-93 1996-97 Stipends Other Obiects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Proqrams Plant Services $5,000 $5,849 Readinq Science Enqlish Special Education ]tef Pub.ii:OtiL . c::.:.x  L+\u0026lt; .,}.c.., 1992-93 1996-91 STUDENT ENROLLMENT 900.0 900.0 Total Costs $3,723,535 $4 401,864 :eei\n}~(ipij\n.ob.M=ikfi:fobitdi\\ki@kA ifaifoiiJ$4dl1l .~=a.a* LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 10% 0.10 0.10 M TO M REIMBURSEMENT $385 200 $450 630 NET OPERATING COST $3 338 335 $3,951 234 SALARIES: SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL. M TOM ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% :ts~11=:~11=~dij~irM,1lm:11]\n~:\n:i\n:\n:~]\n~:\n:\n~::1::~\n:::::i:~\n:m~\n:\n:1~:: :\n'\n:::\n:\n:\n::\n::~\n:- ,,, CERTIFIED Principal 1.0 $53,232 1.0 $62,274 STAFF Asst. Prin. 3.0 $116 160 3.0 $135,891 SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) Proiect Director 1.0 $39 460 1.0 $46,163 Curriculum Specialists 5.0 $202 820 5.0 $237,271 Counselors 3.0 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 Media 1.0 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 Foreian Lanauaae Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Enalish Teachers 9.0 $238,545 9.0 $279 064 Math Teachers 9.0 $238 545 9.0 $279,064 Science Teachers 9.0 $238,545 9.0 $279,064 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 $53,010 2.0 $62,014 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 $26,505 1.0 $31 007 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 Phvsical Education/life Sports 3.0 $79 515 3.0 $93,021 Special Education Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Lanauaae Arts Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 Substitutes $0 $0 Frinae Benefits(20) ,.,.,.,,,,,~'. $318,000 .,,.,,,,  ,,.,.,.,. , ,- - $412,000 TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 Reaistrar 1.0 $15 943 1.0 $18,651 Principal'sSecretarv 1.0 $14,803 1.0 $17317 General Office Secretary 1.0 $14 234 1.0 $16 652 Bookkeeoer 1.0 $12040 1.0 $14,085 AttendanceSecretarv 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14085 Counselor Secretarv 1.0 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 Media Clerks 2.0 $21,946 2.0 $25 674 Nurse 1.0 $22 607 1.0 $26 447 Buildina Enaineer 1.0 $23 000 1.0 $26,907 Custodians 7.0 $83,300 7.0 $97 449 Campus Security Officers 2.0 $23,878 2.0 $27 934 Resource Officer 1.0 $18,591 1.0 $21 749 Proiect Director's Secretarv 1.0 $12 040 1.0 $14,085 Instructional Aides 10.0 $97 130 10.0 $113,628 Frinae Benefits/20) $72,000 . $90,100 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31 .0 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 TOTAL/10 20) ...... , $3,291,985 :~ :: $3,897,012 Utilities Travel Maintenance Aareements Other TOTAL /30) Principal's Office Reaular Classroom Media Other TOTAL /40) $48 700 '''.' '' '\": '\"' :\"' '\"'  $56 972 $258 700 . .  $302,642 $0 $0 $100,850 '  $117,980 $17,000 ,,,,,,:,:,,,:,:,,,:,:,,:-,-,,,.,.,.,.,,,. $19,888 TOTAL /30 60) ,.,., $426 550 $499,003 TOTAL/10-60) 118.0 $3,718,535 118.0 $4396,015 TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE GRAND TOTAL $5,000 $5 849 $3,723,535  $4 401 864 . ......: : .. ....: ..... ...:\n.: ... . )WiUne]tem:costs\n::tJlJM.tt:.f/.(.::,::\"': SALARIES: Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Programs Plant Services Reading Science English Special Education t.:: :}:\\.LLTbtaUJne..lt~mis ...  STUDENT ENROLLMENT Total Costs f.m.reui1tc.b.$txL\\\u0026gt;}\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026gt;t\u0026lt;/t LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 20% M TO M REIMBURSEMENT NET OPERATING COST 1992-93 1996-97 $5,000 $5,849 1992-93 1996-97 900.0 900.0 $3 723 535 $4 401 864 ~r,:tnf 2G:C/'.GUfU]:: 0.20 0.20 $770 400 $901 260 $2 953135 $3 500 604 SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL. M TO M ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% CERTIFIED STAFF SUPPORT STAFF PURCHASED SERVICES (30) MATERIALS, SUPPLIES (40) CAPITAL OUTLAY (SO} OTHER (60) Princioal 1.0 Asst. Prin. 3.0 Proiect Director 1.0 Curriculum Soecialists 5.0 Counselors 3.0 Media 1.0 Aerospace Tech Teachers 15.0 Foreign Lanauaae Teachers 6.0 EnQlish Teachers 9.0 Math Teachers 9.0 Science Teachers 9.0 Social Studies Teachers 6.0 Fine Arts Teachers 2.0 Vocal Music Teacher 1.0 Orchestra/Instrumental Teacher 1.0 Phvsical Education/life Soorts 3.0 Soecial Education Teachers 4.0 LanauaQe Arts Teachers 4.0 Mathematics Remediation Teachers 4.0 Substitutes TOTAL CERT SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 87.0 ReQistrar 1.0 Principal's Secretary 1.0 General Office Secretary 1.0 Bookkeeoer 1.0 Attendance Secretary 1.0 Counselor Secretary 1.0 Media Clerks 2.0 Nurse 1.0 Buildina Enaineer 1.0 Custodians 7.0 Camous Security Officers 2.0 Resource Officer 1.0 Proiect Director's Secretary 1.0 Instructional Aides 10.0 TOTAL N/C SALARY \u0026amp; BENEFITS 31.0 TOTAL (10 20) ....... , Utilities Travel Maintenance Aareements Other TOTAL (30) Princioal's Office ReQular Classroom Media Other TOTAL (40) $53 232 1.0 $62,274 $116160 3.0 $135 891 $39 460 1.0 $46 163 $202 820 5.0 $237,271 $95,622 3.0 $111,864 $30,334 1.0 $35,486 $443,475 15.0 $518,803 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 $238,545 9.0 $279 064 $238 545 9.0 $279,064 $238,545 9.0 $279,064 $159 030 6.0 $186,043 $53 010 2.0 $62,014 $26 505 1.0 $31 007 $26 505 1.0 $31,007 $79 515 3.0 $93 021 $106 020 4.0 $124 028 $106,020 4.0 $124,028 $106020 4.0 $124028 $0 $0 $318,000 $412,000 $2,836,393 87.0 $3,358,164 $15,943 1.0 $18,651 $14,803 1.0 $17,317 $14234 1.0 $16652 $12040 1.0 $14085 $12,040 1.0 $14,085 $12,040 1.0 $14 085 $21,946 2.0 $25,674 $22,607 1.0 $26 447 $23 000 1.0 $26,907 $83,300 7.0 $97 449 $23,878 2.0 $27,934 $18,591 1.0 $21 749 $12 040 1.0 $14,085 $97,130 10.0 $113,628 $72,000. $90,100 $455,592 31.0 $538,848 $3 291,98s :~mt $3 897 012 $258 700 . :: ' $302 642 $0 $0 $100,850  :: $117,980 $17 000 $19,888 $0 _-  $0 $117 850 :  w $137 868 Eauipment $0 - $0 BuildinQ Repair, etc. ffiffim:  $0 $0 \u0026gt;-0-th_e_r~~-~------~3-  f-----7$0~- --- - -----~$0_, TOT AL (SO} $0 :=== .,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.-  $0 Dues and Fees -- $0  $0 1-:0:-:-t:---he_r_ __ f'=\"=li-ah:--:t-,-le_s_s_on_s_ ____- f?i_~.    -- $50,000  $58 493 TOTAL (60) $50,000 ' $58 493 TOTALC30 60) $426,550 . -  $499 003 TOTALC10-60) 118.0 $3,718 535 118.0 $4,396,015 TOTAL LINE ITEMS SECOND PAGE $5,000 $5,849 GRAND TOTAL \"'1  $3 723 535 ' $4 401 864 -\u0026gt; ..., ,. ..m .. \u0026gt; \u0026lt;tM\u0026lt;t@ ... :.:.wt ..1 :w:mrcr:-..-cun,ntafu costs Jr\\:(\": :  ,:: r ,.'f:\"::\". r  1992-93 1996-97 Stipends Other Objects Indirect Costs Vocational Athletics Gifted Proarams Plant Services $5,000 $5,849 Readina Science Enalish Soecial Education \u0026lt;. ................ ....Ttital .. LlneJtems ........, ... ...........................t ,. .................. ..... .. ,-.......... /$6.ID.OO ..............: .. .............. . .. ..  ... .. )$5..M9 .. STUDENT ENROLLMENT 900.0 Total Costs $3,723 535 Nt.P,\ni#II.Co.iUO\\ ... L .. :.J.:J/V.. J .::: .::. . / ... M.i-\\..Ut .. J$4.43.1. LESS: M TOM PERCENTAGE 30% 30% M TO M REIMBURSEMENT $1 155 600 NET OPERATING COST $2 567,935 1996-97 900.0 $4 401,864 :~'Ht 30% $1 351 890 $3,049,974 .... :: ..'. . . _::::u..1. .. ,.::..::: ..... :. \u0026gt;. . ::: ... '.'':.:., ' :\n.::: ::wssuMet10.N1r=.). ,.. .. ).-........: .. .. '.'''u -''''._,_: ... ,.._,. '' SALARIES: SELECTED THE MIDPOINT FOR EACH SALARY RANGE. INCREMENTED SALARIES BY 4% PER YEAR FOR 4 YEARS. BENEFITS: CALCULATED AS A PERCENTAGE OF SALARIES AND ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. PURCHASED SERVICES: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW H.S. AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. MATERIALS \u0026amp; SUPPLIES: BASED ON CUSRRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW H.S. AND ADJUSTED 4% FOR 4 YEARS. CAPITAL OUTLAY: ASSUMED THAT THESE COSTS WOULD BE PART OF GRANT AND/OR STARTUP COSTS. OTHER: BASED ON CURRENT COSTS OF PARKVIEW H.S. M TO M ASSUMPTIONS: CALCULATED AT 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% Little Rock School District January 22, 1993 Ms. Sylvia Wright Chief, Magnet Schools and Desegregation Branch U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Room 2059 Washington, DC 20202-6246 Dear Ms. Wright: RECEIVED JAN 2 2 1993 Office of Dasegregation Monitoring On behalf of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, I request your consideration of the enclosed Aerospace Grant Application. The Grant was developed by a writer employed through the funding of a consortium of Arkansas businessmen and has the strong support of the Aerospace Industry in Arkansas. This support has resulted in a close and cooperative relationship with a vitally important segment of the business community. They have pledged their determination to provide financial and in-kind support which will be vital in the continued operation of the school. With this backing from the business community, the Board of Education looks forward to the potential which this magnet program offers to our students and the community. After visiting an existing Aerospace Magnet School in Long Beach, California, I am excited about the opportunity to acquaint our students with the Aerospace curriculum. Through the use of computer simulations, they will learn the Aerospace curriculum, practice what they have learned, and use those concepts in situations that approach real life. The application of knowledge to real-world situations is something that has been sorely missing in public education. I believe that this void has contributed greatly to failure in school, lack of student motivation, and a high dropout rate among poor and minority children. One of the most important goals of this exciting project is to change these unacceptable conditions. Please give this grant your most careful consideration, because it portents a bright future for our school district and for public education in this country. Sincerely, C - \"'\"::::?:- t,K_AA._0~ C.M. Bernd Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501).324-2000 ' ,..,.\\,0'0 ~e~.,. \u0026lt;:\n)'\u0026lt;,cf:~\\ a,,,e,e o\\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .,c:\n-,t-~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS \\C\"1 ' WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. 0 RD ER FILED U.S. DISTRleTCOUFH\" -:Asri:c'-.1 l\"\\1c::rn1r.T AAKANSAS JAN 2 5 1993 CA~~BRE,SaRK By. '1/\"'a DEP. CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFEN.uANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Court has received a request from Mr. Richard N. Holbert, vice chairman of the Aerospace Education Center, to be present and present to the Court the Center's position on and involvement in the proposed establishment of an aerospace magnet school in conjunction with the Aerospace Education Center. attached.) (Letter Because the Court anticipates that such testimony might be informative, it is inclined to grant Mr. Holbert's request. The Court, however, desires th~ benefit of t~e pa~ties ' responses to the request. The parties, therefore, are directed to respond to the request no later than noon on Thursday, January 28, 1993. If necessary, the parties may file this response only by facsimile. ,. :{k. DATED this\n1-5~day of January, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRCT JUDGE National Advisory Board Dr. Eddie Anderson Col Walter J. Boyne LL Gen. Benjamin 0. Davis Gen. Alfred G. Hansen Phillip S. Woodruff Honorary Chairmen Herschel H. Friday Mayor Sharon M. Priest Winthrop P. Rockefeller Jackson T. Stephens Little Rock School District Dr. Cloyde McKinley Bernd Superintendent Campaign Leadership William H. Bowen Chairman Richard N. Holbert Vic, Chairman Marion B. Burton President J. Dan Baker J. W. \"Buddy\" Benafield 0. Wayne Bennett William C. Bracas Henry A Broach Rep. Inna Hunter Brown F. Taylor Brown David M. Clark Fred K. Darragh, Jr. Dennis D. D.-is Lee Frazier Charles H. Harper Sen. Jerry Jewell E. Ray Kemp John Lewellen Donna K. Mel.arty Sandy S. McMath Frederick J. Menz Edward M. Penick. Sr. Ruth Remmel Edgar K. Riddick, Jr. James R Rodgers Lucien M. Taillac Charles M. Taylor Jim Guy Tucker State Advisory Board Dr. Gerald P. Carr Na than Gordon Robert A Gordon Col. Albert Hart Dr. William R Pogue Louis L Ramsay Major General James A Ryan M. M. \"Twig\" Satterlield, Jr. Col. Charles J. Wax Development Counsel 375-7:i,v .5 7 ~- 0 9 '\\ 0 uFortune favors the prepared mind. n UCATION(ENTER January 22, 1993 P 0. Box 7332  Unle Rock. Arlwisas 72217  501. 371. 0331 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: As you know, the Arkansas Aviation Historical Society was approached in 1989 by the late Eugene Reville to consider adding a magnet school to our plan for an Arkansas Museum of Aviation History, to be located at the Little Rock Regional Airport. Mr. Reville sowed many seeds as he sought to rebuild community support for education. Some other partnership school ideas were floated, but the suitable partners failed to develop. However, despite an initial skepticism, and even bewilderment, we became the fertile ground upon which his idea germinated. Later, as we put plans for our museum on hold to allow for the creation of this new institution, we became its greatest proponents, and often the keeper of the flame. As we have spoken with people throughout our community, state, and even the entire nation, we have become convinced that this project represents even more than an exceptional school for the Little Rock School District, our community, and Arkansas. The Aerospace Education Center, as we have come to call the synthesis of the Magnet School and Museum, represents the best opportunity our community has to solve three distinct, yet interrelated, problems: * * * Providing better educational opportunities for our students, especially black and disadvantaged students who have had few opportunities to enter technology fields in past\nProviding a source of skilled workers in technology disciplines, and thus allowing the expansion of our existing aerospace or other technology companies here in Arkansas, and helping to attract new ones to provide future jobs. We call the educational plans which will meet these first two needs \"Relevant Education\n\" and finally Restoring the faith and trust (and therefore, support) of the entire community of central Arkansas in our system of public education. Honorable Susan Webber Wright January 22, 1993 Page Two While the diverse group of concerned citizens who have given of their time, money, and prestige to make this dream a reality are not parties to the case before your -Court, we feel that their voices should be represented when the hearing is held on February 1, 1993, seeking your approval for the District to submit an application to the U. S. Department of Education for an $8 million Federal Magnet School Grant, which would fund the operations of Little Rock's aerospace magnet program for the first two years. Therefore, we ask for an opportunity to be present at the hearing, to briefly present to the Court our position on these issues, and to be available to clarify our involvement in this project which, we feel, is crucial to bringing about excellent and equitable educational opportunities for all of our children. Thank you for the opportunity to present you with this request. RNH/mj Respectfully yours, Richard N. Holbert Vice Chairman Aerospace Education Center FACSIMILE gVER SHEET DATE: /-~ 53 TDIE: '-f: IS em TO:\nc..h,vJ. ec,c.ke..\\\\ -3\"1S- bl8b S ,,.,  - 3, I, ~q lf.4 1- \u0026lt;\n.te..pka.\"' ~ne.: - 3-,s\n-10\n.7 1--a~ .. 1/o.u ist - 317b2.ir.2-- FAX NUMBER FROM: CLERK, UNITED STATES DISTRI U.S. POST OFFICE AND COUR 600 WEST CAPITOL, ROOM 402 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 (501) 324-5351 \\ - ~1,'I_:. \\ \\- r \\ \\ _1-'--__ PAGE(S)\nILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTF~N n1~ro11'T ACl\u0026lt;ANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAN 2 6 1993 WESTERN DIVISION CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By:---.........,._.,_..._,,,,,.,.. PLA:ifflt\u0026gt;+f.!fERr v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1 1 ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS JOSHUA'S RESPONSE TO ORDER OF JANUARY 25, 1993 The Court directed the parties to respond to the request of Mr. Dick Holbert to give testimony in the hearing regarding the Aerospace Education Center by January 28, 1993. The Joshua Intervenors submit as their response the position that Mr. Holbert' s pa rticipation in the project has been substantial and that he is a pertinent witness in the hearing. Joshua, therefore, favors his participation. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 ~Ohh w. Walker, Bar #64046 ',/ REC VEO JAN 2 7 1993 Office of Desegregation Mon::0, ,ng CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of January, 1993. Larry Vault, Esq. Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 c:lrsd.mot Monitoring EDWARD L . WRIGHT ( 1903-1977) ROBERT S LINDSEY 11913-1991) RONALD A MAY ISAAC A SCOTT. JR. JAM ES M MOODY JOHN G . LILE GORDON S RATHER. JR. TERRY L. MATHEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A. GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD, JR. PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS, JR JOHN R TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 BRUCE R LINDSEY LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L. GRIFFEN N M NORTON, JR. EDGAR J . TYLER CHARLES C . PRICE CHARLES T. COLEMAN JIMMY W MITCHELL JAMES J GLOVER WRIGHT, LINDSEY 8: JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2200 WORTHEN BANK BUILDING 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 FAX 1!501 J 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE E. LUSK. JR EDWIN L LOWTHER. JR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER January 27, 1993 Re: LRSD v. USDC No. The Honorable U.S. District U.S. District Little Rock, PCSSD 82-866 Susan Webber Wright Court Judge Courthouse Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: CHARLES L . SCHLUMBERGER SAMMY L. TAYLOR WALTER E. MAY ANNA HIRAI GIBSON GREGORY T JONES H KEITH MORRISON THOMAS C COURTWAY BETTINA E BROWNSTEIN WALTER MCSPADDEN ROGER D ROWE NANCY BELLHOUSE MAY NATE COULTER JOHN D DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER MARK L PRYOR RAY F COX. JR HARRY S HURST JR TROY A PRICE PATRICIA SIEVERS LEWALLEN JAMES M MOODY. JR KATHRYN A PRYOR J_ MARK DAVIS TAMMERA RANKIN HARRELSON KEVIN W. KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODD WOOD R. GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON JAN 2 8 \\993 omce of Desegregation tv101\\1VJ\u0026lt;1ng This letter addresses Mr. Holbert's request to be heard at the aerospace magnet hearing and the Court's order respecting same. The Pulaski County Special School District has no objection to an appearance by Mr. Holbert pursuant to whatever guidelines or restrictions, if any, the Court believes to be reasonable and appropriate. MSJ:drl cc: Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Stephen Jones 54161 Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Richard Roachell Office of Desegregation Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ~e:::rr Monitoring JACK, LYO \u0026amp; JONES, JP.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TCBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3472 (501)375-1122 TELECOPIER(501l 375-1027 January 26, 1993 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Aerospace Magnet Dear Judge Wright: Nashville Office #11 Music Circle Sou!h Nash\\11lle, Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecoper (615) 2594668 In response to your Order of January 25, the North Little Rock School District does not object to Mr. Richard N. Holbert making a presentation to the Court regarding the proposed Aerospace Education Center. While the District is opposing the construction of this school absent clear evidence of the LRSD's ability to afford it without compromising its desegregation obligations, we also think that community involvement in this process is important. Therefore, we would encourage the Court to grant Mr. Holbert's request. SWJ/tr cc: All Ms. Mr. Counsel Of Recora\"\" Ann Brown, ODM  James Smith, NLRSD Very truly yours, ~ti~~~ JAN 2 7 1993 Office of Desegregation Mor111oring ' ROACHELL and STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-5550 Telefax: (501) 375-6186 January 26, 1992 Honorable Susa eber Wright VIA FAX #324-6096 District Judge HARD COPY TO FOLLOW Eastern D' trict of Arkansas 302 u .. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse 600 pitol Avenue P Office Box 3316 72203 Re: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al.\nUnited States District Court No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright: This letter will acknoweldge receipt of your facsimile transmission dated January 25, 1993. The Knight, et al. Intervenors have no objection to Mr. Holbert of the Aerospace Education Center being present and presenting the center's position on and involvment in the proposed establishment of an aerospace magnet school in conjuction with the Aerospace Education Center at the hearing currently set for February 1, 1993. By: RWR: jxb Sincerely yours, ROACHELL LAW FIRM Richard W. Roachell cc: Christopher J. Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 Samuel Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Holbert Attorney at Law 1501 Bond Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Larry D. Vaught Attorney at Law 201 South Broadway, Room #400 Little Rock, AR 72201 John W. Walker, Esq. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ann Brown/ OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones Attorney at Law 425 West Capitol,.Ste 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN-25-93 MON 17: 13 SUSt1N W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL, MRS, LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL, 0 RD ER P. 02 JAN 2 5 1993 CA~~BRE!~sa~K Sy. '1/::'a / DEP, CLEAT\u0026lt; PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The court has received a request from Mr. Richard N. Holbert, vice chairman of the Aerospace Education Center, to be present and present to the Court the Center's position on and involvement in the proposed establishment of an aerospace magnet school in conjunction with the Aerospace Education Center. (Letter attached,) Because the Court anticipates that such testimony might be informative, it is inclined to grant Mr. Holbert's request. The Court, however, desires the benefit of the parties' responses to the request. The parties, therefore, are directed to respond to the request no later than noon on Thursday, January 28, 1993, If necessary, the parties may file this response only by facsimile . . - -c\n.-{h. DATED this -\n...__\nday of January, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTR CT JUDGE JAN-25-93 MON J~:~- SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NL. :: \\3246576 P. 02 -~livnal A(hisory 8oard Vr. t dtlie Amlerwu Col. Walter J. Boyne LI. Gt:n. B~r:j:imiu O. navi~ Gen .. .\\Jn-..d r,. Han,en Ph,l\\\np 5 Weodnuf Honorary Choirmen Her.\u0026lt;chd H. Friday ~foyur 3harou M. Pri~sl V..,11rhm11 P. Rnckiilr Jac'.Gon T. Stephens IJttle Rock School Disttict Dr. Clorde MdGnley Berne! Sup.:riHt.:Jt.dr:N.I (\\nupr,i).!,l T .eader~hitl William H. lluwen Chcin.a Rich,,....J ~. lfollJerl ~'ka Chafrma\" ~f\n,ril'm R. RurtOJ\\ Pmidt11I J. Dan Baker J. W. \"Duddy\" Benalidd 0. \",V:.yne Benr,c=-tt Willi.1m C. Braca: llenr\nA. Broach Rep. !rm Hunter !Jrown I'. T:1ylor Bruwu David '.',1. Clark Fre\u0026lt;l K. [).\n,ragh, Jr. Denni: D, D:ivis lee Frazier Churbs H. l:fal'Der Sen. Jerry Jewell E. R.i K\u0026lt;tr,p John Lewt'llen D c)\\11'1 :t K. ~kLa.rty Suudy $. ,k,folh Frederick J. Menz Euwsinl M. Peuirk, Sr. R1.U1 Rsmtnel Ed\n:,ir K. Ri\u0026lt;hli,:k, Jr. James R Rodger:a J_.1u':i r':1l M. T\niilLic Ch\nirles M. Tilylor Jim Guy Tucker Stitc i\\dvisory Board Dr. Gerald P. C.irr Nath.a.n Gordon Rul:o r! :\\ .. Gonion Col. Albo1 Ha11 Dr. v.r,!\n::im R Pogue Liub L. Rau:s~y :vlljor General J.a.n,cs A l\u0026lt;yJn \\,!. \\f. '!'wig' Sorterudd.Jr. c,,1. Cl,.\nrl~d. W:i.x ~Fortune favors the prepared muid.  ~-- UCATION(ENTER January 22, 1993 Ho::orable Susan Webber Wright Uni-ed States District Court 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Judge Wright: As you know, the Arkansas Aviaticn Historical Society was app~oached in 1989 by chelate Eugene Keville to consider adding a ~agnet school to our plan for an Arkansas Museum of Aviation H:story, to be located at the Little Rock Regional Airport. Mr. Reville sowed many seeds as he sought to rebuild co~munity support for education. Some other partnership school ideas were floated, but the suitable partners failed to develop. However, despite an in~tial skepticism, and even bewilderment, we became the fertile ground upon which his idea germinated. Later, as we put plans for our museum on hold to allow for the creation o: ~his new institution, we became its greatest proponents, and of~en the keeper of the flame. As we have spoken with people throughout our community, state, and even the entire nation, we ~ave become convinced that th:s project represents even more than an exceptional school for the Little Rock Schoo_ District, our ccmmunity, and Arkansas. Tte Aerospace Education Center, as we have come to call the sy~thesis of the Magnet School and Museum, represents the best opportunity our community has to solve three distinct, yet ir.terrelated, problems: * Providing betcer educational 09portunities for our students, especially black a~j disadvantaged students who have had few opportunities to enter technology fields in past\nProviding a source of skilled workers in technology disciplines, and thus allowir.g the expansion of our existing aerospace or other technology companies here in Arkansas, and helping to attract new ones to provide future jobs. We call the educational plans which will meet these f:rst two needs \"Relevant Education\n\" and fi~ally Restoring the faith and trus~ (and therefore, support) of the entire cc~~unicy of central Arkansas in our system of pu~lic education. JAN-25-93 MON J~:~- SUSAN W WRIGHT Honorable s~san Webber Wright January 22, 1993 Page Two FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 03 While the diverse group of concerned citizens who have given of their time, ~oney, and prestige to make this dream a reality are not parties to t~e case before your Court, we feel that their voices should be represented when the hearing is held on February 1, 1993, seeking yo~r approval for the District to submit an application to the u. s. Department of Education for an $8 million Federal Magnet School Grant, which would fund the operations of Little Rock's aerospace magnet program for the first two years. Th~reft=e, we ask for an opportuni~y  to be present at the hearing, to briefly present to the Court our position on these issues, and to be available to clarify our involvement in this project wh~ci, we feel, is crucial to bringing about excellent and equitable educational opportunities for all of our children. Thank you for the opportunity to present you with this request. fu'JH / mj Respectfully yours, Richard N. Holbert Vice Chairman J1_erospace Education Center R CEIV D IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAN 2 5 W~J J/.D -.:65 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District hereby gives notice of the filing of a revised and corrected volume titled Aerospace Technology Magnet Program together with a comparison document which shows the differences between the document filed today and the document filed Friday, January 22, 1993. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 / / _/ BY:~:::\n:::\n~~~~~~~~~ Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by HAND DELIVERY on this 25th day of January, 1993: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 -2- EDWARD L WRIGHT ( 1903-1977) ROBERT S LINDSEY WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS ATTORNEY S AT LAW CHARLES L SCHLUMBERGER SAMMYE L TAYLOR WALTER E MAY (1 913-19911 RONALD A MAY IS.A.AC A SCOTT. JR JAMES M MOODY JOHN G LILE 2200 WORTHEN BANK BUILDING 2 0 0 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3699 ANNA HIRAI GIBSON GREGORY T JONES H KEITH MORRISON THOMAS C COURTWAY BETTINA E BROWNSTEIN GORDON S RATHER. JR. TERRY L MATHEWS DAVID M POWELL ROGER A GLASGOW C DOUGLAS BUFORD. J R. PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS JR JOHN R TISDALE KATHLYN GRAVES M SAMUEL JONES 111 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 BRUCE R LINDSEY LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON. JR EDGAR J. TYLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T COLEMAN JIMMY W MITCHELL JAMES J . GLOVER EDWIN L LOWTHER, JR BEVERLY BASSETT SCHAFFER Clerk of Court United States District Court Federal Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones 3400 Capitol Tower Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501l 371-0808 FAX (5011 376-9442 OF COUNSEL ALSTON JENNINGS GEORGE E LUSK. JR R JAN 2 o 1993 ALTER MCSPADDEN OGER D ROWE ANCY BELLHOUSE MAY NATE COULTER JOHN C DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIM BERLY WOOD TUCKER MARK L PRYOR RAY F COX JR HARRY S HURST. JR TROY A PRICE Office of Desegregation January 25, 1993 PATRICIA SIEVERS LEWALLEN . J.AMES M MOODY JR MonitOf~iilRvN A PRvoR J 'M1RK DAVIS Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway TAMMERA RANKIN HARRELSON KEVIN W KENNEDY KAREN J GARNETT M TODD WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Richard Roache II Roachell Law Firm #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 210 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD No. 1, et al, Mrs. Lorene Joshua, et al and Katherine Knight, et al\nU.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866 Ladies and Gentlemen: Please find enclosed Exhibit A to the Observations, Questions and Concerns of the PCSSD Regarding the Proposed LRSD Aerospace Magnet School filed on January 22, 1993, which was advertantly left off by my office on that date. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. Sincerely, WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Enclosure Aerospace Industries Association Contact: David H. Napier (202) 371-8563 1992 YEAR-END REVIEW AND FORECAST - AN ANALYSIS - SUMMARY In 1992, aerospace industry sales fell 4 percent to $134 billion, from last year's record of $139 billion, according to Aerospace Industries Association (AJA) estimates. Purchases of aerospace products and services by the Department of Defense fell $4 billion (or 7 percent) to $52 billion causing much of the decline. Sales of military aircraft and parts were down 9 percent (or $3.6 billion) to $35 billion. On a more positive note, the industry's sales to NASA and other federal agencies increased slightly-from $11.7 billion to $12 billion. Several areas of industry activity are projected to increase in current dollar terms only. Sales of civil aircraft and parts reached $37.9 billion-down after inflation. Sales of space-related products and services rose to $29 billion from $28. 7 billion, another decline in constant dollars. Both of these sectors experienced strong growth over the last decade or so. Their growth, at least for the near-term, has slowed. Aerospace industry net profits are expected to rise marginally-up $69 million to $2.6 billion in 1992. Nevertheless, profits in the last two years have been lower than at any time since 1982. Profits as a percentage of sales, assets, and equity improved for the aerospace industry as they did for all manufacturing industries combined. However, the industry's profitability as measured by these ratios indicates that aerospace companies continue to under perform the overall manufacturing averages. Aerospace industry investment in new plant and equipment should grow 10 percent to $4.8 billion by yearend 1992. In contrast, new plant and equipment expenditures are expected to fall 2.5 percent for durable goods manufacturers and 2.9 percent for all manufacturing industries combined. New aerospace orders were down 23 percent or $30 billion to $97 billion. The backlog of commercial jet transport aircraft fell $8 billion to $101 billion in the first nine months of 1992. A fall-off in orders from domestic customers accounted for $5 billion of the decline. For the year, the backlog of unfilled orders for all aerospace products and services is expected to fall $25 billion (or 11 percent) to $210 billion. The industry's net trade surplus is projected to grow slightly to $31 billion. Exports topped $44 billion. Both are up in current dollarterms only. Imports grew in real terms to exceed $13 billion. Employment fell by 117,000 in 1992 to 1,063,000-a 10 percent decline. None of the industry sectors added jobs in 1992. Employment had the largest percentage drop ( down 12 percent or 31 ,000) in the missiles and space sector. In terms of the actual number of jobs, civil aircraft-related employment declined the mostdown 38,000. An additional 26,000 workers lost jobs in 1992 in the military aircraft sector following a year in which 45,000 positions had been cut. Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. 1250 Eye Street. NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 371-8400 (continued next page) SUMMARY continued Outlook for 1993 AIA projects sales will decline further, to $126 billion, in 1993. Aircraft and parts sales are expected to account for 90 percent of 1993 's sales decline\nmilitary sales should fall $3 billion and civil sales, $3.6 billion. Although failing to keep pace with inflation, space-related sales should increase to $29 billion in 1993. The number of civil aircraft produced is expected to rise due to higher projected helicopter shipments, but the value of shipments will fall nearly $3 billion (9 percent from 1992 's record) to $27 billion. Production of commercial jet transports is projected to decline by 103 aircraft with sales declining 10 percent to $25 billion. Current company forecasts indicate the aerospace work force will shrink an additional 4 percent or 47,000 to 1,016,000 next year. As in 1992, employment in each industry sector, and in all occupational classifications, is expected to decline. GOVERNMENT PURCHASES AIA forecasts show that sales of aerospace products and services to the U.S. government fell significantly in 1992. Government purchases fell due to a 7 percent or $4 billion decline in sales to the Department of Defense (DoD). Accounting for the majority of DoD's decline in purchases to $51.8 billion, military aircraft sales fell 9 percent in 1992 or $3.6 billion to $34.9 billion. Missile sales also fell in 1992, but only by 1 percent to $10.8 billion after plummeting 23 percent in 1991. Aerospace sales to NASA and other civil agencies rose slightly (up 3 percent) in 1992 to a record $12 billion. Total sales of space-related products and services rose $0.3 billion to $29 billion. Although DoD space purchases (which include RDT\u0026amp;E expenditures) declined in magnitude, space-related products and services represented a larger share of DoD outlays. CIVIL AIRCRAFT SALES Civil aircraft worth $29.7 billion were shipped in 1992-up from $29 billion. Commercial jet transports accounted for $28 billion, or 94 percent of total shipments value. Transport sales rose $1 billion to $27 .8 billion despite 31 fewer deliveries than in 1991. The general aviation and civil helicopter sectors did not perform as well. General aviation billings fell nearly $0.2 billion (or 10 percent) to $1.8 billion. In 1991, general aviation production fell to a post-World War II low of 1,021 aircraft. In 1992, production dropped again-to 880-as the industry continues to be affected by poor economic conditions, high taxes, and the high cost of product liability insurance. Sales of U.S. -manufactured civil helicopters fell to $146 million, the lowest level since 1973. Production dropped by 234 to 337 in 1992. While the weak economy hurt shipments in all three civil aircraft sectors, it manifested itself most significantly in lower net new orders. SHIPMENTS, ORDERS, AND BACKLOG Industry shipments are expected to fall $8.2 billion (or 6 percent) to $121.5 billion in 1992. New orders for aerospace products and services also declined-down 23 percent or $29.5 billion to $96.7 billion. The backlog of work for manufacturers fell nearly $25 billion to $210 billion. Air carriers continued to struggle with financial losses this year and, consequently, they have delayed orders for new aircraft and cancelled some existing firm orders. Figures through the third quarter of 1992 show the backlog of unfilled transport orders fell $7.9 billion to $101 billion. The backlog of unfilled orders placed by U.S. customers fell 14 percent during this period. Transports on back order for eventual delivery to foreign customers also fell during 1992, but at a slower rate. The foreign component of the total commercial transport backlog rose in terms of number of aircraft (60 percent) and value (69 percent). Foreign orders worth $70 billion accounted for 922 (of the total 1,535) aircraft on order. 2 FOREIGN TRADE Exports continue to be a bright spot for the industry but growth slowed in 1992. Aerospace exports outpaced imports in 1992 by $31 billion\nyet total exports rose only $0.7 billion to $44.5 billiort The net surplus was also up just $0.7 billien. Imports grew in real terms, up $0.6 billion to $13.6 billion. Civil aerospace exports increased $0.5 billion to $36 billion, with complete aircraft exports rising 5 percent and accounting for more than $23 billion of the total. Aircraft and engine parts exports, however, fell 4 percent to $10.5 billion. Military aerospace exports rose slightly (2 percent) to $8.4 billion. Overseas shipments in the largest military export sector, aircraft and engine parts, fell $0.5 billion\nbut gains in complete aircraft, missiles, and engine exports pushed total military exports higher. In l 9'J2, imports of civil aircraft grew $0.3 billion to $3.8 billion-both commercial transport and general aviation imports topped $1.5 billion. Imports of aircraft engines (military and civil combined) grew to $2.6 billion from $2.4 billion. Parts imports increased from $7.1 billion to $7.2 billion. EMPLOYMENT Aerospace employment fell by 117,000 to 1,063,000 in 1992 after declining 90,000 the previous year. From 1989 when industry employment peaked, to year-end 1992, employment declined by 268,000 jobs, or 20 percent In l 9'J2, no sector of the industry was spared from employment cuts. 11le civil aircraft sector experienced the largest reduction, cutting its work force by 38,000 (or 11 percent) to 296,000\nthe previous year manufacturers added 13,000 workers. Employment in the military aircraft sector fell 26,000 to 299,000 in 1992 following a 45,000 cut in the work force in 1991. Missiles and space employment was down 31,000 to 220,000 in 1992\nemployment in \"other related\" products declined 22,000 to 248,000. Employment fell 11 percent for both production and \"other\" workers (administrative personnel). There were 344,000 (or 42,000 fewer) production workers by year-end 1992-the most sizable decline of any occupational category. Administrative employment fell 24,000 to 204,000. Since total aerospace employment peaked in 1989, employment of production workers has fallen 22 percent and administrative employment has declined 29 percent. The number of scientists and engineers employed in the industry fell by 16,000 in 1992\nbut employment has fallen least for these highly skilled workers on a percentage basis-8 percent in 1992 and 5 percent since 1989. (Employment of !icientists and engineers increased in 1990). Jobs for technicians (down 19 percent since 1989) declined by 5,000 to 55,000 in 1992. PROFITS Net profit for aerospa,ce companies grew $69 million to $2.6 billion or 2 percent of sales in 1992. However, net profit in both 1991 and 19'J2 were significantly reduced compared to prior years because of extraordinarily large non-operating expenses. The two primary causes are restructuring charges related to defense downsizing, and initial implementation of a Financial Accounting Standards Board requirement to account for costs of employee post-retirement benefits other than pensions. All U.S. corporations are potentially affected by FAS 106, which has manifested itself as a balance sheet adjustment by increasing liabilities and reducing equity\nit has affected income statements by lowering net profits. Aerospace industry profits as a percent of sales (2 percent) are low relative to the average for all U.S. manufacturing industries (4 percent). Return on assets for all manufacturing industries grew to 4.2 percent compared to 2.1 percent for aerospace. Return on equity for all U.S. manufacturing was also higher at 10.3 percent compared to 6.4 percent for aerospace. 3 PLANT AND EQUIPMENT EXPENDITURES Invesnnent in new plant and equipment by aerospace corporations is forecast to grow by $0.7 billion to $4.8 billion in 1992, according to the Bureau of the Census. This figure may be misleading, however, since it measures new invesunenh- but fails to include disinvesnnent such as plant closings and divestitures. The aerospace industry is continuing invesnnent, but it is-focused on efficient operations in a period of declining sales. For comparison, expenditures on new plant and equipment by durable goods manufacturers fell $1.9 billion to $76 billion in 1992 and all manufacturing industries combined expect to reduce new plant and equipment expenditures from $183 billion to $177.4 billion. OUTLOOK FOR 1993 AIA projects industry sales will decline in 1993 for the second year in a row. Sales will fall $7.5 billion or 6 percent to $126.5 billion. As in 1992, NASA and other civil government agencies are expected to be the industry's steadiest customers\ntheir purchases from aerospace companies will increase $0.4 billion to $12.4 billion. Sales to the DoD are expected to decline 10 percent or $5 billion to $46 billion in 1993. Missile sales (which include apportioned RDT\u0026amp;E) will fall $0.7 billion to $10.1 billion. The greater share (90 percent) of the overall sales decline will result from a fall-off in aircraft and parts sales-off 9 percent to $66 billion. Military aircraft and parts sales are projected to fall $3 billion to $32 billion while civil aircraft and parts sales will decline $4 billion to $34 billion next year. Commercial transport manufacturers expect to deliver 103 fewer aircraft in 1993. Transport shipments are projected at 455 aircraft worth $25 billion-a 10 percent decline in value from 1992. Helicopter manufacturers report plans to produce 501 U.S.-made helicopters (up 164 from 1992) worth $164 million. Aerospace companies currently project employment will fall 4 percent in 1993 to 1,016,000--\u0026lt;lown 47,000. Although no industry sector nor employment classification will grow, the civil aircraft sector will experience the fewest and the smallest share of job cuts (2 percent or 5,000 employees) to 291,000. \"Related\" employment (which also includes non-aerospace workers) is currently projected to fall 7 percent (or 18,000) to 230,000. The military aircraft sector is expected to lose an additional 14,000 jobs in 1993. Employment of technicians and production workers is forecast to fall more than 5 percent to 52,000 (down 3,000) and 325,000 (down 19,000), respectively. Employment of scientists and engineers should decline at a slower rate (3 percent), but still 6,000 positions will be cut. Employment of other workers (administrative personnel) will decline to 197,000 (down 3 percent) by year-end 1993. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FJilL2,-) EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS u.s.o1\n,rn,crcL~,l WESTERN DIVISION EASTERNO,SIBIC,A~~, .. ~a- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ' ' ' I ,-, -, vn,\\,..\n...., 1 .......... ..J DEFENDANTS JAN 2 6 199.s Office Of Do- ~.,e9ri:gation ,\\fa , ~ . POSITION STATEMENT OF THE NLRSD REGARDING n,t,.,ri,,9 =-c==.=a.===-=\"'-'=-====c.=...-=c......=~==~-==~=~= PROPOSED LRSD AEROSPACE MAGNET SCHOOL To avoid redundancy, the North Little Rock School District has reviewed the Observations, Questions and Concerns of the PCSSD Regarding the Proposed LRSD Aerospace Magnet School and wishes to state that it shares those same concerns. A special concern to the NLRSD is the question of whether the LRSD can reasonably fund the maintenance and operations of an aerospace magnet school, particularly beyond any grant that might be awarded. The NLRSD remains committed to the desegregation plans negotiated among the parties and adopted by the Court. The District firmly believes, as does the Court, that these plans are a blueprint for the achievement of unitary status by the NLRSD and the other districts. It is the long-established position of the NLRSD that it will take all steps necessary to comply with its obligations under the plans. By the same token, it will oppose any actions which would potentially undermine full compliance with those plans. In the present case, the Court approved desegregation plans do not call for an aerospace magnet school in the LRSD nor do they call for an additional high school magnet. Thus, while the plans do not prohibit such a magnet school, its creation does not further compliance with those plans. On the other hand, the fiscal integrity of the LRSD is essential to the implementation of its obligations under the desegregation plans. If the LRSD lacks adequate funding, then its ability to implement the numerous obligations it has assumed will be compromised. For instance, the LRSD has accepted a responsibility to \"double fund\" the incentive schools even after the cessation of payments from the State under the settlement. And this is only one of many commitments the LRSD has made which will require substantial resources to satisfy. With respect to the proposed aerospace magnet, it has been repeatedly observed that the LRSD lacks the funds necessary to build, operate and maintain such a school over time. If it were nonetheless to assume this responsibility in addition to those which it has under the desegregation plans, it would raise a serious question regarding the LRSD's capacity to honor its obligations under the plans, such as \"double funding\" of incentive schools. Frankly, for the LRSD to put itself in such a position would border on the reckless and might be viewed in hindsight as an intentional act undermining its desegregation 2 obligations. In light of the uncertainty regarding the LRSD's ability to fund an aerospace magnet school, the NLRSD must oppose the creation of such a school until it can be clearly and convincingly established that the LRSD has, first, the funds necessary to satisfy all its obligations under the desegregation plans and, second, the additional funds necessary to build, operate and maintain an aerospace magnet without undermining its desegregation obligations under the plans. January 25, 1993 Respectfully Submitted, JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 375-1122 By: ~~u.~ st'epnw. Jones 8083 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen W. Jones, hereby certify that I have this 25th day of January, 1993, sent one copy of the foregoing, via United States mail, postage pre-paid, to the following: Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring JENNINGS Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street 72201 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 John W. Walker, Esq. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 P:\\DOC\\SWJ\\NLRSD\\DESEGREG\\P-0001-2.229 M. Samuel Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; 2000 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas Richard W. Roachell, Esq. ROACHELL LAW FIRM First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas FILED -A U.S. DISTRICT COURT - STEr:\n~J DISTRICT A\"ll\u0026lt;.4NS.o\\~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ,,\\:Jn ~ .on\n\\otl ij JAN 2 9 1993 CARL)j . b~(\nU=RK Sy:fi~\u0026amp;./'~ DEP. Clf:AK I oeso\n(e()\"- Q\\\\ice 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. 0 RD ER PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Even though the Little Rock School District Board of Directors voted not to seek approval of a federal grant for the establishment of an aerospace magnet school, the Court intends to hold the hearing scheduled for Monday, February 1, in order to address other issues of concern to the Court. The Court will discuss the LRSD's \"Special Study, Junior High Capacities and Projections, January, 1993\" which the district filed on January 22, 1993 in response to the Court's Orders of May 1, 1992, and December 30, 1992. The Court also expects the parties to be present to respond to questions about the LRSD's progress in changing its budgeting process according to commitments made in its 1992-93 Operating Budget, dated July 23, 1992, and the \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense 1992/93 - 1996/97,\" dated July 30, 1992. The Court woul\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information 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 "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_821","title":"\"Alternative School Policies, Procedures, and Referral Process,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"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":["Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student assistance programs","Dropouts","School discipline"],"dcterms_title":["\"Alternative School Policies, Procedures, and Referral Process,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/821"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nNOV 1 9 1991 Office of DesegregatioMn orii!cnng ALTERNATIVSEC HOOLP OLICIES, PROCEDURESA, NDR EFERRALPR OCESS SEE ATTACHMEN2T  1' I ' .. ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM P.atic:12le An ~niccefti~ly his~ ~~~ber cf students choose not to complete their educ~t1on. Nationally, as well as in Arkansas, approximately 25-39 perce~t of the students entering the ninth grade will not graduate from high school. Rssearch on drcpouts his revealed thit behaviors which are corducive to dro~?ing cut are evident as early as the t~ird gri~e. A re~1ew ~f the drcpc~t research has not revealed an\nsingle solct1on to tte ~rJblem. Hov~~er, t~e Frogr\n~s thEt have te2n sc~e~h2t s~ccessf~l sh~re tte characteristics of being positi~e, child-centE~ej, 2ccc~cd~t1~g, s1:ccess-orjented, and different, in that they Evo1d repect1~3 the sta\n1darj ccadEmic rigors by offtri~g a n~~:cr of ~~csrE~~1~3 cptio~s iJ 2 v2r1ety cf ettings. To a~~ress the ~rc~~~t pr0~l2~ Jn the i\n~rth L1ttls Rock Sct0ol District, an ~lte1:Eti~e ed~c\nt::rEl p\nogra~ ~2s E~cpt~d. .: ..  r . . 1 - \\.. - . . - ~ .. - tJ ~~~cti:~ f:s1t:~a:) ~!~~1~ ~~a tr~j\ntic~~l sc~~cl fEt~:~\n. ... :\n.: .. J I.~ ~~~E ~~\n~~l~E/~-~~c:~hy se:f ~s~~~~ ~=-~:~ ck c::~-~te~cy =~ ttE : ~ ... .:.. ~ : I. : - -. : C f t l ~ :-: 1 : :: : - S l :. :-: - :.: E ~: :. :.\nC :. j ~-: ( ::-1 C :7. - S :: : \\: .: :~ = , ~\n-\n: : -~\n! : :-: ~  - ~  t~::.:: : : :\n:: : ~ r s : : - ~ : :-.~ E :: s C : ~ 1. . . : ::\n, \"\"(, s ,: f :-1. C, -.  ~ r G ~\n::\nC ,-. : :--:.: :~ - : :..- :. :- ~ : rj :-.: t : ::. :-: . . .i. : ~ l :-: t :-.E :\nC\n: : t : (, :-.C : l :..2 ~ :-. ~ t : ~ E h. . T ~ ~ 3 : i: =r ?i 2 -.: : .-~ i. : ..:C =:- .. : : ~-~ ! l. :~e Alttr~it1e LEi[Cl~g Ctnttr (grad Es 7-12) 2. i~e A!ternit1vc Clissrcorn (grades K-6) . i~E SFE ~2\nireatrent Classrocms (grides ~-12) 4. ~~e h:Jlt Ecs1c ~c~~ct1cJ Ce~t(r :, . ':\"~e. Ff e j f Er Co' r..? ( 9 rad cs ~~ - 6) E. T~E Ketrc\no!:t~n Vocit1ocal/Tech~1cal Sc~0ol . , . ..... ... } ! r .. l t E .j 7. T~e t~de~t Ass1gi~e~t CJasEroo~s hC (gr~dfs S-12) !. T~e Elc~e~ ir/ Susfe~s1~n Cla~srccm (grades K-E) 9. T~2 ~econj~1y S~SFEns1c~ Cl2ssr0Gm (gi~~Es 7-l~) 10. 7~e J~ven1le Cc~rt AlterJat1~E Schcol .2 il. The North Little Rock Public Schools 12. Cc~binations of the above Referrals are solicited frcm a Yariety of sources, inc]Jj1ng students who may be experiencing one or more of the problems that follow: 1. ExFeriencing sc~ool failure, pocr grades 2. ?epeated failure, rete~t1on, or over-ased 3. Fre\nnar:t or single p.rent 4. ~xper1er.c1n3 envirc~~E~tal factcrs, to~eless, a~used er :-icgJected 5. Eng2s1r.g 1n ir:2ppro]=riate tE,anors le:\n:lir.g .-o failure, r~rnoval free the c~ins~re~n, or truancy 6. ~eeding a structJrEd er transit1c~3J settin3 7. HaY1ng already dr~p~ed out of school Ttc :r~tc:.\n:e TE:o::i !~t\n-\n:-ti\n,-\n. ~~:::-, c\n-prcva1 fer t:ie\n:-::.\n?rc!:1, 2:1 1r1tc:i.e 3E~ESE~e~t ~ill ~e sc~~~ul~ti ~1th t~G st~de~t ~~~ t~2 ~arE~t. At ttiiS time t~3 1ntervie~er will seek to 3a1J additic~al iJfor~at1on r\nE~cj ~a li.e'\n1 J C t\n\\\ne J C r i ~-g 2 :i ? r :~S C r l\nl : ~0 p } 3 n f C, :- t\n, i? S t L:j E :1 f 2 !: d t Cl 3 : t vol::Jtar~ 2~rn1ss10J to the ?rc\nr~~- T~e AJt~\n~Et1~2 ~ear~1~3 CEJ!er js located at J~th and Xa1n. T~e sctcJl will be open fr~~ 7:30 a.D. until 5:C0 p.~. T~ese hcurs ~111 per~it a flexible sc~e~ule th2t en6~les t~e sttde~t to stteJ~ a :crL.al school day and still have t1~e for e~pl~r=eJt or ~~cat:onal trainicg. The ~ta!! js cr\n.\n11~d of a F?c~ram a~~1~istr2tor, five cert1f1ed teachers, G~e ~a:!prof0ss1cn2l, one counselor/social worker, two part-t1~e pS)'C~~:c31sts, 0nG secrft21}, ,l~d 0~e c~stodi~n. Instruct10~ in t~e are~s of English, re2th, Gcial st~d1es, sciE~c0, and prEvocat1onal/~ocation2l t1a1J1Jg (JTPA) will be pravidrd .ased on the FersGJr.21 from the District's s ,. C CIT) cl\ni r }' pr Cs: 2 r.:\n,, j J l be d: ~ .1 s 1 ( l t ti l { Cr 11 i\nl EC ti\\' e C () \\l rs es s il C ~ as music, art, dra~J, and physical cd~cJtir~. Also, it 13 conceivable that a student could spend Fart of his/her sctool day at tte alternJtlYa schcol ar.d the re~J1nder ~ta raiddle or high school campus to partiripate in the academic program and/or extra-curricular acti vi ti es. . .' ., :OORIBL IITLE ROCKA LTERNATIVEP R\u0026lt;X\nRAMS REFERFRORAML DATE OF REFERRAL--: ----- Student Name- ------------ Race: Sex: Grade- --- Date of Birth: ------------ Referring School: ------------- Address: Home Phone: -------- Street Zip Code Parent/Legal Guardian: ------------- Work Phone: -------- Place of Employment: __________________________ _ Reason for Referral: __________________________ _ Circle all .Appropriate Characteristics: 1. School failure/poor grades 2. Repeated failure/retention/over-age 3. Pregnancy/single parent 4. Environmental factors Student Strengths: 1. 2. 3. ..: List Current Class Schedule and Grades: 1. 2. 3. 4. ____________ / ______ _ ____________ / ______ _ ____________ / ______ _ ____________ / ______ _ Please attach a copy of each of the following: 5. Inappropriate behaviors leading to failure/removal from mainstream 6. Chronic truancy/dropped out 7. Need for transitional setting Student Weaknesses: 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. ------------ I ---- ------------ / ---- ------------ / ---- ____ Emotional and Behavior Problem Scale Rating Form Last Report Card ----Current MPr and Achievement Scores Attendance Record ------, ----. Disciplinary Record ____ Psychological Evaluation Report, if evaluated for Special F.ducation Additional Cooments: ------------------------------ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT In-take Form Date ----------- Student ~ame: ________________ _ Race: Sex: Grade: Date of Birth: --------- Referring School: ______________ _ Address: ____________________ Medicaid#: _________ _ Phone ti: ________ _ SS//: ------------ ID II: ---------- II. Family History: l,ith \\,7,om Student Lives: ___________________________ _ Parent's Marital Status: ___________ Legal Custody: ________ _ other's Same: ------------------ Phone#: ---------- Place of E~ploy~ent: Phone#: --------------- ---------- Father's '.\\2:::\n:e ________________ _ Phone ti: _________ _ Pl.\nce of fa1ployment : _____________ _ Phone ti: ---------- ~ames 2nd Ages of Others Living in the Household: Relationship Age Any Significant Others: Present Family Concerns: Financial __ Siblings Marital Death Health Friends __ Legal Explanations/Cor.unents: ----------------------------- In-take Form III. Medical History: Current Health Problems: ____________________________ _ Currently Taking Medication: __ yes no Prescribed by Doctor: ______ _ Name of Medications: ___________________ _ Dosage: ______ _ Reason for Taking Medication: __________________________ _ Names of Medications Taken in the Past: --------------------- Past Illnesses (convulsions, seizures, periods of high fever): --------- Accidents, Injuries, or Emotional Traumas: ___________________ _ Ever 3een Hos?italized: __ yes no Reason: ________________ _ Previous Psychological Testing: __ yes Currently Receiving Counseling: __ yes no By ~horn: __________ _ no Counselor: ----------- Previous-\"Counseling: __ yes no Counselor: ________________ _ IV. ?resenting ?roblen: Student/Parental Perception of Reason for Referral: --------------- Do You Believe You Have a Problem: ------------------------ If Yes, what: ----------------------------------- Does Your Family Believe You Have a Problem: __________________ _ If Yes, \"'hat: ----------------------------------- Who in the Family Would be \\,illing to l,ork \"'ith the Alternative School and to Attend ~eetings and Programs: --------------------------- 1',h en h'ould the Family ~:ember be hvailable: -------------------- 2 In-take Form Has Your Problem Had an Effect on: School/Work: __ yes no What: Family: yes no What: -- Friends: __ yes no What: Sleep: __ yes no What: Appetite: __ yes no What: Leisure Activities: __ yes no What: V. Behavioral Information: Self-destructive (risk-taking, accident prone): _______________ _ Property Destructive (fire setting, in anger, etc.): _____________ _ Unusually Aggressive (when, temper tantrums, etc.): _____________ _ Activity Level: ________________________________ _ Runaway: ____________________________________ _ Peer Interactions: _______________________________ _ Adult Interactions: ------------------------------- Disruptive in Home/Classroom: _________________________ _ 3 In-take Form Gets Along with Family Members: _________________________ _ Response to Discipline/Authority/Confrontation: ________________ _ Willingness to Accept Responsibility: _____________________ _ Depression (withdrawal, crying, fears): ____________________ _ Strengths, Special Interests, Abilities: ____________________ _ Any Criminal Charges: ___________________________ ~--- Alcohol/Drug Use: --------------------------------- Family History re: Drug/Alcohol, Emotional or Legal Problems): --------- 4 ,. 1' 2 c e : ____________________ D ct e cf Er, r o l I\ni\ne r, t : _________ _ agree to ~~1 ~~~er5t~~d tta !ol!c~i~\nccntract ~1th tte !~L~ Alternit1ve Sc~ool: l. 2 . - i:, Le J e I Zero , .f I 2m placed 3:CO, enter tt2 ~~!!~1~g S~!Etly ~trc~\nh tt\u0026amp; ~2Ck ~ccr, follc~ :he rulfS ~! tt2 Level Z2ro r~cm, ~~r~:c1p2te 1n tt\n:2\nc~tJc\nr:~~\n, ~~j ~o ~\nk2-t? t1ae ES re:u1red. - .. ,. - ~ : -  ... ~\nl -. '\"'... I. l, ~ t J 1 - - - - - - - ... - - - ::-  C '- - ..,   cf 7. ~s~ee to ?Ert1c1p~te 1~ !1Eld cxperi~~ces ~~d cct.~~~1ty service 9. 2cti,1t1Es ~s ~\nreed ~\nc-~ ~1th the Altern2tive ~c~~=l st2!f. t ~-E ..... t. Ci for t::c ct~.Er ed, 1t :ouJ:l effEc: .. ,\n::ir,E o t t e : 2 : e  -~ p . l O . t: :-, C c r ~ t c r. j t t1 ~ t : :. r. c : t :, ~ J ~1 ,_. o l v c j J :-, i, : 1 y \" c' i ....~ ..1 ..1 d r 'J s s dur1~: ~chcol to~rs ~~j t~~t ~ ~ot tc te o~ s,~c~! pr~~erty ' ~hile under the influence of 2ny drugs. 11. I underst2nd th2t the Altern~tive School, ~y p~rents, acd I ~ill ~erk tosether in teter~lning ~hen I eight return to the regular school, or if I stay with the Alternative School or gJ to a nether 12. l ~a~t to ~e enrolled in the Altrnative School fer the _______ schcol )\"ear. ...:- ' .. '' Name: _______________ ,Date o! Enroll~ent: ________ _ PARENT'S CONTR~CT WITH THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL I agree and understand the following contract with the North Little P.ock Alternative School: 1. I am the parent or legal guardian. I understand that my child aust live in ay hcae while attending the Alternative School. Should other 2rr2ngeaents be considered, I agree to work with the Alternative School before taking action. 2. ...: I utce~sar.d that the Alternative School has a level system to help st~cents deal with behavior problems. All students enter the Fre5ram en Level Cne. Level !we students are those who are work1~g en, ~Jt have not resolved, tteir own eaoticnal/tehav1oral ?ro~!Ecs, c~~ ttey tcve tte resuler\nriv1lesEs o! t~e Alter~ct1~e Sc~cc!. :e~el !tree ttte~ts a:e t~~se ~~o t~ve re~clved =est c! t f. E : : C - :: ': ~ :. C \\. ! : :- C l / t: r: ( t 1 C:: e l :\n: c :J l EI: s , e :-e C o ! :: g .,.:  ! 1 : :: t :. E : :- c ! e ~ 5 ~:: ~, ~=~ c:e ~111::~ to cct ~s ~cs1t:,e !e~~ers !:: t~E\nc~~ :! :~~ ~=~c~l :~\ne:e~cl. :c~el Ze:o st~de:~s c:2 ~~:Ee~~: ___ ,... ____ , __ _\n. , r  - ::   G '- C l S. I\n:ve\neralss1cn for cy child to receive ?rescr1bed cedicat1c~s from tte Altercative ~chGol staff. \u0026amp;. I i5ree to ~rov1de tbe Alternative School with rry curreit tele\n:hoce ncc:ter and 2cdress, acd to ccntact the Alterc2tive School 1c1Led1itely ~hen a chin5e occurs. 7. l igree with and uncerst2nd my child's scheol schedule this year. l agree to seed ay child to school every day unless te/she is ser\nc\nsJy 111, or tl:ere is a cecth 1n the 1c:rrediate !ill'Jly. l 2cce\nt t~e reEfcns1b1l1ty cf see1:g ttat ILY chi Id ccces to schcol at t~.e a\n:\n:c1~,ted t11Le. :t ~t\n:\ncrt cy chi!d te1cg trcact. re~ce is re~u1red after truiccy and that my child must make up the time. If my child is not able to attend school for one of the reasons stated cbove, I agree to call the school (374-6942) at least one hour before my child is scheduled for class. 9. I underst.nd that my child is not tote involved in any way with drugs during school hours and that he/she cannot be on school property while under the influence of drugs. 10. If the Alternative School experiences problems with rry child, I 2gree to assist the staff in solving these problerrs in .ny wcy possible. 11. I cgree to foster the ~eveloprrent of rry child c:d our EJtu2l relationship with the hlternctive ~chool ~y 2ttend1cg the farent-~ teacher rreetl\u0026amp;gs and prograrrs wb1cj are ~es1~:ed to stre~gtheJ ccc~~n1c~t1on skills. ...: ~er re:trJ to :e5~:~:\nc~cc: ,a ::~~:~~E~ tte Et~y ~:~~ ~~e hlte::~:1~~ ~c~c~!, :: a :e~~=-~E: :: E~C~~~r\n:c\n:~=- -C':. e- - - -.... ~... -=- , r ,. ... I ~ -   ..,: I Secondary Alternative Program Name ______________ _ ~ ..c: Ci) CJ .j.J '\"d '\"d (!) 3 ..c: ..c: .c: .c: C/l C 1-1 1-1 .j.J .j.J .j.J .j.J .-I N ('\u0026lt;\") ~ -::t lJ\"'\\ ' r--- Level One - 90% to earn break Date -------- ~ Ci) Q.) 1-1 ~ lpt - Avoiding Profanity lpt - Following directions of staff lpt - Showing respect for property lpt Showing courtesy and respect for others lpt - Arriving to class on time lpt Arriving to class in orderly manner lpt - Bringing necessary materials to class lpt - Beginning a task in a reasonable time lpt - Remaining in classroom and participating lpt- - Staying on task or completing task Total Bonus Level Two - 95% to earn automatic break/off point sheet Elementary Alternative Classroom and SPE Elementary Day Treatment Class LEVEL SYSTEM ELEMENTARY . The BA class is organized on a level system that utilizes earned points. This system defines the responsibilities and the privileges earned by each child every day and gives an indication of the child's progress. The goal of the level system is to provide a vehicle by which to measure improvement and to allow for students to move back into the regular classroom. The system is designed to give the child responsibility for recognizing his/her personal growth, and to allow him to track personal progress. Each day the student receives a point sheet to be used to record points earned for that school day. LEVEL ONE Elementary (2 options) Option 1 The school day can be divided into 30-minute periods with the earned points placed on the student's point sheet et the end of each 30-minute period. (See Sample A). Option 2 The school day can be divided into subject area periods with the earned points placed on the student's point sheet within 30 minute intervals. Total points should be consistent from day to day. (See Sample B). Remember: 1. Points must be given consistently on either of the two schedules listed above. If the teacher fails to be ~ consistent, he/she has broken the contract with the child. 2. Points ca.~ never be taken away from a student. This is not a fine system--the student has earned the points elreedy received. Points will be given to reward posi~ive, desired behavior. Point System 2 pts. - beginning assignment within appropriate time frame 3 pts. - remaining on task or completing it 5 pts. - positive behavior (personal affecting only self) behavior (optional) 5 pts. - positive social behavior (behavior toward others) Page 2 bonus pts. - going a bove and beyond i.e. , staying on task and ignoring an acting-out person Privileges Points are used to determine the privileges the student earns and as a barometer of readiness for mainstreaming. 90% of total points = 5 minutes free time 95% of total points = 10 minutes free time 98% of total points = 15 minutes free time The child with the highest number of points gets to choose activities first. Teacher Reports At the end of each day, the teacher sends home a note to the parents stating the number of points earned that day. This is useful in setting up a school-home report system where privileges at home are for points earned at school. The total points should also be retained in the teacher's journal to be used in monthly staffings. LEVEL T\\'10 MOB Sauad (My Own Boss) After en consecutive days of perfect points, a student ca.n enter the MOB Squad. On this system, the student earns one point every 30 minutes to an hour and receives a reward when he gets 100 points. Example: Student gets a coke and is allowed to drink it in class as soon as he earns the 100th point. (See example C). Examples of privileges that might accompany being on the MOB Squad are: - freedom to leave the classroom on teacher errand - freedom to spend free time outside - access to special activities e.g., games, etc., reserved for MOB Squad The student may receive special recognition the first time he/she is placed on the MOB Squad. This might mean a class party with a cake, etc. At this point, mainstreaming should begin or be increased. Time Out Room (Elementary) Time-out is the removal of the opportunity to engage in reinforced behavior. Page 3 1. Time-out seclusion should be used only for behaviors that are so out of control or disruptive, or dangerous, the teacher cannot conduct class. General non-compliance, selfstimulation, academic refusal, etc., can be responded to with less stringent and restrictive techniques. Time-out is never to be used for routine disciplinary problems. 2. The time-out room should be used only as a last resort, if and when less restrictive means of controlling behavior have proven ineffective. The teacher should have documentation that milder forms of time-out or other reduction techniques 'have proven ineffective in suppressing the inappropriate behavior. 3. Only those students who are placed in the Behavior Adjustment Program can receive time-out. The use of time-out must be in the student's IEP, and written parent permission must have been secured. 4. Time-out must be paired with a plan to provide positive reinforcement for appropriate behaviors. This must also be included in the child's IEP. A cardinal rule in the use of time-out is that a corresponding effort should be made by the teachers to increase their level of positive interaction with the child when he/she is behaving appropriately. 5. Avoid lengthy verbal explanations as to why the student 1s being placed in the time-out room. Behavior? resulting in time-orjt should be clearly explained prior to implementing the time-out procedure. If an explanation is provided during use of time-out, it should be brief but adequately describe the misbehavior involved. A standard explanation format, such as \"Because you you go to time-out for minutes, \" is recommended. Other interaction should be avoided. 6. 7. Time out is never to be used as a threat. No warnings should be given\nthe point system is the warning. The child needs to monitor his/her own behavior as soon as the teacher knows he/she understands the rule. If the teacher says time out will be used, it must be used. To maximize opportunities to exercise self-control, students should be given the opportunity to take their own time-out after receiving the instruction from the teacher. If the students refuse to take their time-out or if they fail to respond to teacher's instructions within 5-10 seconds, the teacher should physically remove them to the time-out room. For high intensity behaviors like kicking and screaming, the student should be escorted to the time-out room. P~e4 8. When time-out is used, this sequence shall be followed: 1. Maximum 10 minutes - the door must be opened and the child offered the opportunity to join the class. 2. Ten more minutes if child is still out of control. 3. Call psychologist--if child is still out of control-because maximum time for time-out is 30 minutes. 9. Records must be kept of each occasion when time-out is used. The records should include: 1. student's name 2. behavior for which time-out is used (specified on IEP) 3. the time of day the student was placed in and removed from time-out These records will be continuously monitored and will be addressed formally in monthly staffings. DISCIPLINE Elementary Discipline should be handled within the classrocrn, unless the child becomes a danger to himself and/or others. There should be documentation of the incident, and the psychol~gist should be contac~ed. f-JOJN I i \\ \\ I \\  0 1--1 Cl) Cl) ..(1.j. , u Q) :\u0026gt; M . (I) 6 Q) . ~ ~ (1j . I ~ J\\SSIGNMfo:NTS DATE Di\\TE -1--------------- --- ------- - --- - -t--------------1--11------ - - - --- ,-- --\\--------------- I MJ\\111 I MJ\\1'11 ~IJ\\111 Li\\NGUJ\\GE Li\\NGUAGE ~- ------------11___...,,,,,_----/--/-,--- _________ _ '=--r--_/.\n:\nTT/J AAA / \\ 1\u0026amp;~ ' ~ING,..., ' I LJ\\NGUJ\\CE ~DING 1----------------1-------------- -1-------------- -- Sl'fo:LLING ~---------------1.----l-- _____________ , __ , ______________ , _ \n:_-L--~::::-==- _11-11-----'a~-1\" { ~/~--=--'- ,-1-- _Wa\u0026amp;M L. J. I , /.. -' , L -' , /  \\ i_ ASSIGNMmrs Icy?-\u0026lt;/, .,,. , 1 A:\n:\nJ\u0026lt;:NtllNT:, /~pc/ \" r ASSIGNMmrs /0/c?c/ :\n_\\ - DATE D1\\TE DATE ,--------------1--~--------------------1-------------- SPELLING Sl'ELLlNG -1~1--1-\\-1-1--1- ------- -- ____________________ -l--------------1--,: M/\\111 'M/\\111 LJ\\NGUJ\\GE LANGUAGE cUm_\nllEi\\lJING 1-----------------1-------------1-I---------------- SPELLING Sample c Elementary Alternative Classroom t. 0@ (j)@ (iJ) ?f ,.. SJ S @\u0026lt;?:) ~~@ \u0026amp;) C!I 3 6)@ @)@ ! poirAs = poit\\ts =i frtt 'yero\"~, poir-.-\\s- =~ -ha periods Elementary SPE day treatment classroom NAME: _______ DATE ______ DAYS LEFT: __ .. 8:30- 9:00 9:00- 9:30 9:30-10:00 10:00-10:30 I I I I I 10: 30-11: 00 11: 00-11: 30 I I 11:30-12:00 I I I I I I 12:00-12:30 I I I I I I I I I 12:30- 1:00 I I I ~ I I I I I 1:00- l:15 I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I - I I I Rl'TC:: I _. I I I I I I I L, I I I' _we:: I Bonus I  Sa.I:.ple 3 . ~ \\ t [ ci ! ~ Elementary SPE Day Treatment. j j I -(_ t f ~ t3  ! .. i (r, ~ \\~/ ' : r_-,-,__ I - ---. i l I I CrS: I ' I I I ~ l I I i\n! I I [f' I I rr---\u0026lt; I I ~ I \\ - I - ' .., ! ( ,.., #' I I ') . /\ni.:._ ' ' -\n! I I ' I I I ' i I , I I i l I I i\n' \\ I i I I . t :i~ (1 l I  \\ \\ ?- : :_l._,_E7 i.. ,\n_\n?  tct I . j I i I I ! I I f I I j '\nI i' (\ni I I I l I j ' I Sample C @ (j)@ 7P. poirAs = po,\\ '\\t 5 --~8 fret 'j\u0026gt;er0l~ poil'.b =-~ -ha periods sECONDARspYe dAY tREATMENT Page 5 LEVEL SYSTEM SECONDARY The secondary Behavior Adjustment program is based on a fourlevel evaluative system. Each student enters on Level I and must progress through Level IV in order to exit the program. Each student earns points (maximum of 100) and privileges during the school day for appropriate academic and social behavior. A daily point sheet and a weekly work card will be received weekly by every student and will be used to record tQe points earned by the student during each school day (see example 4). These points are to be recorded in a teacher journal to ensure availability during staffings. Points are earned during ten 30-minute intervals or for each 'separate unit of activity or each subject area taught (see samples D, E) with the total number being 100 points. Appropriate student behavior during these activities will determine how many points are earned: 2 points for beginning work within an appropriate time frame 3 staying on task/completing a task 5 behavior (personal and social) The point~ are used to determine the studen~'s level. The level, in turn, -will determine what kind of activities will be included in the school day. Ascending the Levels Level I: Each student enters the program on Level I. points are earned and recorded on a daily point sheet weekly work card. Points needed to stay on Level I: 86 (See Level 0) ,Every day and the Privileges earned: 10 minutes of free time daily 5 extra minutes of free time on Friday physical education in classroom lunch in the cafeteria with teacher Level 0: This level is used only when the student is not making it on Level I for five consecutive days. There are no pr i vi leg es: escorted to restroom, lunch in classroom, no assemblies or activities outside the classroom. The student needs 78 points for ten (10) consecutive days to move to Level I. Level II: In order to move to Level II, a student must earn at least 86 points for 10 consecutive days. Page 6 Points needed to stay on Level II: 92 Privileges earned: 15 minutes of free time daily 10 extra minutes of free time on Friday physical education 1n the classroom and outside eat lunch when teacher eats, but at different table (corning and going with teacher) aide watches student walk to restroom one special activity every ten (10) days, usually during free time. For example: use of school gym, special interest project, specified Level II equipment and materials, use of bandroom. If a student fails to obtain the minimum number of points for five (5) consecutive days, he returns to Level I. Level III: To points for ten move (10) to Level III, a student must earn at least 92 consecu~ive days. Points needed to stay on Level III: 96 Privileges earned: Go to lunch at regular lunch periods 20 rninites of free time daily 15 extra rnir.utes oi free time.on Friday go to school assemblies 2 library visits weekly special activities outside classroom go to restroom unsupervised some special activity every 5 days, usually during free time If the student fails to obtain the minimum number of points for five (5) consecutive days, he returns to Level II. When the student reaches Level III, mainstreaming begins and the student is taken off the point system. Discipline (Secondary) On the secondary level, the discipline should be handled in the classroom. If a student becomes dangerous to others, remove the remainder of the class and call the district psychologist. Because of the uniqueness of the student placed in a BA classroom, confrontation should not take place in the hallway. Whenever possible, get the student back into the classroom before dealing with the behavior. STUDENT /\\SSIGNMENT SHEET FOR TIIE WEEK OF . MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDl\\Y Tl!URSDl\\Y FRIDAY I PERIOD I I I, (/) (D () 0 8:05 - 9:05 ::i p. 11\u0026gt; 1-1 SCIENCE '\u0026lt;: en \"'O (D p. 11\u0026gt; '\u0026lt;: H 1-1 (D 11\u0026gt; JERIOD II rt a (D ::i 9:05 - 10:05 rt ENGLISH/READING  - PERDD III 10:20 - 11: 15  MATH ' -- -- -- - PEJIOD IV 12 :00 - 12 :55 WORLD PROBLEMS --- Secondary SPE Day Treatment . - NAME_~----------------- DATE ____________ _ SPE SECONDARY RATING SCALE MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY COMING IN (5) BREAK.FAST (5) MATERIALS (5) PERIOD I (10) PERIOND II (10) BREAK EARNED --------- TOTAL POINTS ______ _ lONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY PERIOD III (10) LUNCH (5) SOCI.l\\.LJATION (5) PERIOD IV (10) - ...: BR EAK EARNED --------- TOTAL POINTS ____ _ EXTRA POINTS MAY BE USED ON YOUR WEEKLY TOTAL MORNING BUS CONDUCT M T W TH F AFTERNOON BUS CONDUCT -- -- -- -- -- M T W TH F DAIIY CLEANUP OF ROOM AND AREA M T W TH F -- -- -- -- -- TOTAL EXTRA POINTS M T W TH F -- -- -- 0-P.RT FOR POINTS TO EARN BREAKS: MORNING: AFTERNOON: 32 - 35 15MINUTE BREAK 30 - 28 15 MINUTE BREAK 31 -28 10 MINUTE BREAK 27 - 25 10 MINUTE BREAK 2 7 - 24 5 MINUTE BREAK 24 - 22 5 MINUTE BREAK 2 3 - UNDER NO BREAK 22 - UNDER NO BREAK MON TOTAL TUES TOTAL WED TOTAL THUR TOTAL FRIDAY WEEKLY TOTAL FOR SPECIAL PRICILEGES ------ TOTAL Page 7 ELEMENTARAYN D SECONDARY WASTEDT IME When a student use inappropriate social behaviors directed toward others, i.e, profanity, aggressive acts, etc., interferes with the class, the student will be on wasted time until he/she writes an apology to all involved. He/She must also write an apology to his/her parents. The student will remain on wasted time until the parent's apology is returned to the teacher. When a student is on wasted time, he/she is unable to earn any points. INAPPROPRIATEP ERSONALB EHAVIOR When a student is engaging in minor inappropriate behaviors that do not affect others in the classroom (i.e., knocking books on floor, refusal to work, etc.), the behaviors should be ignored, but the student will not receive points until the behavior stops and is replaced by appropriate behavior. \"DO'i'iNT IME\" To eliminate \"down time\" while the teacher tends to the class rol 1, lunch r.ioney, etc. , each student needs to have some \"order task\" such as sharing time, copying a 1=,oer.1 from the board, working a word find, working review frcm previous day's wcrk, etc., as soon as he/she enters the classrco:n. This will allow the structured day and the point system to begin immediat.ely. FREE TIME Teachers must be prepared to end instruction for those students who have earned free time. Planning must also include additional activities that. can be given to students who have not earned free time. A.gain, consistency is the key, and for the point system to be successful, the teacher must live up to his/her end of t.he contract. VERBALI NTERVENTIONT IPS It is preferable to allow a child to vent verbally when his/her behavior is not harming e.nycnE\u0026lt; elEe. It allows him/her to let off steam, and the behavior will generally deescalate. When a child is engaged in verbal venting, he/she does not process information well at high point intervals of behavior. When a child breaks for air, etc., he/she will process better, so this is the time to set the limits. Listen. You can gather important information while a child is verbally venting. Page 8 Remove of the face.\" onlookers when possible. This will decrease the problem child's refusal to back down due to a fear of \"losing Remain calm. The teacher's behavior can either calm the situation or add fuel to it. Be particularly aware of body language. The teacher needs to be attentive not only of the student's but also his/her own body language. Non-threatening body language would avoid encrouchment of personal space and utilize non-challenging, non-threatening body movements. Be aware of how you communicate. Tone, volume, and cadence of speech can work to defuse or to escalate behavior. Be prepared to enforce the limits you set. The teacher may wish to use some \"we\" statements because they are less threatening i.e. , \"We need to complete tr.e work before recess. SETTING LIMITS Setting limits is a very effective tool in dealing with problem behaviors. The way the teacher states a directive is extremely important, so that negative behaviors are not encouraged. To maximize the effectiveness of the limits set, 1. state them positively, when pcssible, 2. ~ provide a choice, 3. give a time frame. \"You can calm down, or you wi 11 be on wasted time. \" \"You may turn down the volume now, or use the earphones.\" \"You need to finish your work before recess, or you will complete it during recess. Guidelines for effective limit setting 1. Be c 1 ear and understood. 2. Be simple and concise. 3. Be reasonable, fair, and enforceable. TENSION REDUCTION After a student loses control and acts out, verbally or physically, the teacher needs to re-establish rapport after the student calms down. This can be accomplished by communicating with the student. Everyone, student and teacher, needs an opportunity to \"debrief\" after an incident, and it presents an excellent learning opportunity. Behavior Adjustment Aides Because of the uniqueness of the Behavior Adjustment class and the population that is served by it, it is essential for the aide to be viewed as an extension of the teacher--providing instruction, as directed by the teacher, and exercising authority as an adult in the classroom. This is due in part to the necessity of having no \"down time\" in the class, structured learning taking place at all times. Another aspect involves the potential explosiveness of individ~al students within the classroom setting. The following list contains duties that might be assigned to the BA aide and is not to be considered all inclusive: Reading and telling stories Directing an \"order task\" to being instruction each day Providing small group and individual instruction, as directed by the teacher Assisting students in performing activities initiated by the teacher Assisting students in reviews, guided and independent practices Correc.-ting homework and workbook assignments Correcting and recording test scores, etc. Prepari~g instructional materials such as flash cards, charts, transparencies, etc. Assisting in checking student's seatwork Writing student's earned points on the point sheet at specified time intervals Accompanying students to individual classrooms when mainstreaming begins Monitoring classroom in teacher's absence Attending conferences and staffings for individual students Assisting substitute teachers Monitoring students in time-out Performing other duties, as assigned by the teacher. DAT_E_ F.as_t and West Campus Student Assignment Classrooms TIIB RULES FOR Tu SUiDD\"\"TA SSIG'.0IT2\\\"\"Cl'L ASS (S.!,C) ARE AS rOLlD\\,S: 1) TiiE Sil:\"\"DE.'.'\\1.\n:J U, EE ISOUI.ED FRO'.!T I-:::ER EST OF IBE sn\"D2'\"\"1' 30DY. 3) Sil\"\"DD\"\"I'S~ rCST CO~PLITE _t..SS:::G'.'('E\\\"H\"TFSO RED:TI .\\RE RELE..'....SiF::RDO \u0026gt;lS A.C. 4) STl\"DESIS _!,__~TEO RI-?CRT TO S.!,C .c_8T: 15 _\n. !l. STCDD1S !\\\\.:SI _E_!:_\\\"I l70\n'( DI S~H ssn., AT 3: 00 P. \u0026gt;L 6) STt\"J2\\.I.S \u0026gt;R:ST :U:P(,:,:u -:-os .\nc 1:I'3 _!.j_L '.GCESS_t_~y5 00~ _.'..2\\J): ,'._.'.._T:3..1 '. J.. . S. ( STC2CTS 1-:IU. \\CI :SE _.'..l:..01:-~Wo 1-un: $_.'.._-C~- I DT.-:::SIG\n\\.~_101 ::::-~.s).. 7) STL?2G.S '.ll.\"ST: :Ol.LO\\, ::::..Dr:I ?2CIIC\\S C? ~ S.!..C1 .,S.1.~LCL.:~. f_!._J:..,~?-i: -=o )C) so 1,IU. ?.I.SU.I E c-=-B ::::ISCI?l.-D.. ' .._-:..!_:y.C I:::m.s. :-:_.:.~:: ==\\~ 5.-'-.C~~~-- -:,c:-::::::~.: _:..~::=(: ' c_.:.~~2,~:: =~:..=y~_:::: __ ::-.::=--c_,- '-...5.5:G:,::\n:c 5_:.._,:. ...... ..--. - - ... - --\\. - ... -. ' ------..-- - . ,.,..._,.. .:.\\. .:.._\\ - ::-: __ -_\\_.:_::: - . --.--.-- -----,-- ~ .----- :.-: .. :._\\_:, .::,_.,__,,.:__\\_~ __.. ..: :-_ :-:- .-.- ,---~-\\,.-:.,: :, FA.IlL\"RET O .ADHERET O 'j}-:\n:f.SRE ULES J.-..' \\Y R.ESl.1..TI N FURTI-:ERD. ISCIPl.Kh.RY ACTIO~S. ,r - ' rn,, ------ ~:v-:-. Di-.::::.SC ? _t:.SSIG~,E'G: ):-::..:-._J) 1ST ?~:.--:=:\n:I 1.\\~ _.'.__-~::, :'. .-.. - - . \\...\n--- - - - . - - --- ___ -_::: ....... - -- --- STI.iDE\\1 ASSIG~1.E!G CLASS RECORD OF EEi{!.\\\"IO:l. --------------------- 2:\\\"D ~:ZD .!.\nI r1 I 5 ili I f:1': 1 \\ ::.=..J -------\n_- ____ ,.\n----------- - ' - - -- -- - . -- -- - _._ --- ::.:c I-_: . ~'..,  I ::... :.._-_ =: ~: i \\ I ,. .::.:....::..=:\n=.:....__==:-\n-=---5'-- -____.!..._..--1..._)___ ___ _______:.I I .- , --,r I '_. ...-.. - .... ,..,\nI 1 -- - - .. - ! .' - - ! .- ::- 2\\-::l 3:u I 1- ..J -: \\ 51\"1 (..,-.: I., ' I I'~ I I ID,1_ ___ _ ____ _______________ __\nAt:~~CeC_ ________________________ _ ____ .:.. ._c2.:c=.-c _ .:.:-: . - - = - -. _.\\. _~_J ..: 1 ..:_ - I ____________________________ -.e, 5 S .\n,CC t ~ ~ 'f ...:: : : C : :':\"\n:-_ C: C ~\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":"hbcula_abco_0029","title":"The American Baptist College Theological Journal, Spring 1991","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["This is the Spring 1991 Issue, Volume IV of the American Baptist College Theological Journal. The purpose of the journal is to \"encourage, foster and preserve the best in Christian scholarly research, including sermons and lectures, creative writings, literary critiques and book reviews.\" Some themes that appear throughout the journal are \"commitment, clarity of mission, and the need for self-discipline.\""],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African Americans—Religion","College publications","Lectures and lecturing","Sermons","Religious leaders","African American religious leaders"],"dcterms_title":["The American Baptist College Theological Journal, Spring 1991"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0029"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["journals (periodicals)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"scdl_clemsonboard_94","title":"Annual Report of the Clemson Board of Trustees, 1990-1991","collection_id":"scdl_clemsonboard","collection_title":"Board of Trustees","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, South Carolina, Pickens County, 34.88752, -82.72532"],"dcterms_creator":["Board of Trustees, Clemson University"],"dc_date":["1991-01-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Clemson, S.C. : Clemson University Libraries"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Board of Trustees Annual Reports"],"dcterms_subject":["Libraries","Information science"],"dcterms_title":["Annual Report of the Clemson Board of Trustees, 1990-1991"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["South Carolina Digital Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/trustees_reports/94"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Copyright of Clemson University. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required."],"dcterms_medium":["manuscripts (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47938","title":"[An unidentified woman at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American women"],"dcterms_title":["[An unidentified woman at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [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.47938"],"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":"loc_rosaparks_47941","title":"[Artis Lane and actor Vince Cannon at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, District of Columbia, Washington, 38.89511, -77.03637"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Artis Lane and actor Vince Cannon at the reception for the unveiling of Rosa Parks' bust sculpture, National Portrait Gallery, Washington, D.C., 1991] [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.47941"],"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":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Lane, Artis","Cannon, Vince, 1937-1998"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":708,"next_page":709,"prev_page":707,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":8484,"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}}]}}