{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47467","title":"[Commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, where Rosa Parks was awarded a Doctor of Laws degree, 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Dearborn, 42.32226, -83.17631"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows Parks standing next to the speaker's podium during the ceremony.","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":["[Commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, where Rosa Parks was awarded a Doctor of Laws degree, 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.47467"],"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"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47468","title":"[Commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, where Rosa Parks was awarded a Doctor of Laws degree, 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Dearborn, 42.32226, -83.17631"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows Parks behind the speaker's podium, Chancellor Blenda Wilson, to the left of Parks, Elaine Steele, (behind Wilson) and others during the ceremony.","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":["[Commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, where Rosa Parks was awarded a Doctor of Laws degree, 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.47468"],"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"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47470","title":"[Commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, where Rosa Parks was awarded a Doctor of Laws degree, 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Dearborn, 42.32226, -83.17631"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows Rosa Parks standing next to speaker's podium during the graduation ceremony.","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":["[Commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, where Rosa Parks was awarded a Doctor of Laws degree, 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.47470"],"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"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47469","title":"[Commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, where Rosa Parks was awarded a Doctor of Laws degree, 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Dearborn, 42.32226, -83.17631"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows University of Michigan-Dearborn Chancellor Blenda Wilson speaking at the podium during the graduation ceremony; Rosa Parks sitting directly behind Wilson.","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":["[Commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, where Rosa Parks was awarded a Doctor of Laws degree, 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.47469"],"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"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47465","title":"[Commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, where Rosa Parks was awarded a Doctor of Laws degree, 1991] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Michigan, Wayne County, Dearborn, 42.32226, -83.17631"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["Photograph shows Parks seated in the front row behind the speaker.","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":["[Commencement ceremony at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, where Rosa Parks was awarded a Doctor of Laws degree, 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.47465"],"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"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_abco_0269","title":"Convocation, Fall 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 video features a convocation of the American Baptist College (ABC) of the American Baptist Seminary (ABTS). This video opens with announcements, a hymn, and a welcome from the Student Government President. This video continues with acknowledgements of staff, students, and guests followed by a sermon from Pastor Harold Love. At 00:35:35, Dr. Odell McGlothian, president of ABTS, speaks on the theme, \"Communicating the Word of God in a Changing World.\" At 01:23:56, Rev. Dr. Floyd Eugene Lacey, Interim vice-president for development and Dean of Chapel Director of Student Development, raises three questions to students: 1) What do you want to be when you grow up? 2) Where do you want to go when you finish ABC? 3) What kind of ministry are you preparing for? Dr. Lacey shares his testimony and encourages students to be patient and follow God's calling to serve even if they do not know their next steps after graduation. The convocation continues with sermons from Dr. Richard D. Lucas (at 01:19:40) on the meaning of the cross, Rev. Curtis Eugene Bender (at 02:59:47) on Jesus being in a class by himself, and Rev. M. Kellar (at 03:29:47) on inevitable changes and obeying God's timing. This video recording concludes with a sermon by Dr. Bernard Lafayette, Jr. at 04:36:12, in which he speaks about Hellen Keller to encourage students to let love lead them."],"dc_format":null,"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 American students","Universities and colleges--Employees","Commencement ceremonies"],"dcterms_title":["Convocation, Fall 1991"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"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/0269"],"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":["video recording"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47940","title":"[Coretta Scott King speaking 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":["[Coretta Scott King speaking 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.47940"],"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":["King, Coretta Scott, 1927-2006"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_353","title":"Cost per pupil","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":["1991/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Cost per pupil"],"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/353"],"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\nPer Pupil Expenditure by School 1992-1993 Actual School Number School Name Actual 91-92 Expenditure Budget 92-93 Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Expenditure Octi 1992 Octi 1992 92-93 Actual 51 47 46 24 33 48 50 31 52 18 20 38 29 37 22 42 30 45 28 32 40 17 44 19 23 25 36 39 34 26 49 41 Wakefield Terry Mablevale Forest Park Meadowcliff Fullbrig ht Otter Creek Cloverdale Watson Brady McDermott Pulaski Heights Western Hills Geyer Springs Baseline Washington Jefferson Woodruff Chicot Dodd Romine Bale Wilson Badgett Fair Park Franklin Rockefeller Rightsell Mitchell Garland Ish Stephens $1,080,201.67 $1,201,389.07 $1,206,535.14 $981,517.03 $1,076,269.43 $1,330,115.51 $851,542.87 $934,944.01 $1,131,452.56 $1,041,098.68 $1,317,443.02 $839,547.56 $877,344.34 $707,928.80 $885,849.79 $2,162,216.22 $1,304,570.79 $649,511.89 $1,486,051.76 $849,570.99 $1,103,629.12 $1,013,230.42 $1,111,388.63 $697,035.45 $883,765.97 $1,575,718.57 $1,637,994.32 $1,162,902.06 $1,208,845.13 $1,289,211.46 $1,011,279.63 $1,163,545.97 $1,019,654.16 $1,160,444.45 $1,147,518.12 $869,050.69 $1,002,625.92 $1,324,804.26 $802,665.92 $923,339.89 $1,112,392.78 $990,898.05 $1,222,557.18 $903,190.50 $821,912.41 $719,345.29 $808,448.36 $2,223,513.84 $1,274,108.81 $639,833.62 $1,455,057.31 $809,999.85 $1,231,028.03 $1,029,374.87 $1,131,098.45 $641,908.51 $872,728.18 $1,801,195.82 $1,707,964.33 $1,284,635.19 $1,280,639.42 $1,317,830.72 $1,160,352.63 $1,274,741.49 $1,041,513.36 $1,175,147.95 $1,127,149.24 $1,009,041.26 $1,051,067.36 $1,317,057.53 $879,354.11 $919,636.35 $1,136,159.29 $1,009,510.96 $1,291,407.88 $969,181.35 $870,983.22 $755,680.79 $915,687.59 $2,242,772.97 $1,340,589.71 $669,017.57 $1,532,460.98 $872,462.96 $1,147,564.73 $1,040,097.06 $1,196,557.69 $724,769.38 $873,357.37 $1,733,066.85 $1,758,362.40 $1,238,081.45 $1,319,496.71 $1,384,930.53 $1,021,284.19 $1,255,977.41 500 541 500 444 440 530 353 366 451 398 509 379 335 282 339 822 483 234 535 304 361 321 355 202 243 411 361 249 264 256 187 209 69 44 56 45 66 42 41 80 74 69 54 52 62 63 77 59 42 63 65 60 77 77 75 76 79 86 69 96 88 91 97 97 $2,083.03 $2,172.18 $2,254.30 $2,272.62 $2,388.79 $2,485.01 $2,491.09 $2,512.67 $2,519.20 $2,536.46 $2,537.15 $2,557.21 $2,599.95 $2,679.72 $2,701.14 $2,728.43 $2,775.55 $2,859.05 $2,864.41 $2,869.94 $3,178.85 $3,240.18 $3,370.59 $3,587.97 $3,594.06 $4,216.71 $4,870.81 $4,972.21 $4,998.09 $5,409.88 $5,461.41 $6,009.46 Note: FTE is from the 1993-1994 budget and does not reflect changes due to enrollment losses Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitonng Based Upon Information Supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedPer Pupil Expenditure by School 1993-1994 Budget School Number School Name Actual 91-92 Expenditure Budget 92-93 Actual 92-93 Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Budget 93-94 Expenditure Oct 1 1992 Oct 1 1992 92-93 Actual FTE Enrollment Black % Per Pupil Oct 1 1993 Oct 1 1993 93-94 Budgeted 47 24 46 33 51 20 38 50 48 29 30 52 37 18 31 45 35 22 32 28 42 44 23 17 19 40 25 36 34 39 26 41 49 Terry Forest Park Uablevale Meadowcliff Wakefield McDermott Pulaski Heights Otter Creek Fullbright Western Hills Jefferson Watson Geyer Springs Brady Cloverdale Woodruff M.L. King Baseline Dodd Chicot Washington Wilson Fair Park Bale Badgett Romine Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell Garland Stephens Ish $1,201,389.07 $981,517.03 $1,206,535.14 $1,076,269.43 $1,080,201.67 $1,317,443.02 $839,547.56 $851,542.87 $1,330,115.51 $877,344.34 $1,304,570.79 $1,131,452.56 $707,928.80 $1,041,098.68 $934,944.01 $649,511.89 $1,160,444.45 $869,050.69 $1,147,518.12 $1,002,625 92 $1,019,654.16 $1,222,557.18 $903,190.50 $802,665.92 $1,324,804.26 $821,912.41 $1,274,108.81 $1,112,392.78 $719,345.29 $990,898.05 $923,339.89 $639,833.62 $885,849.79 $849,570 99 $1,486,051.76 $2,162,216.22 $1,111,388.63 $883,765.97 $1,013,230.42 $697,035.45 $1,103,629.12 $1,575,718.57 $1,637,994.32 $1,208,845.13 $1,162,902.06 $1,289,211.46 $1,163,545.97 $1,011,279.63 $808,448.36 $809,999.85 $1,455,057.31 $2,223,513 84 $1,131,098.45 $872,728.18 $1,029,374 87 $641,908.51 $1,231,028.03 $1,801,195.82 $1,707,964.33 $1,280,639.42 $1,284,635.19 $1,317,830.72 $1,274,741.49 $1,160,352.63 $1,175,147.95 $1,009,041.26 $1,127,149.24 $1,051,067.36 $1,041,513.36 $1,291,407.88 $969,181.35 $879,354.11 $1,317,057.53 $870,983.22 $1,340,589.71 $1,136,159.29 $755,680.79 $1,009,510.96 $919,636.35 $669,017.57 $25,501.31 $915,687.59 $872,462.96 $1,532,460.98 $1,196,557.69 $873,357.37 $1,040,097.06 $724,769.38 $1,147,564.73 $1,733,066.85 $1,758,362.40 $1,319,496.71 $1,238,081.45 $1,384,930.53 $1,255,977.41 $1,021,284.19 541 444 500 440 500 509 379 353 530 335 483 451 282 398 366 234 339 304 535 822 355 243 321 202 361 411 361 264 249 256 209 187 Note: FTE is from the 1993-1994 budget and does not reflect changes due to enrollment losses 44 45 56 66 69 54 52 41 42 62 42 74 63 69 80 63 77 60 65 59 75 79 77 76 77 86 69 88 96 91 97 97 $2,172.18 $1,201,978.91 $2,272.62 $1,034,064.02 $2,254.30 $1,149,041.07 $2,388.79 $1,044,336.95 $2,083.03 $1,101,790.19 $2,537.15 $1,314,256.17 $2,557.21 $1,049,040.22 $2,491,09 $911,092.87 $2,485.01 $1,392,965.59 $2,599.95 $894,632.77 $2,775.55 $1,360,887.52 $2,519.20 $1,195,073.02 $2,679.72 $784,275.30 $2,536.46 $1,090,136.40 $2,512.67 $1,091,282.28 $2,859.05 $687,642.24 0 $1,658,864.16 $2,701.14 $1,031,401.85 $2,869.94 $880,215.87 $2,864.41 $1,617,845 51 $2,728.43 $2,369,300.33 $3,370.59 $1,200,696.51 $3,594.06 $918,162.06 $3,240.18 $1,158,843.33 $3,587.97 $737,551.85 $3,178.85 $1,329,911.36 $4,216.71 $1,636,195.14 $4,870.81 $1,877,365.19 $4,998 09 $1,370,625.10 $4,972.21 $1,278,754.99 $5,409.88 $1,444,866.58 $6,009.46 $1,318,562.68 $5,461.41 $70,411.25 45 37 46 33 41 42 40 30 47 34 45 43 34 43 42 27 4 41 35 64 90 40 32 43 28 45 62 72 50 44 50 46 561 458 488 434 447 509 398 341 520 332 504 442 288 397 386 236 553 343 292 509 721 354 263 303 189 334 345 340 230 189 205 145 43 44 64 71 75 51 48 41 45 65 42 80 72 66 79 62 65 77 65 70 63 74 76 74 70 74 87 71 93 97 88 97 $2,142.56 $2,257.78 $2,354.59 $2,406.31 $2,464.86 $2,582.04 $2,635.78 $2,671.83 $2,678.78 $2,694.68 $2,700.17 $2,703.79 $2,723.18 $2,745.94 $2,827.16 $2,913.74 $2,999.75 $3,007.00 $3,014.44 $3,178.48 $3,286.13 $3,391.80 $3,491.11 $3,824.57 $3,902.39 $3,981.77 $4,742.59 $5,521.66 $5,959.24 $6,765.90 $7,048.13 $9,093.54 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring Based Upon Information Supplied by the Little Rock School District UnauditedLRSD Junior High Budgets, Enrollments and Per Pupil Expenditure Dunbar Jr High Enrollment Per pupil Expenditure Actual Expenditures 1991-1992 2,177,871.82 691 3,151.77 Actual Expenditures 1992-1993 Actual Expenditures 1993-1994 2,233,736.11 705 3,168.42 2,375,356.69 701 3,388.53 Budget 1994-1995 Dated 8/08/94 2,215,349.31 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Cloverdale Jr High Enrollment | ~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,012,575.56 745 2,701.44 2,162,862.55 775 2,790.79 2,197,345.54 701 3,134.59 2,072,735.61 Forest Hts. Jr. High Enrollment | ~~ Per pupil Expenditure 2,320,122.47 765 3,032.84 2,365,925.57 787 3,006.26 2,424,252.56 788 3,076.46 2,494,614.11 Henderson Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,464,130.70 859 2,868.60 2,836,387.32 914 3,103.27 3,049,192.92 915 3,332.45 2,961,683.42 Mablevale Jr. High Enrollment | ~ Per pupil Expenditure 1,918,244.33 665 2,884.58 2,047,442.02 667 3,069.63 2,097,826.14 654 3,207.69 2,053,420.97 Pulaski Hts. Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,337,373.84 761 3,071.45 2,484,029.31 774 3,209.34 2,493,182.82 790 3,155.93 2,391,960.24 Southwest Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 2,124,034.56 704 3,017.09 2,299,448.03 695 3,308.56 2,150,663.98 679 3,167.40 2,068,377.82 Mann Magnet Jr. High Enrollment | Per pupil Expenditure 3,055,026.00 872 3,503.47 2,896,401.00 849 3,411.54 3,157,632.00 851 3,710.50 3,195,685.00 Totals Avg. Per Pupil Expenditure 18,409,379.28 6062 3,036.85 19,326,231.91 6166 3,134.32 19,945,452.65 6079 3,281.04 19,453,826.48 I I I I $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Enrollment based upon Oct. 1, 1992 \u0026amp; 1993 iz i - r Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSDPupil/Staff Ratios Highest to Lowest Per Pupil Certified Pupil/Staff Budget Enrollment Cost Staff Ratio Elementary Schools Terry Pulaski Hts Jefferson McDermott Forest Park West Hills Wakefield Meadowcliff Geyer Springs Fulbright Cloverd Elem Wilson Brady Mablevale Elem Otter Creek Woodruff Watson Baseline Dodd ML King Bale Romine Chicot Fair Park Washington Badgett Garland Franklin Rockefeller Mitchell Rightsell $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,366,303 1,005,828 1,440,462 1,324,462 1,132,508 927,759 1,180,715 1,146,039 824,349 1,546,660 1,108,921 1,161,523 1,149,456 1,346,068 940,017 736,630 1,204,878 974,549 918,043 1,776,722 1,083,388 1,322,365 1,619,962 925,563 2,262,546 705,781 1,188,474 1,840,649 1,971,799 1,224,438 1,038,383 537 422 506 484 434 320 426 402 278 509 402 366 374 429 332 202 423 284 284 488 307 277 430 242 602 185 237 377 314 243 205 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,544 2,383 2,847 2,736 2,609 2,899 2,772 2,851 2,965 3,039 2,759 3,174 3,073 3,138 2,831 3,647 2,848 3,432 3,233 3,641 3,529 4,774 3,767 3,825 3,758 3,815 5,015 4,882 6,280 5,039 5,065 31 26 32 31 28 21 28 27 19 35 28 26 27 31 24 15 32 22 22 39 26 24 39 22 55 17 22 36 ,34 27 24 17.32 16.23 15.81 15.61 15.50 15.24 15.21 14.89 14.63 14.54 14.36 14.08 13.85 13.84 13.83 13.47 13.22 12.91 12.91 12.51 11.81 11.54 11.03 11.00 10.95 10.88 10.77 10.47 9.24 9.00 8.54 Elementary Totals 38,395,240 11321 $ 3,392 870 13.01 Junior High Schools Dunbar Forest Hts Southwest Pul Hts Henderson Clov Jr Mablevale $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,291,519 2,467,869 2,137,196 2,327,556 3,060,661 1,960,786 2,166,389 732 759 612 781 792 609 491 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,130 3,251 3,492 2,980 3,864 3,220 4,412 52 57 49 63 66 52 52 14.08 13.32 12.49 12.40 12.00 11.71 9.44 Totals $16,411,976 4776 $ 3,436 391 12.21 High Schools Central Hall Fair McClelland $ $ $ $ 5,006,526 3,238,721 3,046,831 3,372,519 1546 889 849 878 $ $ $ $ 3,238 3,643 3,589 3,841 101 71 70 79 15.31 12.52 12.13 11.11 Totals $14,664,597 4162 $ 3,523 321 12.97 Secondary Totals $31,076,573 8938 $ 3,477 712 12.55 Grand Total $69,471,813 20259 $ 3,429 1582 12.81 Prepared by Bob Morgan Unaudited Black Area School Enrollment LRSD Schools u (Q m Maiority Black Area Schoofs Wakefield Clo'rerdale Watson Wilson Badgett Faw Park Chicot M^dowctiff Baseline GeyerSpnngs Bale Mabelvale Woodruff Western Hills Dodd Brady SilsTotai 368 384 353 304 166 211 345 305 247 231 243 318 170 208 190 250 4293 Maiorrty White Ares Schoofs Forest Park Fuibngtit Jefferson McOermott Ferry Otter Creek P'jJeski Heights Sub*Tolal Total For Area Schools 205 255 210 259 239 139 189 1496 5789 4) 5 o n o u CO u (9 (aQ. o o \u0026lt;0O o \u0026amp; O Incentive Schools Frenklin'' Garland'' Mitchell'' RightselF' Rockefeller'' Sub-Total Interdistrict Schoofs Os Romine- Washington- 400 235 250 210 259 1354 A Sub-Total Magnet Schoofs Booker' Carver* Gibbs Williams 289 213 422 924 Sub-Total Special Schools Bementary Sub-Total 316 326 165 264 1071 17 9155 Magnet ** Magnet Program *Incenttve - inlerdistnct 51 64 84 72 44 53 99 93 75 71 85 139 81 106 97 124 1338 222 254 285 213 279 193 207 1653 2991 24 2 7 6 131 170 230 80 210 520 267 290 132 232 921 29 4631 10 5 7 8 0 6 3 2 5 8 19 3 3 1 7 20 112 8 9 6 15 18 7 10 73 185 7 18 0 3 16 44 12 9 24 45 21 13 10 12 56 0 330 429 453 444 384 210 270 452 400 327 310 347 460 254 315 294 394 5743 435 518 501 487 536 339 406 3222 8965 431 255 257 219 406 1568 531 302 656 1489 604 629 307 508 2048 46 14116 85.78% 84 77% 7950% 79.17% 7905% 78.15% 76.33% 76.25% 7554% 74 52% 70.03% 69.13% 86 93% 66.03% 64.63% 63.45% 74.75% 4713% 49.23% 41.92% 53.18% 44.59% 41.00% 46.55% 46 43% 6457% 92.81% 92.16% 97 28% 95.89% 63.79% , 86 35% 54.43% 70.53% 64.33% 52.06% 52.32% 51 83% 53.75% 51 97% 52.29% 36.96% 64.86% 432 492 492 394 257 351 558 465 390 328 401 515 324 328 328 467 6582 399 540 492 517 SIS 351 374 3188 9770 434 298 298 258 469 1757 728 487 836 2051 656 613 353 517 2139 15717 -63 -39 -48 -10 -47 -81 -106 -65 63 -18 -54 -55 -70 -13 -34 73 839 36 22 9 -30 21 -12 32 -64 -903 -3 -43 -41 39 -63 -189 -197 -185 -180 -562 -52 16 -46 -9 107 1761 Distribution Of Black Children By Type of School - Bem \u0026gt; Total 9138 Magnet Schools- 1071 12% Interdlstnct Schools-924 10% Incentive Schools^ 1354 15% Area SchooJs-S789 63% 87% 92% 90% 97% 82% 77% 81% 86% 84% 95% 87% 89% 78% 96% 90% 84% 87% 109% 96% 102% 94% 104% 97% 109% 101% 92% 99% 86% 86% 85% 87% 89% 73% 62% 78% 73% 92% 103% 87% 98% 96% Prepared by Bob Morgan Unaudited Area Schools to Show a Relationship Between Per Pupil Cost, Capacity and Pupil/Staff Ratio January Percent Per Pupil Certified Pupil/Staff Budget Enrollment Capacity of Capacity Cost Staff Ratio ' Area Schools 23 Fair Park 19 Badgett 28 Chicot 45 Woodruff 17 Bale 22 Baseline 32 Dodd 44 Wilson 46 Mablevale Elem 18 Brady 48 Fulbright 37 Geyer Springs 29 West Hills 33 Meadowcliff 52 Watson 30 Jefferson 50 Otter Creek 51 Wakefield 31 Cloverd Elem 20 McDermott 24 Forest Park 47 Terry 38 Pulaski Hts $ $ 925,563 705,781 $ 1,619,962 $ 736,630 $ 1,083,388 $ $ 974,549 918,043 $ 1,161,523 S 1,346,068 $ 1,149,456 S 1,546,660 $ $ 824,349 927,759 $ 1,146,039 $ 1,204,878 $ 1,440,462 $ 940,017 $ 1,180,715 $ 1,108,921 $ 1,324,462 $ 1,132,508 $ 1,366,303 $ 1,005,828 242 185 430 202 307 284 284 366 429 374 509 278 320 402 423 506 332 426 402 484 434 537 422 351 257 558 324 401 390 328 394 515 467 540 328 328 465 492 492 351 492 492 517 399 515 374 69% $ 72% $ 77% $ 62% $ 77% $ 73% $ 87% $ 93% $ 83% $ 80% $ 94% $ 85% $ 98% $ 86% S 86% $ 103% S 95% S 87% $ 82% $ 94% $ 109% $ 104% $ 113% $ 3,825 3,815 3,767 3,647 3,529 3,432 3,233 3,174 3,138 3,073 3,039 2,965 2,899 2,851 2,848 2,847 2,831 2,772 2,759 2,736 2,609 2,544 2,383 22 17 39 15 26 22 22 26 31 27 35 19 21 27 32 32 24 28 28 31 28 31 26 11.00 10.88 11.03 13.47 11.81 12.91 12.91 14.08 13.84 13.85 14.54 14.63 15.24 14.89 13.22 15.81 13.83 15.21 14.36 15.61 15.50 17.32 16.23 Totals Non Area Schools 36 Rockefeller 39 Rightsell 34 Mitchell 26 Garland 25 Franklin 40 Romine 42 Washington 35 ML King $ 25,769,864 8578 9770 88% S 3,004 609 14.09 Totals Grand Totals $ 1,971,799 $ 1,038,383 $ 1,224,438 S 1,188,474 $ 1,840,649 $ 1,322,365 $ 2,262,546 $ 1,776,722 $ 12,625,376 38,395,240 Effect of Adding 46 Students to Baseline 22 Baseline - Before Baseline - After $ $ 974,549 974,549 Effect of Closing Two Schools Totals - Before Fair Park Badgett Totals - After $ 25,769,864 $ $ 925,563 705,781 $ 24,138,520 314 205 243 237 377 277 602 488 469 258 298 298 434 487 836 728 67% $ 79% $ 82% $ 80% $ 87% $ 57% $ 72% $ 67% $ 6,280 5,065 5,039 5,015 4,882 4,774 3,758 3,641 34 24 27 22 36 24 55 39 9.24 8.54 9.00 10.77 10.47 11.54 10.95 12.51 2743 3808 72% $ 4,603 261 10.51 11321 13578 83% $ 3,392 870 13.01 Effect of Increasing Staff By One @$40,000 Wakefield - Before Wakefield - After $ 1,180,715 $ 1,220,715 284 330 390 390 73% $ 85% $ 3,432 2,953 22 22 12.91 15.00 8578 8578 9770 351 257 9162 88% $ \\6//$ ^72/$ 94% $ 3,004 3,825 3,815 2,814 609 22 17 570 14.09 11.00 10.88 15.05 426 426 492 87% $ $ 2,772 2,866 28 29 15.21 14.69 Prepared by Bob Morgan UnauditedArea School Per Student Costs Area School Per Student Costs School BADGETT ________ BALE ______ _____ B^aiNE________________ BRADY CENTRAL CHICOT_____________________ CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY CLOVERDALE JR HIGH________ DODD_____________________ DUNBAR____________________ FAIR FAIR PARK . FOREST HEIGHTS . . _ FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT_________________ GEYER SPRINGS______________ HALL________________________ HENDERSON_________________ JEFFERSON__________________ MABELVALE ELEMENTARY______ MABEL VALE JR HIGH MCCLELLAN COMMUNITY HIGH MCDERMOTT________________ MEADOWCLIFF______________ OTTER CREEK PULASKI HEIGHTS INT__________ PULASKI HEIGH.TSJR_HIGH Benefits Capital Outlay SOUTHWEST TERRY WAKEFIELD WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILSON WOODRUFF .5 o A T $331.53 _ $0.90__ Materials Supplies Other Objects ___ $330.82 ___ $311.49 $302.14 $307.58 $386.99 $259.14 $313.39 $340.81 $300.01 $343.41 ____ $33118^ ____$317,94 $268.34 ___ $311.84 $285.96 $342.83 $375.60 $282.11 $315.97 $434.35 ___ $362.48. $275.29 $292.36 $282.38 $248.69 J298W $363.36 $266.11 $285.29 J270.77 $292.22 $309.04 $328.51 $1.60 $0.00 $0.00 $6.16 $1.11 $0.00 $1.69 $3.49 116.15 $7.55 $0.00 142.52.1 $43.97 ____$3.38_____ $3.92 J$3.03 $3.85 $5.19 $56.31 $0.99 $1.51 $5.94 J2B.29___ $2.07 $1.24 $2.32 $0.71 $6.45 $5.11 $4.10 $0.87 $0.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $51.85 137.33 $57.90 $42.63 $38.63 $52.90 $35.39 $32.73 $51.53 J32.68 $47.40 __ $51.68 $45.66 $34.58 $56.26 $51.31 $53.85 $32.00 .... 170,14 $51.95 $50.80 $56.22 $49.37 $30.95 $32.76 $50.26 $48.08 $47.58 $52.37 $46.35 $54.74 $0.00 $038 $0.00 J0.89 $0.00 ! $0.07 ! J Purchased Servic^ JISO CXY . $2.71 $0.00 $0.00 $0.96 $0.55 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.22 $0.00 JO.26 $0.00 $0.14 $0.00 $0.00 $118.47 $192.37 $112.82 $140.96 $82.95 $89.65 $173.53 $135.74 $162.79 $177.24 -_$l?P.7? . $157.2k $102.19 $119.55 $131.09 $190.40 $171.91 $107.72 _1141.98 $131.98 $215.26^., $128.82 $90.80 $159.34 $122.33 $100.07 $167.12 $89.66 $88.97 $130.61 $131.56 $129.62 $165.72 Salaries $2,668.63 __ $2,613.12 $2,464.07_ $2,464.58 J2,672.65 $3,Q62.99_ $2,051.08 $2,580.18 ___ $2,699.61 $2,583.80 $2,977.79 ___ 12,767,88. _ $2,697.98 $2,187.63 __ $2,552.53 $2,174,63 ___ $3,001.20 $3,238.85 $2,410.27 $2,504.78 $3,685.61 . $3,079,21 $2,278.37 $2,415.64 $2,331.12 $1,962.38 $2,567.56 $3,072.53 $2,134.19 $2,348.42 $2,186.51 ___ $2,423.10 $2,539.79 $2,572.34 tA^-^ Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS ALL HIGH SCHOOLS 5,068.00 \" IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL RECEIVER DEC 1 , 1995 CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET 1 1 $ 11,352,320.00 17,845,851.00 29,198,171.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,521.28 5,761.28 100% Office Of Desegregation hionitoring INSTRUCTION____________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL ___________ $ $ $ 737,901.00 12,071,325.00 12,809,226.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,381.87 2,527.47 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL ____________ $ $ $ 1,044,413.00 2,012,601.00 3,057,014.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 397.12 603.20 10% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL _______________ 1 1 $ 5,551,285.00 2,102,065.00 7,653,350.00 73% 27% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 414.77 1,510.13 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL 1 $ $ 2,769,966.00 2,769,966.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 9% J. LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL _________________ 1 $ $ 1,248,755.00 1,659,860.00 2,908,615.00 43% 57% 100% $ $ $ 246.40 327.52 573.92 10% Page 1 Ba ESheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET INSTRUCTION___________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL PARKVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 837.00 IN DOLLARS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL 1,874,880.00 3,404,231.00 5,279,111.00 121,867.00 2,366,077.00 2,487,944.00 172,489.00 332,984.00 505,473.00 916,816.00 460,107.00 1,376,923.00 457,471.00 457,471.00 206,237.00 245,063.00 451,300.00 36% 64% 100% 5% 95% 100% 34% 66% 100% 67% 33% 100% 100% 0% 100% 46% 54% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,240.00 4,067.18 6,307.18 145.60 2,826.85 2,972.45 206.08 397.83 603.91 1,095.36 549.71 1,645.07 546.56 546.56 246.40 292.79 539.19 100% 47% 10% 26% 9% 9%Sheetl MCCLELLAN HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL#OF STUDENTS 884.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,980,160.00 3,348,363.00 5,328,523.00 37% 63% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,787.74 6,027.74 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 128,710.00 2,129,169.00 2,257,879.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,408.56 2,554.16 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 182,175.00 503,058.00 685,233.00 27% 73% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 569.07 775.15 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 968,298.00 413,802.00 1,382,100.00 483,159.00 483,159.00 217,818.00 302,334.00 520,152.00 70% 30% 100% 100% 0% 100% 42% 58% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 468.10 1,563.46 546.56 546.56 246.40 342.01 588.41 26% 9% 10%Sheetl HALL HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 911.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 2,040,640.00 3,193,915.00 5,234,555.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,505.94 5,745.94 100% INSTRUCTION___________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 132,642.00 2,160,160.00 2,292,802.00 .6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,371.20 2,516.80 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 187,739.00 308,865.00 496,604.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 339.04 545.12 9% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 997,873.00 377,932.00 1,375,805.00 73% 27% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 414.85 1,510.21 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 497,916.00 497,916.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 10% LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL $ $ $ 244,470.00 346,958.00 591,428.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 268.35 380.85 649.21 11% Page 1Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS FAIR HIGH SCHOOL 890.00 ' IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,993,600.00 3,001,845.00 4,995,445.00 40% 60% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,372.86 5,612.86 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 129,584.00 1,986,456.00 2,116,040.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,231.97 2,377.57 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 183,411.00 348,495.00 531,906.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 391.57 597.65 11% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 974,870.00 310,114.00 1,284,984.00 76% 24% 100% $ $ $ 1,095.36 348.44 1,443.80 26% OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 486,438.00 486,438.00 100% 0% 100% $ $ $ 546.56 546.56 10% LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL $ $ $ 219,296.00 356,780.00 576,076.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 246.40 400.88 647.28 12% Page 1Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 1,546.00 IN DOLLARS $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL 3,463,040.00 4,897,497.00 8,360,537.00 225,098.00 3,429,463.00 3,654,561.00 311,674.00 519,199.00 830,873.00 1,693,427.00 540,110.00 2,233,537.00 844,982.00 844,982.00 380,934.00 408,725.00 789,659.00 41% 59% 100% 6% 94% 100% 38% 62% 100% 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 48% 52% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,167.85 5,407.85 145.60 2,218.28 2,363.88 201.60 335.83 537.43 1,095.36 349.36 1,444.72 546.56 546.56 246.40 264.38 510.78 100% 44% 10% 27% 10% 9%Sheetl ALL JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 5,623 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET 12,595,520 19,446,132 32,041,652 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,458.32 5,698.32 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL _______________ INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL ZZZZZZZZZZZ OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS______________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET ~ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET ~ TOTAL ______________________ 818,708 13,033,196 13,851,904 1,158,888 2,612,328 3,771,216 6,159,560 2,063,725 8,223,285 3,072,942 3,072,942 1,385,508 1,756,883 3,142,391 6% 94% 100% 31% 69% 100% 75% 25% 100% 100% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 145.60 2,317.84 2,463.44 206.10 464.58 670.68 1,095.42 367.01 1,462.44 546.50 546.50 246.40 312.45 558.85 43% 12% 26% 10% 10%Sheetl MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 491.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,099,840.00 2,166,387.00 3,266,227.00 34% 66% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 4,412.19 6,652.19 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 71,490.00 1,449,519.00 1,521,009.00 5% 95% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,952.18 3,097.78 47% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 101,185.00 317,267.00 418,452.00 24% 76% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 646.16 852.24 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 537,822.00 170,629.00 708,451.00 268,361.00 268,361.00 120,982.00 228,972.00 349,954.00 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 35% 65% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ A 1,095.36 347.51 1,442.87 546.56 546.56 246.40 466.34 712.74 22% 8% 11%Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 792.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,774,080.00 3,060,661.00 4,834,741.00 37% 63% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,864.47 6,104.47 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 115,315.00 2,191,564.00 2,306,879.00 5% 95% 100% 1 1 $ 145.60 2,767.13 2,912.73 48% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 163,315.00 273,988.00 437,303.00 37% 63% 100% 1 $ 206.21 345.94 552.15 9% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 867,525.00 344,752.00 1,212,277.00 432,511.00 437,876.00 195,149.00 250,357.00 445,506.00 72% 28% 100% 99% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1 $ $ 1,095.36 435.29 1,530.65 546.10 552.87 246.40 316.11 562.51 25% 9% 9%Sheetl MANN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 847.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,897,280.00 3,054,156.00 4,951,436.00 38% 62% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,605.85 5,845.85 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 123,323.00 2,122,129.00 2,245,452.00 5% 95% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,505.47 2,651.06 45% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 174,550.00 404,376.00 578,926.00 30% 70% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 477.42 683.50 12% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 927,770.00 292,498.00 1,220,268.00 462,936.00 462,936.00 208,701.00 235,153.00 443,854.00 76% 24% 100% 100% 0% 100% 47% 53% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 345.33 1,440.69 546.56 546.56 246.40 277.63 524.03 25% 9% 9%Sheetl SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 612.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,370,880.00 2,137,196.00 3,508,076.00 39% 61% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,492.15 5,732.15 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 89,107.00 1,442,640.00 1,531,747.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,357.25 2,502.85 44% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 126,121.00 258,188.00 384,309.00 33% 67% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 421.88 627.96 11% OPERATIONS______________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP________________________ CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 670,360.00 230,628.00 900,988.00 334,495.00 334,495.00 150,797.00 205,740.00 356,537.00 74% 26% 100% 100% 0% 100% 42% 58% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 376.84 1,472.20 546.56 546.56 246.40 336.18 582.58 26% 10% 10%Sheetl FOREST HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 759.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,700,160.00 2,467,868.00 4,168,028.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,251.47 5,491.47 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 110,510.00 1,620,096.00 1,730,606.00 6% 94% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 2,134.51 2,280.11 42% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 156,415.00 346,791.00 503,206.00 31% 69% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 456.91 662.99 12% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 831,378.00 278,393.00 1,109,771.00 414,839.00 414,839.00 187,018.00 222,588.00 409,606.00 75% 25% 100% 100% 0% 100% 46% 54% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 366.79 1,462.15 546.56 546.56 246.40 293.26 539.67 27% 10% 10%Sheetl TOTAL # OF STUDENTS CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL 609.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET 1 $ $ 1,364,160.00 1,960,787.00 3,324,947.00 41% 59% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 3,219.68 5,459.68 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 1 $ 88,670.00 1,193,161.00 1,281,831.00 7% 93% 100% 1 S $ 145.60 1,959.21 2,104.81 39% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL ~ 1 A $ 125,503.00 311,767.00 437,270.00 29% 71% 100% 1 $ 206.08 511.93 718.01 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL 667,074.00 267,894.00 934,968.00 332,855.00 332,855.00 150,058.00 187,965.00 338,023.00 71% 29% 100% 100% 0% 100% 44% 56% 100% Page 1 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ $ 1,095.36 439.89 1,535.25 546.56 546.56 246.40 308.65 555.05 28% 10% 10%Sheetl PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL # OF STUDENTS 781.00 IN DOLLARS PERCENT COST PER STUDE % OF TOTAL CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL ACTUAL____________ TOTAL BUDGET $ $ $ 1,749,440.00 2,327,557.00 4,076,997.00 43% 57% 100% $ $ $ 2,240.00 2,980.23 5,220.23 100% INSTRUCTION CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET TOTAL $ $ $ 113,714.00 1,555,741.00 1,669,455.00 7% 93% 100% $ $ $ 145.60 1,991.99 2,137.59 41% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL $ $ $ 160,948.00 361,519.00 522,467.00 31% 69% 100% $ $ $ 206.08 462.89 668.97 13% OPERATIONS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATION SCHOOL BUDGET____________ TOTAL OTHER COMMITMENTS CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET_____________ TOTAL LEADERSHIP CENTRAL OFFICE ALLOCATIONS SCHOOL BUDGET______________ TOTAL 855,476.00 199,892.00 1,055,368.00 426,863.00 426,863.00 192,438.00 210,405.00 402,843.00 81% 19% 100% 100% 0% 100% 48% 52% 100% Page 1 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,095.36 255.94 1,351.30 546.56 546.56 246.40 269.40 515.80 26% 10% 10%i Sa^.u^ Incentive Schools Cost per Student $600 Cost per Student $500 $400 VI ro o Q $300 $200 $100 $0  Jb 'hy- Incentive Schools 11 IIBs w Ave rag ^Rockefeller Costs for 1993-1995 IFranklin Rightsei Garland Ish IIMitchel Stephens SCHOOL STEPHENS GARLAND RIGHTSELL MITCHELL ROCKEFELLER FRANKLIN ROMINE WASHINGTON KING GIBBS WILLIAMS BOOKER CARVER STEPHENS GARLAND NEW STEPHENS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACT SHEET STEPHENS /GARLAND JUNE 7,1994 BUDGET 1993/94 1,273,272.88 1,408,766.58 1,238,154.99 1,311,925.10 1,764,565.19 1,567,895.14 1,267,911.36 2,278,100.33 1,588,019.16 1,390,795.00 1,800,998.00 2,254,707.00 2,048,463.00 94/95 (1,316,770.51) 95/96 (1,316,770.51) ENROLLMENT 1993/94 145 205 189 230 340 345 334 721 553 299 472 595 595 PER PUPIL 8,781.19 6,872.03 6,551.08 5,704.02 5,189.90 4,544.62 3,796.14 3,159.64 2,871.64 4,651.49 3,815.67 3,789.42 3,442.79 INTEREST/CONST FUNDS PARKIN/RENT/UTILIT GARLAND TO IRC 231,559.00 96/97 (1,316,770.51) (1,350,530.66) 2,100,000.00 231,559.00 (107,872.00) 75,000.00 TOTAL (3,950,311.53) (1,350,530.66) 2,100,000.00 463,118.00 (107,872.00) 75,000.00 TOTAL SAVINGS (1,316,770.51) (1,085,211.51) (368,614.17) (2,770,596.19) CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FUNDS AVAILABLE INCLUDING INTEREST SECOND LIEN BONDS 3,701,624.01 2,615,300.00 7 TOTAL PROJECTED COST TO CONSTRUCT 6,316,924.01 C/W I F\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1547","title":"Court filings concerning educational law and school integration and planning","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1991/1992","1992-07-01/1992-07-22"],"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","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","School districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning educational law and school integration and planning"],"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/1547"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["legal documents"],"dcterms_extent":["127 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"ndd_holsaertfaith_r4x63bc0q","title":"Dear Ms. Klekota, 1991","collection_id":"ndd_holsaertfaith","collection_title":"Faith Holsaert Papers 1950-2011","dcterms_contributor":["Holsaert, Faith"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Dougherty County, Albany, 31.57851, -84.15574"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":["fhpst01002","https://repository.duke.edu/iipsrv/iipsrv.fcgi?IIIF=/srv/perkins/repo_deriv/multires_image/d/6/06/d60600e9-446b-41eb-ab85-ab96b21c1464/fhpst01002001.ptif/full/!350,350/0/default.jpg"],"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Faith Holsaert papers"],"dcterms_subject":["Holsaert, Faith","Feminism","Civil rights","Social justice","Women political activists","Women's rights"],"dcterms_title":["Dear Ms. Klekota, 1991"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Duke University. Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://idn.duke.edu/ark:/87924/r4x63bc0q"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Duke has not determined the copyright status of this item. Regardless of its status, we have made a good faith determination that online access through the Duke Digital Repository is an acceptable fair use and otherwise permitted under U.S. copyright law. For more information, see our page on copyright and citations: https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/research/citations-and-permissions."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_364","title":"Desegregation and education plan","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":["1991/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation and education plan"],"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/364"],"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\n10/07'94 12:46 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst @002 DESEGREGATION REQUIREMENTS ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1994-95 AREA ELEMENTARY: 40:00% - 60.00% AREA JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: 51.25% - 76.88% AREA SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS: 49.11%-73.67% ORIGINAL MAGNETS (BOOKER, CARVER, GIBBS, WILLIAMS, MANN, PARKVIEW) 50% - 55% INTERDISTRICT MAGNET PROGRAMS (CENTRAL \u0026amp; MCCLELLAN) (HENDERSON) (DUNBAR) 49.11%-73.67% 51.25%-76.88% 40% - 60% INTERDISTRICT (KING, WASHINGTON, ROMINE) 40% - 60%*4 Desegregation Requirements/Acceptable Racial Ranges The minimum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent. The maximum bhck percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. The minimum black percentage for each secondary (junior and senior high) attendance zone school will be 25 percent below the distnet-wide black percenuge at each organizational level. The maximum black percentage will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at each organizational level. The rmnirnum and maximum black percenuges constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for attendance zone schools. re- The Student Assignment Office and all building principals will be held accountable for complying with desegregation requirements. In addition to complying with desegregation requirements, building principals will be expected to assign students to classes in an equitable manner, to the greatest extent possible. The building principal should not allow resegiegation to occur in classrTOms. School desegregation requirements and equiuble classroom assignments will be monitored by the LRSD Offices of Desegregation. School based biracial advisory committees will also monitor compliance in these areas. 'S The accepuble range is listed below: .5\nElementary Junior High Senior High 40.00% . 73.75% 52.50% . 78.75% 49.25% - 73.75% 1 1ES59S (}\\0/i ^'^fjze^ fc.UArkansas Democrat (l^azcllc |  MONDAY, APRIL S. 2000 Judge gets revised school plan Desegregation report a trial run, and nioie, LR officials say I RvrvNTifiA HOWELL more than that. We wanted to as- One provision of the plan cal'.- - U!K,VNS.VS ni-Mn( i\u0026lt;AT.o,\\zr.rrr. sc.s.s our progress and to show the for hiring a The Little Rock School District lin the ongoing 1982 school .ton e.xpert to -oik with staff on has issued a report aimed at reassuring the public and a federal judge that it is moving swiftly and in good faith to carry out its revised desegregation plan. parties tin the ongoing 1982 school desegregation lawsuit] and the community our good faith conipli- ance. he said. The 1998 plan, which is 24 The 129-page compliance report. sent to Chief U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, describes the School Board policies. academic programs and staff vised plan training efforts now in place in response to the 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. pages, was negotiated by representatives of the district and the Joshua intervenors, the class of black students in the three Piilas- ki County school districts. The re- cum- bersome plan of more than 200 pages in use since the late 1980s. policies and programs, as well as on desegregation or discrimina- This year's report, available for review at all schools, is a preview of a document the district must submit to Wright next spring. That second report is a prerequisite for the district's anticipated release in June 2001 from federal court supervision. lion problems. The district has retained two experts: Terrence Roberts, now a California psychologist, who was one of the nine black students to integrate Central High in 1957\nand Stephen Ross, an education policy researcher at the University of Memphis. Roberts has advised administrators on policies dealing with achievement, parent involvement, counseling, student discipline and use of conimunitj' volunteers. He developed a two-day workshop for school administrators and others on \"Learning to Cope with Differences. Brady Gadberry. special assistant to the superintendent and co- .........-,rtn author of the report, said this aware of it. failure to report non- compliance also may result in disciplinary action being taken.\" year's voluntary report is a practice run for the 2001 report. But. ' School '  Continued Iron Page 1B The compliance report describes efforts to give school prin- XUMva --------- . cioals and the new (juupus U'ad- The philosophy of the revised plan permeates the activities ol the district, Gadberiy and Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs wrote in the new report's introduction. Employees are fully expected to comply with the Revised Plan. To ensure compliance. it is the responsibility of all ..............- ------- - - , employees to report instances of tional programs and the develop- non-compliance when they arc '''''vsiem.s a Expanding the number of 4- vear-nids in preschool program.-\" from 720 to 880 in 27 schools. a I 'onverting junior higiis to middle .schools for gi'ades six IInmigii eight. Ross has focused on instruc- mcnt of new systems to measure student progi'ess and hold schools accountable for achievement. I See SCHOOL, Page 3B I ership Teams of teachers, parents and community members the au- a Establishing alternative education programs throughout the city, a Adding a double-period of English and language arts instruction in middle and high schools. thority to develop and cany out school improvement plans. The report details the new Col- ....................... _ Icctivc Responsibility Plan, which school stndent.s can get credit sets student achievement goals on ............... \" ' ' which each school will be cvaluat-  Establishing the Hall High University program in which high from the University of Arkansas at ed bv the district and state. The collective responsibility I plan, when completed, will de- I scribe the technical assistance to ' schools that fall short of I heir Little Kock. H Constructing the new Stephens lilemcntaiy School, which open.- in January. Also, the district has initiated\ni scholarship program for pupils who graduate from a Little Rock high school after attending incentive elementary schools. Incentive ' goals and lav out the consequences of failure. Those conse- ' quences could include replacing eiemenu.i.s .............- the .school .s principal and up to .m apt pxl ra funding for pro- ' percent of the staff. oranis to help raise student i The district has enacted puli Ihe nas tnatieu pui- I cies to increase minimum gradua- arams achievement. I tion requirements to 24 units and I to increase the number of slii- , dents, particularly black students, taking pre-Advanced Placement i and Advanced Placement courses. I according to the compliance re- I port.\nAdvanced Placement courses 1 are rigorous courses developed by  the national College Board that I enable students to gel college i credit for Inch school coursework. i The district offers 80 Advanced ' Placement courses. ' The district has loosened admis- 1 Sion requirements to the courses, allowing students who make C's or belter to take the Advanced Placement courses without getting Administrators periodicall.v collect data on 10 factors related to scliool resources. The factors include the pupil-teacher ratio at each school, the percentage ol teachers with master's degrees and nine year.s of experience, the number of new teachers, the number of computers per student, the per onpil expenditure in discre- tionaiv funds and the number of volunteer hours per student, among others. Each factor is assigned a numerical value, and those numbers are totaled for each school and compared to the district mean. Resources can be added to schools that vary from the mean. I teacher recommendations. I The compliance report de- i scribes all components of the dis- . - ...........I lii/iPnPT' j trict's new elemenlaiw literacy iriClS Uc vrujuuuiMi I program and produces details of a ! m 11111 inuIfI1 nt* Mnt.ional Sci* I multiinilliun-dollar National Sci- i ence [oundalioii grant to revise science and mathematics courses and increase student numbers in upi\u0026gt;er-level classes. ?\\s a result. most ninth-graders are now re- quired to take physics. 1 Other initiatives addressed in ' the compliance report inclurle: SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 2001  LR schools, state near deal on desegregation funds BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Attorneys for the state and Little Rock School District are moving closer to settlii^ school-funding and desegregation issues that might otherwise cost the state millions and complicate district efforts to end federal court supervision. They are negotiating: The Little Rock districts possible payback of a $20 million state loan.  Continued state funding of Little Rock magnet schools and other desegregation-related programs worth $15 million to $20 million a year to the district.  The impact of a recent tax increase in Little Rock on the states funding obligations to other Arkansas school districts. Little Rock officials would like to settle issues with the state and other parties before the district submits a March 15 desegregation compliance report to a federal judge who oversees the 18-year-old Pulaski County school-desegregation case. If there are no objections to the compliance report or if there is no proof that the district is out of compliance with its desegregation plan, then the district could be declared desegregated at the end of this school year and released from federal court monitoring. The word I get is that the negotiations are in the final stages\nthat we may have a deal that everyone is goiiig to agree to, Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, said Friday. Argue is one of three state senators who wrote to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Little Rock Superintendent Les Gamine, state Department of Education Director Ray Simon and Attorney General Mark Pryor in September 2000 urging that the state and Little Rock address several issues as a package and avoid relying on the courts to resolve them. Argue served as an informal facilitator at some of the earlier meetings with the leaders from the agencies and the parties in Little Rocks school desegregation lawsuit. On Friday, Argue said he didnt know the specifics of an emerging agreement. I do get the sense that both sides have given some and won some, he said, adding that the talks are now in the hands of Chris Heller, an attorney for the Little Rock district, and 'Rmothy Gauger, an assistant attorney general. Heller said Friday that he and Gauger talk almost daily and, while they do not have a final draft of an agreement to take to their respective clients, he said there exists at least the nucleus of an agreement. The Little Rock lawyer also said the district faces deadlines for resolving the issues and We need to know within a week or two whether there is substantial agreement Michael Teague, a spokesman for the attorney generals office, declined to comment at length about the negotiations but called Hellers comments an accurate assessment of the talks. Simon said Friday that he was See SCHOOLS, Page 3B ' Schools  Continued from Page 1B fhistrated by the slowness of the talks between the attorneys but optimistic about an ultimate agreement. He said he may have something to report to the state Board of Education at its Feb. 12 meeting. Simon said earlier this month that the attorneys had listened to the discussions of others involved in the issues and were now attempting to put into writing a possible agreement that all the interested parties could endorse. Asked specifically whether district and state representatives have agreed to a method for determining whether Little Rock must repay a $20 million loan, Simon said, Were close. A proposal should be forthcoming A 1989 agreement between the state and district said the district would not have to repay the loan if the composite scores earned by Little Rock black students on a nationally standardized test reached 90 percent or better of the average scores earned by white students by Dec. 31,2000. In the intervening years, the district and the state never formally ' agreed on the test to be used. Heller said Friday that the focus of the talks now is not so much on the $20 million as it is on developing a process for determining whether the loan should be for^ven. He said the process described in the 1989 agreement proved to be unworkable. He also said the district and Education Department administrators have desi^ated experts to make recommendations to negotiators about possible measures of student achievement. 'Those advisers are Steven Ross, a faculty member at the University of Memphis and an educational consultant to Little Rock School District\nand Douglas Reeves, a national consultant to the Education Department on several issues. One of the most pressing of the deadlines faced by the negotiators is related to the 5-mill tax increase Little Rock voters approved last year. The district must complete scheduling the sale of bonds that will be financed with the money generated by the tax increase. The longer the district delays selling the bonds and incurring new debt, the greater the districts wealth. That poses a problem for state officials because all school districts are legally guaranteed at least 80 percent of the money that Little Rock raises in state and local money per student, excluding that money that goes to pay debts. Depending on how Little Rock officials structure the debt they incur, the state would have to increase aid by $40 million to $140 million, according to preliminary projections last year. Until the debt structure and states obligation to other districts are known, legislators could be hindered in setting appropriations for state services for the next two fiscal years. Another critical issue in the school talks is whether the state will attempt to stop subsidizing Little Rocks desegregation efforts if the district is declared unitary, or a fully desegregated school system, later this year. The state pays close to $20 million a year for desegregation-related programs, including magnet schools, student transfer programs,\ntransportation, and teacher retirement and health insurance costs. We think it helps everybody if the Little Rock School Board is free to consider unitary status without having to worry about potentially disastrous financial consequences, Heller said. Hopefully we can reach an agreement that will work for everybody./via,Ie4 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 9, 1999 Dr. Les Carnine, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thank you for your recent letter in response to our August 1999 report on the districts preparations for this school year. Im glad to hear that you and your staff have read the document, and we hope you have found it helpful. I appreciate the additional information that you provided in your letter. As for your speculation that the information may not have been available at the time of our research. I want to emphasize what our reports introduction notes: LRSD staff members who had contributed to our research (either through direct interviews or by providing documentation) received the rough draft of our findings a few days before our report was finalized and published. On August 3 we hand delivered the drafts, invited your staff to offer corrections or updated information, and picked up their written comments on August 5. We reviewed those comments, made appropriate changes in the report, and then filed the completed document less than a week later on August 1 f. This advance review of our findings is designed to assure the accuracy and completeness of our reports. How successfully we reach that goal depends in great part on the accuracy and completeness of the information upon which we base our reports. I believe that we afforded your staff a fair opportunity to help us get this report right. Sincerely yours, Ann S. BrownI IIssm Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEIVES) August 24. 1999 AUG 2 1399 OFHCEGr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown\nThe August 11 Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided\n Overall Alternative Education Program seats for 99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 73301 (501) 834-8000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools Date: August 26, 199 To: All Associates From: Re: .espouse from Carnine Attached is a copy of the letter I received from Les Carnine yesterday. As you will see, he purports to be adding information to our transition report that \"may not have been available at the time of report findings. Please find those points in the letter that were covered (or not) in the section of the report you wrote. Then write me a brief note telling me your comments on Dr. Carnines point. For example, he says that funding sources for Stephens were determined in the March 1999 board meeting\nhe asserts that the role of the ombudsman was clarified in early August. Do you agree? If so, is this what the report said? Who at the LRSD reviewed that finding? Did he or she agree or disagree with the way we handled that information? And so on. 1 may respond to Les to emphasize that his staff read our findings and had the chance to correct or update them. Your comments will help me decide how much to say to him. Thanks very much.Date: September 3, 1999 To: All Associates From: Re: Response from Carnine 2^1^ A week ago Thursday (August 26) I asked for your comments on Carnines letter about our report. If you havent already done so, please get me that information in writing immediately. If your sections of the report werent touched upon by Carnine, just say so in a note to me. Thanks.Memo To: Ann From: Margie Subject: Carnine Response Date: August 27, 1999 Alternative education program seats: Nothing new. We complimented the district for expanding alternative education. No disagreement. Ombudsman role: Notice that training occurred week before report published. The clarification recommended in our report was not for the administrators as much as it was for the ombudsman. 1 have received several visits from the ombudsman and, although 1 didnt quote him, it was clear to me that he was not sure of the exact nature of his role. In fact, his role is still being defined. He informed me last week that the duty of dropout prevention had been added to his job description. He still has not been formally trained for the position. He mentioned that he was going to apply for a training session designed for ombudsmen being held in Canada. I am curious as to what the inservice traiing on 8/5/99 entailed. I dont disagree with with Carnine. 1 figure his comment was more in the nature of an update.Memo To: From: Date: Ann Brown Skip Marshall Septembers, 1999 Subject: Comments on Carnine response to Transition Report I found none of his responses were directed to any portion of the report to which I made a contribution. To: Ann X From: Gem As I read it, Les Carnines letter regarding the recent ODM report did not touch on any of the topics I wrote for the report. Accordingly, I wrote no comments on his letter.To: Ann Brown From: Horace Smith Re: Response to Dr, Carnines Observations Talent Development Committee I am glad that the district is formally researching ways to fund AVID and related approaches to develop minority academic talent. I had pointed out to Bonnie during our early discussions that the district seemed to have few contingencies for funding some very ambitious and expensive programs. Cultural Sensitivity Training I am encouraged by the news that Dr. Terrence Roberts will be helping the district implement a training of trainers model for cultural sensitivity. I talked to Marian Woods regarding the training this week. No one mentioned this model or Dr. Roberts involvement during my research for the report. I talked to both Kathy Lease and Marian Woods while preparing the report. Kathy even reviewed our findings and did not take issue with the fact that we said that the district had not identified a training model for cultural sensitivity. My one continuing concern remains whether the district will: A) Evaluate specific needs regarding cultural sensitivity B) Tailor types of training to those building needs C) Develop and implement a process for evaluating the degree of change in attitude and behavior in the school environment. Personnel Recruitment If the district is preparing recruitment goals and procedures for areas in which African Americans are underrepresented, that is great. Again, the district representative, Dick Hurley, reviewed our report findings and did not indicate that goals and procedures were being enacted.To: Ann From: Melissa Re: Carnine Memo Date: September 7,1999 I highlighted the items that deal with my section on school construction. The information presented in the report was as accurate as I could make it and reflected the facts as given me by Mark Milhollen, Sadie Mitchell, and Doug Eaton. All three of these individuals also reviewed the report prior to filing. Sorry for the delay!I K Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECEnrss August 24, 1999 AUG 2 S 1359 OFHCfcCr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The August 11* Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the '99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided:  Overall Alternative Education Program seats for '99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the 98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and/or revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, ,e^e V. amine Superintendent of Schools I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU^ LED EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASU.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DIVISION EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 2 11993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES W By\n,C5 V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOINT MOTION OF LRSD AND JOSHUA FOR APPROVAL OF LRSD'S REVISED DESEGREGATION AND EDUCATION PLAN Plaintiff Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") for their Joint Motion For Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan state: 1. Joshua and LRSD move for tentative and, ultimately, final approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (attached hereto as Exhibit A) On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and reguested 2. approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and Joshua engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both parties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"January 16 Revised Plan\"). On that date, counsel for Joshua confirmed in writing Joshua's agreement to support approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. See Exhibit B. Also on that same date. the LRSD Board of Directors approved the January 16 Revised Planand authorized submission of the plan to this Court for approval. 3. LRSD and Joshua stipulate to the following facts in support of this Motion\na. that the record in this case supports modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations\nb. that the January 16 Revised Plan is an appropriate modification of LRSD's desegregation obligations\nc. that the January 16 Revised Plan is constitutional, workable and fair to Joshua class members\nand, d. that, if LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan during its term and implements in good faith the programs, policies and procedures related thereto, LRSD will be unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations at the end of the 2000-01 school year. 4. As a part of the compromise and settlement between LRSD and Joshua, Joshua has agreed that they will request that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit hold their two pending appeals in abeyance, and LRSD and Joshua have further agreed that they will attempt to resolve Joshua's past, present and future claims for attorneys' fees and costs by mediation. 5. LRSD and Joshua recognize that their compromise and settlement cannot be approved by this Court without notice to Joshua class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). Accordingly, LRSD and Joshua propose dissemination of the notice attached hereto as Exhibit C. This notice shall be published no less than thirty (30) days before a deadline established by this Court for Joshua 2class members to submit written objections to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. LRSD shall bear all costs associated with publication of the notice. LRSD shall cause the notice to be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette\nshall print and distribute copies of the notice to teachers\nshall prominently post the notice at all school\nand shall cause the notice to be broadcast over the cable television channel controlled by LRSD. 6. In light of their agreement, LRSD and Joshua respectfully request that the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled. 7. LRSD and Joshua have prepared for the Court's consideration an Order (attached hereto) granting the relief sought in this Motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD and Joshua pray that this Court tentatively approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997, pending the filing of objections filed by Joshua class members\nthat the notice attached hereto as Exhibit C be published at least thirty (30) days the deadline for Joshua class members to submit written objections\nthat the hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 be cancelled\nand that this Court finally approve LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1997 upon consideration of any objections filed by Joshua class members. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS 3FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 374-3758 BY: BY: Christopher Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people hy-depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this day of January, 1998. 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. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roache11 Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Kristopher' Heller^ 4 Little Rock.School District Revised Desegregation and Education Plan January 16, 1998 SECTION 1: Prior Agreements and Orders. 1.1. This Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (\"Revised Plan\") shall supersede and extinguish all prior agreements and orders in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866, and all consolidated cases related to the desegregation of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") with the following exceptions: a. The Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised on September 28, 1989 (\"Settlement Agreement\")\nb. The Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nc. Order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nd. The M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986\nand, e. Orders of the district court and court of appeals interpreting or enforcing sections a. through d. above to the extent not inconsistent with this Revised Plan. 1.2. This Revised Plan does not affect the Joshua Intervenors' (\"Joshua's\") right to enforce the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan with respect to the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") and the North Little'Rock School District (\"NLRSD\"). 1.3. Although this Revised Plan supersedes the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, LRSD expects to continue to work cooperatively with PCSSD and NLRSD in the areas addressed by the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. * EXHIBIT I f i ASECTION 2: Obligations. 2.1. LRSD shall in good faith exercise its best efforts to comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. 2.1.1. LRSD shall retain a desegregation and/or education expert approved by Joshua to work with LRSD in the development of the programs. policies and procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and to assist LRSD in devising remedies to problems concerning desegregation or racial discrimination which adversely affect African-American students. 2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that LRSD hires, assigns, utilizes and promotes qualified African-Americans in a fair and equitable manner. 2.2.1. LRSD shall maintain in place its current policies and practices relating to the recruitment of African- American teachers which have allowed LRSD to maintain a teaching staff which is approximately one-third African-American. 2.2.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to increase the number of African-American media specialists, guidance counselors, early childhood teachers. primary grade teachers and secondary core subject teachers. including offering incentives for African-American teachers to obtain certification in these areas, and to assign those teachers 2to the LRSD schools where the greatest disparity exists. 2.2.3. LRSD shall establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, including a salary range for director and associate and assistant superintendent positions, designed to provide compensation in accordance with qualifications and to minimize complaints of favoritism. 2.2.4. LRSD shall implement policy for the centralized hiring and assignment of teachers by the LRSD Human Resources Department designed to provide an equitable distribution of teaching resources and to prevent nepotism and preselection by a school principal. 2.2.5. LRSD shall implement a policy of promotion from within which shall include procedures for notifying district employees of open positions. 2.2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that the teaching staffs at all LRSD schools are substantially similar with regard to average years of experience and percentage of teachers with advanced degrees. 2.2.7. LRSD shall negotiate with the Knight a Intervenors to establish a procedure for the mandatory reassignment of teachers as necessary to enable LRSD to meet its obligations under Section 2.2 of this Revised Plan. 2.3. LRSD shall implement student assignment programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the desegregation of LRSD schools to the extent practicable, including but not limited to Sections 3 and 4 of this Revised Plan. 32.4. LRSD Shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the referral and placement of students in special education or in other programs designed to meet special student needs. 2.5. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination with regard to student discipline. 2.5.1. LRSD shall strictly adhere to the policies set forth in the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook to ensure that all students are disciplined in a fair and equitable manner. 2.5.2. LRSD shall purge students' discipline records after the fifth grade and eighth grade of all offenses, except weapons offenses, arson and robbery, unless LRSD finds that to do so would not be in the best interest of the student. 2.5.3. LRSD shall establish the position of \"ombudsman the job description for which shall include the following responsibilities\nensuring that students are aware of their rights pursuant to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook, acting as an advocate on behalf of students involved in the discipline process, investigating parent and student complaints of race-based mistreatment and attempting to achieve equitable solutions. 2.5.4. LRSD shall work with students and their parents to develop behavior modification plans for students who exhibit frequent misbehavior. 2.6. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures 4designed to promote participation and to ensure that there are no barriers to participation by qualified African-Americans in extracurricular activities, advanced placement courses, honors and enriched courses and the gifted and talented program. 2.6.1. LRSD shall implement a training program during each of the next three years designed to assist teachers and counselors in identifying and encouraging African-American students to participate in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs to assist African-American students in being successful in honors and enriched courses and advanced placement courses. 2.6.3. LRSD shall provide transportation to students othei-wise eligible for transportation to school to allow those students to participate in after-school activities required for participation in an extra-curricular activity. 2.7. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to improve and remediate the academic achievement of African-American students, including but not limited to Section 5 of this Revised Plan. 2.7.1. LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement. LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of 5either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. 2.8. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. 2.9. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure an equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological and educational resources to LRSD schools. 2.9.1. Within 60 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD, after consultation with Joshua, will develop a process or standard for assessing the equitable allocation of resources. 2.9.2. Within 180 days of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall report by school the results of its assessment of the allocation of resources. 2.10. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure the equitable maintenance and repair of LRSD facilities. 2.11. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that there is no racial discrimination in the provision of guidance and counseling services. 2.11.1. Guidance counselors shall work with students in an effort to provide for more equity in academic honors, awards and scholarships. 62.12. LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure that every LRSD school provides its students a learning environment free from discrimination. 2.12.1. LRSD shall implement a training program through the United States Department of Justice, the Arkansas Department of Education and/or the National Conference of Christians and Jews in prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity. 2.12.2. LRSD shall implement policies and procedures for investigating the cause of racial disparities in programs and activities and developing remedies where appropriate. 2.13. LRSD shall implement programs. policies and/or procedures designed to ensure LRSD substantially complies with its obligations under this Revised Plan. 2.13.1 The LRSD Superintendent shall be responsible for overseeing LRSD's compliance with this Revised Plan in accordance Section 6. SECTION 3: Student Assignments. 3.1. Attendance Zones. While this Revised Plan does not require any sudden or drastic changes to the present student assignment plan, LRSD attendance zones may be redrawn in accordance with the following guidelines: 3.1.1. Satellite Zones. LRSD may eliminate satellite attendance zones where the impact would be to reduce the transportation burden on African-American students\n3.1.2. Neighborhood Schools. LRSD may assign students 71 to area elementary and junior high/middle schools based on reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zones drawn to create as many truly desegregated schools (from forty to sixty percent African-American) as reasonably practicable, except as provided in Section 3.1.3. below\n3.1.3. Exception. Where a reasonably compact and contiguous attendance zone will result in an elementary or junior high/middle school which is less than twenty percent African- American, LRSD reserves the right to either: a. Draw the attendance zone at less than full capacity to allow for the voluntary transfer of African-American students to the school\nor. b. Create one or more satellite attendance zones of primarily African-American students. If a satellite zone is established, it shall be of sufficient size to ensure substantial desegregation at the school. 3.1.4. High Schools. LRSD may assign students to area high schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each high school shall be within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and so that. to the extent practicable, a stable and predictable feeder pattern exists from LRSD junior high/middle schools. 3.2. Voluntary Student Transfers. Beginning in the 1998-99 The term \"area\" school shall refer to all LRSD schools except magnet and interdistrict schools. 8school year. the following guidelines shall govern voluntary student transfers: 3.2.1. Desegregation Transfers. LRSD students whose race constitutes more than sixty percent of the population at their attendance zone school shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school where their race constitutes less than forty percent of the student population subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.2. Racial Isolation Transfer. LRSD students whose attendance zone school is a one race, African-American school (\u0026gt; 90% African-American) shall be permitted to transfer to a racially balanced LRSD area school subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.3. Magnet Program Transfer. LRSD students shall be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school to participate in a designated magnet program subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.4. Employees'.Child Transfer. LRSD employees who reside in the LRSD may choose to have their children attend the same school or campus at which the employee works, not including Magnet schools, subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.5. Special Circumstances Transfer. Upon a showing of a special need arising out of circumstances unique to a particular student, a student may, at the sole discretion of LRSD, be permitted to transfer to another LRSD area school subject to 9capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\n3.2.6. Outside Students. LRSD schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will improve the racial balance of the district as a whole and of the school to which the student wishes to transfer and subject to capacity limitations and to reasonable requirements established by LRSD\nand. 3.2.7. Transportation. LRSD shall provide transportation to voluntary transfer students with the following exceptions: (i) employee's child transfers, (ii) special circumstances transfers, and (iii) transfers from outside Pulaski County. 3.3. Magnet Programs. The designated magnet programs at this time are the following: a. Rockefeller Early Childhood Program\nb. King High Intensity Learning Program\nc. Washington Math Science Program\nd. Henderson Health Science Program\ne. Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented Program\nCentral International Studies Program\nand, g- McClellan Business Communications Program. LRSD reserves the right to modify or discontinue designated magnet programs and to establish new magnet programs. However, LRSD f. agrees that during the term of this Revised Plan it will not modify 10or discontinue a magnet program which is successful. 3.4. Middle Schools. LRSD shall establish a schedule for the orderly conversion of some or'all of its junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight and move the ninth grade to high schools. As a part of this conversion, LRSD reserves the right to change the grade level structure at all of its schools, including magnet schools. 3.5. Ninth Grade Schools. Because of limited capacity at LRSD's high schools, it may be necessary as a part of the orderly conversion to middle schools to establish two or more schools composed entirely of ninth grade students. If so, LRSD shall assign students to the ninth grade schools based on attendance zones drawn so that the percentage of African-American students at each ninth grade school shall be within plus or minus ten percentage points from the district-wide percentage of ninth grade African-American students. 3.6. School Construction/Closina. LRSD shall construct at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, it shall receive additional funding as described in Section 5.5 of this Revised Plan and one or more of the schools identified in Section 5.5 will be closed. When a school identified in Section 5.5 is closed, LRSD shall exercise its best efforts to find a community or educational use for the property. Otherwise, LRSD shall not seek to close schools in African-American neighborhoods solely because of age or poor 11maintenance except when a new school will be located in the same general area. 3.7. Modification Standard. During the term of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall not recommend modifications to attendance zones or grade level stiructure or the construction, enlargement or closing of a schools other than as provided in this Revised Plan unless: 3.7.1. Such action would further the goal of desegregating LRSD or eliminating the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable\nor. 3.7.2. The LRSD Board of Directors determines (i) that the educational benefits expected from such action substantially outweigh any adverse effects of the proposed action, (ii) that no practical alternative to the proposed action exists which will accomplish the educational objective, and (iii) that to the extent practicable measures will be initiated to counteract any adverse affects of the proposed action. 3.8. Racial Balance. This Revised Plan recognizes that the desegregation of LRSD to the extent practicable does not require that every LRSD school be racially balanced. Accordingly, nothing in this Revised Plan shall be construed as requiring a particular racial balance at every LRSD school or as obligating LRSD to recruit students to obtain a particular racial balance in every LRSD school. 3.9. Housing. LRSD and Joshua commit to promote housing desegregation within segregated neighborhoods. They pledge to work together and use their best efforts to dismantle, and prevent 12recurrence of, segregated housing patterns. SECTION 4: Interdistrict Schools. LRSD and PCSSD shall operate Interdistrict Schools in accordance with the following: 4.1. PCSSD Interdistrict Schools. PCSSD shall operate Baker Elementary, Clinton Elementary, Crystal Hill Elementary and any new elementary school constructed in Chenal Valley as Interdistrict Schools\n4.2. LRSD Interdistrict Schools. LRSD shall operate King Elementary, Romine Elementary and Washington Elementary as Interdistrict Schools\n4.3. Racial Composition. The ideal composition at interdistrict schools shall be as close to 50%-50% as possible with the majority race of the host district remaining the majority race at the Interdistrict School\n4.4. Reserved Seats. PCSSD shall reserve at least 200 seats at Clinton Elementary and up to 399 seats at Crystal Hill Elementary for interdistrict transfer students from LRSD\n4.5. Recruitment. LRSD and PCSSD agree to implement programs at Interdistrict Schools designed to attract interdistrict transfers and to work cooperatively to recruit interdistrict transfers to Interdistrict Schools\n4.6. Outside Students. Interdistrict Schools shall be open to students who reside outside Pulaski County where the acceptance of the transfer will assist the Interdistrict School in achieving its ideal racial composition\nand, 13^.1. Transportation. Transportation shall be provided by the home district for interdistrict transfers from Pulaski County to Interdistrict Schools. SECTION 5: Student Achievement. 5.1. Early Childhood Education. LRSD shall implement an early childhood education program which shall include a HIPPY program and a four year-old program with no less than 720 seats. LRSD contemplates that the four year- old classes will remain at their present sites or in the same general location. 5.2. seajii33aZldacaua3e Ats. 5.2.1. Primary Grades. LRSD shall implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in kindergarten through the third grade: a. Establish as a goal^ that by the completion of the third grade all students will be reading independently and show understanding of words on a page\nb. Focus teaching efforts on reading/language arts instruction by teaching science and social studies content through reading/language arts and mathematics experiences\nc. Promote thematic instruction\n^The identification of specific goals in this Revised Plan is not intended to create an obligation that LRSD shall have fully met the goal by the end of the plan's term. LRSD's failure to obtain any of the goals of this Revised Plan will not be considered a failure to comply with the plan if LRSD followed the strategies described in the plan and the policies, practices and procedures developed in accordance with the plan. 14d. Identify clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-learn skills\ne. Monitor the appropriateness o f teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\nf. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts and mathematics instruction\ng- Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nh. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\n1. Provide pre-kindergarten, kindergarten and first grade learning readiness experiences for students who come to school without such experiences\nj- Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classrooms\nk. Use the third and/or fourth grade as a transition year from focused reading/language arts and mathematics instruction to a more traditional school day\nand. 1. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 5.2.2. Intermediate Grades. LRSD intends to implement at least the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades four through six: 15a. Adopt as a goal that by completion of the sixth grade all students will master and use daily higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences and for personal growth and enjoyment\nb. Promote thematic instruction\nc. Establish uninterrupted blocks of time for reading/language arts, mathematics, science and social studies instruction\nd. Monitor the appropriateness o f teaching/learning materials to achieving curricular objectives and the availability of such materials in all classrooms\ne. Monitor student performance using appropriate assessment devices\nf. Provide parents/guardians with better information about their child's academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students\ng- Train teachers to manage successful learning for all students in diverse, mainstreamed classroom\nand. h. Provide opportunities for students to perform and display their academic training in a public setting. 5.2.3. Secondary Schools. LRSD intends to implement the following strategies to improve the academic achievement of students in grades six through twelve\nLRSD recognizes that the sixth grade was previously included as an intermediate grade. The sixth grade is also 16a. Adopt as a goal that upon graduation all students will read independently with comprehension in all subjects areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners\nb. Establish specific reading comprehension learning objectives for the language arts, mathematics, science and social studies curricula\nc. Revise the language arts curriculum to include greater emphasis on reading for meaning and on expressing comprehension of reading through writing and speaking\nd. Expand the use of a second Language Arts class at all secondary grade levels and establish procedures for identifying eligible students' and. where practical. assigning students to their regular Language Arts teachers\ne. Provide appropriate training to secondary teachers for implementation of these strategies\nf. Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices. 5.3. Mathematics. LRSD shall implement the following strategies to improve mathematics instruction: 5.3.1. Revise the mathematics curriculum to include a smaller number of concepts at each level, the use of manipulatives and problem solving and critical thinking and train teachers on its implementation\nincluded here since there will be a period of transition into middle schools. 175.3.2. Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised curriculum\n5.3.3. Provide resources for early intervention with students with mathematical problems and for training teachers on early intervention\nand, 5.3.4. Revise the mathematics curriculum to increase the nximber of students successfully completing Algebra I and higher level mathematics courses. 5.3.5. Adopt as a goal that all students in regular classes will complete Algebra and Geometry by the end of their eleventh grade year and that students will be proficient in mathematics by graduation. LRSD shall provide assistance to those students experiencing difficulty with Algebra and Geometry. 5.4. Computer Literacy. LRSD shall adopt as a goal that all primary grade students f- will be trained in the use of computers and upon graduation shall be computer literate. 5.5. Incentive Schools. LRSD shall continue to provide double funding to Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell and Rockefeller elementary schools, in accordance with the current formula as described in August 16, 1995 report of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (\"ODM). These schools shall be renamed and refocused. The plant services department shall provide the maintenance and upkeep necessary to preserve the comparable physical equality of these schools. 185.6. Alternative Education. 5.6.1. LRSD shall provide alternative educational opportunities to the extent practicable for those students unable to succeed in a traditional learning environment. 5.6.2. LRSD shall implement programs, policies or procedures designed to ensure equity in the facilities, staff and resources provided for alternative education. 5.7. Parental and Community Involvement. LRSD shall establish a \"^parental and community relations linkage system to facilitate parental and community involvement in LRSD schools and the operation of LRSD. 5.8 Scholarships. Within one calendar year from the date of the district court's approval of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall establish or participate in a program for providing college scholarships to designated schools for LRSD students who graduate from an LRSD high school after having attended a racially identifiable elementary school. This program shall be maintained at least until graduation of the class that begins kindergarten during the 2000-01 school year. SECTION 6: LRSD Compliance Program. LRSD shall implement a desegregation compliance program which shall include the following components: 6.1. Compliance standards and procedures reasonably capable of reducing the prospect of noncompliance\n6.2. Oversight of compliance with such standards and procedures by the Superintendent\n196.3. Communication of compliance standards and procedures to all employees\n6.4. Utilization of monitoring and auditing systems reasonably designed to detect noncompliance\n6.5. Utilization of a reporting system whereby employees can report noncompliance without fear of retribution\n6.6. Enforcement of compliance standards and procedures through appropriate disciplinary mechanisms, including the discipline of individuals responsible for compliance and individuals responsible for any failure to report noncompliance\nand, 6.7. After noncompliance has been detected, implementation of all reasonable steps to correct past noncompliance and to prevent further noncompliance, including modification of the compliance program as necessary to prevent and detect further similar noncompliance. SECTION 7: Plan Modification Process. Before filing with the district court a proposed modification of this Revised Plan, LRSD shall follow the procedure set forth below: 7.1. Notice. LRSD shall submit to the other parties and to the ODM its proposed modification along with an explanation of the circumstances justifying modification and the educational and financial impact of the proposed modification. 7.2. Comment Period. Along with its notice of the proposed modification, LRSD shall establish a reasonable period of time (no 20less than ten days) for the parties and ODM to submit comments, recommendations or suggestions related to the proposed modif ication. Joshua shall be entitled to receive from LRSD the information which LRSD believes supports its request for modification. 7.3. Recommendation and Response. After the close of the comment period, LRSD shall file with the district court and serve on the parties its recommended modification and, at LRSD's discretion, a response to comments made by the parties and ODM. 7.4. Hearing. Absent good cause shown, no party shall be permitted to raise an issue in opposition to LRSD's recommended modification unless that issue was raised by the party during the comment period. SECTION 8: Continuing Jurisdiction. 8.1. General Rule. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance with and modifications of this Revised Plan during its term. Nothing in this Revised Plan shall affect the district court's jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement in the manner required by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 8.2. Process For Raising Compliance Issues. Before requesting the district court exercise its jurisdiction with regard to a compliance issue, the party seeking to raise the issue shall follow the procedure set forth below: 8.2.1. The party shall as soon as reasonably 21practicable give the LRSD Superintendent or his designee specific written notice which includes the following\na. the paragraph(s) of this Revised Plan at issue\nb. the names of all students involved, if any\nc. the names of all LRSD agents or employees involved, if any\nd. all facts of which the party is aware relevant to the compliance issue\nand, , e. a copy all documents in party's possession relevant to the compliance issue. 8.2.2. The written notice is intended to provide LRSD with all relevant information related to the compliance issue known to the party so that LRSD can assess its compliance on the same basis the party. 8.2.3. LRSD shall conduct a reasonable investigation of the alleged noncompliance and shall provide the party a written response within a reasonable amount of time not to exceed fifteen (15) days from receipt of written notice from the party or such later time as agreed. 8.2.4. If the party is unsatisfied with LRSD's response, the party shall within fifteen (15) days of receipt of LRSD's response submit the compliance issue to ODM or the district court's designee for facilitation of an agreement between the parties. 8.2.5. If the compliance issue remains unresolved after good faith attempts at facilitation by ODM or the district 22court^s designee, the party may seek resolution of the issue before the district court. 8.2.6. Unless and until ordered to do otherwise by the district court, LRSD shall be free to implement the programs. policies and procedures the party alleges fail to comply with this Revised Plan. 8.3. Programs, Policies and/or Procedures. Compliance issues subject to enforcement in accordance with Section 8.2 shall include LRSD's implementation of the programs. policies and/or procedures developed in accordance with this Revised Plan. Before the end of the transition period, LRSD shall develop and/or identify the programs, policies and/or procedures to be implemented in accordance with this Revised Plan and provide them to Joshua. Joshua shall have a right to invoke the process described in Section 8.2 if LRSD fails to adopt programs, policies and/or procedures required by this Revised Plan\nadopts facially deficient programs. policies and/or procedures\nor. fails to implement the programs, policies and/or procedures adopted in accordance with this Revised Plan. SECTION 9: Term. The term of this Revised Plan shall be three (3) school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school ^'ear. SECTION 10: Transition. The 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year shall be a transition period in preparation for 23implementation of this Revised Plan. During this transition period, LRSD shall implement the May 1992 Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan to the extent they are consistent with this Revised Plan. However, there shall be no ODM monitoring or litigation concerning LRSD's implementation of the May 1992 Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Rather, ODM shall monitor LRSD's preparation for implementation of this Revised Plan and act as a resource for LRSD in that process. SECTION 11: Unitary Status. At the conclusion of the 2000-01 school year, the district court shall enter an order releasing LRSD from court supervision and finding LRSD unitary with regard to all aspects of school operations provided that LRSD has substantially complied with its obligations set forth in this Revised Plan. In anticipation of release, LRSD shall issue a repprt on March 15, 2001 indicating the state of LRSD's compliance with the Revised Plan. Any party challenging LRSD's compliance bears the burden of proof. If no party challenges LRSD's compliance, the above-described order shall be entered without further proceedings. 24John w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway- Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. Via Fax January 16, 1998 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Little Rock School District Dear'Mr. Heller\nThis is to advise that counsel for the Joshua Intervenors agree that we have reached an accord or agreement with respect to the revised Desegregation and Education Plan which is dated January 16, 1998, You may advise your board of this fact and that we look forward to working with you and with the administration to develop the contemplated programs, policies and procedures required by the plan for implementation. We also look forward to working with the board through counsel in the implementation phases through ombudsperson, the expert and our continued monitoring of the district. The latter will be in the vein of cooperation. The role of the state with respect to facilitating and furthering the goals herein remains to be addressed and I am sure that counsel for the district and for Joshua will approach that matter on a cooperative basis which is consistent with providing the best education possible for children of the Little Rock School District with special emphasis upon those children who are the lowest from the norm in terms of student achievement and treatment. bhn W. Walker incerely, JWW:lp J, EXHIBIT S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE TO THE JOSHUA CLASS: ALL PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE BLACK OR AFRICAN-AMERICTkN PUPILS WHO RESIDE IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS, AND WHO ATTEND, HAVE ATTENDED, WILL ATTEND, OR WHO ARE ELIGIBLE, WERE ELIGIBLE OR WILL BE ELIGIBLE TO ATTEND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF ONE OF THE THREE PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS (LITTLE ROCK, NORTH LITTLE ROCK OR PULASKI COUNTY), THEIR PARENTS AND/OR NEXT FRIENDS WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED, OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DENIED EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, OR WHO CLAIM, HAVE CLAIMED OR MAY CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE THE VICTIMS OF RACE DISCRIMINATION IN EDUCATION BY ONE OR MORE OF THE THREE PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND/OR BY THE STATE OF ARKANSAS. This action arises out of efforts beginning in 1956 to desegregate the Little Rock, North Little Rock and Pulaski County school districts. In 1989 a settlement was reached and approved in which the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") agreed to implement the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. On September 26, 1997, LRSD submitted and requested approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated September 18, 1997. Following submission, LRSD and counsel for the Joshua Intervenors (hereinafter \"Joshua\") engaged in extensive negotiations in an effort to develop a revised plan which both  EXHIBIT i iparties could support. Those negotiations resulted in LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 (\"January 16 Revised Plan\"). On January 21, 1997, LRSD and Joshua filed a joint request with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, the Honorable Susan Webber Wright, for approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. The January 16 Revised Plan basically provides as follows: Section 1: Prior Agreements and Orders. The January 16 Revised Plan will replace the current LRSD desegregation plan, the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan and all existing agreements and court orders with some exceptions.  It will have no effect on the September 28, 1989 Settlement Agreement\nthe Magnet School Stipulation dated February 27, 1987\nthe district court's order dated September 3, 1986, pertaining to the Magnet Review Committee\nand, the M-to-M Stipulation dated August 26, 1986. Section 2: Obligations. same LRSD's basic desegregation obligations remain essentially the under the January 16 Revised Plan as under the current desegregation plan. The obligations are clearly and simply stated and cover every aspect of school operations. The January 16 Revised Plan includes an even stronger commitment to an equitable distribution of faculty by race, education and experience. Although some specifics are included, the January 16 Revised Plan contemplates that during the transition period the district will identify and/or develop programs, policies and procedures related to each obligation. An expert selected by the district and approved by Joshua will assist the district in this process. Section 3: Student Assignments. Under the January 16 Revised Plan, the emphasis moves from racial balance to quality education. During the term of the plan, elementary and junior high/middle school attendance zones may be redrawn to create neighborhood schools with as many of those neighborhood schools being desegregated as practical. High school attendance zones may be redrawn to achieve racial balance within plus or minus twenty percentage points from the percentage of African-American students for high schools as a whole and, to the 2extent practicable. maintain a consistent feeder pattern. Volunta^ intradistrict transfers will continue to be allowed under rules similar to the current student assignment plan. The student assignment plan also provides for the conversion of all LRSD junior high schools to middle schools for grades six, seven and eight. Because of capacity limitations at LRSD's High Schools, the conversion to middle schools may require the creation of two ninth grade schools. Finally, the January 16 Revised Plan calls for the construction of at least two new area elementary schools, one in west Little Rock and one at the site of the former Stephens school. When the new Stephens Elementary opens, one or more the Incentive Schools will be closed. Section 4: Interdistrict Schools. Interdistrict schools will continue to operate as they did under the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. Section 5: Student Achievement. The January 16 Revised Plan is founded on the belief that providing every student a quality education is the most promising means to the long-term desegregation of LRSD. It outlines LRSD's basic strategy for ensuring its students receive a quality It includes an early childhood education program, education. a revised reading/language arts curriculum emphasizing the primary grades, a revised mathematics curriculum, an alternative education program and parental and community involvement program. Another important piece of the student achievement section is a college scholarship program all students who attend :  \"* for identifiable elementary schools. racially Section 6\nLRSD Compliance Program. LRSD will implement a comprehensive compliance program to ensure it substantially complies with its desegregation obligations and its other legal and ethical obligations. Section 7: Plan Modification Process. The January 16 Revised Plan includes a process for plan modification designed to facilitate cooperation and discourage LRSD will submit proposed plan modifications to the litigation. other parties who will have an established time frame for comments and suggestions. LRSD will then submit its recommended plan modification for court approval. Parties would generally be prohibited from raising issues before the district court not raised during the comment period. 3Section 8: Continuing Jurisdiction. The district court shall have continuing jurisdiction to address issues regarding compliance for three years. The plan establishes a process for addressing compliance issues again designed to facilitate cooperation and discourage litigation. compliance issues will first be submitted to LRSD. All If no agreement is reached, the issue will be submitted to ODM for facilitation. Only if ODM's efforts at facilitating an agreement fail would the issue be submitted to the district court for resolution. Section 9: Term. The term of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan will be three school years beginning the 1998-99 school year and ending on the last day of classes of the 2000-01 school year, court supervision will end at that time, Federal Section 10: Transition. The 1997-98 school year and the first semester of the 1998-99 school year will be a transition period in preparation for full implementation of the January 16 Revised Plan. Section 11: Unitary Status. If LRSD substantially meets its obligations under the January 16 Revised Plan, LRSD will be unitary at the conclusion of its term and released from court supervision. The above is not intended to be a full, detailed statement of the January 16 Revised Plan. The January 16 Revised Plan, along with the current LRSD Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, will be made available to Joshua class members during regular business hours at LRSD's administrative offices at 810 W. Markham, Little Rock, Arkansas. The purpose of this notice is to advise Joshua class members of the January 16 Revised Plan and to give them an opportunity to show cause or to provide written objections which demonstrate why the January 16 Revised Plan should not be approved by the District Court. Joshua Class members have until the day of 4, 1998 to file written comments or objections with Mr. James McCoirmick, U.S. District Court Clerk, U.S. Courthouse, 600 W. Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201. All Joshua class members will be bound by the District Court's decision approving or rejecting the January 16 Revised Plan. Absent good cause shown. there will be no hearing on the whether the January 16 Revised Plan should be approved. Accordingly, this Notice provides Joshua class members their only opportunity to object to approval of the January 16 Revised Plan. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, WESTERN DIVISION 5IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER Upon consideration of the Motion by LRSD and Joshua for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan dated January 16, 1998 is tentatively approved pending the Court's consideration of written objections filed by Joshua class members on or before the ___ day of , 1998\n2. LRSD is hereby directed to provide notice to Joshua class members as described in the Motion by LRSD and Joshua for Approval of LRSD's Revised Desegregation and Education Plan\nand. 3. The hearing currently scheduled for the week of February 2, 1998 is hereby cancelled. On this ___ day of , 1998. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEO *^)iwaisss^\\ ..\u0026lt;4ssssssiississ^.^\u0026lt;^^^ I Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT RECB?V'S August 24, 1999 AUG 2 \u0026gt; ^353 OFRCtOr DESEGREGATION MONITORING Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 201 E. Markham - Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The August 11* Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) report examining LRSD preparation to implement our Revised Desegregation and Education Plan provides a solid barometer of reference as we enter the 99-2000 school year. In keeping with LRSD plan commitment, careful consideration and review of this report document has been enacted in each division / department area, addressing preparation activities toward compliance and provisions of the revised plan. In an attempt to offer additional information that may not have been available at the time of report findings, the following is provided\n Overall Alternative Education Program seats for 99-2000 are being expanded. Greater student opportunity and success has been recorded for the '98-99 school year, resulting in increased student / school retention and reduced suspension / dropout numbers. Periodic assessment of performance indicators will be monitored toward necessary program adjustment and^r revision.  Revised School Profile Report documentation is being compiled. Expanded information is to include Equitable Allocation of Resource equity indicators and participation data for all extracurricular and AR Activities Association (AAA) sanctioned activities.  The LRSD Talent Development Committee will explore potential funding sources for AVID and/or programs unique to LRSD, especially for the high schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (301) 824-2000 August 24, 1999 Page 2  A training of trainers model to deliver cultural sensitivity training is being established. Dr. Terrence Roberts will help in reviewing training on prejudice reduction and cultural sensitivity.  Determination for future utilization of Garland and Mitchell Elementary Schools is one of the 99-2000 LRSD priorities.  Approved funding sources for new Stephens Elementary School Construction have been determined (03/11/99 board action).  Long term expenditure projections for Stephens Elementary have been developed.  Possible location, funding and construction of the new west LR school is one of the 99-2000 priorities. An immediate timeline has been established. At present, the school is not anticipated to be built prior to the 2000-2001 school year after LRSD issues a 3/15/01 report indicating the state of compliance with the revised plan.  Personnel Recruitment goals and procedures are being enacted where African- Americans are under represented.  LRSD ombudsman role clarification was provided in the 8/05/99 Principals \"Nuts and Bolts inservice session. Training activities are being scheduled. After more than a year of intense planning and training, numerous changes and program initiatives have been put in place as we now enter this 99-2000 school year. Recognizing that substantial efforts must be provided toward obligations set forth in the revised plan, it constitutes a work in progress. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring serves as an important resource whose expertise, insight and direction is appreciated and continually sought. Sincerely, Superintendent of Schools S01J7441tf-' UALKhK LAW KIKM /ay HUL AUb -.b 'yy lb:L4 JOHN W. walker Ralph Washington MARK BLTiNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Auguoi jvnii AXZ IXfATVirn OA J Tnuivuix* A Mr. Larry' Berkley President Little Rock School Soard 810 west Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 , Dear Mr. Berkley\nUtank vou for vour call of a minutes ago wherein you informed me that you had receiveo mformafion from District souixes that we (Joshua) have had a fair opportunity to p^icipate in the devisation of the policies which arc on your agenda for consideration tonight. That means IDC QcVlSaUOIl Ui iiJC rM*w** .m \u0026lt; j w  . 5 v c a A That you choose not believe me and Ms. Springer when we told you that we had not been afforded an opportunity to participate in the process pnor to any ccnsiderauon by the Boar  requfred by the re'^sed desegregation plan. In that you choose not to credit our representaiions and that you plan to proceed despite our objections, I believe that your decision is inconsis^t of and that you plan to proceed despite------------- , . ,  . the direction of the Board during the July regular meeting and the August agenda meeting that we be meaningfully included as parties in the process. We have document^ our requests and ^e M  _____i...2.L...,..-,tUartkantArAArttrtffnnrt prepared to demonstrate that we have sought to work 'svith you rather than to resort to court action. I am still hopeful that this will be the path that the Board takes. In the meantime. however, I renew my request including adoption of the Chamber of Comme\u0026lt; that the Board defer further action with respect to plan revision management study until we have had full and fair opportunity to share our views at the pertinent administrative level before the Board is presented recommendations. I also renew my request that no policies be developed in a vacuum by Ms. Lmda Young. 'Ns have repeatedly stated our objection to her involvement in the devisation of pohetes, plans and procedures that purport to be in the interest of African Amencan chUdren. Our objecuon is further lughlighted that this task and her job were not posted and that she has no e^enence objective qualification for addressing the needs, curricular and r.----- or non-curricular, of the class, which we represent. Mr. Berkley, your position and that of Dr. Carnines with respect to a definition of participation in the process leaves us in a position where we must seriously consider whether we must seek a different method and forum for addressing our concerns.5013744187 walker LAW FIRM 789 P05 AUG 2b 99 15:25 The letter which we just received dated August 20, 1999 is a good example of the administrations bad faith. Today is the board meeting, I just received a draft of administrative regulations KF and KLG-R from Dr. Anderson. Please note that they are presented for our review and comment. Review and comment is far removed from the process leading up to these documents. Good faith was the premise of our revised plan. It is not evident fiom the writings or from the note dated August 20, 1999 as an example which we just received on August 26, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. I am addressing a copy of this letter to each Board member and others listed below. Sincerely, fohn W. Walker rWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown Chris Heller Members of the Board: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Mike Daugherty Ms. Judy Magness Mr. R Baker Kumis Mr. Mike Kumpuris Ms. Sue H. Strickland P.S. ODM has now issued two reports in the last month or so. They have not been placed on the agenda for discussion leaving the impression that the Board as a Board ignores and disregards the Court of which ODM is its official arm. That seems to be rather contemptuous.. /fn. Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 TO: Board of Education FROM\nDr. Kathy Le:\nas^^: ssistant Superintendent, PRE il' THROUGH: ^es Gamine, Superintendent '. Bonnie Lesley, Associate Superintendent DATE\nAugust 24, 1999 SUBJECT\nLRSD Assessment Program The Planning, Research and Evaluation Department has spent a year studying e modifications needed in the Little Rock School Districts assessment plan in order to adequately address e requirements of the various documents that are guiding our work. The primary document that impacts the development of a comprehensive assessment plan for the district is the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan (RDEP). There are fourteen sections of the RDEP that impact assessment planning. One component of assessment is the evaluation of instructional programs. Section 2.7.1 of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan states: LRSD shall assess the academic programs implemented pursuant to Section 2.7 after each year in order to determine the effectiveness of the academic programs in improving African-American achievement. If this assessment reveals that a program has not and likely will not improve African-American achievement, LRSD shall take appropriate action in the form of either modifying how the program is implemented or replacing the program. A very critical part of any assessment program is parmering with parents to facilitate student success. Section 2.8 of the RDEP states, LRSD shall implement programs, policies and/or procedures during each of the next three years designed to promote and encourage parental and community involvement and support in the operation of LRSD and the education of LRSD students. Assessments will be more frequent in the proposed plan, thus facilitating frequent communication with parents and fostering strong partnerships in the support of students. Section 5.2.1. of the RDEP sets up four expectations for the Primary grades that impact assessment: 1) 2) By the completion of the third grade, all students will be readin: independently and show understanding of words on a page\n3) 4) Clear objectives for student mastery of all three reading cueing systems (phonics, semantics, and syntax) and of knowing-how-to-leam skills will be identified\nStudent performance must be monitored using appropriate assessment devices\nand Parents or guardians must be provided with better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate the academic development of the students. ig The intermediate grades are addressed in Section 5.2.2. These goals include the mastery and daily use of higher level reading comprehension skills for learning in all subject areas, for making meaning in real life experiences, and for personal growth and enjoyment by the end of the sixth grade. This section also requires that student performance be monitored using appropriate assessment devices, and that parents/guardians get better information about their childs academic achievement in order to help facilitate academic development. Secondary schools are addressed in Section 5.2.3. This section requires that the district, adopt a goal stating that upon graduation, all students will read independently with comprehension in all subject areas and be proficient in language arts, as necessary to be successful workers, citizens and life-long learners. Once again, there is a requirement to Monitor student progress and achievement using appropriate assessment devices (5.2.3.f.). Section 5.3.2. addresses the requirement to, Develop appropriate assessment devices for measuring individual student achievement and the success of the revised (mathematics) curriculum. The districts Strategic Plan also states some very specific criteria that must be measured by the assessment plan. By 2003, at least 9 out of 10 students will meet or exceed LRSD standards of performance identified in the core curriculum. By 2003, at least 65% of students in every identified sub-group of race and gender will perform at or above the national average in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nat least 30% will perform at the highest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests\nand no more than 10% will perform at the lowest quartile in reading and mathematics on standardized tests. One of the strategies set forth in the Strategic Plan states, We will construct a delivery system that allows us to plan and implement individualized educational goals for all LRSD students and that does not predetermine or limit options at an early age. In addition to the documents guiding the work of our district, the State Board of Education has adopted the Arkansas Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP). This plan carries specific requirements to participate in norm-referenced testing for grades 5, 7, and 10, and criterion- referenced testing for grades 4, 6, 8, and end of course exams in Algebra I, geometry, and literacy. The State has implemented the Smart Stan Initiative to provide specific strategies and resources to ensure a successful start K-4. Smart Start will be expanded in future years to higher grades. In researching options for a comprehensive assessment program for LRSD, various members of the PRE staff and the Curriculum and Instruction staff met with representatives from a variety of testing companies. We also visited with Dr. Steven Ross (University of Memphis), and Dr. Sean Mulvenon and Dr. Ronna Turner (University of Arkansas) to explore feasible options for Little Rock. Drs. Mulvenon and Turner also met with Drs. Carnine, Williams, and Lease to discuss assessment proposals. Once information was obtained about the various options, I met with Dr. Ross and Dr. Lesley to determine the criteria that would guide the decision-making. After considering all proposals, coordinating with the state assessment plan, reviewing the requirements of our guiding documents, and considering our budget, the following K-12 Assessment Plan is being proposed for your approval\nKindergarten Grade, and 2\"** Grade Pre-and post-assessments using Marie Clays Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement will be administered to all kindergarten, first, and second grade students. These individual assessments are in line with the States Smart Start Initiative. A meeting was held with all district kindergarten teachers to gather input on what kind of assessment they preferred. They overwhelmingly opted for individual assessments at this age. 2\"** Grade (spring) During the spring semester, 2\"^ graders will be screened for the districts Gifted and Talented Program. A nationally normed and locally designed criterion referenced test provided through consultation with Northwest Educational Association (NWEA) will be used as one indicator in the G/T identification n process. Identified 2\"* graders will also take the Raven, a non-verbal intelligence test. Grades 3-11 Beginning with the 3'* grade, we will administer a pre- and post- criterion- referenced test developed to align with our curriculum. We are proposing a partnership with NWEA to develop these assessments. Our students will be assessed in reading, language arts, and math. By using pre-and post-tests, we will be able to monitor the growth of every student. We can calculate the value-added growth of attending a particular school over time, or simply determine the amount of growth in one year. The use of these assessments gives us an opportunity to track longitudinal data to monitor student achievement. In addition to these pre- and post-tests developed with teachers and curriculum staff with the assistance of NWEA, we will utilize released items from the state's criterion referenced tests to develop additional assessments that can be administered during the second and third nine weeks. These assessments will be developed with teachers and can be incorporated into a students grade within a course. State Assessment Program The state accountability program designates the following assessments (not fully implemented until 2003)\nCriterion-Referenced Primary Benchmark Intermediate Benchmark Middle Level Benchmark End-of-CourseAlgebra I End-of-CourseGeometry End-of-CourseLiteracy Grade 4 Grade 6 (not complete) Grade 8 When completed When completed Grade 11 April April April Jan/April Jan/April Jan/April Norm-Referenced SAT-9 Grades 5, 7, 10 September We believe this program of varied assessments affords the Little Rock School District the greatest opportunity to have timely measures of student achievement. We will be able to monitor student achievement, offer enrichment or remediation as needed, and plan for the success of each of our students. Both the Curriculum and Instruction Division and Planning, Research, and Evaluation appreciate your endorsement of this proposal.Section: Commitment to Desegregation (pg. 1) Goals and Objectives This section contains an overview of the districts plan of action for providing quality desegregated education in aU schools, and features nine beliefs or commitments, beginning with 1) The belief that all students can learn\n 2) eliminating achievement disparity\n3) improved educational quality and academic performance, including double funding for incentive schools\n4) improving race relations, 5) equity in all phases of school activities and operations\n6) promoting positive public reaction to desegregation\n7) inter and intradistrict recruiting\n8) infusion of multicultural education into the curriculum\nand 9) ongoing staff development for all district personnel. Progress Note: Areas in this section are also addressed elsewhere in this review: see achievement, discipline, recruitment, incentive schools, public relations, and staff development. 1. The district has a history of demonstrating that it believes that all students can learn, and has an inclusive academic program. That program includes an alternative learning program that, the record shows, needs much improvement. 2. Achievement disparity between the races is still a problem and has not improved. 3. Incentive schools have a mixed history. Double funding has sometimes fallen short, but mostly the district has unnecessarily exceeded the double funding level. In some instances incentive school students are out-performing those in area schools, but the record contains no evidence that correlates student performance with double funding (although that s a major purpose of double funding). The record does show that implementation of many incentive school features has been slow and uneven. 4. The LRSD has a history of generally positive race relations overall, although racial incidents no doubt occur. Some inservice training on race relations has occurred, but generally it has been hit- and-miss. 5. Equity in all phases of school activities and operations is hard to measure and neither ODM nor the record has made this call. However, we are aware of no policies that are uinately inequitable nor aim to tolerate inequities\nyet some practices appear to be inequitable, such as the disproportionate disciplinary sanctions received by black students.. 6. The extent to which the district has promoted positive public reaction to desegregation is also hard to measure. Persistent squabbling (for example, among school board members and between the parties, along with the districts tendency to blame desegregation and the Court for its woes, doesnt present a positive record in this area. 7. The districts student recruitment record is uneven, both intra- and interdistrict. The numbers that each district gives us on M-to-M transfers conflict, but generally show that PCSSD has more M- to-M students than the LRSD. However, we dont know whether the PCSSD or LRSD was responsible for promoting the transfers (they each claim that they did it). 8. The district has been released from Court supervision in the area of multicultural education. 9. Staff development is directed by the LRSD department so named, but inservice is scattershot and often poor. ODM has not done a report that focuses solely on inservice, but we have touched on it in our reports on the incentive schools, Alternative Education, McClellan, and Four-Year-Old Programs. In these reports we found that inservice was often inconsistent or altogether absent\nwhen it was offered, it was frequently inadequate.Conclusions The record shows that the LRSD has had mixed results in meeting the objectives of this section. Most notably, the gap in achievement between the races has not narrowed. The district did a good job of infusing multicultural education and has been released in this area. Bottom Line The goals and objectives in this section are reasonable and worthy, but none of them has been fuUy met (except in multicultural education), due to various factors that include foot-dragging, poor planning, and inept follow-through.Area: Achievement Disparities (LRSD Plan, pg. 1\nInterdist. Plan, pg. 6) Goals and Objectives To eliminate the educational achievement disparities between black and white students on normreferences and criterion-referenced test. Progress Little. See ODM report: Status on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD (1994). Issues Many forces affect achievement, such as socio-economic status, ineffective teaching strategies, racism, and low expectations. Many of these factors are outside the control of the district. However, our report was clear: the district promised equitable education for its students. We pointed out that assessing the links between programs, process, and results had to occur in order to evaluate program and service concepts, determine the scope, quality, and consistency of implementation, and made informed decisions about where to make changes. Conclusions A laudable but very difficult goal to reach. The gap will not be narrowed to the extent named in the Settlement Agreement, especially utilizing current assessment standards. However, the district can do much more to improve minority achievement. Our report on achievement was clear about the kinds of approaches that could help the districts make gains in narrowing the achievement gap.Section: Leadership (pgs. 2-3) Goals and Objectives To provide coherent and consistent leadership for change from the superintendent and board of directors. The primary thrust of this section is to delineate that: the school board is representative of the populations it serves the superintendent and board is answerable to its public and should keep the public informed about the schools  the superintendent and board members should model the behavior of an effective desegregated school setting the superintendent and school board should provide clearly articulated leadership the district promises equitable hiring practices and budgetary decisions that will be consistent with desegregation policies the board and staff are to participate in ongoing staff development that responds to the needs of a desegregated school system the board and staff are to conduct annual self evaluations in six areas that mostly deal with relations (board, superintendent, community, staff, fiscal management, and instructional programs). the district promises to end all vestiges of discrimination, segregation, or unfair treatment, and promises to ensure that all students have a fair chance to learn. Progress The history of the district had been discord and dissension among many of its board members, superintendents, and employee groups, as illustrated by telecasts of the board meetings and board minutes (which arent an official part of the Court record, but ODM attends all board meetings and reads the minutes of them.) Superintendents seemed to do everything except try to implement the plan\nthe record contains little evidence that the have superintendents articulated or demonstrated their beUef in the plan. The record shows that the objectives in this section have been only partially met. Other indicators of the extent of comphance arent on the record, although we know about it. (For example, they havent done the annual self evaluations for several years. Evidently the evaluations stopped after responsibility for them was transferred to Ed Jackson from Sterling Ingram. We dont know why.) Conclusions The objectives of this section make sense, but the record indicates mixed results, partly because of changing superintendents, multiple agendas, and inept leadership. Except for recent history under Don Roberts (which largely isnt in the record because of the moratorium), the superintendents and board have a miserable history of working together. The LRSD Strategic, under Williams, does show evidence of an attempt at collaboration, but that plan was never filed with the court, so technically isnt part of the record. Don Roberts was able to mobilize the district for some concerted action as demonstrated by the moratorium and motion for plan modification. The board and superintendent worked through Task Forces with staff, parents, community members, and ODM to develop some of the ideas that Roberts has said will underpin plan. However, the districts submission doesn t reference the extent to which the work of the Task Forces will be used. Bottom Line The objectives of this section are fine, but none of them has been completely realized. On-the-record documentation of their failures in these areas will be spotty. Section: Early Childhood Education (pgs. 4-5)The Eight Circuit ruled that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and that no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section is an introduction to the broad area of early childhood education. The authors speak to the importance of early educational experiences, quote from expert sources, and cite statistics related to the need for school-sponsored early childhood education. The section proposes expanding of existing early childhood programs developing new programs to meet the needs of at-risk students and to remediate racial achievement disparities. These programs will have three components: -HIPPY -four-year-old program -City-wide Early Childhood Education Program. Progress Since this section is little more than an introduction to early childhood education, it is not an area where we would appropriately measure the districts progress. In reviewing the following four sections, we can examine the progress made by the LRSD.Section: Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) (pgs. 6, 14-16) HIPPY is part of the early childhood education program. The Eighth Circuit stated that, at least in the incentive schools, ECE is crucial. Goals and Objectives The HIPPY program targets parents of economically deprived children and works with mothers to help them teach their four- and five-year-old children at home. The plans states that the HIPPY cannot be continued at present levels without the continued receipt of JTPA and Chapter program  2 funds. The LRSD and PCSSD are to collaborate on HIPPY\nHIPPY and the school-based four-year-old program are to collaborate in the areas of parental involvement and teacher training. Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) screening (or a comparable model) will be conducted on HIPPY participants as they exit kindergarten and a standardized test will be given at the end of third grade. These measures will be used to judge the success of HIPPY as an early childhood intervention strategy. Progress . The district has had a HIPPY program since the 1986-87 school year. To save money, the district proposed in a March 1995 business case to drop the program from all schools except the incentive schools. The proposal failed for lack of board approval. In August 1995 the district filed for unitary status in the area of HIPPY. However, during the hearing on unitary status, testimony was not given on HIPPY because the director was ill and couldnt attend the hearing. The districts 1994-95 extended evaluations claimed that, based on the SAT-8 scores earned by some former participants, HIPPY was helping to reduce achievement disparity. The districts claim could not be substantiated from the data presented. Test results for students in 1989-90 and 1990-91 were presented, but these results were not compared to a control group or to the district average for all students of the same age. Conclusions Nationally and internationally HIPPY has a proven track record and a sterling reputation. Its implementation in the LRSD has long left much to be desired. The 1994-95 extended evaluation of the program was poorly done and says little for the competence and professionalism of the staff. Bottom Line HIPPY functions as described in the LRSD Plan, but it effectiveness has not been measured by the districtSection: Four-Year-Old Program (pgs. 7-8, 17-18) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives The program for four-year-olds was designed as a means to meet the educational needs of disadvantaged students and to help racially balance schools that had been difficult to desegregate. This section of the plan contains several provisions that have been modified by subsequent District Court orders. The plan originally required that the district locate a four-year-old classroom in each of the elementary schools. The May 1992 Order of the District Court required the district to establish the number of classes needed to serve at least as many students as would have been served under the original scheme, but the district could locate the classes where they were most likely to serve desegregation and reduce achievement disparities. (This requirement equates to a capacity of 720 students.) This section also addresses the need for developmentally appropriate curriculiun, areas of collaboration with PCSSD, and program evaluation. Progress ODM has published two reports on the four-year-old program (7-31-92 and 5-26-95). In both instances, we found the instructional program offered in the LRSD to far surpass the educational offerings usually available to children of this age. In ODMs monitoring report that covered the 1995-96 school year, we examined the following areas\nenrollment, recruitment, staffing, curriculum and instruction, parent involvement, staff development, program evaluation, and facilities. Several of these areas are not part of this section of the plan, but requirements in these areas emanate from court orders or other section of the LRSD or Interdistrict Plan. The district is meeting both the letter and the spirit of the early childhood section of the plan. The four-year-old classes are evaluated annually by outside experts using a standardized observation form. Trained evaluators visit each classroom for a full day. Ratings compiled from the annual assessment continually rank the LRSD classes well above the score needed to be termed a quahty child care program, and in some areas the district composite score is at the very top of the rating scale. Conclusions The district has done a fine job in early childhood education. In the last five years, they have met their deadlines for establishing new classrooms and have created a high quality program. Our only wish would be for more programs to accommodate the high demand for ECE.Section: Citywide Early Childhood Education Program (pgs. 9-11,19) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section deals with developing a coordinated early childhood effort between the LRSD, the City of Little Rocks child care program, and Head Start. Much of this sections narrative is devoted to a description of the program requirements for the three entities. The plan also sets forth ways that the three entities will work together in: parent involvement, staff development, student referrals, student assignment, long-term monitoring, and facilities. Progress During the 1991-92 plan modification hearings, the LRSD submitted a long-range plan for early childhood education that would have relied on outside agencies such as Head Start to fulfill part of the districts requirement to provide early childhood education. The May 1992 Order of the District Court instructed the LRSD to limit reliance on four-year-old programs that are provided through 95 agencies, such as Head Start, which the district does not control and the goals which do not parallel the settlement agreement goals of program scope, racial balance, location, and so forth. For a year or two after the May 1992 order, the LRSD concentrated its efforts more on meeting the terms of the plan related to the school-based four-year-old classes rather than making extensive efforts related to the Citywide program. In recent years, the district has demonstrated good-faith efforts working with outside agencies that deal with early childhood issues. Representatives of a variety of other agencies are included on the LRSD early childhood council and in training activities. Conclusions Many portions of this section are dated. The LRSD currently collaborates with more agencies than the two mentioned here, and some of the activities described in this section may no longer be the most practical approach to ensuring quality early childhood education. In this area, the district has made some good-faith efforts. The LRSD and the city leaders now appear to work cooperatively on a variety of projects. The relationship between the district and city hall has changed positively but could also change again depending upon the districts and citys leadership. Although were aware of this information through board meetings and the public record, including newspaper articles, the official court record will be essentially bare in this area. Bottom Line This section is out-of-date.Section\nRockefeller Early Childhood Magnet School (pgs, 12-13) The Eight Circuit stated that early childhood education, at least in the incentive schools, is crucial and no retreat should be approved. Goals and Objectives This section of the plan evolved from the Tri-District Plan. The early childhood program was designed to foster both desegregation and academic achievement and to provide excellent early childhood education while enhancing training for early childhood professionals. The school was to serve as a model for cooperation between the public schools and the community and as a demonstration site for area educators. Progress ODM has examined the progress being made in the Rockefeller early childhood program in each of the last four incentive school reports (December 1993, December 1994, May 1995, July 1996). During the period between the 1992-93 and 1995-96 schools years, the LRSD made great progress in meeting the terms of this section of the plan. Both the May 1995 and July 1996 reports found substantial evidence of good faith in implementing the Rockefeller program and substantial con^liance with the terms of the desegregation plans. Diuing the period that the LRSD had been under a hiatus from ODM monitoring, the district created a new early childhood specialist position for the Rockefeller program. This is a position that ODM recommended several years ago and the hiring of such an individual addresses one of the chief parent concerns of a lack of certified personnel on staff during the summer months. Unfortunately, the individual hired for this position (a personal friend of the principal) has created a firestorm of dissension and sharply divided the ECE staff against the principal. This isnt a matter of record, but of Ann Browns intimate knowledge of what goes on at Rockefeller. Conclusions The district has made great strides in this area since 1992-93 and has been largely complying with the terms of the desegregation plans since 1994-95. An area in which the program falls short of the promises in the plan is innovative practices. The Rockefeller program does not really develop any early childhood innovations, but this shortcoming can be overlooked when you consider that innovative education and sound practices are not always mutually inclusive. Also, the program is only minimally used as a demonstration site for the county school districts.Section: Special Programs (pg. 20) Goals and Objectives The plan describes the AP\u0026amp;L summer science institute as a one-week enrichment program designed to generate interest in the study of science. Progress The sponsoring company (AP\u0026amp;L) dropped the funding about five years ago, causing the program to be discontinued after ten years of success. Conclusions The AP\u0026amp;L summer science program apparently was in existence at the time the plan was being written and was included to pad the list of desegregation strategies. Bottom Line The summer science program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: Summer Learning Program (pg. 21) Goals and Objectives The summer learning program was the six-week Job Training Partnership Act tutorial program which provided instruction in math and reading for a maximum of 350 underachieving secondary students employed by JTPA. Progress LRSD successfully conducted the program for several years but intermittent funding has weakened it recently. LRSD requested release from court supervision in this area and presented impressive testimony in support of the request, but dropped it, apparently in favor of other strategies including plan modification. Conclusions LRSD has an impressive record regarding the JTPA program. Recent funding issues beyond the districts control are the only flaw. Bottom Line The summer learning program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: Asset Program (pgs. 24-27) Goals and Objectives The Asset Program is described in the plan as an after school tutorial program for at-risk junior high school students. Slated for four of the districts junior high schools in the 1988-89 school year, the program was to be expanded to include all junior highs by the 1993-94 school year. Progress According to LRSD personnel, Asset was discontinued about five years ago because of the loss of funding. Conclusions LRSD operated Asset as long as JTPA funding was available but discontinued it when funding ended. Bottom Line The Asset Program should have no bearing on LRSDs plan modifications.Section: School Operations (pgs. 28-47) Goals and Objectives This section of the plan consists of one and a quarter pages of narrative and 19 pages of timelines. The narrative portion of the section describes the monitoring responsibilities of the LRSD Office of Desegregation. The office is responsible for monitoring 15 areas that cover the full spectrum of school operations from staffing to school climate, student services, and beyond. Progress Any record in this area would relate to the individual areas the Desegregation Office is to monitor, but as far as we know (but not as part of the court record), any type of oversight by the LRSD Office. of Desegregation ended when Russ Mayo left in June of 1996. Nancy Acre, who serves as director of student assignment, concentrates her efforts exclusively on issues related to assignment and enrollment. The Associate Superintendent of Desegregation has been an unfilled position throughout Dr. Roberts tenure. Recently the position has been advertised, but we have no word that a person has been selected to fill the position. The monthly desegregation update that is included in the LRSD Boards agenda is yeiy brief\nit deals only with enrollment or the bi-racial committee, and is prepared by an admimstrative assistant. This worries us, as it indicates a profound shift away from the previous focus on desegregation. Conclusions During Dr. Roberts tenure, he seemed to take the lead in issues related to desegregation. Dr. Roberts did not focus on issues related to enforcement or compliance with the April 1992 Desegregation Plans. Instead he seemed to concentrate his attention to the work groups and developing the new, very abbreviated plan that was filed with the court on September 26, 1997. Bottom Line The Desegregation Office has lacked leadership for nearly two years. It seems logical to conclude that this vacancy has resulted in a diminished focus on issues related to the current plans. Because of the moratorium, we have no official record of what the district has done recently.Area: Discipline (LRSD Plan, pg. 28) Goals and Objectives to develop and implement polices that improve discipline to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions. Progress The districts own monitoring reports indicate a continuing disparity in disciplinary sanctions. Past policies of zero tolerance and strict adherence to discipline policies have only served to exacerbate the problem. ODM has received numerous complaints from teachers, parents, and Joshua concerning unfair discipline practices, and while informal investigations have not proven the allegations, neither have they disproved them. ODM staff has provided the LRSD with many workshops that focused on working with minority youth and cultural differences. A major problem has been teachers who do not relate well to minority students, especially black males. Additionally, minority students ( black males in particular) have taken advantage of the teachers who fear them or who were uncomfortable with them. ODM has not published a report that solely focuses on discipline, but it has been considered in our reports on the incentive schools and alternative school. The LRSD has done a major overhaul of its discipline policies. The new pohcies provide a great deal of flexibihty at the building level and contain provisions for addressing schools that have high discipline statistics. The new approach should make a big difference. The changes on not in the record. Conclusions The district has a long way to go in solving its discipline problems, but safe and orderly schools are essential for community confidence in them. Some of the districts pohcies and practices have worked against minority youth, as has the lack of understanding between white teachers and minority students. Cultural sensitivity training in the LRSD has been spotty at best.Section: Program for Accelerated Learning/Academic Support Program (pgs. 48-57) This program was replaced pursuant to a Court order dated May 1, 1992. The new program is entitled Academic Support Program (filed with the Court on March 24, 1993). Goals and Objectives The objectives are to provide equitable language arts and mathematics learning experiences to improve achievement and decrease disparity among students. The plan proposes to identify and serve at-risk students, prescribe personalized intervention plans, reduce pull-out programs, and provide parents with the skills needed to assist their children at home. Services are provided indirectly, whereby math and reading speciaUsts assist the regular classroom teachers with implementing remedial services, and directly, whereby students identified with severe reading problems attend reading classes designed to assist them with reading skills. Schools could opt for indirect, direct, or a combination of delivery services. All remediation programs fall under the Academic Support Program (ASP) umbrella. Progress Initially, the program started with a bang. AU of the schools in the district participated in the ASP. Two ODM associate monitors visited several of the programs and felt that they were being implemented sufficiently. In the 1994-95 school year, the LRSD combined the language arts specialist and math specialist positions into one position at the elementary level. This measure was intended to be a budget cutting device. However, the district did not submit the change to the Court. Conclusions The LRSD took three steps forward and two steps back. The original model seemed to work well and, since the schools could modify the ASP to meet their needs, the program was very user fiiendly. But language arts specialists are not math teachers. Math scores on the standardized tests were showing improvement prior to the elimination of the math specialists\nhowever, overaU math scores for aU students have declined in the last two years. Ironically, language arts scores have improved, but reading scores have fallen. Issues The ASP was never designed specifically for black students\nhowever, as a group, black students stood to gain the most from the program, simply because a greater percentage of black students needed remedial help in math and language arts. The district should assist schools with developing site-based ASPs, utilizing a variety of services provided by the district. Bottom Line The results are mixed. Students are doing better in language arts, poorer in math.Section: Gifted Education (pgs. 58-62) Goals and Objectives While the plan indicates that the district operates in compliance with the ADE gifted and talented standards, the plan also commits to devoting special attention to the identification and placement of black students and students from low and middle socio-economic levels. The plan further commits to collaborate with the other two districts on curriculum, staff development, and research and administration. Progress Gifted and talented education in the LRSD is still fairly new. Except for trying to eliminate a coordinators position and reducing the number of specialists (both of which did not occur), the program has continued to grow and develop. The LRSD does a good job of identifying potential G/T students, especially minority students. Conclusions The LRSD has to follow federal and state guidelines in G/T placements. To our knowledge the district has never been cited for any violations in placement. The quality of G/T education is another matter. The program is still weak and has trouble enrolling and keeping some students, particularly minority students at the secondary level. G/T education in the LRSD is more often than not more work, not better, challenging, or interesting work. The program often lacks originahty. The G/T coordinators in the three districts do meet at least twice a year and participate in joint inservice programs. While they may collaborate on showcasing promising models and programs, they are very protective of their students and have been reluctant to recommend gifted programs in each others district to potential M-to-M students. Issues The biggest number of complaints we hear are from black parents whose children cannot attend one of the magnets, especially Dunbar. Since G/T education is offered in all LRSD schools, theoretically, it shouldnt matter where children attend school as long as they are enrolled in a G/T program\nbut in reality, all G/T programs are not created equal. Bottom Line The record is sparse on G/T. We have not done an independent report on it, but have referred to it in some reports, primarily those on incentive schools. We testified in a hearing that to eliminate the G/T coordinator would negatively affect the program. The information above is what we know through our experiences. We believe that what is in the plan for G/T is fine, and the district is meeting the letter of its obligations in G/T education, but could do so much better where quality and equitable inclusion are concerned. This is an area in which Mr. Walker is very interested.Section: Multicultural Curriculum (pg. 63) Goals and Objectives The districts approach to multicultural curriculum includes\n1) integration into all subject areas\n2) a focus which permeates the entire school environment\n3) opportunities for students to develop self- esteem\nand 4) opportunities for students to examine the accomplishments of varied cultural groups. Progress The district was released from court supervision and monitoring of multicultural curriculum.Section: Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants (pg. 81) Goals and Objectives The goal here was to promote each elementary area school as a community of learning among parents, students, and staff by providing various enrichment activities at the building level. Supported by annual allocations, each area elementary school was to develop a focus or thematic emphasis which would be unique to that school. In addition to enriching the curriculum, the focus would also act as a recruitment tool for desegregation. The district also committed to provide\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_819","title":"Desegregation: District Desegregation Team, minutes, 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":["1991/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School integration","Meetings"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation: District Desegregation Team, minutes, 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/819"],"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\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n / Attachment I - Nll NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Meeting on March 11, 1991. The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Monday, March 11, 1991, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following team members attended the meeting: Mr. James Smith, Mrs. Mable Bynum, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Bobby Acklin, Mr. Donald Watkins, Mr. Jim Morris, Mr. Greg Daniels, Mrs. Mable Mitchell, and Ms. Scharmel Bolling. Mrs. Bynum opened the meeting and furnished copies of the agenda. (See copy attached.) The first matter discussed was the comparison of disciplinary referrals for first semester 1989/90 and 1990/91. The total number of disciplinary referrals reflected an increase of 4.4% and disciplinary actions reflected a 17% overall increase in suspensions. Current year expulsions reflected a 44% decrease. Fewer expulsions and the establishment of an elementary suspension program at the Boys Club were cited as factors contributing to increased suspensions. Mr. Smith noted that far fewer referrals related to misbehavior on buses even though approximately twenty buses had been added by the Transportation Department. Mr. Smith questioned what percentage of the total referrals reflected individual students with several referrals. Mr. Daniels explained that the Computer Services Department could generate information to address this concern in an easy-to-read format. Mrs. Bynum requested that such a format be used for all monthly reports in the future. Mrs. Bynum expressed concern about the accuracy of coding disciplinary referrals. She requested Mr. Acklin to address this concern with Principals at the next Administrator's meeting. Ms. Bolling expressed concern with the number of students ref~rred for possession of dangerous objects. She requested clarification of the District's Policy, noting a difference between the number of students referred for this infraction and the number actually expelled. Mr. Acklin explained that each incident is examined on an individual basis as he personally reviews every reported incident of possession of a dangerous object. Depending on the circumstances, some of the students are suspended rather than expelled. Mrs. Mitchell expressed appreciation for the use of discretion in recommending expulsions. Mr. Acklin also mentioned that all expelled students are referred to the Juvenile Courts School in order for student to continue earning academic credits. Unfortunately, some students elect not to attend. These students are not given the option of attending the Alternative School. .. It was noted that the West Campus has not recommended any students for expulsion. Mrs. Mitchell inquired as to why there have been more expulsions on the East Campus. Mr. Smith noted that the age of the students more than the size of enrollment was a major factor in the number of expulsions. Mrs. Bynum mentioned that often situations arising in the community result in campus misbehavior. Mr. Jones requested statistics from the West Campus regarding the incidences of older students electing to withdraw from school to avoid expulsion. Mr. Smith noted that next year all students must remain in school until age eighteen or graduation, therefore, an Alternative School Program will be significant in the District. Mr. Morris mentioned that District administrators had anticipated some increase in disciplinary problems due to the secondary school reorganization, which necessitated changes in assignments for many students and staff members. Mrs. Bynum added that we had been concerned about the large number of suspensions on the seventh grade campus last year, however, the number of current year suspensions for seventh and eighth grade students show a marked decline. We will continue to monitor disciplinary referrals for these groups of students, also. Mrs. Mitchell expressed appreciation for the East Campus staff, and confidence that they were working to ensure a safe educational environment for all students. She was concerned, however, about counselors needing more time to work directly with students experiencing difficulties. Mr. Jones questioned the need for a disciplinary referral category for the Bi-District Alternative School. Mr. Acklin advised the group of the school not being a suspension program, instead one designed for students with unique needs such as inability to cope with school, poor school attendance, or habitual tardiness. Ile stressed the importance of making this factor known in order to benefit students enrolled in this program. The next matter discussed was how to best provide information that monitors need to compare academic achievement of black students with that of white students. The lack of this information was cited by most first semester school teams. A procedure is needed to encompass disaggregated achievement test data, grades and graduation information. Mr. Jones will assemble a committee to address this concern and provide this team a report on findings and plans next month. Several members discussed the need to follow-up on the performance of students removed from basic classes. The team also discussed reviewing the performance of students assigned to teachers who have completed specific inservice programs such as TESA and Cooperative Learning. Elementary grade distribution sheets must be prepared by hand due to the absence of on-site computer terminals. This process requires more time. There is a need for standardization in relation to the secondary schools. Mr. Daniels stated tl1at he was eager to bring elementary schools into the computer network. Mrs. Bynum acknowledged the District's financial situation, but stressed the fact that data collection is such a critical part of monitoring, therefore, constant accumulation of data will prove to be very cumbersom without adequate computer terminals. We next reviewed and discussed first semester School Monitoring Reports. Mr. Morris expressed the need for principals to correctly code building expenditures in order to document purchases of materials and supplies for each department. Other areas of concern discussed were those related to student discipline, one-race classes, parental involvement, and seating patterns for students, with the team making note to stress the importance of school personnel encouraging interaction between various ethnic groups. The team stressed the importance of Principals sharing the Monitoring Reports with their staffs so they can see the critical concerns, as well as how other schools are handling certain matters as reflected in the numerous positive comments offered by the teams. Mrs. Bynum shared reports prepared by Principals as responses to monitoring teams concerns. The final matter discussed was the Success Through Outstanding Role Models Program (S.T.O.R.M.). There are approximately fifteen North Little Rock High School-West Campus students who completed training February 25, and returned required paperwork. The three pilot elementary schools, Argenta, Pine and Redwood, have identified approximately twenty students for participation. An equal number of participants will be chosen from each school. Mentors will work with the mentees during school time, after school, and much telephone contact will be involved. Each child's needs will be unique and each mentor will convey to his mentee a message of being on his side. Plans call for mentors and mentees to have been paired prior to the March 17 meeting of the Di-racial Committee. There has been long term interest from this committee for the development of such a program and some members have indicated an interest in meeting some of the mentors. Mrs. Bynum mentioned a plan to add tenth grade students prior to the end of the school year. These students could become replacement mentors for graduating participants. Ms. Dolling noted that Classmates for each school might be interested in helping with the STORM program by providing things for them to do or incentives for accomplishments of goals. Mrs. Mitchel expressed pleasure with the initiation of the program and advised the team that she would like to see a program started for female students at some future time. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. N (0)J E'F IBII LIITTILJE JE(Q)CIBC:J PTIJiffiIIILC C CCIH (ID )( D)I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET RECEIVED NOV 9 1992 July 29, 1992 Office of Deseg\negtliN1 Monitoriilg Minutes of Administrators' Meeting on July 29, 1992 The Central Office Administrators and Principals of the North Little Rock School Dis~rict met with Steve Jones, District Attorney, on July 29, 1992, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following perscnnel attended: Mr. James Smith, Mrs. Mable Bynum, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Bobby Acklin, Mr. Donald Watkins, Ms. Esther Crawford, Mr. Dana Chadwick, Dr. Steve Phaup, Mr. Jim Morris, Mrs. Jo Stt!wart, Mr. Eugene Wise, Mr. Gary Goss, Dr. Jess Walker, Mrs. Letitia Martin, Mr. Doyne Ward, Mrs. Barbara Gilkey, Mrs. Ann Kincl, Mr. Gregg Thompson, Mr. Ken Kirspel, Mrs. Ginny Wiseman, Mr. Arthur Tucker, Mrs. Kathy Ccok, Mrs. Jane Ford, Mrs. Susie Jackson, Mrs. Pat Siegel, Mrs. Kaye Lowe, Mrs. Linda Wilson, Mr. Harold Allen, Mrs. Portia Power, Mrs. Beverly Kelso, Mr. James Zeigler, Mrs. Fran Jackson, Miss Dana Snowden, Mrs. Diane Crites, Ms. Linda Chancellor, Ms. Katherine Tweedle, Mrs. Marsha Paul and Mr. Johnny Kellar. The objective of the meeting was to increase staff's awareness of the Desegregation Plans (North Little Rock School District and Interdistrict) as approved April 29, 1992. Mr. Smith opened th~ meeting by explaining that Attorney Steve Jones would go through the plans with them so they would be familiar enough to follow through with implementation and be capable of making their building staffs aware of the District's responsibilities in meeting these mandated orders. Mrs. Bynum furnished copies to each person and informed the group that a copy of the plans would be placed in the media centers of each school. Mr. Smith went on to say that Judge Wright always remind\u0026amp; us that \"this is r.ot my plan, it is yours,\" so we all have to be well informed of its content and meet our responsibilities in seeing that every phase of the plan is carried out. Attorney Jones gave a brief explanation cf how our plan evolved and its development. He explained that our plan AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER p: 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITILE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 evolved around the original \"Storm Plan\" developed in 1973. He said that he did not feel that the North Little Rock School District contributed to the segregation problems of the Little Rock School District, but the Eighth Circuit Court had the last word and we have to live with it. The NLR Plan was initiated by the filing on March 17, 1986 of the \"Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School Dist:rict.\" The purpose of this initial submission was to address the interdistrict violations add:tessed by the Court of Appeals in LRSD v. PCSSD. The district court required the NLRSD to provide a plan to address its intradistrict violations as well, and in response the NLRSD filed on October 14, 1986, its \"Supplement to Plan for Implementing the Remedial Order of the Court of Appeal~ for the Eighth Circuit as It Applies to the North Little Rock School District.\" Scme modification occurred either by petition to and approval by the district court or by operation of the settlement among the parties which has now been approved. Attorney Jones explained that our District was the only one of the three districts that had a plan approved in 1987. He stressed that our plan draft gave us enough flexibility that would allow us some leadway in implementation, where the other two districts bogged down in not leaving themselves flexibility to change without going back to the court for approval. He commented that our District was accomplishing more with the sn1all amount of desegregation money awarded in the settlement than the other two districts. lie said that all of our money is going into compensa~ory education (slightly more than $500,000. each year). He went on to say that the over-riding element was that we are doing what we said we would do and much more than our pian requires. He said that we could be very proud of our District's sovereignty. He said the court commends us. He also commended us in the smooth implementation of our restructuring process and the fact that implementation of our Reduction in Force policy for the 1992-93 school year had left all the compensatory programs intact. He said that our efforts to involve the community, patrons, students and employees in making decisions for both of these changes was a credit to our District. Attorney Jones complimented Mr. Gene Jones for being instrumental in securing funding to implement additionul programs that our desegregation money would never have covered. He reminded the group that both Master McCutheon and Mr. Reville both said that desegregation is a state of mind. Mr. Smith reminded the group that the District was receiving $500,000. per year for seven years to fund the implementation of the mandated orders. He went on to say that we must keep in mind that we are now in the fourth year of this funding. The first item of the plan discussed by the group was Section 1: Student Assignment Plan. Attorney Jones gave a short explanation of M-to-M transfers and student transfers to magnet schools. He explained the concept used for elementary student assignment where schools in a predominately black area are paired with one or more schools in a predominately non-black area. Each elementary school in the district must have a student population which approximates as nearly as is feasible a racial balance of 42 ptrcent black and 58 percent non-black students. To assure each school will have a student population composed of these percentages, schools are placed in groups so that students within each group can be assigned to schools in such numbers as is necessary to achieve the desired racial composition. Kindergarten students are assigned to their neighborhood schools and are not transported for purposes of racial balance. The next item discussed was our special education program. ~ir. Smith said that we need to look closely at new students entering. Be said that we have a very good evaluation system in identifying special education students, but we do have over representation of blacks in special education. Mrs. Fran Jackson questioned if we over identify special education students, what impact this would have on M-to-M transfers? Attorney Jones could not give an immediate answer to this. He said the District did not guarantee a racial balance in special education. He said that our compensatory programs were in place to help us in this area and we have already seen some good results from the programs. Mr. Smith commented that we are closely monitored by the State Department of Education in special education. They come each year to closely scrutinize our program. Mr. Thompson questioned transfer of a student \"in geed standing\" from one district to another. It was brought out that a student caught with a gun in a Little Rock school could be transferred to the North Little Rock School District. Mr. Watkins asked if Attorney Jones could see us reaching a deadline of M-to-M transfers. Attorney Jones responded that he did not. Mr. Thompson asked for a brief description of the \"School Choice Act.\" Attorney Jones responded that the Act 762 did have its limitations in that a student residing in one school district can transfer to another school district, the Board of Directors of the resident district may enter into an agreement with the Board of Directors of the receiving school district trar1sferring the student to the receiving district for purposes of education. Boards of Directors of local school districts are prohibited from granting legal transfers in the following situations: (a) where either the resident or the receiving district is under a desegregation relatea court order or has ever been under such a court order\nand (b) the transier in question would negatively affect the racial balance of that district which is or has been under such a court order. Attorney Jones discussed Act 624 of 1987 which states that \"the children or wards of anyone who is a public school teacher in one school district and a resident of another school district shall be entitled to attend school in  either district  \" Mr. Goss brought up a short discussion of transportation of students for extra curricular activities. Attorney Jones pointed out that our District had provided transportation for extra curricular activities even though the plan did not mandate that we do so. The state finances the cost for transportation of M-to-M transfer students. Attorney Jones said the District is to be commended for an equitable process in achieving a racial balance in our schools. At this time a ten minute break was called. The next item discussed after return from break was Section 2: Staff Recruitment Plan. Attorney Jones commented that this was the most difficult part of the plan. He went on to say that the North Little Rock School District had made great strides in correcting the racial imbalance of Central Office Administrators, Principals and coaches, but has had a problem in recruiting black teachers. He went on to explain that there has been a tremendous drop in black teacher applicants since 1970. He said that many blacks have opted to go into other areas of employment that would offer greater financial security than is offered in the teaching area. He also stressed that our District faced vicious competition just in the i~.rnediate area, since the other two districts in our area are able to offer a higher salary. He commented that we have had a good record of retaining the black teachers we have been able to hire. He said the pool of qualified black applicants continues to shrink, and we do compare favorably with the shrinking pool of applicants. He pointed out that when attending recruitment fairs, we will offer a commitment on the spot to a good black teaching applicant. Mr. Morris brought up a discussion of transferring staff to achieve racial balance. Attorney Jones responded that we certainly could involuntariiy transfer non-black teachers to other schools whose staff is racially imbalanced. Attorney Jones suggested skipping over Secticn 3: Special Education Plan, since it was largely dictated by the State Department of Education. He reminded the group that emphasis should be placed on the evaluation process to identify special education students and constant scrutiny of the process. A short discussion of Section 8: Gifted and Talented Education was the next item. Attorney Jones commented that the same consideration applies to Gifted \u0026amp; Talented Education, in that it is dictated by the State Department of Education. He pointed out that we do have better participation of minorities than the ether two districts. Ann Kincl spoke to th6 problem of getting more black students and black teachers in ~he G/T program. She also said that she would like to see our principals more involved in the program. The next item discussed was Section 4: Compensatory Education. Attorney Jones explained that many new programs had alread~ been implemented and others are in the making. He said that many of our teachers had complained about requirements in having to participate in the training program, \"Teacher ExpE,ctations and Student Achievement\" ('l'ESA). This training consists of five workshop sessions and iive classroom observations per teacher. In the program, teachers learn to inciease specific motivating and supportive interactions with low achievers. He also said that teachers had complained about the project, \"Prac~ical Approach to Curriculum and Instructional Renewal\" (PACIR). In this program, objectives are developed\nstudents' progress is measured\nstudents' needs identified\nand programs, practices and resources adjusted. Attorney Jones said that the North Little Rock School District will continue to focus on remediation of identified deficiencies in reading, language arts and mathematics. He commtanted that \"it was just to bad if teachers did not like it - it is a part of our desegregation plan and we do not have ar. option.\" He went on to say that we could not deviate from the plan. Mr. Smith referred the group to page 36. Mr. Gene Jones explained that the District had hired compensatory a.:.aes and extended day personnel to concentrate efforts toward remedial ~eading and remedial mathematics supplementaty instruction for elementary stuoents in grades 1, 2 and 3. He said we have gone beyond this by employing Remedial Reading teachers. He went on to say other options were being looked at for grades 4, 5 and 6. Ms. Crawford spoke up to say that emphasis in elementary is on grades 1, 2 and 3, and other programs developed for 4, 5 and 6 are our own option. In looking at Section 5: Compensatory Programs Aimed at Dropout Prevention, Attorney Jones pointed out that we have moved far beyond what we have committed to. He used as example our Alternative Education Center - an alternative program for cut-of-school suspensions. The commitment was to provide for selected secondary school students, but has already been expanded to include elementary students. The center will provide services to grades K-12 during the 1992-93 school year. The program is available for students whose behavior is unmanageable both at school and at home and who cannot function in the on-campus suspension program. Students continue their academic work and receive counseling services. The next item discussed was Section 6: Extracurricular Activities. Attorney Jones explained that the Joshua Intervenors had filed \u0026amp; suit against the District challenging the process in selection of spirit groups. He said that we had followed our plan and could not see that in any way the process was unfair. He went on to say that the extra curricular activities were constantly scrutinized and we encourage participation. The district pays for uniforms and transportation because we recognized these were problems that kept some students from participation. Mrs. Bynum reminded the principals at elementary level to closely monitor the awards, committees, etc. to be sure they were racially equitable. Mr. Goss brought up a discussion of the athletic selection process, in that the coaches decide who participates. Attorney Jones said that we certainly have a higher black representative in sporting activities, but it is not a legal matter at this time. Mr. Morris pointed out that coaches have to be certified, but spirit group sponsors do not, although all the district sponsors are certified personnel. Mrs. Wisen,an questioned if the suit was against people or process. Attorney Jones was adamant that the district used a process instead of setting quote\n\"pick a certain number.\" Mr. Thompson said we should have a written plan to address each extra curricular activity, the same as we do for curriculum. Attorney Jones suggested that principals keep recvrds of all activities and keep aware of what is going on, when prcblems arise, make plans to correct them. Mrs. Bynum said that principals should look at their School Profiles from the monitori~g process. She suggested they call their staffs' attention to the extra curricular activities, and ask for their input and assistance in monitoring these activities. She also said they might want to look back at the Joshua monitoring reports for their schools. Attorney Jones said that if a problem was seen, we should immediately look for ways to eliminate any disproportionate process in selection of committees, etc. Mrs. Bynum said the key factor was communication to students and parents . The next item discussed was Section 7: Discipline, Expulsions and Suspensions. Attorney Jones said there were three factors to consider for any infraction: (1) communication, (2) consistency, and (3) documentation. He said that documentation will vary commensurate with infraction. He went on to say that we were the first of the three districts to ke~p students in school --- expulsion only for possession of weapon. He said we did not think it was good to put students out on the street, we want to make sure that discipline referrals are in school. A very brief discussion of Section 10: Desegregation Monitoring followed. Attorney Jones commented that he was sure that everyone was familiar with the school based monitoring process, and we were more concerned with the Joshua monitoring. Mrs. Wilson said the Joshua monitoring team was very thorough --- even looking at teachers' lesson plans. Attorney Jones commented that we have to understand their role and be courteous and cooperativew Attorney Jones called attention to pages 1 and 2 of the Interdistrict Desegregation Flan. He informed the group that he had written the introduction and that our role was very limited in the Interdistrict Plan. Mrs. Bynum said she hoped that the overview gave the group a better understanding ot our Desegregation Plan and would enable them to answer questions, and to keep their building staff informed. Meeting was adjourned at 1~:00 p.m. ~ ov 9 1?9 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 0:1 .a of 1:er.c~')':-'i:,, I 'J,.::\n1g North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on September 14, 1992 The North Little Rock District Desegregation team met on September 14, 1992, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, with the District Attorney, Members from the Federal Courts Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Members of the Joshua Intervenors Monitoring team. Persons attending the meeting were: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM Horace Smith - Associate Monitor - ODM Ms. Joy Springer - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Lorene Joshua - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Delois Sikes - Joshua Intervenors Ms. Debbie Parker - Joshua Intervenors Mr. Kirke Herman - Joshua Intervenors Steve Jones, Attorney - NLRSD Mr. James Smith - Superintendent of Schools - NLRSD Mrs. Mable Bynum - Asst. Supt.-Desegregation - NLRSD Mr. Gene Jones - Asst. Supt.-Instruction - NLRSD Mr. Bobby Acklin - Asst. Supt.-Student Services - NLRSD Mr. Donald Watkins - Asst. Supt.-Business - NLRSD Mr. Jim Morris - Director-Personnel - NLRSD Mr. Greg Daniels - Director-Computer Services - NLRSD. Steve Jones opened the meeting by expressing concern that information required for internal monitoring as well as requests for additional information from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Monitoring Team could become a tremendous task for our District Desegregation Office. He stressed a need to come up with a schedule of reports and information to be provided to both ODM and Joshua, thus lessening the voluminous paper work involved. He also said that some of the information requested by the Joshua team was impossible to provide prior to their visits due to the early date. He pointed out that we did not allow our internal monitoring teams to interrupt the educational process in the classrooms and that last year some of our teachers had felt intimidated during Joshua's monitoring visits. Ms. Springer responded that they had already agreed that they would go about the process somewhat differently from last year. A discussion then pursued relating to individual data on students. Steve Jones reminded everyone that students records were protected by the Educational Privacy Act\ntherefore, individual records could only be viewed with written permission from the parents of students. Mr. Gene Jones explained that aggregated test data was compiled and could be furnished to them for perusal. Ms. Springer responded that their team just wanted to be sure that the tests were being given and data kept for each student. Steve Jones replied that the data was available in Principals' offices, and with written permission from parents, individual student data could be made available to them. The next item discussed was the Joshua team's request to view teachers' plan books. Steve Jones requested their rationale for this request? Ms. Springer responded that they wanted to know what was going on in the classroom and to make sure the multicultural curriculum was being included in the classrooms. Steve Jones pointed out that teachers' plan books were as varied as the individual teachers themselves, and a lesson plan would not always reflect a true picture of the learning process of a particular class, or the many facets of a particular lesson. Steve Jones used an example of an instructor he had in college that lectured without notes, but to him represented one of the best instructors he had. Mr. Herman responded that although he had been out of the educational field for some time, that teachers always used an organization plan. Ms. Springer commented that the group looked at teachers' lesson plan books last year and did not understand why this was a problem now. Further discussion continued on this issue. Steve Jones explained that he had thought Joshua monitors were asking to collect all the teachers' plan books for scrutiny. Mr. Morris commented that it would be a problem for one of the team members to look at a plan book and understand it without a teacher to explain the contents. Ms. Springer and Mr. Herman agreed that they would be upset if they did not find a plan book \"up to date,\" asking how a teacher's lessons could be evaluated. Mr. Gene Jones pointed out that principals confer with teachers about plan books to evaluate what is occurring in the classroom. He went on to say that there are two formal observations of each teacher in the classroom every year and this is used by the principal in evaluating the teacher. Mr. Acklin commented that not only are there two formal observations, there are also many informal observations occurring in the schools, in the way of walk through observations of classes by principals, but that it would be impossible to document everything. Mrs. Brown agreed that monitoring during a class session could be made very intimidating to a teacher. Mr. Horace Smith spoke to the issue of multicultural education. He said that it is not necessarily that which is highlighted in a \"plan book,\" but observations and conferences with the principal regarding multicultural infusion into the curriculum and activities occurring in the schools would assure the monitoring groups that multicultural education is being included in the educational procccc cf the schools in our area. Steve Jones again reiterated that the District does not want its teachers to worry about monitoring so much that the educational process will be hindered in any way. A discussion between Steve Jones and Ms. Springer continued. Mr. Jones pointed out that it would be best for monitoring teams to talk with teachers during breaks and preparation periods. He stressed that the monitoring process should not be observed as a process to place the blame on any one, but should be as constructive as possible for the teachers and principals. Ms. Springer responded that their team would like to spend more time in the classroom this year. The next item discussed was the possibility of the District Desegregation Office forwarding the same or similar information to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors, instead of having to gather different information for each. Steve Jones pointed out that at least a fifty percent change occurs during any one school year and gathering the data in the many ways requested by the different groups was becoming such a tremendous task that it was hard to carry on the regular business required of the Desegregation Office. He also commented that a clear cut assignment of students was not completed for at least two weeks after the opening of school and then it was constantly changing. A discussion between Ms. Springer and Mrs. Bynum concerning the School Profiles was the next item. Mrs. Bynum responded that October 1 enrollment and assignments were usually the basis for the profiles, so the profiles would not be ready until sometime in October. Mrs. Brown reported that her office had been studying materials used by schools in Cleveland, Ohio, and they would decide if some of the methods and forms used there could be useful in this area. She said they would furnish all three districts a survey form to be used to audit all reports and information generated. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring could then make its requests for information match the district's schedule. Format and appropriate dates for reports were discussed. Once these are agreed upon, the Compute~ Services Departments in all three districts could generate information for transmittal to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua Intervenors. Mrs. Brown commented that there was great redundancy in information, including the school monitoring process. She indicated a need to coordinate team visits and collaboration of our efforts to avoid such redundancy. Ms. Springer brought up a discussion of the Desegregation Plan relating to the Special Education section. She asked if we had a Special Education Committee. Steve Jones responded that the committee was in place and Dr. Steve Phaup was in charge of thi~ committee. Mrs. Bynum pointed out that she had invited Joshua Intervenors through Attorney John Walker last spring to inform the District of its appointee to the Special Education Review Committee. Mrs. Bynum said that she was not aware if the committee had met yet this year, but Dr. Phaup would know and could answer any concerns they would have about our Special Education Program. The next item discussed was the compensatory education programs that have been implemented by the District. Steve Jones commented that we should not be surprised if these classes are racially disproportionate. Ms. Springer asked whether we knew if the compensatory education programs were working? Mr. Gene Jones said that the program goals are being monitored closely, and thus far had shown a definite improvement\nhowever, some of the programs are too new for much analysis. Ms. Springer questioned criteria for classroom aides. Mr. Gene Jones responded that it depends on the number of Chapter I students and criteria is set to meet the needs. He went on to say that the District increased the number of these positions last year and uses computer lab aides at the elementary and middle school levels. He stressed that needs vary greatly in different elementary schools\nhowever, each elementary school has a half-time compensatory aide in addition to those associated with the Chapter I and computer labs. Ms. Springer questioned the use of social workers in the District. Mr. Jones responded that Barbara Gilkey does work in this capacity and heads up our HIPPY Program. He went on to say we had added a position of Social Case Worker, whose responsibility is to work with pregnant students and students who have young children of their own. Social workers receive referrals for assistance from school personnel. Steve Jones praised the District's efforts in compensatory education programs, stressing the expansion of our HIPPY Program which is now serving at least 200 families. Several aides are working in this program which helps to give home instruction to students who might not otherwise get the pre-school attention they need. Mrs. Joshua voiced a concern about the nature of the bussing plan for some of the students in the Gribble Addition and Boone Park areas. Mr. Acklin explained that all elementary students living more than two miles from their school were provided transportation. A discussion concerning this practice ensued. Mrs. Joshua was concerned that some of these students lived more than two miles from school and were not being transported. Mr. Acklin assured her this was not the case. Mr. Acklin reported that the State does not require student transportation, but if a District chooses to transport students, reimbursement is made for students being transported two miles or more. He also pointed out that we furnish transportation by choice for the benefit of our students, but the District could not afford to transport all students. He reiterated his intention to review the areas of concern with a commitment to fairness in approving any new bus routes. The next item discussed was class size. Mrs. Bynum addressed this concern by reporting that classes are kept within the maximum student limit, but stressing that at both the elementary and secondary levels student counts above 25 are allowed. Mrs. Bynum questioned Mrs. Brown concerning the forms she would furnish to the District. Mrs. Brown responded that a master schedule would be developed that we could all work with. Steve Jones thanked the group for their attendance, and Mrs. Bynum requested that the regular District Desegregation Team members remain for further discussion. Mrs. Bynum questioned Steve Jones about what we should do about the quarterly reports. Steve Jones responded that he thought we should continue to submit the reports, since much of the instructional information submitted in the reports was not available in any other complete report. It was agreed that we would continue to compile information to be submitted for July, August and September. Comparison data of achievement disparity was discussed. Steve Jones said that the achievement disparity in our District had been impacted by some factors beyond our control\nhowever, we continue to do many things to address the issue. We discussed the need to keep follow through data on students who remain in our District for all of their education. We could then compare that data with that collected on students that come and go from the District. Meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f:::w~~ NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on September 14, 1992 The North Little Rock District Desegregation team met on September 14, 1992, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building, with the District Attorney, Members from the Federal Courts Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Members of the Joshua Intervenors Monitoring team. Persons attending the meeting were: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor - ODM Horace Smith - Associate Monitor - ODM Ms. Joy Springer - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Lorene Joshua - Joshua Intervenors Mrs. Delois Sikes - Joshua Intervenors Ms. Debbie Parker - Joshua Intervenors Mr. Kirke Herman - Joshua Intervenors Steve Jones, Attorney - NLRSD Mr. James Smith - Superintendent of Schools - NLRSD Mrs. Mable Bynum - Asst. Supt.-Desegregation - NLRSD Mr. Gene Jones - Asst. Supt.-Instruction - NLRSD Mr. Bobby Acklin - Asst. Supt.-Student Services - NLRSD Mr. Donald Watkins - Asst. Supt.-Business - NLRSD Mr. Jim Morris - Director-Personnel - NLRSD Mr. Greg Daniels - Director-Computer Services - NLRSD. Steve Jones opened the meeting by expressing concern that information required for internal monitoring as well as requests for additional information from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Monitoring Team could become a tremendous task for our District Desegregation Office. He stressed a need to come up with a schedule of reports and information to beprovided to both ODM and Joshua, thus lessening the voluminous paper work involved. He also said that some of the information requested by the Joshua team was impossible to provide prior to their visits due to the early date. He pointed out that we did not allow our internal monitoring teams to interrupt the educational process in the classrooms and that last year some of our teachers had felt intimidated during Joshua's monitoring visits. Ms. Springer responded that they had already agreed that they would go about the process somewhat differently from last year. A discussion then pursued relating to individual data on students. Steve Jones reminded everyone that students records were protected by the Educational Privacy Act\ntherefore, individual records could only be viewed with written permission from the parents of students. Mr. Gene Jones explained that aggregated test data was compiled and could be furnished to them for perusal. Ms. Springer responded that their team just wanted to be sure that the tests were being given and data kept for each student. Steve Jones replied that the data was available in Principals' offices, and with written permission from parents, individual student data could be made available to them. The next item discussed was the Joshua team's request to view teachers' plan books. Steve Jones requested their rationale for this request? Ms. Springer responded that they wanted to know what was going on in the classroom and to make sure the multicultural curriculum was being included in the classrooms. Steve Jones pointed out that teachers' plan books were as varied as the individual teachers themselves, and a lesson pl~n would not always reflect a true picture of the learning process of a particular class, or the many facets of a particular lesson. Steve Jones used an example of an instructor he had in college that lectured without notes, but to him represented one of the best instructors he had. Mr. Herman responded that although he had been out of the educational field for some time, that teachers always used an organization plan. Ms. Springer commented that the group looked at teachers' lesson plan books last year and did not understand why this was a problem now. Further discussion continued on this issue. Steve Jones explained that he had thought Joshua monitors were asking to collect all the teachers' plan books for scrutiny. Mr. Morris commented that it would be a problem for one of the team members to look at a plan book and understand it without a teacher to explain the contents. Ms. Springer and Mr. Herman agreed that they would be upset if they did not find a plan book \"up to date,\" asking how a teacher's lessons could be evaluated. Mr. Gene Jones pointed out that principals confer with teachers about plan books to evaluate what is occurring in the classroom. He went on to say that there are two formal observations of each teacher in the classroom every year and this is used by the principal in evaluating the teacher. Mr. Acklin commented that not only are there two formal observations, there are also many informal observations occurring in the schools, in the way of walk through observations of classes by principals, but that it would be impossible to document everything. Mrs. Brown agreed that monitoring during a class session could be made very intimidating to a teacher. Mr. Horace Smith spoke to the issue of multicultural education. He said that it is not necessarily that which is highlighted in a \"plan book,\" but observations and conferences with the principal regarding multicultural infusion into the curriculum and activities occurring in the schools would assure the monitoring groups that multicultural education is being included in th1: 1::d.ucationa1p:\n::-ocess cf the schools in our area. Steve Jones again reiterated that the District does not want its teachers to worry about monitoring so much that the educational process will be hindered in any way. A discussion between Steve Jones and Ms. Springer continued. Mr. Jones pointed out that it would be best for monitoring teams to talk with teachers during breaks and preparation periods. He stressed that the monitoring process should not be observed as a process to place the blame on any one, but should be as constructive as possible for the teachers and principals. Ms. Springer responded that their team would like to spend more time in the classroom this year. The next item discussed was the possibility of the District Desegregation Office forwarding the same or similar information to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Joshua Intervenors, instead of having to gather different information for each. Steve Jones pointed out that at least a fifty percent change occurs during any one school year and gathering the data in the many ways requested by the different groups was becoming such a tremendous task that it was hard to carry on the regular business required of the Desegregation Office. He also commented that a clear cut assignment of students was not completed for at least two weeks after the opening of school and then it was constantly changing. A discussion between Ms. Springer and Mrs. Bynum concerning the School Profiles was the next item. Mrs. Bynum responded that October 1 enrollment and assignments were usually the basis for the profiles, so the profiles would not be ready until sometime in October. Mrs. Brown reported that her office had been studying materials used by schools in Cleveland, Ohio, and they would decide if some of the methods and forms used there could be useful in this area. She said they would furnish all three districts a survey form to be used to audit all reports and information generated. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring could then make its requests for information match the district's schedule. Format and appropriate dates for reports were discussed. Once these are agreed upon, the Computer Services Departments in all three districts could generate information for transmittal to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and Joshua Intervenors. Mrs. Brown commented that there was great redundancy in information, including the school monitoring process. She indicated a need to coordinate team visits and collaboration of our efforts to avoid such redundancy. Ms. Springer brought up a discussion of the Desegregation Plan relating to the Special Education section. She asked if we had a Special Education Committee. Steve Jones responded that the committee was in place and Dr. Steve Phaup was in chu~gc of this committee. Mrs. Bynum pointed out that she had invited Joshua Intervenors through Attorney John Walker last spring to inform the District of its appointee to the Special Education Review Committee. Mrs. Bynum said that she was not aware if the committee had met yet this year, but Dr. Phaup would know and could answer any concerns they would have about our Special Education Program. The next item discussed was the compensatory education programs that have been implemented by the District. Steve Jones commented that we should not be surprised if these classes are racially disproportionate. Ms. Springer asked whether we knew if the compensatory education programs were working? Mr. Gene Jones said that the program goals are being monitored closely, and thus far had shown a definite improvement\nhowever, some of the programs are too new for much analysis. Ms. Springer questioned criteria for classroom aides. Mr. Gene Jones responded that it depends on the number of Chapter I students and criteria is set to meet the needs. He went on to say that the District increased the number of these positions last year and uses computer lab aides at the elementary and middle school levels. He stressed that needs vary greatly in different elementary schools\nhowever, each elementary school has a half-time compensatory aide in addition to those associated with the Chapter I and computer labs. Ms. Springer questioned the use of social workers in the District. Mr. Jones responded that Barbara Gilkey does work in this capacity and heads up our HIPPY Program. He went on to say we had added a position of Social Case Worker, whose responsibility is to work with pregnant students and students who have young children of their own. Social workers receive referrals for assistance from school personnel. Steve Jones praised the District's efforts in compensatory education programs, stressing the expansion of our HIPPY Program which is now serving at least 200 families. Several aides are working in this program which helps to give home instruction to students who might not otherwise get the pre-school attention they need. Mrs. Joshua voiced a concern about the nature of the bussing plan for some of the students in the Gribble Addition and Boone Park areas. Mr. Acklin explained that all elementary students living more than two miles from their school were provided transportation. A discussion concerning this practice ensued. Mrs. Joshua was concerned that some of these students lived more than two miles from school and were not being transported. Mr. Acklin assured her this was not the case. Mr. Acklin reported that the State does not require student transportation, but if a District chooses to transport students, reimbursement is made for students being transported two miles or more. He also pointed out that we furnish transportation by choice for the benefit of our students, but the District could not afford to transport all students. He reiterated his intention to review the areas of concern with a commitment to fairness in approving any new bus routes. The next item discussed was class size. Mrs. Bynum addressed this concern by reporting that classes are kept within the maximum student limit, but stressing that at both the elementary and secondary levels student counts above 25 are allowed. Mrs. Bynum questioned Mrs. Brown concerning the forms she would furnish to the District. Mrs. Brown responded that a master schedule would be developed that we could all work with. Steve Jones thanked the group for their attendance, and Mrs. Bynum requested that the regular District Desegregation Team members remain for further discussion. Mrs. Bynum questioned Steve Jones about what we should do about the quarterly reports. Steve Jones responded that he thought we should continue to submit the reports, since much of the instructional information submitted in the reports was not available in any other complete report. It was agreed that we would continue to compile information to be submitted for July, August and September. Comparison data of achievement disparity was discussed. Steve Jones said that the achievement disparity in our District had been impacted by some factors beyond our control\nhowever, we continue to do many things to address the issue. We discussed the need to keep follow through data on students who remain in our District for all of their education. We could then compare that data with that collected on students that come and go from the District. Meeting was adjourned at 3:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~w~~ rmv 9 t992 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Of/leec ,f0 ~~\\1~a:l!ioMro. nitoring North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of District Desegregation Team Meeting on October 12, 1992 The North Little Rock District Desegregation team met on October 12, 1992, at 1:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. The following persons attended the meeting: Mrs. Mable Bynum, Mr. James Smith, Mr. Gene Jones, Mr. Donald Watkins, Mr. Jim Morris, Ms. Scharmel Bolling and Mr. Greg Daniels. Mrs. Bynum opened the meeting by reminding the members that she had furnished copies of a memo from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding a survey/information audit. She pointed out that she had furnished a list of forms and information previously required from each particular department and asked that the administrator responsible feel free to add to or revise the list. Ms. Bolling questioned \"date available.\" Mrs. Bynum responded if it was information or report due periodically that an approximate date could be used. Ms. Bolling stated that she usually FAXed a copy of any information from her office to the Federal Monitor's office. Mr. Jones commented that the items listed for instruction were not nearly as comprehensive as his regular quarterly status update. He mentioned that vocational assessments, extended day program and the summer transition program were not shown on his list. Mrs. Bynum agreed that these items should be included since they pertain to our compensatory education program. Mrs. Bynum inquired about the personnel department's responsibilities. Mr. Morris responded that he thought his list was complete. Mr. Daniels questioned the instructional requirement of interim grades/report cards. Mrs. Bynum stated that we could only report the dates that interim grades/report cards were issued. She pointed out that the Joshua team had reported in its findings that we were only doing interim reports for the first quarter. We discussed the practice that Lakewood Middle School has made to furnish parents/guardians a copy of the students' interim grades as part of their MGAP project. Mrs. Bynum reiterated that the list she had prepared was only a start to give each administrator an idea to expand upon, and if they would make her aware of any and all information/reports issued from their offices or other offices under their respective area, she would then pass the information on to the Federal Monitor's Office. She reminded them that this information is due on October 19th. Mr. Jones reported that our annual school report to the State Department of Education is due on October 15, 1992. We discussed the fact that this is reported from Computer Services in the form of a disk which could be furnished to other sources if requested. Mrs. Bynum informed the team of our student enrollment statistics for the 1992-93 school year. She reported that we have 9,251 students enrolled with 48.3 percent black as compared with 46.9 percent during the 1991-92 school year. Mrs. Bynum noted that we have several elementary schools with more than 50 percent black students. Mrs. Bynum reported that the District has 295 black M-to-M transfers from the Little Rock District and we have 143 non-black M-to-M transferring to the Little Rock District. The District also has 545 students enrolled in Magnet Schools (276 non-black and 269 black). It was also pointed out that our District has 57 black students going to Oak Grove and only 7 non-black coming to our District from Oak Grove. It was further noted that under the School Choice Act we had only one black student going to Pulaski County Special School District, while 81 non-black from Pulaski County attend North Little Rock Schools. Mr. Morris asked if we report on home schooling? Mr. Jones responded that the parents notify us of the home schooling and from there it was handled through the State Department of Education. He pointed out that there seemed to be an increase in home schooling each year. Mrs. Bynum asked Mr. Jones if he had any information on the Special Education Committee? Mr. Jones responded that the committee was in place and had met once thus far. He reported that Mr. Prentice Dupins had been appointed to the committee. Mrs. Bynum commented that the Joshua t~am had inquired about the committee and that she had sent a copy of her earlier letter inviting them to appoint a member to serve on the committee, but Joshua had not responded to the invitation at this time. Mr. Morris furnished copies of the staffing percentages by race and gender for 1992-93. He reported that we had made some progress in that we now have a black teacher placed in the Gifted/ Talented program. He pointed out that we did have a glaring need for black teachers at Baring Cross, but that the enrollment was down this year at the school, therefore, no new staff were hired. Ms. Bolling inquired if the courts have set down a specific quota we must meet for staffing. Mr. Morris responded that state legislation says we should have the same percentage black teachers as students. We discussed the relevant labor market as compared to our district's accomplishment in recruiting black teachers and agreed that we were ahead in percentages as compared to the applicants available as represented by the labor market statistics. Mr. Morris commented that the district had offered contracts to four black teachers that had turned us down this year. We discussed our inability to compete in salaries with the other two districts in our area with our budget. Mr. Morris reported that he would start next week visiting colleges/universities in recruitment efforts for the 1993-94 school year. Recruitment packets have been sent to all major colleges in Arkansas and surrounding states in preparation of recruiting. Mr. Watkins reported that in budget comparisons from last year, some pre-school money was added from the desegregation budget for supplies and equipment. He further explained that some of the cost was paid under the Chapter I program. The next discussion concerning \"Project Promise\" was led by Mr. Jones. He explained that this program is targeted at black students for our Gifted/Talented program. He reported that we have employed three persons to work part-time as home visitors. Mrs. Bynum commented that we also have non-black students with the same needs. Mr. Jones reported that $25,000 had been allocated for band instrument purchase in an effort to recruit students that would not otherwise participate in band because of lack of funds for instruments. Mrs. Bynum inquired about the status of the pre-school program scheduled to open at Redwood Elementary. Mr. Jones responded that materials had been ordered and plans were to get the program in operation during the month of November. Further discussion of the pre-school program continued. Mr. Jones explained that funding for teachers was provided by Chapter I and that the Arkansas Better Chance Program (ABC) provided funding for the paraprofessionals. He said that we also used some desegregation money for supplies and materials. Mr. Jones reported that the program required that a separate fenced play area be provided for these students. Mr. Morris asked if the ABC funds were recurring? Mr. Jones responded that it could be a very competitive process, but he felt sure that it will continue. The next item discussed was staff development. Mrs. Bynum asked if plans were being implemented for secondary TESA training. Mr. Jones said we would prefer the teachers participate in the training after regular work hours and pay them a stipend. He expressed assurance that we will conclude total staff training in areas mandated by the court order by the time required. Mr. Jones asked that we discuss a problem he has seen in the compensatory education program. He reported that he thinks there is an erosion of the extended day program in some of our elementary schools. He said that we needed to decide if we were going to continue this program as a part of our disparity reduction plan and if so, we had to come up with a definite plan or face continued erosive process in the program. He pointed out two problems with the program: (1) transportation and (2) some principals' attitudes. Ms. Bolling asked if we had shown any improvement in students' test scores? Mr. Jones said we had seen about a three point gain on test scores from the participating students. He said that schools in Oklahoma City had used this program and it had proved to be very effective. Mr. Jones reported that three of our elementary schools are now using the compensatory aides to provide services to at risk students in other ways than the extended day program. Mrs. Bynum responded that if they are operating successfully in some schools, we should have them in all schools. She went on to say that she liked the idea and hoped we would be able to impact the test scores, but also we should be able to see some behavior improvement from these students. Mr. Jones agreed to address this issue with elementary principals. The next item discussed was the positive effect we are seeing in the HIPPY program. We discussed the differences in the extended day program and HIPPY program. It was agreed that the personnel involved and the attitudes displayed make the difference in the programs effectiveness. Mr. Jones announced a pre-school parents' meeting at Central Elementary School scheduled for tonight and encouraged the other administrators to attend. Ms. Bolling brought up a discussion of the district's participation in services offered to students eligible for medicaid assistance for a new dental/vision clinic that has offered its services. Ms. Bolling reported that we were getting some resistance from principals in releasing students for the services. The clinic personnel are responsible to furnish a signed statement from the parents for release of the students. Mr. Jones responded that there was some employee concerns about the clinic's operation being questionable, as to whether it is offering medical treatment or merely providing medicaid screenings. He further stated that the district has approximately 600 students that would be eligible for the services. He also pointed out that the district does some screening and we could possibly bill medicaid for those. All agreed that efforts should be made to help students to be physically fit for learning. Mrs. Bynum reminded the team members to submit quarterly desegregation status update information by October 30, 1992. Respectfully submitted, ~Wo~~ ' NLRSD Dese re ation Team Meetin s Year Dates Attendance (13) Proof Number Percent 2002-03 7 54% Minutes 2001-02 11 85% Minutes 9/11/01 Canceled Notice 4/9/02 Notice 3/02 Canceled Note 2/12/02 Notice 1/02 Canceled Note 12/11/01 Canceled Notice 11/28-29/01 ??????? Notice 11/13101 Notice 2000-01 3/12/01 10 77% Minutes 5/8/01 Canceled 10/10/00 Notice 1999-00 3/14/00 11 85% Minutes 2/8/00 8 62% Minutes 1/11/00 Notice 12/14/99 Canceled Notice 11/9/99 11 85% Minutes 10/12/99 11 85% Minutes 1998-99 10 77% Minutes 9 69% Minutes 11/10/98 10 77% Minutes 1997-98 5/12/98 Canceled Notice 14/14/98 12 92% Roster 3/10/98 Canceled Notice 2/10/98 12 92% Minutes 1/13/98 10 77% Roster and 12/9/97 11 85% Roster and 11/11/97 12 92% Roster and 10/14/97 10 77% Roster f9~9l 4=,~, 1995-96 4 31% Minutes 1994-95 r 1993-94 1992-93 12/14/92 8 62% Minutes NLRSD Desegregation Team Meetings Year Dates Attendance (13) Proof I Number Percent 2002-03 3/18/03 t 7 54% Minutes - 2001-02 ~ 10/9/01 11 85% Minutes 9/11/01 Canceled Notice 4/9/02 Notice 13/02 Canceled Note 12/12/02 Notice -- - 1/02 Canceled -- Note 12/11/01 Canceled Notice 11/28-29/01 ??????? Notice - 11/13/01 Canceled 1 Notice - 2000-01 3/12/01 10 77% Minutes 5/8/01 10/10/00 Notice 1999-00 3/14/00 11 85% Minutes - 2/8/00 8 62% Minutes 1/11/00 Notice 12/14/99 Canceled Notice 11/9/99 11 85% Minutes - -, 10/12/99 11 85% Minutes - 1998-99 2/9/99 10 77% Minutes -, - ~ 12/8/98 9 69% Minutes I- - -11/10/98 - 10 77% Minutes 1997-98 5/12/98 Canceled Notice ~ -, - 4/14/98 12 92% Roster \u0026gt;-- - 3/10/98 Canceled Notice -2/10/98 12 92% Minutes 1/13/98 10 77% Roster and agenda - -12/9/97 11 85% Roster and agenda - - - 11/11197 12 92% Roster and agenda ~ -10/14/97 - 10 77% Roster 1996-97 1995-96 7/13/95 4 31% Minutes - 1994-95 -- - I- 1993-94 c--- 1992-93 12/14/92 8 62% Minutes E SEP 1 9 2003 OFFIOCFE DESEGREGMAOTNIOITNO Rl,IG NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 2700 Poplar Street North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 a The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 1:30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Greg Daniels, Kaye Lowe, Jerry Massey, )viable Mitchell, Danny Reed, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin started the meeting off with appreciation to the Desegregation Team for attending the first meeting of the school year. With everyone covered up in work and showered with things to do, we have not sat down and talked about what's going on with the different departments. Mr. Acklin reported the Biracial Committee resumed meeting, and he shared his appreciation to the Desegregation Team for attending those meetings as well. It helps us keep informed on what each department is doing. Mr. James Smith and Mr. Dana Chadwick may be 15 minutes late to the meeting due to their presence required at the Monitoring Exit Meeting in the District. Mr. Acklin reported monitoring is in progress, as we do every year. Monitoring is designed to help improve the schools. To the best of his knowledge, no one else has monitored and each year it gets a little less and less. Office of Desegregation Monitoring could have been in the first week of school, but he does not recall. That is not to say we are doing everything right, but he thinks someone recognizes that we are trying to do things right. He mentioned that as we work through desegregation, we will never get it perfect because it is based on individuals\nand, individuals are not perfect\nwe will always make mistakes. Our monitoring is to catch those mistakes\nthings we might be doing wrong or could do differently\nmake it better for the students and then we can change it. He hopes that monitoring fits into a part of what the schools are doing rather than something that's viewed with apprehension. The final monitoring reports have been turned in from the schools. These reports will be compiled in booklet form, and you will receive a copy. Mr. Acklin stated he has not had a chance to analyze the discipline to report to the Desegregation Team. Mrs. Jackson is still ill, but she is doing better. He announced Thursday, March 20, 2003, at the School Board Meeting, four students will be recommended for expulsion for drugs\nsmoking marijuana\nsecond offense. There will be two students from the NLRHS-East Campus and two students from the NLRHS-West Campus. Mr. Acklin informed the Desegregation Team that he has started working on student assignments early this year to assure this task is accomplished, and he will make adjustments as he goes. He is in the process of getting the elementary student assignments completed and sent to Computer Services to be entered in the computer, so that printouts could be sent to the schools to check for accuracy. He stated that we have students coming and going from every direction in the District, in which special attention is given. Page 2 Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Mr. Acklin asked Mr. Massey if the capacity of the schools had changed from last year. Mr. Massey explained that nearly every school would change slightly, if the staffing at that school changed. Nothing significant - opts to be less than twenty-change anywhere in the last year. Mr. Acklin stated we would work with him on the capacity of the schools as we move through the assignments. Mr. Acklin announced the Student Handbook Committee would convene in April. As directed by the School Board, the committee will consist of the same number of teachers and Administrators. In addition, parents and high school students will be part of this committee. The Committee will proceed through the handbook to see if there are any changes needed. The School Board wanted this done by a certain time, and we are starting it early to get it done. Mr. Acklin asked if the members had any questions regarding the before mentioned. There was no response from the committee. Mr. Acklin asked if the members had any information that they wanted to share with the committee. Mr. Reed reported Special Education Monitoring would take place the week of May 15, 2003. Regarding Personnel\nMr. Reed reported recruiting efforts are underway, going to colleges and universities\nThursday recruitment will take place at the Chambers of Commerce. One concern Mr. Reed had was the number of college graduates sliming down this year, which would impact recruitment of minority applicants. He reported a number of recruitment activities planned: Grambling State University, Louisiana Tech, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Arkansas Tech and U of A at Fayetteville. Mrs. Lowe reported interviewing twenty-plus applicants for elementary schools. Mrs. Mitchell requested a copy of the minutes so she could share the information with the other members of the School Board. Mr. Acklin explained that everything we do is connected to Desegregation\nsomehow, someway\nand each and every day, he realizes more and more the truth to that statement. \"Doing the right things right\", that is what desegregation is. Mr. Acklin advised that the next meeting will be next month at the same time and hopes Mrs. Jackson will be back to report on the discipline. Mr. Acklin thanked the team members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, .ci,:11~\n1 d 2003 - vrf\\C0F G O, t 'rti:GATAIOO~N l10ffitl NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC1 North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 b 2DOI - Z. The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday October 9, 2001, at 1: 30 p.111.i, n the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Greg Daniels, Fran Jackson, Letitia Martin, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin opened the meeting by introducing Letitia Martin. Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs. New to the table, she was invited to give the Desegregation Team input anytime. Mr. Acklin repo1t the Desegregation Monitoring Team Training has commenced this morning. Only training new monitors, it was an enthusiastic group from across the district. Mr. Acklin shared information to the new monitors to help them in the monitoring process. Mr. Acklin stated that this is the main monitoring becau e it is a self-monitoring and we are not trying to hide anything from ourselves. We are trying to improve upon the areas we are not doing well in, but that is the purpose of self monitoring to find what we are doing well in and build on that and then where we are not doing well we could identify those areas and move forward. Mr. Acklin encouraged the committee not to cover up problems but to note the problem areas and we will try to correct it. The Desegregation Monitoring Team Training make-up session will be this evening from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. for those who could not make this morning's session. Monitoring perimeter dates have been given to the principals\nafter October 15 to a day in January. Any day during that time, they could have the monitoring team come in and monitor. The principals are to notify Mr. Acklin of their monitoring date. Mr. Acklin reported on State Monitoring. He received a letter from Desegregation Monitoring and Accountability Office\nwe are continuing Monitoring, \"we are continuing our meetings\nthat will help the State revamp their monitoring program when they come out to the schools.\" Mr. Acklin will be asking some of the Desegregation Team members to see if the North Lillie Rock School District stands are the same or make changes. We ask the State for help in discipline and staff development. If the State could help us with closing the disparity between black and non-black, we welcome them to come in. Mr. Acklin stated that sometime we close in on orth Little Rock but the problem is not this small it is like this everywhere\nwe may not be doing as bad as we think we are in discipline. Mrs. Jackson reported the Times ewspaper has requested a breakdown of discipline by - reason and actions. In addition, the Times wanted to know about the alternative Minutes, Desegregation Team Meeting Page 2 Tuseday, October 9, 2001 programs. Mrs. Jackson talked with the reporter, Matthew Hodges, about the Shorter Now Program for the 16 and 17 year old youngsters\nThe Adult Program for the 18 year old\nArgenta\nArgenta After School Program\nPulaski Alternative Learning Academy, Step One Program, Water Shed Program, The on-handicap BIA Classroom, and the Incentive Programs in the schools. It has been a concentrated effort to look at the needs of the children and place them in the appropriate placement as we do this then we have a decrease in suspensions. Mrs. Jackson stated that  North Little Rock had fewer suspensions this year than the previous year.  North Little Rock Administrators in the schools are doing a terrific job.  North Little Rock is blessed because we have many alternative programs and we can fit the need of the child with the program.  Overall, the data on discipline is showing an improvement. Mr. Acklin informed the members he had received a Jetter from Mr. John Walker's office asking for statistic information on black males as principals and assistant principals. We did provide that information to his office. We have not heard anything back from them. They requested this information after we hired the principal at Poplar Street Middle School. Mrs. Mitchell added she had received calls regarding this situation as well. She referred the callers to the North Little Rock School District's Personnel Office. Mr. Morris stated he had no one to contact him about this situation. Mr. Acklin believes someone who interviewed for the principal position at Poplar Street Middle School felt he/she should have been hired for the position. There were people who applied who had a higher academic degree but no experience. Mr. Acklin remarked that Mrs. Cooley, from John Walker's Office, requested all of the North Little Rock School District committees that a parent could serve. We listed the about 16 committees that parents could serve on and sent the list to Mrs. Cooley. Mr. Acklin reported that he had a visit from Horace Smith from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring regarding the cost of Spirit Group uniforms. He wants to speak with the secondary principals. Mr. Acklin stated we do not have enough in the Desegregation Office budget to help but we do. There was a discussion around the table regarding budgeting Spirit Group uniforms. Some children cannot do fund raising because they do not have an outlet. (Locations and non-working parents). Mr. Acklin mentioned a concern came to his attention regarding a Social Studies Committee that was one-race. Investigating this concern, we found no committee with just one race. Mr. Acklin asked the members to inform him immediately if the members hear of any one-race committees. We are committed to bi-racial committees. .. Minutes, Desegregation Team Meeting Page 3 Tuseday, October 9, 2001 Mr. Acklin brought to the table a personnel issue that may turn into a lawsuit. A teacher felt they were being treated differently than another teacher, based on their degrees\na degree outside of the educational area. This teacher feels like the other teacher is being paid for their degree and he/she is not. We have thoroughly investigating this and cannot find any records where someone is being paid for a doctrine outside of the educational field and someone is not being paid for a doctrine outside of the educational field. We try to do things fair and we are within policy. We have sent the disgruntled teacher a letter explaining this. Mr. Daniels asked for clarification. There was a discussion with Mr. Chadwick, Mr. Acklin, Mr. Morris and Mrs. MitcheJl with explanation and clarification. Mr. Acklin asked the members if they had anything to share. Mr. Daniels mentioned the school profile information would be provided next week. Mr. Reed informed the members that we have not set the Special Education State Monitoring date. We will have a Special Education advisory meeting in November. Mr. Acklin thanked those in attendance and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ,----/..1.. . ,, . ~I \\ ./  /2--nd~_ f1/l-C//2( ,.{\n,  Sandy Juckett, Secretary Sandy Juckett 10/09/01 09:03 AM To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation Meeting Desegregation meeting today at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room. .N. ., 0 0 U)  0 ' 00 -z 0 ., ... ::r r :::0 0 r,,. .. ..., N I.Jt 0 ' 00 ...... Vl 0 0 0 0 September 28, 2001 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder ... Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, October, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office. Please note the next seven meeting,\n0n vour calendar. November 13, December 11, January 8, February 12, March 12, April 9, May 14, 1 \"-----\n., ~mnlnvPr. www.nlrsd.kl2,ar.us Sandy Juckett 09/28/01 12:59 PM Sandy Juckett North Little Rock School District To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSO@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation Meeting Secretary to the Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Mr. Acklin would like to remind all of you about the upcoming desegregation meeting on October 9, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room. Please note the next seven meetings on your calenciclr. November 13, December 11, January 8, February 12, March 12, April 9, May 14, Sandy Juckett 09/11/01 10:20 AM Sandy Juckett North Little Rock School District Secretary To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation meeting scheduled for today has been canceled. Sandy Juckett 09/07 /01 02:47 PM To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Desegregation Meeting Mr. Acklin would like to remind all of you about the upcoming desegregation meeting on September 11, 2001 at 1 :30 p.m. in the conference room. Please note the next eight meetings on your calendar. October 9, November 13, December 11, January 8, February 12, March 12, April 9, May 14, I I - 04/08/02 05:27 PM  Sandy Juckett To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, mablejbm@sbcglobal.net, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Meeting Just a reminder .... Deseg. mtg.  Tue. April 9 1:30 p.m. cont. rm. Sandy Juckett, Secretary North Little Rock School District 2700 Poplar Street, P.O. Box 687 North Little Rock, AR 72115-0687 501 771-8050 Fax: 501 771-8001 March 2002 meeting cancelled Esther Crawford 02/06/02 01:59 PM To: Sandy Juckett/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Re: Desegregation Meeting Tuesday, February 12, 2002 Sandy, I will be out of town on Tuesday and will not be able to attend the meeting. Sorry.Esther Sandy Juckett Sandy Juckett 02/06/02 12:29 PM Please respond to Sandy Juckett To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, mablejbm@sbcglobal.net, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Desegregation Meeting Tuesday, February 12, 2002 There will be a meeting of all members of the desegregation team on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room. N \"\" 0 0 \"0 en  \"d 0 0::, 0 \u0026gt;\u0026lt; z 0.. ..,. ::r ...., N ,... ..... \\J\\ 0 ' 00 ....,  VI 0 ...., ~ 00 0 0 0 Februruy 6, 2002 Memo To: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs From: f1f'- Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: Desegregation Meeting Just a reminder .. . Desegregation Team will meet on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office  A- ,:\n,,,.,1 n,,nnrtunitv Emolover  www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us January 2002 meeting cancelled Sandy Juckett 12/11/01 11:30 AM To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, mablejbm@sbcglobal.net, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Today's Meeting has been canceled. No Deseg Meeting today. Thank you! N -.J 0 0 \"O 0 \"O (fl 0 t:d 0 X ' 00 -.J '.0., . . :,- 0 -.J N .... .... \"' 0 ' 00 -.J \"' 0 -.J -.J ' 0 0 November 20, 2001 Memo To: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Letitia Martin, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs From: /4 Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: Desegregation Plan On November 28 and 29, Steve Jones will meet with us to discuss the desegregation plan revisions. We will meet in the conference room at 1:30 p.m. on November 28 and at 9:00 a.m. on November 29. Please make every effort to attend.  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us Sandy Juckett 11/13/01 09:21 AM To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, Darlene Holmes/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Daniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Letitia Martin/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Just a reminder to let you know the Deseg meeting is today at 1 :30 p.m. in the conference room. Sandy Juckett 05/08/01 09:03 AM Sandy Juckett To: Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Oaniels/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim OyeriNLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSD@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: North Little Rock School District Secretary to the Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation DESEG MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED FOR TODAY. THANK YOU! Greg Daniels 03/13/01 12:31 PM To: Sandy Juckett/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, James Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD Subject: Deseg Sandy, We have a Intranet training scheduled from 1 - 2 pm for elementary secretaries. I will be unable to attend the Deseg meeting. Thanks, Greg Daniels Director-Computer Services Greg.Daniels@mail.nlrsd.kl2.ar.us 501.771.8025 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 c The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday March 12, 2001, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Jim Dyer, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Absent members are Greg Daniels, Esther Crawford, and Fran Jackson Mr. Acklin opened the meeting reminding the members the purpose of the Desegregation Team meetings\nfirst that we said we would have meetings and we are still under a desegregation court order. Mr. Acklin mentioned that Little Rock School District was getting ready to go back in to court to ask for unitary status, which will affect us eventually, depending on what the agreement will be as it relates to Magnet Schools and M to M transfers\nweather or not the State will continue to pay. Mr. Acklin reported that the Desegregation Monitoring is complete. We will get a copy to you shortly and we will go over the Monitoring Report at the next Biracial Committee meeting. There are some things we know we need some improvement. Some are minor things. Mr. Acklin reported that the Desegregation Office is working on the Civil Rights Report. It's a Federal report we get periodically from Washington. It is a long drawn-out extensive report and we have that completed. We did have to ask for a ten-day extension. Mr. Acklin thanked Mr. Chadwick, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Morris and others who helped gather the information needed. Mr. Acklin reported that our quarterly reports are doing well. Last years is due now and this is the last call we are going to bind what we have and give it to Steve Jones for him to review it and see what is missing, see what we need to included, move around, or make changes. Mr. Jones will mark it up\ngive it back to us\nwe make the corrections\nwe make fresh copies\ngive Mr. Jones ten copies bound\nand Mr. Jones will furnish the different parties a copy. Mr. Morris elaborated on minority teacher recruitment. We actively recruit at Philander Smith, UAPB, Grambling, Jackson State, and Southern. Mr. Morris reminded the committee members that we still have a desegregation plan in effect\nthere has been no changes in recruitment retention, hiring. Mr. Morris mentioned he would like to send a letter out to the principals reminding them that this is still part of our plan and that we have responsibility for that. Mr. Acklin stated that we try to document everything we do in recruitment. Even the number of jobs offered but turned down. Minutes, Desegregation Team Meeting Page 2 March 12, 2001 Mr. Acklin asked the members if they had anything they wanted to share with the committee. Mr. Reed mentioned that the Special Education Annual Monitoring was during the last part of January and we have not gotten the report back yet. As a matter of fact they still have Argenta Academy to do. One piece of information from the Magnet Review Committee was the County School District informed us at the last meeting, Carl Brown and Jim Johnson that they were probably going to change the magnet selection process to lottery. Mr. Chadwick reported we will have, on this board agenda for Thursday night, recommendations for summer school and that includes the summer school for eighth graders and tuition assistance for high school summer school. Last year we help eighty students with partial tuitions, using free and reduce lunches to qualify. Ms. Mitchell reported on Act 326 of 1997. This is teaching Black History all year. Mr. Acklin read a letter from a parent, Victoria Hester. Mrs. Hester would like to compliment Mr. Warren for the outstanding job he does, she stated that Mr. Warren takes care of business in a professional manner with immediate results. She was very happy with the way he handled her problem. Mr. Acklin went on to say that, Mr. Warren works in Transportation and he works on concerns from parents and touches a lot of different people in all areas of town. When we receive input back from parents like this, it helps the North Little Rock School District to keep a good name. Mr. Acklin thanked those in attendance and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, y -~~~Iv I -,\n/~..,\nPf f . Sandy Juckett, Secretary N (0)J fiTl.J BII LITTTJLJIEB (O)mCC\n:J FUiffIiL ICI C CCI8 I(D )(OI)L  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET March 9, 2001 Memo To: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist . Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs - Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services ,.James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs From:,4\u0026amp;, Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Subject: Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder ... Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, March 13, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Sandy Juckett To: Bobby Acklin/NLRSD@NLRSD, Dana Chadwick/NLRSD@NLRSD, Francical J Jackson/NLRSO@NLRSD, Esther Crawford/NLRSD@NLRSD, Greg Oaniels/NLRSO@NLRSD, Jim Dyer/NLRSD@NLRSD, Shara Brazear/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jerry Massey/NLRSD@NLRSD, Jim Morris/NLRSO@NLRSD, James. Smith/NLRSD@NLRSD, Donald Watkins/NLRSO@NLRSD, Danny Reed/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: North Little Rock School District Secretary to the Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Desegregation Meeting, Tuesday, March 13 in the conference room at 1 :30p.m. NCO)~'F IBIJ LJ'IIr 'JrJLJEIff iC O\u0026lt;) Cill : 1P1LJJIBLI I3\u0026lt; C l CCJB (IQ )C OJL) l ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET October 6, 2000 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder  Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, October 10, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference roon: of the Administration Office. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. UOX 687. NORTH Ll'TVJ'LR ROf:K AR 7?11 r--mi:\ns:n i\nr11177 1 QAr,fl Sandy: Shara Brazear 10/06/00 12:56 PM To: Sandy Juckett/NLRSD@NLRSD cc: Subject: Re: Tf haamn kusn!a ble to attend the meeting as I will be on vacation that day. Shara W( DI)B T IBII LTITTILJEIB (D)CI[ CI P11JIB3CILCT CI CI8 I(Q )C OI)L  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET July 15, 2000 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From: Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORING District Biracial Committee The North Little Rock School District's District-wide Biracial Committee met during this quarter to analyze data and discuss matters related to District programs. (See Attachment X-Al and X-A2.) District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team did not convene during the fourth quarter. School Monitoring School monitorinS?w\nas completed according to the published schedule. Principals were advised cf their ccn11.I111tteers1 nc.1ngs, urenso f conce1.i.iS and suggestions for improvement. Principals were asked to prepare written responses to findings with specific reference to areas of concern. The District's Desegregation Team, the Biracial Committee and member of the North Little Rock School Board of Education (See Attachment X-B) have reviewed schoolmonitoring information. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITILE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team AT'rACHMENTX -B2 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, March 14, 2000, at I :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Jim Dyer, Francical Jackson, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Bobby Acklin opened the meeting by announcing three expulsions coming up, one from Belwood Elementary, a male student had a pellet gun and two students from West Campus involved in drug infraction. One was selling and one was buying. Bobby Acklin reported on the Unifonn Committee meeting held on March 13. There was a good turn out with students and adults. There was a long discussion and the majority of the group requested more information. The next Uniform Committee meeting will be April 17. A lengthy discussion on school uniforms followed. Bobby Acklin thanked the team members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, 0~ Slli1d. . ,..\n'.!.~ . -!\\.\\,,!.'.~ ~\"'~ J.. ... !.dfY NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOi, DlSTRfCT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, February 8, 2000, al I :30 p.m., in the Conference Room oflhe Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Dana Chadwick, Greg Daniels, Jim Dyer, francical Jackson. Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, and Donald Watkins. Bobby Acklin opened the meeting by giving an update report on school monitoring. Bobby Acklin informed the Desegregation Team of the new Onifoml Committee. Seventy-nine le11erst o parents and students will go out today requesting they altend a meeting on March 13 lo discuss the possibility of school unifonns. Mable Mitchell asked how were the students and parents selected. Dana Chadwick responded that the secondary principals were asked to give names of two parents and two students, one black and one non-blac\", from each grade level (6-12). The elementary principals were asked to give names of two parents, one black and one non-black, from each grade level (K-5). Every school will have representation. Bobby Acklin asked Fran Jackson lo speak to the Desegregation Team on the new Truancy Law and how the Biracial Committee will satisfy that law. rrnn Jackson handed out a list of the students sited for truancy during the first semester. She slated that each parent/student handbook addressed truancy. She proceeded with a detailed description of the process followed when a violation of the truancy law has been made. Fran Jackson stated that a new law had been implemented that every school district should organize a Community Truancy Board with a new committee or an existing committee with the approval of tha1 committee. The Community Truancy Board concept was presented to the Birncial Com mince and they have agreed to serve as the Community Truancy B011rd. The primary function of the Community Truancy Board is to recommend method:..::.  school a1tendancc. Jim Morris reported on teacher recruitment. Mnble Mitchell remarkedo n Charter chools and asked for feedback from the Desegregation fcam when that moment arises for North Little Rock Schools. Mr. Acklin thanked the tenm members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, (fi,J~ (J.~Jr  Sandy Juc~tt, Secretary N (0)J ET IEI ILITTTILJEJ E(Q)(Cil l: IPTIJiIfLfiI T(C CClB IC IT(D\u0026gt; )I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 14, 2000 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From~ Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORING District Biracial Committee The North Little Rock School District's Biracial Committee convened monthly during the second quarter. The following officers were elected for 1999 - 2000\nVickie Hendrix, President\nAutreana Battles, Vice President\nand Sue Brummett, Secretary. (See Attachments X-Al, X-A2, and X-A3.) District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team convened twice during the second quarter to analyze information, discuss policies, procedures, activities and programs related to quality desegregated education. Due to other school functions and c-' responsihilitiPs conflictine with the scheduled meeting the December Desegregation Team meeting was canceled. (See Attachments X-Bl, X-B2, X-B3.) School Monitoring Biracial School Monitoring Teams have been named for 1999 - 2000 school year. (See Attachment X-C.) A.~ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LIITLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 N -.J 0 0 \"C 0 '0 -., ... ... .,... .,.. . \"C 0 1:11 0 ~ ' 00 -.J 0 ...... :,- ...... -.J N .... .... Vl 0 ' 00 -.J  Vl 0 -.J -.J 0 0 January 6, 2000 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jirn Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder . .. Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, January 11, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office .  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us Due to other school functions and responsibilities conflicting with the scheduled meeting the Desegregation Team meeting was canceled today, December 14, 1999. 1. Welcome Desegregation Committee Meeting Agenda Items Nov-99 2. First Quarter Status Reports were due October 15 Thank you to: Shara Brazear and Jerry Massey Still waiting on a few - you know who you are ... 3. Mr. Chadwick - \"The Times\" report on Benchmark Scores 4. Mrs. Jackson - Discipline Report 5. Mr. Smith - update \"Uniform Committee\" 6. Next meeting December 14 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, November 9, 1999, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Greg Daniels, Francical J. Jackson, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin remarked how astonishing it is that Monitoring Training and the funeral of Daisy Bates fell on the same day. Mr. Acklin reported Monitoring Training started today with a good turn out, lively and positive group. He reflects that desegregation does not have the negative condemnation that it once had. Monitoring is for two purposes, one to celebrate the good things we are doing and, second, to improve on the negative. Monitoring in the schools will begin now until January 15, 2000. The monitoring report will be available after compiling the Final Reports. Mr. Acklin reported the Biracial Committee has resumed meeting once a month. At the last meeting there was a tremendous tum out and participation. Seeking suggestions for programs to discuss from month to month at the Biracial meetings, Mr. Acklin made an open invitation. Mr. Morris will be asked to speak on personnel recruitment and perhaps Mr. Daniels could talk about the new web site. Mr. Acklin asked if the members had anything to share. Mr. Massey stated next month the revised Building Capacity Report will be ready. Mr. Daniels mentioned the school profile information went out to the schools last week. 1 \"- r--.,.,::d- informed the members a group had been established to study Understanding Poverty Issues. Mr. Morris spoke on recruiting efforts. The state required recruiting plan has been completed. He stated Friday, November 5, recruiters visited Grambling University and brought back more contacts, then ever before. If adding teachers and building administrators in the recruiting efforts will get more contacts than that is what we want to do. We will continue to identify minority teacher candidates before we go out and make contact at the career fairs. Confident this year with documentation, we will be able to answer questions for ODM. Mrs. Jackson reported due to space at the NLRHS-East Campus, a closure to special education students has been implemented. Mrs. Jackson will contact Mr. Reed before the second semester for any changes. In the way of discipline, Mrs. Jackson reported, there had been no expulsions this year. There is an expulsion recommendation on the table. A black female from Poplar Street Middle School ' \" had a knife at the bus stop. Depending on the pending information, we will send this child to Water Shed. In the Other Placements category, she gave the following information: Black Black White White Proeram Male Female Male Female Total Step One Program 4 1 5 Intervention Step One 0 0 0 0 0 Water Shed 1 1 2 Suspensions for the month of October 1999 is 474, including SAC and Home Suspensions, Boys and Girls Club, and K-6 Suspensions. Last year, October 1998 totaled 582. We had 1,878 referrals out of 1,535 students for the month of October 1999. The major reasons for referrals are 1) disruption, 2) excessive tardiness, 3) disregard for direction of teacher/administrator, and 4) physical abuse of students. We are still experiencing more discipline behavior problems from black children. The percentage of total black referrals is 79.12% and 78.17% students\nnon-black referrals are 20.87% and 21.82% students. The desegregation plan asks to compare to see if we are consistent with consequences and referrals between black and non-black students and we are. In the category Action Taken, from most to fewer\nDetention Hall, SAC, Saturday School, Conferences with Students. Comparing black and non-black, is consistent. Mrs. Jackson reports, she looks for repeat offenders when she reviews the discipline information\nif so, how many suspension days and reason. She visits with the building administrator and decides what program would be best suited for each student. She makes use of all facets to help the children before they need to go before the board. She reports building principals have been doing a good job in looking at students and working with assistants and counselors. Mrs. Jackson briefly explained the procedures for the Water Shed Program and the Step One Program.  '1 .,h reports this year is one of the smoothest we had, and he feels good about what L going on in the buildings. He hopes we can keep it this way. He commented on improvements at Boone Park Elementary School. Ms. Crawford explained the model program at Boone Park. There are six programs like this in the state. To improve reading scores, particularly first grade, one of our first grade teachers went through intensive training this summer, and she now serves as a resource person in that building to help implement the ideal first grade classroom. In January, we will set up another first grade classroom. It is expensive but well worth it. Mr. Acklin thanked the team members for their participation and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ~i:\n:j~ N (0)~ TIBII LTITTILJE~ CO\u0026gt;~CC J PllJiffiILCTCI CCI8 I(Q )(QI)L  ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET October 15, 1999 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From~Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORING District Biracial Committee The Biracial Committee did not convene during the first quarter. District Desegregation Team The Desegregation Team did not convene during the first quarter. Sc/zoo[ Monitoring A window of time has been established in which the schools may monitor. The established window of time is November 1, 1999 through January 15, 2000. Iv~v.w.L. 6 .... \u0026amp;lug will be conducted on November 9, from 8:30 a.m. until i l :30 a.m. with an evening session on the same day from 5:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. This training will be for the monitors who have never gone through the training before. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LITILE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 ~~e,veo SEP 1 9 2003 omcoEF eoESEGREGAMTIOONNl 10R\\KG NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRI\u0026lt; North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Attachment 1 d The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, October 12, 1999, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Jim Dyer, Greg Daniels, Francical J. Jackson, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Welcoming the committee, Mr. Acklin recommended addressing issues as they arise could help move the meetings along. Mr. Acklin reported receiving a few telephone calls from Seventh Street Elementary parents concerned with one-race classes. He stated that once he has the One-Race Reports from the Principals he would have answers for these parents. He noted when mandatory student assignment was in place, Seventh Street Elementary was racially balanced. He also stated racial interaction among the children does occur between classrooms, field trips, and school assemblies. We look at the whole situation and not just at statistics, but what is best for the children. The next item Mr. Acklin discussed was to direct back to quarterly Status Reports instead of yearly. Mr. Smith mentioned the fact that the Desegregation Plan was outdated and changes have occurred as well as directives from the State Department. Mr. Acklin strongly emphasized the importance of reporting the factual items listed in the Desegregation Plan. Mr. Chadwick informed the members he had received the Eighth Grade Benchmark scores. Mr. Dyer added that the pilot testing was performed in February 1999. Mr. Chadwick reported unfortunate results at Lakewood, Ridgeroad and Rose City Middle Schools, with less than proficient level scores from black students. Mr. Chadwick stated \"The Times\" might release an article on these scores on Thursday, October 14. Mrs. Jackson reported no expulsions for this school year. She spoke on addressing potential problems before they get to the expulsion point by changing student placement, encouraging principals to look at alternative schools, and parent conferences. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Acklin to check with Al McClendon at the Boys Club concerning a request for a school bus to take students from Boone Park Elementary School to the Boys Club in the afternoons for tutoring. Mr. Dyer gave a brief report on the Penn State Project. He stated the project had been completed last year but with carry-over money, he was concluding an evaluation follow-up with student and teacher surveys. The Penn State Project started approximately four or five years ago and currently the North Little Rock School District has approximately sixty-five students throughout the Elementary schools who participate in this project, (with the majority at Boone Park Elementary). Ms Crawford added, the Penn State Project started at Boone Park Elementary and Central Elementary. When Central Elementary closed, those students were disbursed to other schools. Mr. Smith relayed positive responses from staff members at Boone Park Elementary and Seventh Street Elementary pertaining to the reduction of class size. Mr. Smith noted the reduction of class size is certainly part of the desegregation effort. Mr. Daniels stated the whole atmosphere at Boone Park is different from a year ago. Ms Crawford explained, Mavis Cherry, Principal of Boone Park Elementary, hired excellent teachers, a literacy coach and a parent coordinator\nsmaller class sizes and purchased new materials, contributed to the improvements. The classes in kindergarten and first grade are making so much progress due to the smaller class size and the teachers are teaching well. Mr. Acklin mentioned the Biracial Committee meetings have begun and by next month all vacancies should be filled. He stated it was suggested Ann Kincl give a presentation on the Gifted Program. At the next Biracial Meeting we may need to reorganize, have introductions to the new members, discuss objectives and the developmental aspects for the Biracial Committee. Mr. Smith announced a need for a committee to study school uniforms this year. This committee will consist of two parents from each school, (black and non-black), a school representative, and students at the secondary level. He asked Mr. Chadwick and Ms Crawford to get with the principals and secure parents for this committee. Mr. Smith suggested the principal could be the school representative. The procedure will be to make a recommendation to the School Board and if the School Board says no then it will go on the school election ballet next year. Mrs. Brazear mentioned it could be difficult getting uniforms for all the students in the District. Mr. Smith mentioned the committee would only need to meet a few times. Ms. Crawford mentioned the cost issue. So many of our children are on the Free or Reduced Lunch Program. Mr. Acklin requested to remind principals, as they develop committees, that the District is biracial and try to include what we have in our district to obtain opportunities for imput. Mrs. Brazear mentioned a concern she had for the twenty non-black nominees on file for the Superintendent's Honor Roll. Mr. Smith said to go outside the staff and look in the community. Mr. Smith briefly mentioned a concern with the teacher shortage issue. Mr. Morris said the number of applicants this year is down over a hundred from what it was five years ago. Mr. Smith noted the District's application would be placed on the District's website for availability. Mr. Smith commented on the District's new Web Master, Doye Wasson. He said she has made a lot of progress with the District's new website, and she will welcome any information you would like to share concerning your department. Mr. Daniels reported he would release the October 1 count when it has been sent to the State Department. Mr. Acklin thanked those in attendance and adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, ~~9~ Sandy Jucketr, Secretary NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Meeting on February 9, 1999 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, February 9, 1999, at 1 :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Dana Chadwick, Esther Crawford, Jim Dyer, Francical J. Jackson, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Bobby Acklin opened the meeting by asking Fran Jackson to give the discipline report. Fran Jackson, Discipline Report for January, 1999 REFERRALS Black males: 811 referrals - 672 students, (139 repeat offenders) Black females: 385 referrals - 339 students, (46 repeat offenders) White males: (23 repeat offenders) White females: (9 repeat offenders) Total number of referrals: 1,517 REASONS Black and White males: 1 )Disruption, 2)Disregard for directions, 3)Physical/threatening abuse Black and White females: 1 )Disruption, 2)Tardiness, 3)Physical/threatening abuse ACTION TAKEN Black males: 1 )Detention hall 2)Others 3)SAC 4)Saturday School White males: 1 )Detention hall 2)Saturday School 3)Others 4)SAC Black females: 1 )Detention hall 2)Saturday School 3)Others 4)SAC White females: 1 )Detention hall 2)SAC 3)Others 4)Saturday School West Campus, East Campus, and the Middle Schools are giving out approximately the same number of suspension days. Boys Club, for the most part, is giving out 3 - 5 and 10-day suspensions. HOME SUSPENSIONS: Three at East Campus\n22 at Argenta\n1 at Ridgeroad\n5 at Amboy\n2 at Boone Park\n5 at Seventh Street, 5 at Lynch Drive, 3 at Meadow Park, 7 at North Heights, 8 at Park Hill. Total of 59 suspensions. Keep in mind, some of those schools have self-contained classes and the next step is Home Suspension. If you have a self-contained BA class you look for the number to be higher than other schools where there is not a self-contained BA class, because the next step, when that child is out of control is to send him home. The first thing suggested is a Cool Off Day. If the child is totally out of control, rather than suspending him that first day, and you have had the conference with the parent, a Cool Down Day would be implemented. Start off fresh the next day this shows the parents we are trying to work with them. When SAC is full a home SAC is given. This is not coded in our discipline referrals. Comments received from staff members concerning students sent back to their regular campus from Argenta initiated my memo. On that memo I asked if they would contact me if they were having problems. First of all, work with Nancy and if they were still having problems talk with me so that we could reassign those students back to Argenta. I have spoken with Nancy about leaving a cushion space so those students could go back to Argenta. EXPULSIONS The number of expulsions this year has been down. We have 3 (black males) coming up for this school board meeting. A student at Argenta had drugs for the second time, a student at the East Campus struck at a couple of campus supervisors, and a student at Ridgeroad was in possession of a gun. All three sets of parents are aware we are taking their children before the board. A request from John Walker's office for discipline records for all students in secondary schools for the past two years with the exception of the West Campus. A copy of our yearly discipline report for the last two years should suffice. Mr. Acklin read part ofa letter dated January 22, 1999 addressed to Mr. Smith from John Walker. \"You will recall in a letter to you dated September 30 that I raised the issue rather the District was acting in good faith with respect to its recruitment placement in hiring African American teachers. As I write this letter my concern remains. I now advise that the district was presented with another opportunity to hire a full time, certified, and qualified African American teacher at the second grade level at North Heights Elementary School. Regrettably the district chose to hire a white non-certified long-term substitute. Mrs. Kristine Gatewood applied for this position and was given an interview however, she did not receive notice from central office personnel that she was not selected for the position. In order that I may be assured I do not have incorrect information would you please provide the following:  Applications that qualified for that level  Race and Gender  District Personnel policy that outlines the hiring process  Who was interviewed  Who did Ms. Snowden interviewed and resume'  Copies of the applicants' sore sheets, including objective criteria used by the hiring officials for scoring\" Another letter dated January 28, 1999 from John Walker's office stated they received word that we don't have any minority teachers at Amboy nor Crestwood. \"Would you please advise if this information is correct.\" Mr. Acklin stated we have a minority teacher at Crestwood and at Amboy we have a minority administrator but no minority teacher presently. Mr. Acklin asked for comments or questions around the table. There were none. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, 6~ -C:hotce \\ -~-- ~ _/- .,-_. -,\u0026gt;:-\n_ :,\n~:  -_-__~_- ':- \"-:( , ..J rilr_~.-.~ ,-.,) N -..J 0 0 0 '0 -., \"..'. .., /1) /1)  0 t,:l 0 X ex', -..J 0 .., ... ::,\" t\"\"' ... /1) ::0 0 n :,\n- -..J N .... .... \\Jl 0 ex', -..J  \\Jl 0 -..J -..J -0 0 0 February 3, 1999 Memo To: From: Subject: Shara Brazear, Communication Specialist Dana Chadwick, Administrative Director of Secondary Education Esther Crawford, Administrative Director of Elementary Education Greg Daniels, Director of Computer Services Jim Dyer, Director of Federal Programs Francical Jackson, Director of Student Affairs Jerry Massey, Director of Plant Services Mable Mitchell, School Board Member Jim Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Personnel Danny Reed, Director of Special Services James Smith, Superintendent of Schools Donald Watkins, Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Team Meeting Just a reminder .. . Desegregation Team Meeting, Tuesday, February 9, at 1:30 p.m. in the conference room of the Administration Office.  An Equal Opportunity Employer www.nlrsd.k12.ar.us I  283 NCOIB) ~/IrIIBLII TTTILJE~@ CC~ JPTIJIB3CILCI T C ClB CI O(Q))I L ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 2700 POPLAR STREET January 15, 1999 Memo To: James R. Smith, Superintendent From: Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent of Desegregation Subject: Status Report on Desegregation Plan Provisions SECTION X-MONITORJNG District Biracial Committee The North Little Rock School District's Biracial Committee convened monthly during the second quarter. The following officers were elected for 1998-1999\nVickie Hendrix, President\nJimmy Maxwell, Vice President\nand Sandy Pryor, Secretary. (See Attachments X-Al, X-A2, X-A3 and X-A4.) The committee has identified targeted items to work on during this school year. Items are as follows: (I) Conflict Resolution (2) Poplar Street Middle School Update (3) Overall Elementary Changes (4) Pal Program (5) Argenta Academy Update ( 6) PT A African American Recruitment (7) Parent/Community Component District Desegregation Team The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team convene monthly during the second quarter to analyze information, discuss policies, procedures, activities and ( programs related to quality desegregated education. (See Attachments X-Bl and X-B2.) School Monitoring Biracial School Monitoring Teams have been named for 1998-99 school year. Training sessions and site visits have been scheduled for December and January. (See Attachment X-C.) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER P. 0. BOX 687, NORTH LI'ITLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000 283 1998-99 Desegregation Team Meetings November JO, 1998 1:30 p.m. Conference Room December 8, I 998 1:30 o.m. Conference Room January 12, 1999 1:30 p.m. Conference Room Februarv 9, 1999 1:30 p.m. Conference Room March 9, 1999 1:30 o.m. Conference Room April 13, 1999 1:30 o.m. Conference Room May 11, 1999 l:30p.m. Conference Room June 8, 1999 1:30 p.m. Conference Room NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas Minutes of the District Desegregation Team Meeting on December 8, 1998 The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at I :30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Jim Dyer, Jerry Massey, Mable Mitchell, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Mr. Acklin gave the desegregation team an update on North Little Rock School Monitoring. Not all the schools have turned in their monitoring date. Crestwood, Pike View, North Heights, have completed their monitoring and the East Campus is monitoring today. Monitoring is going well and special attention is focused on committee concerns. A brief report was given at the last Biracial Committee Meeting of the monitoring process. Each monitoring report and principal's response will be complied into booklets and distributed to the Biracial Committee, School Board, Attorney John Walker, and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. January 15 is the final monitoring date. The State Department has asked the courts to postpone their monitoring in February to acquire information from the three districts that would aid the State in compiling pertinent information to benefit the three districts in their monitoring process. So far the three districts have identified five areas: academic disparity, budget, discipline disparity, staff development, and minority staff recruitment. The three districts agreed with the State in obliterating the \"Allen Letter\" and start over with the monitoring plan. Attorney John Walker has filed an objection with the courts for the State to postpone monitoring. In his deposition he indicated the State had not used the time they had wisely in working toward making the changes and the Joshua Intervenors were not involved in the process. We will be meeting again with the State on December 16. Dana Chadwick and Esther Crawford have been involved discussing Smart Start. Donald Watkins will be meeting on the 16th as it relates to budget and next month Jim Morris will be ready to discuss staff recruitment. Mr. Acklin gave the team an update of the last Biracial Committee Meeting. A parent on the Biracial Committee gave a presentation on parent involve ::!.!   '  and focusing on minority parents. It was a program she had been involved with in Rockford, Illinois. She made a good presentation and offered excellent information to take advisement on. The next Biracial Committee Meeting will be a presentation on our alternative school, Argenta Academy. Danny Reed mentioned the Special Education Advisory committee meeting December 10, 1998, Thursday at 5:00 p.m. Jim Morris mentioned the successful UAPB recruitment trip last week. Bobby Acklin dismissed the meeting. Respectfully submitted, SAK. Juckett(l _ /~/- /I c.9(~ -Eut/4 i!Jyodc EfPokd fl)~ a~cg~ Agenda December I, 1998 Opening/Welcome: Vickie Hendrix, President New Member: Vickie Hendrix, President Grace Guajardo School Monitoring: Bobby J. Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Special Speaker: Linda Morgan, Parent \"Parent Involvement\" Agenda Items for Tuesday, January 5, 1999: Vickie Hendrix, President Adjournment: Vickie Hendrix, President SEP 1 9 2003 NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT North Little Rock, Arkansas DESEGORFEFGIMCAOETNOIOIFT NO MR\"mI NutGes o f t he D1. stnc t De segregat10 n Te arn Meeting on November 10, 1998 Attachment 1 e The North Little Rock School District Desegregation Team met on Tuesday, November 10, 1998, at 1:30 p.m., in the Conference Room of the Administration Building. The following members were present: Bobby Acklin, Shara Brazear, Greg Daniels, Jim Dyer, Fran Jackson, Jerry Massey, Jim Morris, Danny Reed, James Smith, and Donald Watkins. Sandra Juckett recorded the meeting. Esther Crawford and Dana Chadwick were at the Smart Start meeting .. Mr. Acklin opened the first Desegregation Team meeting of the 1998-99 school year by asking Fran Jackson to report district discipline with bottom line figures. He also asked her to report on current issues regarding discipline. Fran Jackson reported from August 1998 through October 1998 a total of 2,193 referrals\nhowever, this reflects a number of students as repeat offenders. The number of referrals is up slightly from last year, but down on black referrals by 2.22%. Disruption is the major reason for referrals followed by excessive tardiness, disregard for direction, and threatening physical abuse. D-Hall is the major action taken on referrals followed by SAC, Saturday School, Conference with Student, and Conference with Student and Parent. Fran Jackson will furnish copies of the Disciplinary Report'to those who so desire. Suspensions are down by fourteen with a total of 542. Major Action taken on suspensions is SAC followed by home suspensions. Fran Jackson explained the different programs available for North Little Rock School District students such as, Argenta Academy, Our Program, Step One Program, Youth Challenge Program, C-Step, and the WaterShed Program. Fran Jackson praised the prosecutor for his stand on truancy. Bobby Acklin discussed a meeting, pertaining to discipline, that Margaret Powell invited him to, along with representatives from the Boys Club, YMCA, Parks and Recreation, CStep Program, Youth Challenge, Fortune 5\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":711,"next_page":712,"prev_page":710,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":8520,"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}}]}}