{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_410","title":"Desegregation plan audit","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":["1991/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation plan audit"],"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/410"],"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\nArkansas Democrat (gazette Judge reassigns desegregation duties U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright issued an order Friday allowing the Little Rock- School District to eliminate the position of desegregation facilitator and assign the duties of that position to others. The order also created a new position, director of student as- signment. Wrights order assigns most of the responsibilities of the facilitator to the associate su- perintendent for desegregation. The judge stressed that the\nduties assigned to the facilitator are very important to achieving desegregation goals and must not be neglected. None of the parties in the desegregation case objected to the school districts proposal.New desegregation plaSludJiTfied ! 1 Judge called earlier version sketchy, wrong and hard to read BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District on Monday filed a revised desegregation plan audit that attempts to correct deficiencies U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright cited in the first version. some Wright said last month that the districts initial audit  a listing of all the districts desegregation obligations based on desegregation plans and past court orders  was glaringly incomplete, inaccurate and far from user-friendly. The document omitted some obligations and did not include an organizational chart of the districts administration, the judge said. She also said the document was difficult to decipher because it contained no cover or title page, no table of contents, no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, and no other signposts to guide her or any other reader through the more than 206 pages. District officials need the audit system to determine what tasks they need to complete and to serve as a basis for budgeting, Wright said. The revised audit  submitted on the day the judge made the deadline for doing so does have a table of contents, an introduction, and an organizational chart. It also includes a listing of obligations, not only from the districts desegregation plan but also from the interdistrict plan and court -- ---------- xxviii3 i . t.iiuaiiis. ! Tho Acting Associate Superin- i introduction to the re- tendent for Programs and Cur- officials riculum Development Dennis audit Glasgow, the three assistant su- matter to eliminate duplication. The audit is organized like this: The page number of the desegregation plan or court order is listed and then all the obligations listed on that page follow. For example, the audit says language on page 148 of the de- or- segregation plan obligates the district to have a maximum I pupil-to-teacher ratio of 20-to- ! 1 in the districts incentive ele- ! mentary schools. The plan also ! lists what the district must do ' to increase staffing if the ratio ' is exceeded. The audits organizational chart shows that Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for De- segregation Russ Mayo and Sterling Ingram, director of planning, research and evaluation, report directly to Superintendent Henry P. Williams.  f 1 manager for support services 11 report to Matthis. Jeanette Wag- 1 ner, director of communica- ij tions, reports to Mayo. J The district did not have a j deputy superintendent until I Williams recently named ? Matthis to the position.  No court date has been set I for a hearing on the revised au-  dit. I I 1 1 IArkansas Democrar \"^(gazette FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8. 1993 . LRSD document indecipherable, judge says testily . BY CYNTHIA HOWELL\nDemocrat-Gazette Education Writer The federal judge presiding in the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit has once again sharply criticized the Little Rock School District for failing to comply with her directives. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said in a sevenpage order Thursday that a desegregation plan audit submitted to her by the school district Sept. 10 was glaringly incomplete, inaccurate and far from user friendly. She directed the district to correct the deficiencies and submit a completed report by 5 p.m. on Oct. 15. Jerry Malone, an attorney for the district, said Thursday that the district had made a gallant effort to submit the audit to the judge by the Sept. 10 deadline, and it was understandable that changes might be necessary. He had not seen Thursdays order birt said the district would correct the deficiencies listed by the judge. -The districts desegregation plan audit is supposed to list its desegregation obligations, including those contained in the districts court-approved desegregation plan, an interdistrict desegregation plan, past court orders and monitoring reports,\nThe judge found that the document submitted by the district omitted dozens of the desegregation plan requirements and included none of the provisions from the interdistrict plan, .The document also wrongly said that certain desegregation tasks were complete when they are not, she said. Other tasks were listed as one-time projects when they should be recurring. The document does not include the organizational chart she requested, ,'Wright said the districts document was difficult to decipher because it contained no cover or title page, no table of contents. no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, no explanation of the documents format, no clarifying notes, nor any other signpost to guide the court  or any other reader  through the tomes 206 pages in a quest for meaning, The LRSD audit in its present scope and form cannot serve as an adequate foundation for building the districts long-term program and budget planning, Wright wrote, Without a complete and accurate inventory of its legal obligations, the district will not know whether it is doing all that it is required to do, will not be able to determine the extent of implementation, and will not be able to measure its progress toward fulfilling desegregation plan commitments and complying with court orders, And, she said, if the LRSD cant identify what works and what doesnt, it cannot possibly build a case for modifying its de- segregation plan should the district wish to do so. The judge first asked for the audit in February and was told it was under way. She became an- g^ later when she learned that district staff members were not even told to begin the audit until March 22. In a Sept. 8 order, Wright requested the audit to be submitted by Sept. 10. She said if the audit was incomplete, the district should file a plan for completing it. Earlier this year, Wright ordered Little Rock School Board I i members to attend court hear- ! ings because either they did not understand her court orders or they were deliberately ignoring them. She said in June that the district was suffering from repeated and continuous mismanage- \u0026gt; ment. She put the district on notice that its desegregation-related problems could justify the imposition of a receivership.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. No. LRC82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER u 'awe ) :TC?U37 ''AS OCT 7 1595 cahl \u0026gt;' 2^ .TG^CLSRK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On September 8, 1993, the Court issued an Order requiring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide the Court with the completed desegregation plan audit that, according to testimony from LRSD administrators, the district has been working to complete since early 1993. In the alternative, if the audit were still unfinished. the Court required the district to provide information on the audit process that included a list of the complete and incomplete audit steps, the person(s) responsible for each of those steps, a timeline for completing each step, and a firm audit completion and submission date. The LRSD responded by filing, on September 10, 1993, a document referred to in the Notice of Filing as the \"LRSD Desegregation :\np CL! Audit, although the document itself was untitled. The Court has found it difficult to decipher the document because it contains no cover or title page, no table of contents, no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, no explanation of the document's format 3or organization, no key to the item numbering system or its significance, no clarifying text notes. nor any other type of signpost to guide the Court  or any other reader  through the tome's 206 pages in a guest for meaning. The filing appears to be a partial listing of LRSD Desegregation Plan provisions, although the submission lacks any specific document or page references save for occasional \"Comments,\" some of which state \"Taken from Narrative,\" and at least one of which states \"See Court Order,\" although which Court Order is not specified by date or any other identifying reference. The audit, which is to serve as a basis for the district's longterm program and budget planning, was, by Court Order, to comprise a complete inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court directives. Unfortunately, the LRSD Desegregation Audit as submitted is glaringly incomplete. missing literally dozens of provisions from the LRSD Desegregation Plan alone. Some of these omissions are listed by way of example in the attachment to this order. Furthermore, the Court had suggested in a July 8, 1993 hearing that the audit include an organizational chart which reflects accountabilities and designates the administrator responsible for carrying out programs and other aspects of the plan. During the same hearing, the Court also directed the district to include in the audit the requirement for issuing regular quarterly reports to the Court. The next month, during an August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court directed that the audit include the role of the McClellan Community School -2-Advisory Committee in certain budgeting decisions. Yet none of this information is reflected in the audit. Not only are LRSD Desegregation Plan items absent from the audit, but the document appears to contain not a single one of the numerous provisions of the Interdistrict Plan, for which the district is as responsible as it is for the plan which bears its name alone. Moreover, the audit does not include any of the requirements found in Court Orders, nor does it contain any of the recommendations from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) June 1992 Incentive School Monitoring Report, all of which were ordered into law July 10, 1992. Yet, to be a tool useful for facilitating comprehensive planning and budgeting as well as for aiding monitoring and evaluation activities, the audit must contain the provisions of all desegregation plans and relevant court orders for which the district is legally obligated. In addition to being incomplete. the audit also contains numerous inaccuracies. For example. it lists an Incentive-wide Parent Internship Program as having been completed prior to 1992-93. Yet, ODM monitoring has confirmed that this program has never been established. The audit lists brochures for each incentive school as completed in 1992-93, but such brochures are still being developed according to ODM. An ongoing media blitz to heighten public awareness of incentive schools appears in the audit as completed in 1992-93, but hearing discussions and ODM monitoring has revealed that no such blitz has taken place. Page 203 of the document lists, in the Incentive Schools section. an item 2.3 as requiring \"special emphasis on school recruiting minority students, adding a \"Comment -3-that \"no need exists.\" The correct provision that appears in the Incentive School section of the plan is that there is to be emphasis on recruiting minority teachers for which a need most certainly exists. Also, a number of items labled in the audit as \"one-time activities\" are actually recurring in nature, such as certain special education inservices, surveying students as needed to determine vocational education awareness, and incentive school staffing and staff development activities. On the other hand, the audit states that the district has not started some activities in the incentive schools that ODM has determined it has. including mini-workshops. requesting that parents pick up report cards, and recognizing parents and community volunteers. These few examples of audit inaccuracies are far from exhaustive. Furthermore, the format and organization of the audit is far from user-friendly, leaving any reader without guidance as to the purpose of the document, what it is based upon or refers to, the scope of its contents, how it is to be read for understanding and accessed for information, its correlation with planning and budgeting activities. and how it will relate to monitoring and evaluation processes. Any document that is not readily understandable as to either its content or its functional context and purpose will not be readily usable and, therefore. will have little or no operative worth. The LRSD audit in its present scope and form cannot serve as an adequate foundation for building the district's long-term program and budget planning and, ultimately, for shaping its future. Without a -4-complete and accurate inventory of its legal obligations, the district will not know whether it is doing all that it is required to do, will not be able to determine the extent of implementation, and will not be able to measure its progress toward fulfilling desegregation plan commitments and complying with court orders. If it cannot measure progress, the district will be unable to identify what programs or other desegregation activities are working. And if the LRSD can't identify what works and what doesn't. it cannot possibly build a case for modifying its desegregation plan should the district wish to do so. The Court is at a loss to understand why the LRSD has failed to produce a complete, accurate, and understandable audit to serve as a basic tool for the district's own planning use. The Court has not imposed stringent conditions about the audit, dictating neither the inventory process, production timeline. format, nor completion deadline. Instead, the Court left all those decisions up to the LRSD, imposing only the basic requirement that the audit include all desegregation plan and court order requirements. However, the Court had also urged the district to finalize the audit with deliberate speed, and, trusting that LRSD administrators had grasped the crucial nature of the audit with its critical link to budget and program planning, the Court also expected the audit to be accurate. Neither has the Court surprised the district by asking  after the audit process dragged on for months  for the completed audit to be filed. Far from it. In numerous hearing discussions, directives from the bench, and Orders, the Court has repeatedly stressed the -5-importance of the audit. In response, the district has repeatedly told the Court since early in the year that the audit was underway, beginning in February 1993 with testimony from Superintendent Mac Bernd that the audit process had begun. However, in a July 1993 hearing, testimony revealed that the audit actually had not even been commissioned until March 22, 1993, but administrators assured the Court that the process was nonetheless nearing completion. Again, at an August 12, 1993 hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, the LRSD's lead planning specialist and director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that audit completion was imminent and submitted, as Exhibit 162, a Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report. But a finished audit did not subsequently appear, so the Court required in its September 8, 1993 Order that the district file the audit immediately if it were complete, laying out alternative steps in the event the audit still remained incomplete, as the Court has now determined that it is. Because the audit must be inextricably linked to an ongoing cycle of planning, tasking, monitoring, evaluation, and financial appropriation, it must meet reasonable criteria for completeness. accuracy, understandability, and usability. The LRSD Desegregation Audit as submitted on September 10, 1993 is wholly inadequate because it is neither complete, accurate. understandable, nor usable. Therefore, the Court requires the district to correct the deficiencies in the audit that have been discussed in this Order and to submit a complete, accurate. and self-explanatory desegregation -6-.. audit no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 25, 1993. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 ,-X- of October 1993. UNITED SPATES DISTHICT . JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SH^ IN ^OMPLIANCe WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP JN BY -7-.. ATTACHMENT Examples of omissions from the LRSD Desegregation Plan (citing plan section or subsection title and page reference): Commitment to desegregation, pg. 1, lacks Board commitments A through H\nLeadership, pp. 2-3, is missing seven of the commitments listed in that plan section\nSummer Learning Program and ASSET program requirements, pp. 21-22 and 24-25, evaluation\nare bereft of the components that include goals and Multicultural curriculum, pg. 64, is minus the specific ways human relations are to be integrated into the curriculum\nFocused activities, pg. 81, omits the three purposes of these activities\nPrivate school recruitment lacks requirements on pg. 95\ncertain Vocational Education commitments on page 98 and some aspects of special education collaboration, pp. 111-112, are absent\nSome components of the Parent Involvement/Community Linkages section on pp. 131-138 are lacking\nItems from the VIPS timeline. pp. involvement and minority partners do not appear\n134-138, regarding parent Significant portions of the student assignment section, pp. 139- 148, are left out, including school racial balance requirements\nSome provisions under Incentive School Parent Recruitment, pp. 215-223, are not included\nand Educational Equity Monitoring, pg. 226, Desegregation Facilitator position. does not mention the(J c n-'/j?' RECEIVSI5 93 SEP 23 SEP 2 2 IW3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Office Of Desgsregaiion Moniiofing\nEASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION BY--------------- ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF JOSHUA TO THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S NOTICE OF FILING REGARDING THE LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT The Joshua Intervenors submit to the Court that the school district, in submitting its Desegregation Plan Audit, has failed to address the Incentive School benefits which include scholarship commitments and double funding to Incentive School children. Wherefore, Joshua pray that the Court withhold approval of the school district's desegregation audit until after a hearing is held on the issues raised. The Joshua Intervenors also pray for their costs and reasonable counsel fees for having to reply to this filing and to participate in these proceedings. Respectfully submitted. ^hn W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE has been mailed. I hereby certify that a copy of the foreqging qe prepaid to the counsel of on this -- day of September, postage prepaid 1993. Jbhn W. WalkerTHURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9.1993 * Wright wants desegregation audit Judge says delay on list impeding other district operations BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright on Wednesday ordered the Little Rock School District to immediately provide her with a desegregation plan audit listing all desegregation obligations. If the audit is not completed, she said, the district must submit an interim report by Friday afternoon telling what steps are being taken to complete the document, who is taking the steps and what schedule will be followed in finishing the work. Wright said the audit is crucial to the districts efforts to make long-term program and budget plans. She said district officials are taking far too long to conclude the document, which is impeding the progress of other district operations. Wright also pointed out that she first asked about the audit in February and was assured repeatedly throughout the year that its completion was imminent. In a second order Wednesday, Wright said a Little Rock district system of funneling information to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring through the superintendents office was unsatisfactory. The office is an arm of the federal court. The judge said the Little Rock system carries too much potential for delay, inaccuracy and laundering. She also said the district has a history of management bottlenecks, stagnated communication and general tardiness, and she will not allow the district to create one more means of slowing itself down..c ii JLED eas?erVctK ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 08 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER carl r, ^r- I Sf^^NTS, CLERK OEP, PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS During a hearing on July 8, 1993, the Court asked the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide an update on the status of the district's desegregation plan audit. The Court has repeatedly\nrk expressed concern about this audit because of its crucial relationship to the district's planning and budgeting processes. The audit, which is an inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court orders, is to serve as a basis for the district's long-term program and budget planning. It will enable the district to determine not only what it is required to do, but also to ascertain the status of progress toward implementing each requirement. In response to the Court's inquiry at the July hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, Director of the LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that he is in charge of conducting the desegregation audit, a task which was assigned him by the superintendent in March 1993. He stated that he expected the desegregation audit to be ready by August 1993. At the hearing, the Court once again stressed the importance of the audit and expressed a I 6 8concern that it would be as late as August before the audit's completion. The Court directed the LRSD to provide the audit as soon as possible to the Court, the LRSD Board of Directors, and the other parties. The Court also directed Mr. Ingram to meet immediately with the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, Mr. Bill Mooney, to discuss information that would expedite audit completion. Again, at a hearing to consider the LRSD budget on August 12, 1993, the Court inquired about the status of the district's desegregation audit. In response. the district offered a memo (Exhibit 164), dated August 3, 1993, documenting that the meeting with Mr. Mooney had taken place. The LRSD also submitted Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report (Exhibit 162) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors at its regular monthly meeting on July 22, 1993. The progress report indicates that the audit was not yet complete at the time of the board meeting. Mr. Ingram, whom council identified as the district's lead planner. testified that the plan audit was still not complete as of the hearing date, but that he expected to finalize it soon. This important audit process is taking far too long to conclude and is, thereby, impeding the progress of other critical program and budget planning processes. Superintendent Mac Bernd told the Court on February 1, 1993 that the audit was underway, although later evidence revealed that Dr. Bernd did not even commission the audit until March 1993. Now, almost six months later, the audit still is not complete despite assurances from the district in both July and August 1993 that its conclusion was imminent. Even though the Court -2- arecognizes that certain follow-up aspects of the audit will be ongoing, the initial audit must be complete before other aspects of program and budget planning can be developed. During the August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court praised the LRSD for beginning to make planning headway, all the while stressing that the district had only made a beginning and that diligent follow- through and continuous execution would be necessary. The LRSD does not appear to have take that admonition to heart. The Court hereby requires the district to submit immediately the desegregation audit it has promised for so long. If the audit is still incomplete at this time, then by 5:00 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of this Order, the district must file the following: (1) a complete and succinct list of the audit process steps that are complete and those that remain to be completed\n(2) the precise timeline for completing each of those unfinished steps\n(3) the person(s) responsible for each of those steps\nand (4) firm a completion and submission date for the audit. The Court reminds the LRSD that it and the other parties are required to provide simultaneously to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring a copy of any submission to the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of September 1993. ^ITED STATES DISTRICT :t judge rms document entered on docket sheet in COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP -3- CN BYA RECEIVED SEP 1 0 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION r\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAIlT^zfF- - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. directing the On September 8, 1993, this Court entered an order Little Rock School District to submit its desegregation audit to the Court by 5 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of the order. In accordance with those instructions, attached hereto is the Desegregation Plan audit as commissioned by the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District during the 1992-93 school year. In particular, the Director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department of the Little Rock School District was instructed to: In particular. 5tP 10 vs. \"audit\" that indicates . . prepare a report or the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of [the] programs outlined in the [Desegregation] Plan. . . 2. Attached hereto is the LRSD Desegregation Plan audit report dated September 10, 1993. The report includes a narrative providing background information on the audit as well as summary data as revealed by the audit. Thereafter, the audit identifies those programs or activities completed prior to the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities completed during the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities identified as occurring on a one-time basis\nthose programs or activities which are or activities which recurring in nature\nthose programs or activities which are yet to be implemented\nand, those programs or activities which have been deleted. 3. The desegregation audit as presented herewith relates to those programs and activities identified by the court-approved Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan dated April 29,1992, as well as the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992. Although one section of the audit refers to activities which were completed prior to 1992-93 and another section refers to activities completed during 1992-93, the Little Rock School District hastens to point out that many of those programs and activities are recurring in nature. 4. The document as filed herewith constitutes the audit commissioned by the Superintendent. However, the document must still be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, submits this desegregation plan audit. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK Attorneys for the Little Rock School District 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR (501) 376-2011 72205 B- J Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I.D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing notice of filing has been served upon the following persons by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 -2-Mr. Richard Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs, Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 L- m aio^ -3- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT Planning, Research and Evaluation September 10, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT The Desegregation Plan Audit/Review, as approved by the 1992-93 LRSD Superintendent, required two major tasks: (1) collecting and compiling data to determine the degree to which each program of the Desegregation Plan has been implemented\nand (2) developing a format for reporting the data. Although additional tasks were discovered to be necessary during the process, this document serves as the final report for the project as originally designed. During the development of the project, assistance was sought from Bradley Scott of the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas\nThelma Cook, Support Program Manager of the Equity Assistance Center, Arkansas Department of Education\nand Bill Mooney, Budget Specialist, Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Additional resources were provided by Diane Barksdale, currently an assistant principal at Carver Magnet School. An audit as conducted in business and education is based on a set of predetermined standards. The standard for this review is the Desegregation Plan. Therefore, program status was tied to the written requirement of the Plan. A review of the Plan's timelines and narratives for each program was conducted by Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) staff to deteirmine the requirements of the Plan. When reviewingDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 2 the narratives, the staff did not attempt to interpret the intent of the original writers. Rather, an effort was made to identify requirements as literally written. The data gathering forms (Attachment 1) were prepared by the PRE staff to include a list of all identified requirements. Program managers were requested to verify all requirements for assigned areas and to identify the status of each requirement. Many of the items identified as completed recur annually, response choice included: The * * Completed prior to 1992-93 Completed during 1992-93 * One-time activity * Recurring activity * Not started * Deleted (deletion approved by Court) * Addition (addition approved by Court) * Comments Supportive evidence to demonstrate completion of each requirement was to be gathered for possible use at any court hearing, as well as to improve, modify or delete programs. Upon receipt of the data gathering forms, the responses from the program managers were tallied according to the choices (Attachment 2) and revealed the following: response * Eighty-six percent of the reported activities had been completed. * Fourteen percent of the reported activities had not been implemented. * Sixty-seven percent of the reported activities identified as recurring activities. were These programs were * Eleven program managers reported completing all activities. However, as previously stated, many of the reported activities recur annually. These programs were Commitment to Desegregation, Summer Learning Program, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA Program), Program forDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 3 Accelerated Learning/Instructional Technology, Giii.cd , Talented education. Multicultural Curriculum, Parkview Magnet, Vocational Education, Library Media, Special Education and Staff Development. Gifted and In the Interdistrict Plan, managers for Staff Development, Special Education and Vocational Education reported completing all activities. It should be noted that many of the reported activities in the LRSD Plan and the Inter-district Plan each year. occur In addition, Program Managers identified activities for programs specified in the Desegregation Plan that are to be implemented. A list of programs and number of activities is provided (Attachment 3). Since the audit process was based on self-reporting it was necessary to implement means for ensuring a reasonable level of accuracy. Activities were sorted and printed by category in order to provide the information necessary for further review. During the data gathering and review process, some discrepancies were discovered regarding the status of some activities. Accordingly, adjustments were made during the development of the management plans. A complete list of the responses by category is attached. Each program manager was requested to review the sorting and to develop management plans for recurring activities and activities that are to be implemented. The Program Budget Document (Attachment 4) is the format for developing the management plans. What began as an assessment of the Desegregation Plan has evolved into the formation of the ProgramDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 4 Budget Document which includes the means for monitoring, reporting and determining the level of success for each program. In the future, auditing of the Desegregation Plan to detexTnine implementation status or effectiveness can be accomplished through reporting process of the Program Budget Document.LITTLE ROCK CHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DESEGREGATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS PROGRAM MANAGER Act ivities COMPLETED PRIOR TO '92-'93 during '92'93 ONE-TIME activity recurring activity HOT STARTED DELETED ADDED COMMENTS I i J I I I \u0026gt; CU n 3- 3 n\u0026gt; deletion Approved by Court JProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 1 . Commitment to Desegregation * Narrative 1. Leadership Narrative 3 . Early Childhood 33 Special Programs Narra tive Sommer Learning - 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Humber of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started I of 3 Total Humber of Recurring Activitie.s 1 9 107 4 8 1 1 80 3 8 0 8 27 1 0 1 J 7] 3 6 6. J I PA Asset Program * 3 31 31 0 31. I . School. O[)erations 41 90 76 14 7 7 8 . A c a d e m i c S11 [i o r t 1  41 38 3 3 5 9. P.A L/1 n s t r uc t i 0na 1 Technology 5  50 50 0 22 LO. C i f ted/TaJen ted Education * 7 13 13 0 1.2 IJ . Multicultural Curriculum * 17 123 123 0 6G 12. Eocused Activities 1 26 17 9 17 Ol r\u0026gt; rr 3 m : ro 13. Parkview Science Macnet * 5 18 18 0 11 L4 . McClellan Community School Narrative 4 3 1 1 * (.ompleted all objectives as identified in the written planProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 15. Recruitment of Pri- va te School Students'!: Narra tive 16. Federal Programs 1 17. Vocational Education* 11 18. Librafy/Nedia 1 19. Special Education * 13 20. Staff Development * 8 21 . Support Services Narrative 1.1. Parent Involvement/ Community Linkage 3 23. Student Assignment Narrative 24. Facilities Narrat ive 25. Incentive Schools 73 26. Educational Equity Mon 1 tor ing 1 27 . Transportation Narrative 28. Data Processing Narrat ive LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAH Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 2 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Ac tivi ties 8 8 34 34 56 39 2 34 11 8 294 19 23 8 8 7 34 29 56 39 2 28 11 5 240 18 19 8 * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 3 54 ]. 4 0 8 6 24 3 53 35 2 25 4 165 21 14 8 cu o zr 3 m ZJ ro a ro1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. Prograjn Interdistrict Plan Overview S tuden t Choices/Options Summer School Staff Development - School Operations Muit i-Dis tric t Library Media Special Education * Vocational Education* Cuidance and Counseling Parent Involvement/ Community Lin.kages Public Relations TOTAL Total Number of Obj ectives Narrative 11 2 29 5 11 5 Narrative See LRSO Plan Narrative 303 ei\" I i 1' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number . of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 41 4 3 1 54 8 101 10 6 See LRSD Plan : I,.., I : r : 4 6 1421 I I,,, 29 33 1 17 7 101 10 4 See LRSD Plan T : I-' 41 1217 12 10 0 37 1 0 0 1 See LRSD Plan 5 204 3 of 3 Total Humber of Recurring Activities . 26 3 2 1 n 1 90 9 1 See LRSD Plan 40 951 j=\u0026gt; O) n 3 'ro OJNUMBER ACTIVITIES LRSD PLAN IN PLAN COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS ATTACHMENT 3 TO BE IMPLEMENTED PERCENT OF ACTIVITIES COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS Leadership 9 1 8 11% Early Childhood Education 107 80 27 75% Special Programs 4 3 1 75% School Operations 90 76 14 84% Academic Support 41 38 3 93% Focused Activities 26 17 9 67% McClellan Community School 4 3 1 75% Federal Programs 8 7 1 88% Facilities 8 5 3 63% Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 34 28 6 82% Incentive Schools 294 240 54 82% Educational Equity Monitoring 19 18 1 95% Transportation 23 19 4 83% INTERDISTRICT PLAN Overview/Student Choices and Options 41 29 12 71% Summer School 43 33 10 77% School Operations Multi-District 54 17 37 31% Library Media 8 7 1 88% Guidance and Counseling 6 4 2 67% Public Relations 46 41 5 89%ATTACHMENT 4 LRSD FY 93-94 TENTATIVE PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq #: Program Name: Page: 2 Revision Date: Progrsm Code: Primary Leader: Program ObJecUve: Secondary Leader: Plan Rclcrcnce Page Number Ob|ccUvea StTBlcglca Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibili ty Evaluation Criteria 3 IRECEIVED SEP 10 1993 - tr\u0026gt;.. Office of Desegregalicn Mcniionng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Sep / Q jC,Q? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIEF  - vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. On September 8, 1993, this Court entered an order directing the Little Rock School District to submit Little School to its desegregation audit to the Court by 5 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of the order. In accordance with those instructions, attached hereto is the Desegregation Plan audit as commissioned by the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District during the 1992-93 school year. In particular, the Director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department of the Little Rock School District was instructed to: In particular . . . prepare a report or \"audit\" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of [the] programs outlined in the [Desegregation] Plan. . . 2. Attached hereto is the LRSD Desegregation Plan audit report dated September 10, 1993.\nThe report includes a narrative providing background information on the audit as well as summary data as revealed by the audit. Thereafter, the audit identifies those programs or activities completed prior to the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities completed during the 1992-93 school year\nthose programs or activities identified as occurring on a one-time basis\nthose programs or activities which are recurring in nature\nthose programs or activities which are yet to be implemented\nand, those programs or activities which have been those programs or activities which deleted. The desegregation audit as presented herewith relates to those programs and activities identified by the court-approved Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan dated April 3. 29,1992, as well as the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April Although one section of the audit refers to activities 29, 1992. which were completed prior to 1992-93 and another section refers to activities completed during 1992-93, the Little Rock School District hastens to point out that many of those programs and activities are recurring in nature. the The document as filed herewith constitutes the audit commissioned by the Superintendent. I ' 2_______ still be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. 4. However, the document must Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, submits this desegregation plan audit. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK Attorneys for the Little Rock School District 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR (501) 376-2011 72205 B: 7 Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I.D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing notice of filing has been served upon the following persons by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 -2-Mr. Richard 'Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 m A1oaJ L- -3- 'Pfa LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT Planning, Research and Evaluation September 10, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: August 3, 1993 life lb 0 AUH u 1393 '1 To: Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney From: Sterling Ingram/ irector Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: LRSD Desegregation Plan Audit Thank you for meeting with Bill Mooney and me on Friday, July 9, 1993, as instructed by Judge Wright on Thursday, July 8, 1993. The audit is well underway. Bill and I have come to an agreement regarding the desegregation plan program inventory which is a necessary component for both the audit and the budgetary process to be developed by us. regarding these matters. I will continue to consult with him The initial survey results have been compiled. will be verified. That information This is being done so that an accurate determination can be made regarding our implementation status. I have conducted several meetings with various program managers to provide assistance in completing the initial tasks. I met with curriculum program managers on July 20, 27, and August 3, 1993. In addition, I met with the program managers for support services on August 2, 1993. I will continue to monitor the development of the documents and provide assistance to those managers who need help. I envision the audit process as an ongoing activity. As such. this should be helpful in the budgetary process to allow continuous program evaluation, modification, revision or elimination/replacement. We will continue the efforts currently underway. bjg cc: Bill Mooney, Budget Specialist Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent I^SCEIVSD AUG 4 1993 OWce of Dssg! 3f3\u0026gt;\u0026gt;tioii Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: July 22, 1993 To: Board of Directors From: Sterling Ingram\nDirector Planning, Research^ and Evaluation Through: V*' Kk Estelle MatthisS Interim Superintendent Re: Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report As requested in the agenda meeting, I am providing a progress report relative to the Desegregation Plan Audit. I am available to answer your questions. bjgATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Bernd Memorandum to Ingram Implementation Memorandum Attachment 3 Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4 Program Status Composite Total by Program Attachment 5 Audit/Review ChronologyLittle Rock School District Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report The Little Rock School District must accept the affirmative responsibility to execute the steps necessary to convert to a unitary school system. Unitary status can be achieved only through good faith implementation of the Plan and attainment of the desegregation goals and outcomes. Identifying the status of the Plan requirements is the first phase in strengthening the desegregation process. In the budget document submitted to the Federal Court in July 1992, the Little Rock School District committed to conduct an audit of the Desegregation Plan. The purpose of the audit was to provide information relative to the implementation of the plan. The task of conducting the audit or review was assigned to the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Office on March 23, 1993 (see attachment 1). A review of the Plan's timelines and narratives was conducted by the Planning, Research and Evaluation staff to determine the requirements of the Plan. Data gathering forms were developed and forwarded to each program manager (see attachments 2 and 3). Program managers were requested, to verify all requirements for assigned area and to identify the status of each requirement. Supportive evidence to demonstrate completion of each requirement was to be gathered for possible use at any court hearing, as well as to improve, modify or delete programs. The initial phase of the audit/review is a self-reporting process. An audit as conducted in business and education is based on a set of predetermined standards. For the purpose of this audit/review, the Plan requirements are the audit/review standards.LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 2 The initial review of responses from the program managers revealed that: (See Attachment 4) * Eighty-six percent of the reported activities have been completed. * Fifteen percent of the reported activities have not been implemented. * Sixty-eight percent of the reported activities were identified as recurring activities. * Twelve program managers reported completing all activities. These programs are the Commitment to Desegregation, Summer Learning Program, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA Program), Program for Accelerated Learning/Instructional Technology, Gifted and Talented Education, Multicultural Curriculum, Parkview Magnet, Recruitment of Private School Students, Vocational Education, Library Media, Special Education and Staff Development. In the Inter-district Plan managers for Staff Development, Special Education and Vocational Education reported completing all activities. It should be noted that many of the reported activities in the LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan occur each year. Program Managers reported a number of activities for programs specified in the Desegregation Plan that are to be implemented. A preliminary list of these unverified programs and number of activities follows:LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 3 NUMBER ACTIVITIES LRSD PLAN IN PLAN COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS TO BE IMPLEMENTED PERCENT OF ACTIVITIES COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS Leadership 9 1 8 11% Early Childhood Education 107 80 27 75% Special Programs 4 3 1 75% School Operations 90 76 14 84% Academic Support 42 39 3 93% Focused Activities 27 18 9 67% McClellan Community School 4 3 1 75 tt. *0 Federal Programs 8 7 1 88% Facilities 8 5 3 63% Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 34 28 6 82% Student Assignment 11 10 1 91% Incentive Schools 294 240 54 82% Educational Equity Monitoring 19 18 1 95% Transportation 23 19 4 83% INTERDISTRICT PLAN Overview/Student Choices and Options 41 29 12 71% Summer School 44 34 10 77% School Operations Multi-District 53 17 36 32% Library Media 8 7 1 88% Guidance and Counseling 6 4 2 67% Public Relations 46 41 5 89%LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 4 Continuing audit/report activities include\n* Verification of self-reporting by PRE staff and Program Managers. Special attention will be given to activities that have not started and those activities that recur each year. Development of management plans for recurring activities and activities that are to be implemented. The plans will include a * reporting cycle for monitoring implementation and program results. Development of assessment plans for each plan component to include identification of results since the 1989-90 school year. * * Integrating court orders into the audit/review process. Integrating data into the planning and budget process.Attachment #1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: THROUGH: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 22, 1993 Mr. Sterling Ingrain Mac Bernd C Marie Parker 72201 ! 0 \u0026gt; \u0026lt; s J SUBJECT: DESEGREGATION PLAN ISSUES The purpose of thi memorandum is to direct you to address several priorities associated with the implementation of the Desegregation Plan as rapidly as possible so that we may be sure that we are making good faith effort to address the requirements of the Court with respect to these priorities. 1. Please report in writing any specific programatic assessment processes required by the Desegregation Plan and the status of the implementation of these processes. report please timelines that herein. include outline As a part f this 2. any plans. the assessment systems documents, or processes mentioned Please develop a plan and implementation schedule for any of the above assessments that have not been implemented. Please develop a plan to meet the general requirement that we assess all aspects of the Desegregation plan. This assessment plan should specify each aspect of the Desegregation Plan in terms of two issues: (1) the purpose.of the aspect of the plan being evaluated\nand (2) the measure which will ascertain the fulfillment of said purpose. Please prepare a report or \"audit\" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of programs outlined in the plan so that a document for the Federal Court can be developed as soon as possible. You may want to contact Diane Barksdale regarding this matter because she has done considerable work on this issue The as a graduate school project. information she has gathered may be quite useful you prepare your report. o you as 3. , 4 . In conclusion, please make an appointment with me to discuss the issues outlined in this memorandum. I believe all of them are important if we are to correctly implement our Desegregation Plan. c. cc: Cabinet Mr. Chris Heller Date: To: From: Re: Attachment #2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, June 15, 1993 ARKANSAS 72201 Selected Administrators Mac Bernd, Superintendent Desegregation Plan Implementation Status In order to implement a more effective system of monitoring progress of the Desegregation Plan, a series of activities will be conducted during the next several months. These activities will help to ensure compliance relative to implementation and program outcomes. Enclosed you will find management timelines that identify required activities for each Plan component. requirements taken from the narrative sections of the Plan, but not contained in the timelines are also included. Additional Each program manager should verify all requirements for his/her area of responsibility and identify the status of each requirement, each activity place an \"x\" in the appropriate column. This For in the appropriate column. status report will go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and at some later date we will probably participate in a The ODM monitors will expect the district to have supportive evidence to demonstrate our completion of each requirement. It would be helpful if you would begin to secure the supportive evidence so that we can be fully prepared for a court hearing. court hearing. Identifying the status of the Plan requirements is only the first phase in strengthening our desegregation process, determine the degree of effectiveness of each program component. Therefore, it will be necessary to conduct a review to ascertain if programs are working to achieve the expected outcomes that should benefit all students of the Little Rock School District. We must Please return the management timelines to the Planning, : and Evaluation office by June 21, 1993. If you have any questions, contact Sterling Ingram at 324-2124. Research bjg cc: Board of DirectorsPROGRAM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS PROGRAM MANAGER I ! I 1 I i Activities COMPLETED PRIOR TO '92-'93 during '92'93 ONE-TIME ACTIVITY RECURRING activity NOT STARTED DELETED ADDED COMMENTS \u0026gt; rf rt 03 O Et 3 fl) 3 rt N3 NJ ' Deletion Approved by Court * A Addition Approved by CourtAttachment #3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: June 15, 1993 To: Selected Administrators From: Mac Bernd, SuperintendentCLVVA^.j Re: Desegregation Program Assessment The Little Rock School District must accept the affirmative duty to take all steps necessary to convert to a unitary system. Unitary status can be achieved only through good faith implementation of the Plan and attainment of the desegregation ,,j ~~2. Your assistance is needed to accomplish our task. goals and outcomes. In order to effectively manage attainment of plan outcomes, want to establish consistency in formatting assessment . procedures ~ ' .-_ - we Enclosed you will find forms for reporting your assessment procedure. In addition, we have included a auide - _ In addition, we have included a guide sheet to assist you in completing the form, forms as succinctly as possible. Please complete the All desegregation programs should have a clearly defined goal purpose, objectives, activities and timelines for completion. Measurements should be established that will identify the degre of success relative to the goal or purpose, originate from the Plan section titled or e II Programs should Commitment to Desegregation in the Little Rock School District.\" . ---------------- This section establishes the foundation for all desegregation operations. Please return the assessment forms to the Planning, Research and Evaluation office by August 6, 1993. into a concise evaluation document. The forms will be compiled A follow-up meeting will be scheduled later to clarify your assessment procedures. If you have any questions, contact Sterling Ingram, at 324-2124. If you bjg cc: Board of DirectorsPROGRAM TITLE Guide heet PROGRAH DESEGREGATION GOAE(S) Identify the for inclusion purpose in the Desegregation Plan How will racial inequities be improved I-------------------------------------------------------------- Oupl icale, i f needed. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan EXPECTEU OUTCOMES What do achieve When do achieve you expect you expect your goal to to PROGRAM f-lAMAGER EVALUATION PROCEDURES/HEASURE What is the measure success How will gress Staff NECESSARY RESOURCES of you monitor pro- What are the necces- sary items/actions needed to cess . ensure suc- These should items/actions require funding. \u0026gt; to o rr g (t 3 * Co -O tolittle rock school district DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan PROGRAM TITLE Example PROGRAM ECnegation GOAL(S) PROGRAM MANAGER Staff expected OUTCOME.S evaluation procedures/measures IIECESSAPY RESOURCES I)f Effectiveness: Hard data * Program gains/losses (annual) I *Comparison *Longitudinal study Soft data  Survey *Interviews \u0026lt; etc. Use of outside for review persunnel I Duplicate, if needed. Data collection timeline Reporting Schedule \u0026gt; (u o 3\" 3 re 3 rt * Co T3 CoPROGRAM TITLE Special Education PROGRAM desegregation GOAL(S) 1 . Io reduce the number of minority student enrolled in special education to reflect the District's racial population and to be comparable to national statistics in the ('revision of free, appropriate public education to handi- capped students ( J Oc icaLe, if needed. little rock school district DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan PROGRAM MANAGER Matthis/Kohler expf.cted OUTCOMES Dy the end of the 1994-95 school year the number of minority students categorized and receiving services as Mentally Retarded will be deduced by 20 percent. Dy the end of the 1994-95 school year all staff members involved in the referral stra te of all process will deinon- underslanding aspects of the referral/placement process as outlined in local, state, and federal legislation. I evaluation PROCEDURES/MEASURES Comparison of 1909-90 MR enrollment to the 1994-95 MR enrollment (race and gender). Annual review of enroll- ment data will be Oucted to monitor gress con- pro- IIECESSARY RESOURCES Staff development relative to referral/ placement procedures \u0026gt; 03 o 3- 3 (0 3 It * to X)PROGRAM TITLE program desegregation GOAL{S) I 1 L Ouplicate, i f needed. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT desegregation program ASSESSMENT PLAN PROGRAM MAHAGER EXIECTEO OUTCOMES I evaluation PROCEDURES/MEASURES HECE.SSARY RESOURCES \u0026gt; (u o 3 n\u0026gt; 3 * co \u0026gt;0 LnPrograjn Total Number of Obj ectives 1. Commitment to Desegregation * Narrative LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL BY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 1 1 0 2. Leadership Narrative 9 1 8 3. Early Childhood 34 107 80 27 4. Special Programs Narrative 4 3 1 5. Summer Learning * 5 8 8 0 6. JTPA Asset Program * 3 31 31 0 7. School Operations 41 90 76 , 14 8. Academic Support 5 42 39 3 9. PAL/Ins tructional Technology * 6 50 50 0 10. Gifted/Tal.ented Education * 7 13 13 0 11. Multicultural Curriculum * 17 119 119 0 12. Focused Activities 1 27 18 9 13. Parkview Science Magnet * 5 18 18 0 14. McClellan Community School Narrative 4 3 1 1 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 1 1 70 3 6 31 77 35 22 12 66 17 11 1 * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan \u0026gt; rt Q\u0026gt; Q tr 3 (D 3 rtProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 15. Recruitment of Private School Students* Narrative 16. Federal Programs 1 17. Vocational Education* 11 18. Library/Media * 1 19. Special Education * 13 20. Staff Development * 8 21. Support Services Narra t ive 22. Parent Involvement/ Community Linkage 5 23. Student Assignment Narrative 24. Facilities Narrative 25. Incentive Schools 7 2 26. Educational Equity Moni tor1 ng 7 27. Transportation Narrative 28. Data Processing Narrative LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAJ-I Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Gtartod 8 8 34 17 58 39 2 34 11 8 294 19 23 8 8 7 34 17 58 39 2 28 10 5 240 18 19 3 * Completed all objectives a.s identified in the written plan 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 3 54 1 4 0 2 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 0 5 24 3 55 35 2 25 4 5 165 21 14 8 \u0026gt; rt 0) O tr 3 o 3 4: -0 to1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Progreun Interdistrict Plan Overview Student Choices/Options Summer School Staff Development * School Operations Multi-District Library Media Special Education * Vocational Education* Guidance and Counseling 9.- Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 10. Public Relations TOTAL Total Number of Obj ectives Narrative 11 2 31 5 22 5 Narrative See LRSD Plan Narrative 318 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL BY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 41 44 1 53 8 101 19 6 See LRSD Plan 46 1405 29 34 1 17 7 101 19 4 See LRSD Plan 41 1206 86% * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan 12 10 0 36 1 0 0 2 See LRSD Plan 5 199 1 3 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 26 35 1 15 7 91 9 2 See LRSD Plan 41 956 68% \u0026gt; 0) n tD  4^ O CJMarch 22 ATTACHMENT 5 IMPLEMENTATION/ASSESSMENT PROJECT - CHRONOLOGY Memo from M. Bernd to Ingram April 2 - May 19 Reviewed plan for narrative requirements Developed forms to be included with timelines for implementation and assessment reporting May 24 Requested approval of forms and memo to administrators June 2 Approval of forms received June 2-13 Typing of information on implementation forms completed June 14 Memo and forms sent to cabinet level members Associate Superintendents Manager, Support Services Communications Director Forms forwarded to program managers with instructions to: 1. 2 . 3 . Review plan timelines and narratives Identify activities used to achieve objectives Add activities that have been omitted Forms for School Operations distributed on 6/23/93 June 21 - July 15 Implementation forms returned and reviewed Activities sorted according to the form columnsOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: October 11, 1991 To: BiUy Bowies, PCSSD Mable Bynum, NLRSD James Jennings, LRSD From: Ann Brown Subject: Request for Information Attached is a comprehensive list of basic information which we require at ODM for monitoring purposes. Please forward immediately as many of the listed items as are presently available. If you should need additional time to furnish certain facts or materials, let me know when to expect that data. Meantime, please dont delay forwarding any information that is complete. There are a few starred items which appear at the end of the list This information is of a recurring and/or ongoing nature such as the agendas and minutes of school board meetings. WeU expect to receive this information as appropriate: monthly (e.g. school board agendas and minutes), quarterly (e.g. discipline data), or as produced (e.g. district publications, press releases.) Im aware that ODM has received some of the requested information, so there is no need to send duplicates of data youve already forwarded (October 1 enrollment figures, for example.) By requesting this amount of information at the first of the school year, I hope to minimize the number of separate requests for data that might otherwise be necessary. However, you can expect requests for specialized information from time to time as we monitor certain specific programs and aspects of the desegregation plan. Thank you very much for your assistance.General Information for Office of Desegregation Monitoring Attendance zone maps (as changes occur) ^^Alternative school poIides, procedures, and referral process t-^oard of educatiorVcommittee meeting schedule R J Capacity of each school buildin\nO i-dlAkE manual (LRSD) //Ia/oOaZ District Bi-ratial committee meeting schedule ocr 2 8 1991 u-District Bi-radal committee membership list, induding race and address izEarly childhood education manual (polities, etc.) Office of Dasegragstion Mcnitcnnc / ^{-5arly childhood enrollment by school, txEnrolImeni\nfinal Occober 1 data by s , age level (e.g. four-year-old program), race, gender txEnrolIment\nOctober school, giade, dass, i^, gender /zExtracurricjIar/co\u0026lt;urricular participation by school, acdvity. race, gender /failure and retention rate, by schooL gra^, dass, race, gender tXlifced/talented, AP, enriched, and honors enrollment by school, grade, subject, race, gender Graduation and retention rate for preMous semester by school, grade, race, gender i/filPPY partidpation, induding area served, race, gender i/fnservice dates, schedule, training topics, trainers (by race, gender) for all employee groups o-b'/ M-to-M, magnet, and desegregation transfers by race, grade, sending and receiving school t/Monitoring schedules of all distnct monitoring groups including bi-radal committees vdVIulticuItural education curriculum guides (with revisions as completed) xuz,' ' ex\u0026gt;PTA/PTQ officers and committee membership by school, race, gender PTA/PTO total membership by school, race Policies on extracurricular and co-curricular activities t-^chool improvement plans School profiles v J z-^chool partners in education listing (updated as expanded) ^chool and district PTA/PTO meetings and school open house schedule -*^chool volunteer building coordinator listing, induding ra^g, gender  j^pedal education enrollment, by sdrosl, dassification, rag, gender i^taffing data by position, race, gender (school and central office) Standardized testing results by school, grade, race, gender -Student rights and responsibilities handbooks t-Volunteer training schedule *^oard of education/committee agendas and minutes ^Discipline documentations, suspensions, expulsions, referrals to alternative dass or school by school, g^e, r^e, gender District Bi-radal committee minutes District publications (newsletters, brochures, etc.) Dropouts and reason for withdrawal by school, grade, race, gender Monitoring reports of all district monitoring groups iz^Monthiy calendar of events (special events, meetings, etc.) Press releases Denotes information of a recurring or ongoing nature 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 (SOI) 371 -0100 September 17, 1992 Marie Parker LRSD Student Assignment 501 Sherman LR, AR 72202 Dear Marie: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit win include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date the information is generated. convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed, districts audit by Monday, October 19,1992. For your Please return a copy of your In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive LRSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Connie Hickman Associate MonitorOffice 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 17, 1992 Mable Bynum NLRSD P.O. Box 687 2700 Poplar Street NLR, AR 72115 Dear Mable: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit will include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date the information is generated. convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed, districts audit by Monday, October 19,1992. For your Please return a copy of your In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive NLRSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Connie Hickman Associate Monitor 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 (SOI) 371.0100 September 17, 1992 BiUy Bowles PCSSD P.O. Box 8601 925 Dixon Road LR, AR 72216 Dear Billy: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit will include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date e information is generated. For your convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed. Please return a copy of your districts audit by Monday, October 19, 1992. In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive PCSSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Connie Hickman Associate Monitor Title Incentive Schools Latin Program Incentive Schools Spanish Program__ Special Education Enrollment Results of School. Monitoci-ng------- Action Plans for Dvpirpprp\npntati J R REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Update report on approach, methods, an used in participating schools strategie\nUp'date report on approach, methods, and strategie used in participating schools____________________ Enrollment in special education by school, grade, subject, race, gender Corrective action forms on each student in a building receiving.s.pecja1 ediiratinn________ Individual school action plan to remediate defiripnciPS______________________________ OCT PO i9\u0026gt;2 December 1 Child Count Total district special education population by disability, age, race, etCi____________________ Inservice '92-'93 Academic Support Program Educational equit Inservice 1992-93 Purchase Math Manipulatives Academic Support Program Educational Equit' Mui ticultural Purchase Trade Books/Material Dispersed information on multicultural college nffprings\ndevelopment and implementation of multicultural curriculum guides K-12\nidentification and incorporation of multiculatural inDepartment Responsible/Contact Person supervisor oT Communi Date Available dations, English, ESL, \u0026amp; Foreitn Languages Supervisor of Communi English, ESL, \u0026amp; Forei Director Division of Exceptional Children Director Division of Exceptional Children ( ( ations n Languages 10-01-92 09-15-92 12-01-92 Director Division of Exceptional Children/ Pri nci pal Director Division of Exceptional Children Mathematics/Wood Mathematics/Wood Readi ng/Stoval1 Reading/Stoval1 Curriculum and Learning Imurovement, Estelle Matthis 10-15-92 12-15-92 12-01-92 June, 1992 June, 1992 June, 199^ June, 1992Title Multicultural cont'd African/African- American Program\nRites of Passage Program New and Vacant Teaching and Instructional Aice Posi tions for 4- Year-old Classes Classroom Set-Ups For New 4-Year Old Program G/T Enrollment Library Use Report aff Developmen' Staff cHal oque elopmen /Calend REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Department Reaponalble/ Contact Person structional materials into instructional programs\nrecorded multicultural inservice training Progress on Incentive Schools' implementation of African/Atrican-American Program and Rites of Passage Program Teaching and Instructional Aide positinns fur nev Four-Year-Old classes will be submitted to the Dirpctor of Human Rpsniircps for annniincptnpnf on_ the known vacancy list Timeline for ordering materials, supplies and equi pment Enrollment in G/T by school, grade, race and gpndpr______________________________________ Data on use of library by students and teachers, library instruction, circulation District-wide staff development activities r scheduled for the 1992-93 school year_____ SchoQl.Staff Dev Participation Rei . Identification by school, participants, aiid. number of hours of the comiletion of specific staff development activities Date Available Curriculum and Learning Improvement, Estelle Matthis E.ar.Iy...Childhnfid Education Dept. EarlyChildhood Education Dept. 6-Q1-93 5-03-93 G/T Supervisor/Coord. 11-15-92 Instructional Techv coor. Lib services Marvin Zimmerman Staff Develop. Dir. Maryin Zimmetman Staff Dev. 0ir. 25th of each mo. 10-15-92 End of I quarter ea.Title OCTOBER 1 FNROI 1 MERI______ ANNUAL RETENTION REPORT- ANNUAL -DROP-OUT REPORT- QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT QUARTERLY ENROI I MENT REPORT QUARTERLY MITHDBAWAl REPORT ANNUAL ATTENDANCE REPORT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK---------- CAPACITIES________ BI-RACIAL COM. M1NUTE.S----------- EQUITY COMPLIANCE REPOB.I------------ BIRACIAL MONITOR ING REPORTS------ Btai REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Deecriptton Enrollment data by school sorted by r^ace and gender Retentions by school, grade, race and gender Pupils in grades 7-12 who \"dropped-out\" of school. and'did not return hv 10/31---L----------------- . 1-5 Attendance (ADM, ADA) by school, grade and gender wi th Di strict totals ------------------------------------------------------------------ Enrollment last day of qtr. by school, grade and race-------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Pupils in grades 7-12 who withdrew by school, grade race and gender-------------------------------------------------------- Attendance (ADM, ADA) by school, grade and gender with District totals Includes report of punils who entered from another state and a report of graduating seniors. ---------------------- Published handbook with District procedures for assigning students to schools--------------------------------------------- Capacity listing for each school_______________ Recorded minutes of each hi^-acia.lcommfifttjnt}. Department Reaponaible/Contact Peraon Office of Organizationa learning Equity____ Office of Organization?  I.P^^rii ng Eqiii^ty ,--- ice of Organizational \u0026amp;-Learainq Equity----------- Office of Organizational \u0026amp; Learuinq Equity----------- Office of Organizational a learning EqiiLty----------- Office of Organizational A Learning Equity______ Rppnrt nf I RSD compl iancewi th .SQF eniii tv. -guidflline: Monitor Incentiye Schools Date Available 1Q./I5. L lQ/1 11ZJ 0____ 15 days aft ?nd of qtr. 15 days aft eniL.flJ.jQlE,- 15 days aft end .af .qtr.- 7/1 r r r Office of Organizational A,I.gaming Equity------ Office of Organizational \u0026amp;earni.ng Equity----------- Office of Organizational X I parni ng Eqiii ty---------------- Office of Organizational \u0026amp; Learning Equi-ty----------- Office of Organizationa \u0026amp; Learning Equity 2Z1 ^qth 5\u0026gt;f pach month in/is QuarterlyTitle Board Agenda Board Meeting Mi nutes School Plans REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Printed agenda of all Board meetings Approved minutes of Board meetings School Improvement Plan State Annual Repc't Meeting State Standards School Profile School Profile EK Department Responaibie/ Contact Person Mac Bernd Mac Bernd Annual Report Report to patrons of District's progress on long-range goals Janet Bernard Assoc.Supt. . Janet Bernard_______ Planning Research and Evaluation Sterling Ingram Communications Dept. Dianne Woodruff Date Available 4th Wed. ea, mo. Monthly as avallable 10-15 10-15 10-15 9-30 annu. News Coverage analysi s Weekly report details category and amount of print news coverage for LRSD, etc. Communications Dept. Dianne woooruff Weekly/ garter! y Press Release analysi s Analysis of kind and amount of news coverage generated from LRSD press release Communications Dept. Dianne Woodruff QuarterlyMEMORANDUM Date: November 20,1992 From: Connie To: Polly Subject: Report/Information Audits The following is a list on information needed that was not listed on the districts information audit BIRACIAL COMMITTEE - Membership list, by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # from LRSD \u0026amp; PCSSD Monitoring instruments used by all three districts Monitoring team lists (district and school-based) by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # from LRSD and PCSSD Meeting and monitoring schedule for the school year from all three districts Meeting agendas from all three districts Monitoring reports - LRSD building level biracial committee reports and semester reports from planning and evaluation. PCSSD - local building reports, district biracial committee summary reports and the Office of Desegregations semester reports. PARENT COUNCIL (only LRSD) - Membership list, by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # Monitoring team list by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # Meeting and monitoring schedule for the school year Meeting agenda and minutes Quarterly monitoring reportsPTA/PTO - Officers and committees by race and gender from PCSSD and LRSD. membership by race and gender from all three districts. Total MISCELLANEOUS - Press releases from PCSSD and LRSD Recruitment plans from LRSD and PCSSD??? Public relations log or some tracking system from aU three districts District publications (ie newsletters, brochures, videos,... for all three districts (NLRSD did list updated brochures and a quarterly newsletter) VIPS/ PALS monthly or quarterly hours by school, number of hours served, race, and gender from all three districts VIPS/PALS training schedule from LRSD and PCSSD (PCSSD did list a volunteer monitoring training schedule) LRSD Incentive School Mentors by race, gender, and number of hours served monthly or quarterly List of volunteer coordinators by race and gender at each school in aU three districts - List of each schools business and community partner in LRSD \u0026amp; PCSSDGsnersi Information for Ofnca of Desegregotian Monitorin\nO vAttendanca zone maps (as changes occur) ~7 V izAltemative school policies, procedures, and referral process -^Eoard of education/committee meeting schedule iXlapadty of each school building CARE manual (LRSD) i-Distnct Bi-radal committee meeting schedule i/District Bi-radal committee membership list, indudin: t-driy childhood education manual (polides, etc.) 9 race and address i-Edriy .childhood enrollment by school, age level (e.g. four-year-old program), race, gender u-EhroIIment\nfinal Cctobe.^ 1 data by school, grade, class, race, sender L-Ectracurricular/co-curricular participation by school, activity, race, gender '-d^ailure and retention rate, by school, grade, dass, race, gender i-Cifted/talented, AP. enriched, and honors enrollment by school, grade, subject, race, gender Graduation and retention rate for prerious semester by school, grade, race, gender iz'KlPPY partidpation, induding area ser/ed, race, gender z.''lfise.nnce dates, schedule, training topics, trainers (by race, gender) for all e.mployee groups -'M-to-M, magnet, and desegregation transfers by race, grade, sending and receiving school i-'fflonitoring schedules of all district monitoring groups including bi-radal committees i-d^ulticulturai educadon curriculum guides (with redsions as completed) -^A/PTO officers and committee membership by school, race, gender '-'PTA/PTO total membersiiip by school, race vdPolides on extracurricular and co-curricular activities , z- \u0026lt;-^chool improve.mem: plans v^chool profiles i'-SchooI partners in education listing (updated as e.xpanded) - i\u0026gt;-School and district PTA/PTO meetings and school open house schedule '9 c-SchooI voluntee. building coordinator listing, induding race, gender u-Spedal education enrollment, by,school, dassification, race, gender I'Slaffing data by position, race, gender (school and central office) iz5tandardized testing results by school, grade, race, gender '-'Student rights and responsibilities handbooks 'Volunteer training schedule ^oard of education/commictee agendas and minutes '^yiscipline documentations, suspensions, expulsions, referrals to alternative class or school by school, grade, race, gender i/Distnct Bi-radal committee minutes 'district publications (newsletters, brochures, etc) \"Dropouts and reason for withdrawal by school, grade, race, gender \"Monitoring reports of all district monitoring groups ^''Monthly calendar of events (special events, meetings, etc) ^ress releases \"Denotes information of a recurring or ongoing nature\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_423","title":"Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 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":["1991/1996"],"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--Evaluation","Educational planning","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 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/423"],"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\nProvisions of Plans or Orders the LRSD Has Failed to Fulfill Board Responsibilities The LRSD Board of Directors has committed to the following goals which it has failed to fulfill, according to the introductory section of the 1992 plan, page 1.  The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm- referenced and criterion referenced tests.  Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation.  The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. In addition, under the title \"Leadership\" on pages 2-3 of the 1992 plan, the board and superintendent have failed to assert leadership in the following areas.  Clearly delineating the districts desegregation mission to the staff and the community.  Utilizing the desegregation mission as a guide for the development of policies and setting expectations for the superintendent to implement the policies.  Adopting a budget which will provide the resources necessary for an effective, desegregated school system. Making budgetary decisions consistent with district desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials, and equipment.  The conduct of an annual self-evaluation of their commitment to a quality desegregated education. Incentive Schools  Failure to reserve kindergarten and four-year-old program seats for white students and engage in documented, sustained, and vigorous recruitment to attract those students, (plan page 140, May 1992 order, page 28).  Program specialists have not been hired at all incentive schools (May 1992 order, page 41).  A staffing needs assessment has not been administered and analyzed (May 1992 order, page 41).  Themes have not been incorporated into the core curriculum at each school (May 1992 order, page 42). Little significant progress has been made toward desegregation of the incentive schools, with the exception of Rockefeller (1992 plan, page 149). Lack of coordinated recruitment and failure to implement aU plan recruitment activities (i.e., individual brochures, marketing blitz) (1992 plan, pages 215-217).  The Parent Council has not begun to monitor or report on all activities related to the incentive school program (1992 plan, page 151). Equity Issues  Failure to show significant progress in the reduction of the achievement disparity between black and white students (1992 plan, page 1, 1989 Settlement Agreement, page 26).  Black students (particularly black males) continue to be disciplined at a rate disproportionate to their percentage of the student population (1992 plan, pages 28, 33-34).  Failure to effectively address the overrepresentation of black students (particularly black males) in special education (1992 plan, page 111). Recruitment  The district has not developed a Strategic Recruitment Plan pursuant to the ODM Incentive School Recommendations (page 4) and the LRSD Marketing Plan.  The Recruitment Tracking System, first requested during the March 1991 Construction Hearing, has not been implemented. Additional Items from the May 1992 Order  A plan has not been submitted describing the extended activities designed to address the needs of Washington Magnet School attendance zone students (May 1992 order, page 38).tiP- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Ofj 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 MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM SITES The plaintiff. Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") or (\"District\"), for its Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites for the 1994-95 school year, states: 1. Pursuant to the court-approved desegregation plan, the LRSD agreed to implement four-year old programs in all schools in the LRSD by the 1993-94 school year. 2. The LRSD later proposed certain modifications to the 1989 settlement plans, which modifications were heard by this Court. 3. Among the modifications proposed was the request that the Court accept the District's long-range implementation plan which was filed with the Court on October 1, 1991. Although the Court did not accept the long-range implementation plan as submitted, the Court did release the LRSD from the requirement to place a four- year old program in every elementary school in the District. Ind-ifip4 . By Order dated May 1, 1992, this Court accepted the LRSD's proposal that four-year old programs be placed in locations which would best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance in the District. Further, the Court permitted the District to complete implementation of the program by the 1994-95 school year. 5. In accepting the LRSD's proposed modifications, the Court continued the requirement that the four-year old programs developed by the District had to accommodate the number of children which equalled or exceeded the number which would have been accommodated had all schools in the District had a four-year old program as originally planned. 6. The LRSD added additional four-year old programs as required during the 1993-94 school year. 7. Further, the LRSD has now completed its review and has determined the number of classes necessary to accommodate the number of children which would have been accommodated had programs been placed at all elementary schools in the District. The LRSD has also determined those locations it believes will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and accurate listing of the sites selected by the LRSD to complete its obligations for four-year programs during the 1994-95 school year in accordance with the Order dated May 1, 1992. The sites reflected are incorporated herein by reference. lrd-*pp 29. The LRSD is now prepared to take those steps necessary to implement the hereindescribed expansion of the four-year old program for the 1994-95 school year. However, the LRSD would request expedited consideration so that it may begin the necessary preparatory arrangements. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff, Little Rock School District, moves this Court for an Order approving the locations, number of classes and other terms as outlined in the attached implementation proposal\nit requests that it be awarded its costs. expenses, attorney fees incurred herein and all other legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 Ind'tpp 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Ind-tpp 4 EXHIBIT 1 LRSD'S 1994-95 FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM SITE SELECTIONS Pursuant to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, as amended by subsequent court orders, the LRSD must accommodate in four-year old programs a number of children which equals or exceeds the number which would have been accommodated if all schools in the District had a four-year old program At the time the commitment was made, the LRSD had 36 elementary schools. The number of children to be served was computed by using a maximum capacity of 20 students per class. This yielded 720 students as the total number to be served. In accordance with the May 1, 1992 Order of this Court and North Central accreditation standards, the number of students per class during the 1993-94 year was based on the standard of 18 students per classroom. By virtue of this standard, the LRSD had capacity to serve 576 students in its 32 four-year old classes. Accordingly, the LRSD must add eight (8) four-year old classes during the 1994-95 year to have the capacity to serve the additional 144 children necessary to achieve the 720 children capacity as originally computed. To select the eight (8) sites, the LRSD considered the following criteria: 1. Schools which are difficult to desegregate and are racially imbalanced. Irad-tpp 52 . Areas which have a very high concentration of low income families, Based on its review, the LRSD selected the following elementary school sites: 1. Badgett - One additional class can be added by using space that is available within the building. 2. Bale - One additional class can be added by using space that is available within the building through the reassignment of classroom space (classroom space currently being used for physical education on rainy days and for psychological testing). 3. Fair Park One additional class can be added by installing a trailer, which would free up a classroom within the building. 4. Geyer Springs One additional class can be added by offering only two (2) kindergarten classes. Although a third kindergarten class was added after the start of the 1993-94 school year, the majority of the students assigned to that class were from outside the schools' attendance zones. Accordingly, other assignments consistent with the desegregation plan should be available in the event non-attendance zone kindergarten students need to be accommodated during the 1994-95 school year. 5. Mabelvale - One additional class can be added by using a room being made available due to matriculating seventh grade students. 6. Watson - One additional class can be added by using space within the building obtained through the sharing of space by the Irad-app 6Chapter I teacher (there three (3) days a week) and the G/T teacher (there two and one-half (2/1/2) days a week). 7. Woodruff - One additional class can be added by using space available within the building. 8. Stephens - One additional class can be added by using space within the building. Ind-app 7RECSa ^7^ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cffico of Dcsogr LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1STATEMENT OF THE CASE I. THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ISSUE. A. Previous LRSD Election Zones. The district court approved seven single-member zones for the election of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD) Board of Directors on December 18, 1986. Appellant's App. p. 50. Before that time, LRSD board members were elected in at-large elections. Arkansas law requires, however, that school districts with student populations in excess of 24,000 elect board members from single- member zones. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607 (Michie 1991). Pursuant to previous orders of this Court and the district court. LRSD annexed territory of the Pulaski County Special School District which increased LRSD's student population above 24,000 and was required by state law to establish single-member zones. The LRSD zone plan approved by the district court had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 census: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50% black\nZone 2 - 25,295 petal population\n68.90% black\nZone 3 - 25,210 total population\nZone 4 - 24,844 total population\n7.83% black\n2.96% black\nZone 5 - 25,016 total population\n18.30% black\nZone 6 - 25,107 total population\n17.30% black\nZone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10% black. 1The district court found that the zone plan \"comports with the one- man one-vote principle required by the Constitution  . , [and is] in compliance with the mandate of Amended  2 of the Voting Rights Act (codified as 42 U.S.C.  1973) and does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote.\" Appellant's App., p. 50-51. The district court's December 18, 1986, order approving the LRSD zone plan was not appealed. The Charles Plaintiffs, as members of the class represented by the Joshua Intervenors, were parties to the case when the zones were established. LRSD App., p. 1. In fact, Mr. Charles was substituted as a named plaintiff when he became president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP. LRSD B. The PCBE Plan. App., p. 4. The Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\") plan for LRSD election zones was prepared by Metroplan, a non-profit corporation whose members are local governmental entities in the central Arkansas area. LRSD App., p. 41. Metroplan was asked to determine whether the previous LRSD election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man, one-vote\" principle according to 1990 census data and, if so, to prepare alternative proposals for rezoning LRSD in compliance with federal law. LRSD App., p. 42. Jim McKenzie, the Executive Director of Metroplan, was primarily responsible for preparing the proposals. LRSD App., pp. 76-77. Before preparation of alternative proposals for submission to PCBE, Mr. McKenzie contacted Jim Lynch, who became the Charles Plaintiffs' expert in this case, concerning criteria which should 2be considered in preparing election zones. Lynch provided McKenzie a written list of five criteria\n(1) adhere to the one-man, one- vote doctrine\n(2) avoid diluting minority political expression\n(3) districts ought to be compact and contiguous\n(4) district boundaries should be recognizable\nand, (5) use existing political boundaries. LRSD App., pp. 9, 76-77. McKenzie followed Lynch's criteria in developing four alternative proposals for rezoning the Little Rock School District. LRSD App., pp. 77-80. McKenzie was aware of the December 18, 1986, order stating that the previous LRSD election zones were in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. LRSD App., p. 40. II. THE DESEGREGATION PLAN MODIFICATION ISSUE The parties to this case are in the process of implementing desegregation plans agreed upon in 1989 and approved by this Court in 1990.* The Interdistrict and LRSD Desegregation Plans call for eight racially isolated incentive schools but do not require that each incentive school must remain open in perpetuity. Instead, a purpose of those plans is to move LRSD black students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools: 'There are four desegregation plans, district and an Interdistrict Plan. one for each school 1991. The plans were modified in For a history of the development of the desegregation plans and the 1989 settlement agreement, see Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253 (8th Cir. 1991). 3\"As new interdistrict schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school . . II LRSD App. , p. 3 31. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4. The planned effort to move students from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools is illustrated by the parties' agreement about Stephens school. Stephens is one of the eight incentive schools established under the 1989 plans. LRSD App., pp. 331, 3 34. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. The plans require the parties to quickly convert Stephens from an incentive school to an interdistrict school and to close \"[t]he old Stephens school building.\" LRSD App., pp. 332, 334. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 10\nLRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. Washington Elementary School provides another example of the transition from racially isolated incentive schools to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The 1989 desegregation plans list Washington among the eight incentive schools. (8 J.D.R. 1722\n10 J.D.R. 2288), but the parties later agreed that Washington would become an Interdistrict Magnet School.^ 2 The district court rejected the settlement plans on June 27, 1989 and, during the pendency of the appeals of that order, approved a substitute plan known as the Tri-District Plan (Docket #1328). The Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 #1328) . school year, and Washington operated under that plan as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Following this Court's approval of the 1989 settlement plans, the parties agreed that Washington should continue to operate as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school rather that resume operation as racially isolated incentive school. - - as Docket #1434. a 4The plans and agreements of the parties to date will reduce the number of incentive schools from eight to six by moving incentive school students to racially balanced interdistrict schools. The assignment of Ish attendance zone students to King Interdistrict School is the first movement of students from a segregated to an integrated school which has been opposed by any party. LRSD committed to build a new King Interdistrict School \"in downtown Little Rock ... in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" LRSD App., P. 334 . LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 148. That area is populated primarily by students who are enrolled or are entitled to be enrolled in an incentive school. The specific site within that area was approved by the district court on March 17, 1992 (LRSD App., p. 227. Docket #1576) and no appeal was taken from that order. Each LRSD school. including each incentive school. has an attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 310-313. The zone established for each new elementary school required by the desegregation plans must be superimposed upon the existing zone plan and will necessarily ^Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors told the district court: \"I'm suggesting that integration by itself is just unacceptable to black people at this time. It has to be something that is much more substantive than merely being in the same environment with white students.\" LRSD App., p. 292. 5usurp some or all of the attendance zone of one or more of the existing elementary schools. LRSD hired Dr. Leonard Thalmueller to design an attendance zone for King Interdistrict School. LRSD App. , p. 301. Dr. Thalmueller is a former employee of LRSD who has been involved in the preparation of LRSD attendance zones for seventeen years (LRSD App., p. 301) and who prepared the attendance zones for the 1989 LRSD Desegregation Plan. (LRSD App., p. 283). In drawing the King attendance zone, Thalmueller engaged in an effort \"to minimize the impact of the attendance zone on other students in the district. try to keep the domino effect down to the smallest possible factor . . [and] to reduce busing to whatever extent we could\". LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller also tried to draw the King zones so that students whose assignments were changed as a result of the establishment of that zone would not have to endure a second change of assignment when zones were later established for the Stephens Interdistrict School. LRSD App., p. 303. Thalmueller prepared three plans. reviewed them with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and presented them to LRSD. LRSD App., pp. 303-304. In the plan adopted by the LRSD Board of Education, Dr. Thalmueller placed the entire Ish zone, consisting of six zone blocks, in the King attendance zone. LRSD App., pp. 335-336. The only schools whose attendance zones were changedby the Thalmueller plan are Ish, Jefferson, Rightsell and Washington. LRSD App., pp. 335, 336. 6One hundred eighty-three students were enrolled at Ish for the 1992-93 school year. Ninety of those students were from outside the Ish attendance zone. LRSD App. , p. 308. There were 229 students in the Ish attendance zone. June 8, 1993 LRSD App., p. 307. Only 93 of those students attended Ish school. LRSD App., p. 307. The others attended schools throughout LRSD. Dr. Thalmueller and LRSD Associate Superintendent Marie Parker prepared a report on the impact of the King attendance zone (LRSD App., p. 321) which was presented to the LRSD board, shared with all counsel on March 12, 1993 (LRSD App., p. 325) and presented to the District Court on June 8, 1993. The report describes the following impact upon Ish: \"Ish will remain open unless fewer than one hundred students choose Ish, in which case all Ish students will be assigned to King, and Little Rock School District will work with the Ish community to determine an appropriate use for the Ish building.\" LRSD App., p. 321. Four community meetings, including one at Ish school, were held in March, April and May 1993 \"to gather information from prospective parents and patrons to be used in consideration of attendance zones and theme selection for Martin Luther King, Jr. school\". LRSD App., p. 337. Surveys were mailed to all families affected by the location of the proposed attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 320. The King attendance zone was approved by the LRSD Board of Directors on April 22, 1993. On May 5, 1993 LRSD moved for approval of the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 231. Docket #1820. Joshua opposed LRSD's motion. LRSD App., p. 235. Docket #1825. The North Little Rock 7School District, the Pulaski County Special School District and the Knight Intervenors did not oppose the King attendance zone. LRSD App., p. 305. The district court conducted hearings on June 8 and 9, 1993 and approved the King attendance zone as drawn by Dr. Thalmueller, but not LRSD's plan for determining whether Ish should be closed. LRSD App., pp. 285-291. The court preferred Thalmueller's plan to the ideas presented by Dr. James Jennings, another former LRSD employee, because Thalmueller's plan would impact fewer attendance zones and because his plan \"left room for doubt\" concerning the 4 future location of the Stephens site. The district court announced that it would order that Ish remain open if one hundred or more students chose to attend Ish from among the students within the Ish attendance zone whether or not presently enrolled at Ish (229 students (LRSD App., p. 307)) and all students attending Ish whether or not residing within the Ish attendance zone (90 students (LRSD App., p. 308)) LRSD App., pp. 286-287. Dr. Jennings was subpoenaed only a few days before the hearing and had not previously reviewed Thalmueller's plan. During his previous employment with LRSD, Jennings had prepared a plan to create attendance zones for King and Stephens together. p. 279. LRSD App., Jennings' testimony consisted of his recollection of the plan he had previously prepared on the assumption that King and Stephens zones would be established at the same time. and his reaction to Thalmueller' s plan which he had seen for the first time the day before. LRSD App., pp. 281-283. Jennings' proposals would impact the attendance zones of thirteen schools. 280. LRSD App. , p. Jennings worked with Thalmueller to prepare the attendance zones contained in the 1989 desegregation plan (LRSD App., p. 283) and considers Thalmueller competent to prepare attendance plans (LRSD App., 284). zone 8The court's bench ruling was followed closely by a written order (Docket #1848) which established the following process by which LRSD could attempt to \"meet its burden of recruiting students to populate the King Interdistrict School\" from among those attending Ish or residing in the Ish attendance zone and \"proving that fewer than 100\" of those students wished to attend Ish: \"Within ten days from June 9, 1993 the LRSD must submit to the Court its proposed survey of these students along with its plan for executing the survey and implementing the survey results This plan must include a time schedule with deadline dates for implementing each step of the survey process, including the date by which the district will determine whether Ish is to remain open or to close. II June 11, 1993 Order, Docket #1848. The court told Joshua twice from the bench (LRSD App., pp. 293-300) and again in its written order that Joshua would \"have 5 days to file their response and objections to LRSD's survey and plan\". June 11, 1993 Order, p.3 LRSD filed on June 21, 1993 its proposed survey of potential Ish students and its plan for implementing the survey results^. LRSD proposed \"to send the form letter, the King and Ish fact sheets, and the School Selection Form to the parents of all students described in the court's June 11, 1993 Order in accordance with the attached time line for implementing King/Ish Survey Process. I LRSD App. , p. 24 0. No one objected to the process LRSD's filing showed exactly how the survey process would be  It included a time line, a form letter to parents of potential Ish students, fact sheets on both King and Ish Schools which would be sent to potential Ish students and a school implemented. selection form. LRSD App., p. 240. 5 9proposed by LRSD. The district court approved the process on June 30, 1993. Docket No. 1873. LRSD engaged in an extensive effort to inform potential Ish students about King and Ish Schools and to maximize the response to its King/Ish survey. Two hundred sixty survey forms were mailed, 173 were returned and 82 students requested Ish School. LRSD App., p. 271-272. Based upon the results of the survey, LRSD moved on July 19, 1993 to close Ish School. LRSD App., p. 268. Docket No. 1908. Joshua opposed LRSD's status report about the survey process (LRSD App., p. 265) and LRSD's Motion to close Ish School (Docket No. 1918). On August 2, 1993, the district court granted LRSD's Motion to close Ish School. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C.  1973, IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE AFFIRMED. The Charles Plaintiffs contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, the Charles Plaintiff were required to establishthe LRSD conducted a series of community meetings, including two at Ish School. Fliers announcing the community meetings delivered door to door and distributed to local churches. were Ish patrons conducted a door to door campaign encouraging parents to return the survey forms. The LRSD student assignment office telephoned parents who were sent survey forms and encouraged them to complete and return the forms. LRSD App., pp. 271-272. 10following four elements: (1) that blacks are sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) that blacks are politically cohesive\n(3) that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat blacks' preferred candidate\nand, (4) that based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nThornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 25, 50- 51 (1986) . The district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish each of the above elements. The PCBE plan contains two majority black zones. Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs were reguired to prove that three majority black zones can be created. In addition, the majority black zones must have at least a 65% black majority to enable blacks to elect their preferred candidate. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988). Each of the three majority black zones in the plan advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs has a majority black population of less than 65%. As a result, the district court found that the Charles Plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that three majority black LRSD zones with a 65% black majority population can be created. The Charles Plaintiffs attempted to establish black political cohesiveness through statistical proof of the correlation coefficient comparing the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate. However, the 11correlation coefficient does not establish the percentage of black support for black candidates. The Charles Plaintiffs did not undertake the additional statistical analysis necessary to establish black political cohesiveness, and therefore, the district court held that they had failed to establish this element. The Charles Plaintiffs' attempt to establish white bloc voting was infected with the same statistical flaw. In addition. persistent proportional representation of blacks on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible tl for the Charles Plaintiff to establish white bloc voting. Nash V. Blunt, 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992). Evidence of elections between white and black candidates demonstrates that white voters do not usually vote as a block to defeat the blacks' preferred candidate. Accordingly, the district could found that LRSD did not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. Finally, the district court held that, based on a totality of the circumstances, the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the PCBE plan than they had under the previous zone plan which had been approved by the district court in 1986. The Charles Plaintiffs' expert testified that the opportunity of blacks is the same under the PCBE plan and under the previous court approved plan. The findings of the district court are not clearly erroneous and should be affirmed. 12A. ARGUMENT I. THE DISTRICT COURT'S FINDING THAT THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ACT, 42 U.S.C. SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.  1973, A VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS IS NOT CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND Introduction. No plan for single-member election zones is immune from challenge under the Voting Rights Act. If a plan concentrates minorities into super-majority zones. the plan may be said to dilute minority voting strength through \"packing.\" If a plan does not create the maximum number of minority black zones, it may be said to dilute minority voting strength through dispersion of minority voters. Compare Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196 (E.D.Ark. 1989), and Jeffers v. Tucker. 839 F.Supp. 612 (E.D.Ark. 1993) . PCBE adopted a Metroplan proposal for LRSD election zones which has two majority black zones. The Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of LRSD election zones to create a third majority black zone. In discussing the racial gerrymandering of election zones, the Supreme Court has stated: Racial classifications of lasting harm to our society. any sort pose the risk of They reinforce the belief, held by too many for too much of history, that individuals should be judged by the color of their skin. The Charles Plaintiffs argued before the district court that the PCBE plan violated the Voting Rights Act due to \"packing.\" this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time argument based on the dispersion of black voters. In an PCBE adopted Metroplan proposal No. 4. 13Racial classifications with respect to voting carry particular dangers. Racial gerrymandering even for remedial purposes, may balkanize us into competing racial factions\nit threatens to carry us further from the goal of a political system in which race no longer mattersa goal that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments embody. and to which the Nation continues to aspire. It is for these reasons that race-based districting by our state legislatures demands close judicial scrutiny. Shaw V. Reno, 509 U.S. 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993). B. Discussion. 1. Liability Under Section 2 Generally. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was tl designed by Congress to banish the blight of racial discrimination in voting, which has infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century.\" South Carolina v. Katzenbach. 383 U.S. 301, 308 (1966). As amended in 1982, Section 2 of the Act provides that no state may impose a standard, practice or procedure \"which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . II 42 U.S.C.  1973(a) (Supp. 1993). Section 2 further states: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if. the circumstances, based on the totality of it is shown that political processes leading to nomination the or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office political subdivision is which in one the State or circumstance may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to 14have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion population. in the 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993) (emphasis in original). In order to prevail on a Section 2 claim, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. Ill S.Ct. 2354, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991), The Supreme Court has stated that a minority group challenging single-member election zones under Section 2 must establish three \"necessary preconditions\": First, that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member If it is not, as would be the district. case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. [citations omitted]. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multi-member If the electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests, [citations omitted]. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable  in the absence of special circumstances, a minority candidate running such it as unopposed . . . usually to defeat the preferred [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multi-member candidate. minority's district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. Ginqles. 478 U.S, at 50-51\nGrowe v, Emison. ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. , 122 L.Ed.2d 388, 404. Satisfaction of these three II preconditions\" is necessary. but not sufficient, to establish liability under Section 2. Growe. 507 U.S. at ___, 122 L.Ed.2d at 15404\nChisom. 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364\nsee League of United Latin American Citizens v. Clements. 999 F.2d 831, 848 (5th Cir. 1993). Therefore, in order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must demonstrate that (1) the group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district\n(2) it is politically cohesive\n(3) the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate\nand. (4) based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" the group has less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice as a result of the challenged electoral device. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b)\nGingles. 478 U.S. at 50-51. 2. Sufficiently Large and Geographically Compact. The plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE contains two majority-minority zones. LRSD App., p. 8. Thus, in the context of the present case, the first Gingles precondition requires that the Charles Plaintiffs establish that the black population of LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a \"majority\" in three LRSD election zones. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50. More than mere numerical superiority must be considered in determining whether the Charles Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient II majority\" in single-member zone to elect representatives of their choice. . As the court explained in Smith v. Clinton. 687 a F.Supp. 1361 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% frequently used. of total population is and is derived by 16supplementing simple majority with an additional 5% to offset the fact that minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the well-documented pattern of low voter registration, and 5% for low voter turnout among minorities. Smith. 687 F.Supp at 1363. See also Fletcher v. Golder. 959 F.2d 106, 110 (Sth Cir. 1992). Therefore, the Charles Plaintiffs must demonstrate that the black population in LRSD is sufficiently large and geographically compact to permit creation of three zones with at least 65% minority population. Otherwise, the PCBE plan for a LRSD election zones \"cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates.\" Singles. 478 U.S. at 50. Each of the purported \"majority\" black zones proposed by the Charles Plaintiffs falls below the 65% guideline. Under the Charles Plaintiffs' plan, 81% of the blacks who live within the boundaries of the LRSD would be packed into zones 1, 2 and 6 resulting in percentage black populations in those zones of 64.7%, 64.0% and 61.7%, respectively. The remaining black population is dispersed among the remaining four zones. Appellant's App., p. 55. 9 Therefore, the plan for LRSD election zones advocated by the Charles Plaintiffs demonstrates that the black population in LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute Charles Plaintiffs' Zone 1 has percentage population variance of negative 4.5%, and therefore, will in all probability be the first zone to fall out of compliance with the II requirement. LRSD App., p. 74. one-man. one-vote\" Metroplan proposal No. 4 adopted by PCBE took into account present demographics trends by placing more persons in zones with declining population and by placing fewer persons in zones with increasing population. within the limits prescribed by the law and with a lesser degree of This was done population variance than provided in the Charles plaintiffs' plan. LRSD App., pp. 78-80. 17a sufficient \"majority\" in three LRSD election zones. Appellant's App., p. 155. Furthermore, McKenzie testified that the Charles' Plaintiffs plan did not present compact zones. LRSD App., P. 61. Accordingly, the district court found, \"The plan proposed by the Charles plaintiffs does not conform to the standard proposed by their expert, Mr. Lynch, that the zones be compact and contiguous.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order, p. 7. The district court's finding that the black population of LRSD is not sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in three LRSD election zones is not clearly erroneous. Political Cohesiveness. In an effort to establish black political cohesiveness, Lynch computed the correlation coefficient (the \"r\" statistic) and the r- square value for all 65 voting precincts in LRSD. Lynch compared the percentage of black voting age population within the precinct and the percentage of votes for the black candidate for ten elections involving a black candidate and a white candidate. summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles 3. A Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. Relying only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Lynch concluded that blacks were politically cohesive. Appellant's App., P. 160. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 does not support Lynch's conclusion. The correlation coefficients calculated by Lynch and summarized in Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no proof that 18blacks are politically cohesive. 10 The correlation coefficient is a measure of consistency. LRSD App., p. 134. See Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 n.7 (Sth Cir. 1987)\ns^. generally, Richard Engstrom \u0026amp; Micheal McDonald, \"Quantitive Evidence in Vote Dilution Litigation: Political Participation and Polarized Voting,\" 17 Urban Lawyer 369 (1985). A perfect positive correlation (i.e., a correlation coefficient of one) between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the black candidate results where, for example, the same percentage of blacks and the same percentage of white voters support the black candidate in each precinct.'* If 25% of the black voters and 20% of the white voters in each precinct support the black candidate. perfect positive correlation exists. The correlation coefficient provides no evidence of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Thus, Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 indicates only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Lynch conceded that the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provide no information about the 'it is nevertheless important to note that the only LRSD zone election analyzed by Lynch produced no significant correlation between black voting age population and support for the black candidate. Appellant's App., p. 157. \"Lynch's feeble understanding of the correlation coefficient was demonstrated when on cross-examination Lynch was unable to describe circumstances which would produce a perfect positive correlation. Lynch testified that he merely entered the data into a computer equipped with software to calculate the correlation coefficient. LRSD App., p. 165. 19 apercentage of black support for the black candidate. LRSD App., p. 158. Lynch admitted that nothing in his analysis excluded the possibility that only 25% of the black voters supported the black candidate in the elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., p. 161. Lynch acknowledged that, if only 25% of the blacks supported a black candidate, blacks could not be considered politically cohesive. LRSD App., p. 159. In order for the correlation coefficient or r-square value to demonstrate political cohesiveness. they must be used in conjunction with homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis. S^, e.q. . Whitfield v. Democratic Party of the State of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1383 (E.D.Ark. 1988)\nCitizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1987). Homogeneous precinct analysis is the examination of a precinct which is overwhelmingly populated by a discrete group to determine what percentage of voters in that group support a particular candidate. See Campos v. City of Baytown. 840 F.Supp. 1240, 1246 n.lO (5th Cir. 1988). For example, if a precinct is 100% black and the black candidate gets 90% of the votes in that precinct, then 90% of the black voters preferred the black candidate. If there is also a high correlation coefficient among all the precincts (meaning that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct), it may be appropriate to conclude that approximately 90% of black voters in each precinct supported the black candidate. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 371-72. 20Regression analysis involves the calculation of the regression coefficient, commonly reported as \"b\". It is the regression coefficient \"that illuminates the degree to which voting patterns are racially differentiated.\" Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, P- 375. Whereas the correlation coefficient measures how consistently the electoral support for the black candidate changes with the percentage of black voting age population, the regression coefficient estimates how closely the change in percentage of votes for the black candidate tracks the change in percentage black voting age population. For example, where voting is completely racially polarized, the percentage of votes for the black candidate would track perfectly the increase in black voting age population.^ See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 375. Therefore, homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis are necessary to establish racially polarized voting. Lynch testified that he did not conduct homogeneous precinct analysis. LRSD App., p. 164. With regard to regression analysis, Lynch testified, \"I'm not familiar with that term.\" LRSD App., p. 163 . As a result. Lynch's conclusion that LRSD elections are racially polarized IS without foundation. The correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 demonstrate *^The regression coefficient is to be distinguished from the square value calculated by Lynch. The r-square value is merely the square of the correlation coefficient. The regression coefficient (\"b\") represents the slope of the regression line. __ regression line is the line which minimizes the deviations among samples. The correlation coefficient is a measure of the samples' deviation fiom the regression line. With a perfect correlation, either positive or negative, the samples fall perfectly along the regression line. See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. samples. The The See Engstrom \u0026amp; McDonald, p. 374-76. 21only that approximately the same percentage of blacks supported the black candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 provides no indication of the actual percentage of black voters who supported the black candidate. Because the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish that blacks are politically cohesive, their Section 2 claim must fail.\"* 4. White Bloc Vote. a. Persistent Proportional Representation. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice White, noted in Gincles that \"persistent proportional representation is inconsistent with [the] allegation that the ability of black voters ... to elect representatives of their choice is not equal to that enjoyed by the white majority.\" Ginoles. 478 U.S. at 77. With regard to this statement by Justice Brennan, Justice O'Conner, joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell and Justice Renquist, wrote. \"I *The conclusion that blacks are politically cohesive can be drawn based on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 only if it is assumed that black voters preferred the black candidate. However, the Supreme Court has stated that minority support for the minority candidate \"never can be assumed, but must be proved in each case in order to establish that a redistricting plan dilutes minority voting strength in violation of  2.\" Shaw v. Reno. 509 U.S. at ___, 125 L.Ed.2d at 532 . V. There is one other notable limitation on the value of the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and percentage of votes for the black candidate does not preclude the possibility of an equally strong correlation between percentage of black voting age population and any of the other factors which Lynch testified often determine the outcome of elections. For example, the correlation coefficient between the percentage of black voting age population and the percentage of votes for the democratic candidate may be as strong or stronger, in any given election, the correlation coefficients shown on as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. LRSD App., pp. 170-171. 22agree with Justice Brennan that consistent and sustained success by candidates preferred by minority voters IS presumptively inconsistent with the existence of a  2 violation.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 102 (O'Conner, J., concurring). After considering the above quoted language in Ginqles. the court in Nash v. Blunt. 797 F.Supp. 1488, 1498 (W.D.Mo. 1992), concluded, \"If defendants can prove prior persistent proportional representation, it would be virtually impossible for the plaintiffs to prove white voters usually vote together to defeat minority-preferred candidates.\" Recognizing that Ginqles provides that \"proof that some minority candidates have been elected does not foreclose a  2 claim,\" Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 75, the court in Nash reasoned that persistent proportional representation would constitute a defense* to a Section 2 claim only where. in addition to a history of proportional representation, there exists a substantial likelihood that proportional representation would continue in the future. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 14 98. For example, the plaintiffs in Na^ challenged the Missouri legislative redistricting plan as it applied to Jackson County, Missouri. The court noted that \"during the past decade, the proportion of black legislators for Jackson County has been in almost exactly equal proportion to the The court in Nash describes representation as an \"affirmative defense.\" persistent proportional This is a misnomer. A true affirmative defense relieves a defendant of liability even though the plaintiff has established each element of his claim. The classic example is the statute of limitations. However, persistent proportional representation, in effect, makes it \"virtually impossible\" to prove a necessary element of a Section 2 claim, legally significant white bloc voting. in effect, 1498. Nash, 797 F.Supp. at 23proportion of black citizens living in Jackson County. Na^, 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The court found that the proportion of majority black districts created under the challenged plan was roughly equal to the proportion of black population and concluded: Thus, we conclude that there has been at least a ten-year history of proportional representation, as well as a near certain likelihood that there will be proportional representation for the next decade. Therefore, we find the defendants have successfully proved the elements of this affirmative defense. Nash. 797 F.Supp. at 1500. The facts of the present case are remarkably similar to the facts before the court in Nash. Blacks constitute 29.1% of the voting age population of LRSD. LRSD App., p. 6. There are seven members of the LRSD Board of Directors. Thus, proportional representation would be two of the seven board members or 28.6% of the board. Since 1983, the racial composition of the LRSD Board of Directors has been as follows: 1983 to March 1987 - two blacks. five whites\nMarch 1987 to June 1988  three blacks, four whites\nand, June 1988 to present - two blacks, five whites. Therefore, since 1983, the proportion of black members of the LRSD Board of Directors has been equal to or greater than the proportion of black members of the electorate. Moreover, under the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by the PCBE, blacks are virtually certain to be proportionally represented in the future. The PCBE plan contains two black majority zones. PCBE Zones 1 and 2 have percentages of black population of 79.82% and 59.39%, respectively. LRSD App., p. 8. Although PCBE Zone 2 falls below the 65% guideline discussed in 24Smith V. Clinton, supra, Lynch testified that blacks would be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of 60%. LRSD App., p. 104. Lynch specifically referred to North Little Rock election zones with percentage black populations of 59.4% and 58.8% in which black candidates have been successful. LRSD App., P- 11. Therefore, blacks will continue to be proportionally represented on the LRSD Board of Directors under the PCBE plan. The consistent and sustained past, along with the certain future, of proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors makes it \"virtually impossible\" for the Charles Plaintiffs to establish legally significant white bloc voting. Na^, 797 F.Supp. 1500. b. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. The Charles Plaintiffs substantially relied on the testimony of Lynch in an attempt to establish white bloc voting. Lynch calculated the correlation coefficient and the r-square value comparing the percentage of white voting age population to the percentage of votes for the white candidate for same ten elections analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. A summary of Lynch's calculations was presented as Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. Appellant's App., P. 158. Based only on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33, Lynch concluded that the white majority voted sufficiently as a bloc to enable it to usually defeat the candidate 25preferred by blacks. 16 LRSD App., p. 149. Again, the record does not support this conclusion. As with Lynch's reliance on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32 to establish black political cohesiveness, the correlation coefficients and r-sguare values shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 demonstrate only that approximately the same percentage of whites preferred the white candidate in each precinct. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 provides no information concerning the actual percentage of white voters who preferred the white candidate. Lynch failed to conduct the concomitant homogeneous precinct analysis or regression analysis necessary to make Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 meaningful. c. Legally Significant White Bloc Voting. Black electoral success in LRSD and the City of Little Rock supports the district courts's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting. To establish legally significant white bloc voting under Gingles. the minority group \"must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to enable itin the absence of special circumstances such as a minority candidate running unopposed usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Gingles, 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). Stated another way, \"a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of 'In his deposition taken the day before his trial testimony. Lynch stated that he had undertaken no study, and therefore could offer no opinion, on the issue of whether white bloc voting worked to usually defeat the candidate preferred by blacks. Lynch changed his testimony at trial.  LRSD App., pp. 148-151. 26minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.\" Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 56 (emphasis supplied). It is the \"usual predictability of the majority success [that] distinguishes structural dilution from the mere loss of an occasional election.\" Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). See Whitcomb v. Chavis. 403 U.S. 124, 153. The Charles' Plaintiffs failed to establish the \"usual predictability\" of white candidate success necessary to establish white bloc voting. As discussed above, blacks have enjoyed proportional representation on the LRSD Board of Directors since 1983. Likewise, blacks have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. Appellant's App., p. 161-62. See Leadership Roundtable v. Citv of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 590 (E.D. Ark. 1980). In sum, white voters do not sufficiently vote as a bloc to \"usually to defeat the minorities preferred candidate.\" Ginqles. 405 U.S. at 51 (emphasis supplied). In 1966, Dr. T.E. Patterson was elected at-large against white opposition to become the first black member of the LRSD Board of Directors. In 1983, Bill Hamilton, a black. defeated a white opponent by winning 70% of the vote in an at-large election. LRSD App., p. 12. In 1986, Thomas Broughton, a black and current PCBE member, garnered 74% of the at-large vote in LRSD to defeat a white opponent. LRSD App., p. 20. In a 1989 Zone 2 election, Hamilton 27received 84% of the vote to defeat a white opponent.* LRSD App., p. 36. Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 also reveal significant black electoral success in LRSD. Those exhibits examined ten races in the City of Little Rock which pitted a black against a white opponent. The black candidate won six of the ten races, including the only two LRSD elections shown on those exhibits. LRSD App., p. 152. Moreover, the two LRSD elections had the lowest correlation coefficients of the ten elections shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32. Appellant's App., p. 157. In fact. Lynch testified that the correlation coefficient for the 1989 election of Hamilton was not statistically significant. LRSD App., p. 142. This was the only election analyzed by Lynch under the previous singlemember election zones. Evidence of exogenous elections in the City of Little Rock further demonstrates the considerable success of black candidates. Blacks won four of the eight races analyzed on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibits 32 and 33 which did not involve LRSD. Appellant's App., pp. 110-11, 157, 161. Similarly, the black candidate prevailed over white opposition in nine of the twenty-three contests for the City of Little Rock Board of Directors shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 35. Appellant's App., p. 161-162. As noted above, blacks In the only other LRSD election involving a black and a white since the implementation of election zones, Charles Young, a white, defeated Lawrence Hampton, a black. The race was to represent Zone 6 which at the time was 72.7% white. Even so, Young defeated Hampton by only 32 votes. Even so. This race was excluded from Charles Plaintiff's Exhibits 32 and 33. LRSD App., p. 35. 28have been proportionally represented on the City of Little Rock Board of Directors since 1979. More importantly, the success of black candidates in LRSD and the City of Little Rock cannot be attributed solely to \"special circumstances.\" See Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 47. The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"All of the black electoral successes in the LRSD and Little Rock City Board elections were won under 'special circumstances' II Brief of Appellant's, p. 34. However, as the Charles Plaintiffs define \"special circumstances,\" it is equally true that all of the black electoral failures in LRSD and City of Little Rock elections were the result of \"special circumstances.\" For example, the Charles Plaintiffs describe the black majorities in LRSD Zones 1 and 2 as \"special circumstances.\" It follows then that the failure of a black candidates in a white majority zone would also be attributable to \"special circumstances. it is worth noting that another tl special circumstance\" referred to by the Charles Plaintiffs was support by the \"white power structure. II Lynch testified that black candidates Charles Bussey, H.D. Stewart and Jesse Mason were supported by the \"white power structure\" in races for City Board positions. Lynch testified that the only white candidate who was strongly supported by the \"white power structure\" was Gary Barket in the 1992 City by the II Board race. in 1992 City Barket lost the race and, in fact, received only 300 more votes (7299 to 6999) than Gloria Wilson, a black, whom Lynch described as antithetical to the \"white power structure.\" _ \u0026gt;(___________1_ . ...  . _ -- Thus, the \"white power structure\" described by Lynch has been able to elect its candidate only when that candidate is black. And, if the Court testimony regarding the correlation coefficients shown on Charles Plaintiffs' Exhibit 32, Bussey, Stewart and Mason were also the preferred candidates of African Americans. LRSD App. pp. 186-191. accepts Lynch's Exhibit 32, Bussey 29Lynch acknowledged that many factors other than race determine the outcome of elections. LRSD App., p. 129. These other factors \"would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group, might be able to attract greater white support in future elections. II Gingles. 478 U.S. at 100 (O'Connor, J. , concurring). The Charles Plaintiffs should be required to prove that its asserted reasons for any alleged failure by blacks to elect representatives of their choice cannot be characterized as a \"mere euphemism for political defeat at the polls,\" Whitcomb. 403 U.S. at 153\nsee Clements. 999 F.2d at 859. Indeed, one of these other factors explains the 1983 loss by Dr. Mitchell, black current member of the LRSD Board of a Directors, to a white opponent, Frank Mackey, in her first attempt to gain election to the board. Mitchell testified that name recognition had a \"great deal\" to do with her 1983 loss to Mackey. LRSD App., p. 210-211. Mackey's father, after whom Mackey was named, had been twice elected to Pulaski County Sheriff and twice elected County Judge for Pulaski County. LRSD App., p. 211. All of LRSD is within Pulaski County. However, in the same election in which Dr. Mitchell lost to Mackey, Hamilton, a black. was elected to the LRSD Board of Directors with 70% of the vote over a white opponent. LRSD Appendix, p. 12. Both Hamilton and Dr. Mitchell competed districtwide for at-large positions on the LRSD Board. Hence, many of the same voters, black and white alike, voted for Hamilton, but not for Dr. Mitchell. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that 30whites \"usually\" vote as a bloc to defeat the preferred candidate of blacks. 19 Similarly, Lynch testified that the election of Dr. Hamp Roy to the City of Little Rock Board of Directors over black opposition was due to large amount of money spent by Dr. Roy to win election. In Lynch's own words, \"Dr. Roy just spent an unbelievable amount of money to get that job.\" Lynch agreed that Dr. Roy's election was a \"special situation.\" LRSD Supp., p. 188. Thus, black electoral defeat in LRSD and the City of Little Rock has resulted from the same \"special circumstances\" which the Charles Plaintiffs argue account for black electoral success. The district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from legally significant white bloc voting should be affirmed. 5. Opportunity to Participate and to Elect. a. Less Opportunity: The Benchmark. As the final element of their Section 2 claim, the Charles Plaintiffs were reguired to establish that, based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" blacks have less opportunity than other Hamilton testified that it takes only about 300 votes to win an election within the current LRSD election zones. Hamilton's testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5 which show the results for the 1987 and 1989 LRSD elections. In the 1987 Zone 6 election, Charles Young defeated Lawrence Hampton 250 votes to 218 votes. In the 1987 Zone 7 election, Oma Jacovelli defeated Doug Harden 293 votes to 257 votes. ' In the 1989 Zone 1 election, Katherine Mitchell defeated Kenyon K. Lowe, Sr. 322 votes to 59 votes. In the 1989 Zone election. Frederick Lee 230 votes to 49 votes. Bill Hamilton defeated There are at five zones in the PCBE plan with black population greater that 4,600. The minimum black population in a LRSD zone under the PCBE plan is 1,112. LRSD App., p. 8. Thus, a black candidate has at least the \"opportunity\" to be elected in every LRSD zone, even without receiving a single white vote. App. , 8 . 31 2members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. 42 U.S.C. 1973\nChisom. 501 U.S. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. The Charles Plaintiffs argue that the district court erroneously used the 1986 plan approved by the district court as the benchmark for determining whether blacks have \"less opportunity.\" The Charles Plaintiffs state, \"The comparison of minority's 'opportunity' a under a historic scheme and the challenged scheme compares the minority's opportunity to itself, not to 'other members of the electorate. t II Brief of Appellants, p.l9.^ This statement would be true but for the fact that the \"historic scheme\" in this case was specifically found by the district court to comply with the Voting Rights Act. Appellant's Appendix, p. 50-51. In finding that the previous plan complied with the Voting Rights Act, the district court implicitly found that blacks had the same opportunity as other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. As a result. it makes no difference whether one is comparing the PCBE plan to the \"opportunity\" of other members of the electorate or to the \"opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when adopted in 1986 because they are the same. Therefore, The Charles Plaintiff's also argue that the PCBE plan should not be granted deference because it is retrogressive. LILI__^1, retrogressiveness may constitute a violation of Section 5 of the Although Voting Rights Act, it does not constitute a violation of Section 2. Na^, 797 F.Supp. 1498. Thus, the plan adopted by the PCBE should be granted deference unless it is found to be in violation of Section 2. Voinovich v. Quilter. ___ U.S. , , 122 L.Ed.2d 500, 513 (1993). --- 32the \"opportunity\" of blacks under the previous plan when approved by the district court in 1986 is an appropriate benchmark to judge the PCBE plan. See Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp 553, 573 (E.D.Ark 1991), aff 'd U.S. 112 S.Ct. 2296, 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992) b. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. Using the previous plan as a benchmark, the Charles Plaintiffs were required to establish, based on the \"totality of the circumstances,\" that the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones results in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan when approved by the district court. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1993)\nChisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 3 64\nTurner. 784 F. Supp. at 573. In an effort to meet this burden. the Charles Plaintiffs presented socioeconomic data concerning the residual effects of past discrimination. As the court stated in Whitfield. \"Because there are no legal barriers remaining to the opportunity for blacks to participate in the ^Turner, is distinguished from Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 196, because Turner involves a Section 2 challenge to a zone plan which revised a court approved plan to conform to the 1990 census. See Doulin V. White. 535 F.Supp. 450 (E.D.Ark. 1982). 7 _ zone plan based on the 1990 census, the Arkansas legislature preference to plans that departed as little as possible from the remedy implemented in Doulin\" ...... It In revising the II gave as a starting point . . and \"obviously used the Doulin plan Thus, the court in Turner concluded Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 556, 558. \"'Less opportunity' by any fair interpretation means 'less opportunity' than such black voters had immediately before the imposition or application of the challenged standard practice or procedure\nnot 'less opportunity' than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence.\" 473 . Turner. 284 F.Supp. at 33political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors.\" Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384.^ The socioeconomic data indicates that blacks are poorer, less educated. have fewer vehicles and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population. Even so, consideration of the socioeconomic factors provides no insight into the issue of whether the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones \"results\" in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the 1986 plan. Regardless of where the zone lines are drawn, blacks have the same socioeconomic status. It is not the line drawing by the PCBE which \"results\" in the blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process. but rather. it is their diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238 (Eisele, J., dissenting and concurring). Therefore, the Charles plaintiffs have not proved that they have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by PCBE, and consequently, their Voting Rights Act claim must fail. See Chisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. ^^S^ Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 204 (\"There are no presently existing legal barriers to voting by black citizens in Arkansas, and therefore they have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone else.\")\nLeadership Roundtable v. Citv of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 584 (E.D.Ark. 1980) (\"Since 1965, there has been no legal impediment in Arkansas to voting by blacks.\"). See Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers 34c. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. In proceedings before the district court, the Charles Plaintiffs alleged vote dilution due to \"packing\" of blacks into zones with unnecessarily large black majorities. A comparison of the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones and the previous plan, however, reveals that both when it was adopted in 1986^ using 1980 census data and when analyzed by Metroplan using 1990 census data. 24 the previous plan exhibited more \"packing\" than the PCBE plan. Consequently, if the Charles Plaintiffs concern is \"packing, they are better off under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they have ever been since LRSD Board members have been elected from single-member zones. Lynch testified that the opportunity of blacks to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the PCBE plan as it was under the 1986 plan. LRSD App., p. 148. Moreover, the Charles Plaintiffs' claim of packing is barred by the doctrine of law of the case. As noted above, the plan adopted by the County Board has less \"packing\" than the 1986 plan when approved by the district court, which was expressly found to comport with the Voting Rights Act. The law of the case doctrine provides that when a court decides an issue of law that decision continues to govern the same issues at subsequent stages of the ^^The plan adopted by Judge Woods in December of 1986 had two majority black zones with 81.50% and 68.90% black population, compared with 79.82% and 59.39% in the PCBE plan. ^Under the prior districting scheme, the two majority black districts had 84.35% and 74.97% black population according to the 1990 census. Under the plan adopted by the County Board, the Lwu majority black districts have 79.82% and 59.39% black population. two 35same case. Morris v. American National Can Corporation, 988 F.2d 50, 52 (8th Cir. 1993) . The doctrine was created to prevent relitigation of settled issues in a case and to protect the settled expectations of the parties, ensuring uniformity of decisions and promoting judicial efficiency. Id. Furthermore, \"[t]he law of the case doctrine applies to issues implicitly decided in earlier stages of the same case.\" Little Earth of United Tribes v. Dept. of Housing. 807 F.2d 1433, 1438 (8th Cir. 1986). The district court explicitly stated in its December 18, 1986 order that the previous LRSD election zones complied with the Voting Rights Act, and therefore, implicitly found that the percentage of black population in the zones did not dilute black voting strength through \"packing. Consequently, it is the law of H this case that the percentages of black population in the majority black zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE, which are lower than in the previous plan, cannot be said to violate the Voting Rights Act. d. The Senate Factors. In determining whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, a challenged electoral device results in a minority group having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice, the legislative history of Section 2 identifies a number of factors which \"may be relevant. 25 Senate Report, p. 28-29, reprinted in ^The Senate Report recognizes that the factors contained in the report may not be relevant in all Section 2 cases. 478 U.S. at 45. Gingles. Consideration of the Senate Factors in determining 36 H1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 206-07\nGinqles. 478 U.S, at 44-45 (1986). Although the district court made findings with respect each of these factors, the Charles Plaintiffs address only select factors in their Brief. LRSD assumes that the Charles Plaintiffs accept the district court's findings with regard to those factors not addressed. LRSD will respond to the Charles Plaintiffs' argument that LRSD used discriminatory electoral devices and that the policy underlying the PCBE plan is tenuous on the factors they discuss. There are presently no electoral devices being used in LRSD elections which enhance the opportunity to discriminate against blacks. In 1987 the State of Arkansas adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to LRSD elections. See Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-121 (Michie 1991). Since 1986 members of the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected from single-member zones, two of which have a majority black population. As a result, the majority vote requirement enhances the opportunity of black candidates to win election in these zones by preventing a candidate supported by the white minority from being elected by a plurality. With regard to the policy underlying the PCBE plan. PCBE instructed Metroplan to prepare alternative plans for LRSD election whether a violation of Section 2 exists has been criticized because the factors more logically support proof of \"intent, It Whitfield V. Democratic Party of Arkansas. 686 F.Supp. 1365, 1382 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (8th Cir. 1990), and as a result, often takes attention away from the real issue. Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1386-87 (\"It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the respect to the Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. The truth is that focusing on some of those factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws.\"). 37zones which preserve existing zones to the extent possible consistent with federal law. LRSD App., p. 41. The overriding policy underlying the PCBE's instructions was stability. LRSD Ms. Pat Gee testified extensively regarding the importance of stability of the LRSD Board of Directors. LRSD App., pp. 215-218. Stability has been recognized as a legitimate policy in redistricting. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 214. This is especially true where, as in the present case, the plan being App. , p. 4 6. revised was court approved and was specifically found to comply with the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Thus, the policy underlying the PCBE plan for LRSD elections cannot be described as tenuous. II. THE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY APPROVED THE CLOSING OF ISH SCHOOL AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF ISH STUDENTS TO THE NEW AND INTEGRATED KING INTERDISTRICT SCHOOL. This Court's review of district court decisions concerning disputed modifications to a settlement agreement is subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard. ADoeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). This Court should also \"give a healthy measure to deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court\". Id. at 257. The last time proposed modifications to the desegregation plans were before this Court, this Court described \"the standard to be used by the District Court for reviewing proposed modifications to the plan (if any are submitted in the future) to which all the parties have not agreed. II Id. at 258. While \"disputed 38modifications are governed by a stricter standard than agreed-to modifications\", Id., the party requesting modification of a school desegregation plan need not prove \"a grievous wrong evoked by new and unforseen conditions\". Id., quoting United States v. Swift \u0026amp; Co. . 286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932). This Court adopted the Sixth Circuit standard for reviewing disputed modifications: To modify [a] consent decree [], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal. either ] because experience proven less effective [or] disadvantageous, or because circumstances and conditions has it have changed which warrant fine tuning of the decree. A modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties. Id. at 258, quoting Heath v. De Courcv. 888 F.2d 1105, 1110 (6th Cir. 1989). The standard adopted by this Court is in harmony with the later decision of the United States Supreme Court in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) See Lorain NAACP v, Lorain Bd. of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141, 1149 (6th Cir. 1992) (treating the Rufo and Heath standards as harmonious and holding that school desegregation consent decrees ^Under Rufo, \"a party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. tt 116 L.Ed.2d at 886. 502 U.S. at should If the moving party meets that standard, the court \"consider the proposed modification suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.\" Id. \"Modification whether is It of a consent decree may warranted when changed factual conditions make compliance with the decree substantially be more onerous . . [\n] when a decree proves to be unworkable because of unforseen obstacles. [\n] or when enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest.\" Id. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 886-87. 39\"are subject to the same standards as enunciated in Rufo and Heath.\") The district court found \"that the insufficient number of Ish students (fewer than 100) is changed circumstance which a constitutes a defect or deficiency in the plan and impedes the goals set forth therein\". August 2, 1993 Order, p. 5 (Docket No. 1926) . This finding is supported by record evidence, including the results of a survey process which was approved by the district court without objection. LRSD App., p. 263-264. The primary goal of the plan is desegregation, and the district court properly found that that goal would be impeded by the continued operation of a racially isolated school whose attendance zone residents, for the most part, elected not to go there. The district court also found that \"[t]he closing of Ish, when considered in light of the opening of the desegregated King Interdistrict School, furthers the purpose of the plan in a more efficient way without upsetting the basic agreement of the parties.\" August 2, 1993 Order, p. 5. The plan seeks to achieve its purpose. desegregation party by movement of students from racially isolated schools to desegregated schools. LRSD App., p. 331. The modification approved by the district court \"gave the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order, P- The 4. replacement of an older, inefficient and racially isolated school 40 not favored by even a majority of the attendance zone residents with a new desegregated school in the same neighborhood furthers the purpose of the desegregation plans in a more efficient way and does not upset the basic agreement of the parties. The district court's findings are sufficient, under the standard established by this Court in Appeal of Little Rock School District and by the Supreme Court in Rufo, to warrant the modification approved by the district court. The approved modification, closing Ish, is \"suitably tailored to the changed circumstance\", insufficient interest in Ish and the election to attend King by potential Ish students. Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 890. The modification does not \"create or perpetuate a constitutional violation\"^ or rewrite the settlement \"so that it conforms to the constitutional floor\". Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 890-91. Therefore, because it stayed within the boundaries imposed by Appeal of Little Rock School District and Rufo, the district court did not abuse its discretion by accepting the plan proposed by LRSD: Within these constraints, the public interest and the \"[c]onsiderations based on the allocation of powers within our federal system,\" Dowell, 498 US, at 112 It L Ed 2d 715, the allocation of Dowell, 498 US, at 111 S Ct 630, require that the district court defer to local government administrators, who have the \"primary responsibility of elucidating, assessing and solving\" the problems of institutional reform, to resolve the intricacies of implementing a decree modification. Brown v. Board of Education, 349 US, at 299, 99 L Ed 2d 1083, 75 S Ct 2749. To the contrary, the movement of black students from an older, racially isolated school building to a new, integrated school building in the same general neighborhood is a part of the remedy for past constitutional violations. To the contrary. LRSD App., p. 331. 41Rufo, 502 U.S. at ___, 116 L.Ed.2d at 891. Joshua first argues that something about the settlement plans or this Court's 1991 decision in Appeal of Little Rock School District deprives the district court of discretion to close an incentive school.^ Brief of Appellants, p. 49-50. Joshua argues that because Ish is an incentive school and incentive schools are a major component of the settlement agreement, that tl Ish must not be closed\". Brief of Appellants, p. 49. That conclusion does not flow from the premises. Further, none of the desegregation plans contains an explicit or implicit statement which supports Joshua's position that incentive schools must not be closed, and Joshua has provided this Court no reference to any plan in support of its position. The district court, on the other hand, properly considered and set out in its Order the relevant language of the settlement agreement which shows the relationship between the establishment of interdistrict schools and the desegregation of incentive schools: As new interdistrict schools are established, those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school. . . . August 2, 1993 Order, p. 3. ^Joshua does not discuss the law of modification of consent decrees or argue that the district court failed to follow the standards enunciated in Appeal of Little Rock School District and Rufo. 42Joshua seems to equate the commitment to double fund the incentive schools with a commitment to perpetuate them. This Court emphasized the importance of double funding because double funding was designed to soften the impact of racial isolation at the incentive schools (LRSD App., p. 331), not because this Court endorsed the perpetuation of racial isolation. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d at 1385. Without the commitment of double funding, this Court would have found the settlement plans unconstitutional er se because of racial isolation. Id. The District Court properly considered and quoted the plan language which explains the reason for double funding incentive schools: Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to insure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. ~ .... ... shall utilize the To meet that goal, the parties services of consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and successfully such programs in a majority-black implementing educational setting. a August 2, 1993 Order, p. 4, quoting Interdistrict Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 4. Joshua's argument that an incentive school must not be closed even when fewer than 100 students wish to enroll there and when the alternative is a new integrated school \"in the same ^Double funding of incentive schools is important because that funding compensates for racial isolation. That does not mean that racial isolation is a good thing which must be preserved at its present level. The purpose of the desegregation plan is to end racial isolation, not to perpetuate it in order that double funding will be continued. 43general neighborhood\" which II offers many program enhancements, including four curriculum specialists, a 56-station computer lab. electronic-assisted instruction, and an automated media center,\" is not supported by the settlement desegregation plans or the law. August 2, 1993 Order, P- This Court has emphasized the 4. importance of double funding for the incentive schools (Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1385 (1990)\nAppeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991)), but it has never found in the plans a requirement that each incentive school building must remain open regardless of the circumstances. Joshua next argues without any legal citation that LRSD is improperly \"attempting to avoid its double funding obligations\". Brief of Appellants, p. 51. This argument, which is merely a restatement of its previous argument. seems to be based on the false premise that King is a racially identifiable school\nThus, the Ish students have been placed in the unfair position of attending a racially-identifiable school, but have been and will be deprived of attendant benefits they were promised. Brief of Appellants, p. 53. Joshua provides no record support for the statement that the Ish students will attend II racially- a identifiable school\", and cannot do so because it is not true. is in Joshua's argument that no incentive school should be closed direct conflict with the Desegregation which requires incentive school and the transfer Plan terms of the Interdistrict interdistrict school. of the closing of Stephens its students to a new LRSD App., p. 332. 1982, p. 10. Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 44The district court found that \"the parents of Ish Incentive School students . . elect[ed] to send them to King, new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general a neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order, p. 4 (emphasis supplied). Joshua's unsupported argument that the former Ish students are being deprived of incentive school \"benefits\" while being moved from one racially isolated setting to another is simply wrong. Joshua's next argument is that LRSD failed to recruit white students for Ish Incentive School. For this reason, Joshua argues. without citation of authority, the district court should not have \"reward[ed] the district for failing to meet its obligations by granting its motion to close Ish.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 54. The district court did express concern about LRSD's recruitment of white students to incentive schools, but it also had before it evidence of relative merits of King and Ish schools. LRSD Associate Superintendent Marie Parker testified that a primary purpose of the LRSD desegregation plan is to eliminate racially- identifiable schools (LRSD App., p. 316) and that King is better located than Ish to attract white students. LRSD App., p. 314. Ms. Parker believes that students at King will receive as good an education as they would have received at Ish, and testified that LRSD is committed to see that that happens. LRSD App., p. 317. Mr. Doug Eaton, LRSD's Director of Plant Services, testified that If Joshua's argument is that the Ish students should remain in a racially-identifiable school so that they can receive benefits promised to students who attend such schools, that argument ignores the basic purpose of the plan, which is to reduce racial isolation. 45Ish is in a good state of repair and has not been neglected. LRSD App., pp. 318, 319. Finally, Billy Bowles, PCSSD Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation, testified that it is difficult to recruit white parents to incentive schools: There are perceptions about incentive schools, parents look at them as 85% to 90% black and Many and recruiting white parents, just to be perfectly honest with you. it's real difficult to those schools. It doesn't mean that we don't try to recruit them. But just like Little Rock whites, they've just chosen not to go. LRSD App., p. 278. The district court, although concerned about recruitment of whites to Ish, determined from this and other evidence that the future of Ish should be decided by giving \"the parents of Ish Incentive School students the choice of removing their children from a racially-isolated setting by electing to send them to King, a new, desegregated Interdistrict School in the same general neighborhood.\" August 2, 1993 Order. Joshua's final argument is that the district court should have conducted further hearings with respect to LRSD's survey of potential Ish students. It was not necessary for the district court to do so. A two-day hearing preceded the district court's decision to approve the King attendance zone and to require LRSD to file with the court and serve upon the parties the process by which it would determine whether fewer than 100 students from among the groups selected by the district court wished to attend Ish. LRSD filed and served a detailed survey process. Even though the district court warned Joshua twice from the bench (LRSD App., pp. ^^See. Note 5, supra. 46293-300.) and again in its written order that Joshua would \"have 5 days to file their response and objections to LRSD's survey and plan\" (June 11, 1993 Order, p. 3, Docket #1848), Joshua did not object to the survey process. Following the survey, LRSD filed a status report (LRSD App., p. 260) and a motion to close Ish School (LRSD App., p. 2 68). Joshua's only response was to file an \"opposition to status report\" on July 23, 1993 (LRSD App., p. 265) which was refiled on July 28, 1993 (Docket No. 1917) in response to the district court order requiring that responses to LRSD's motion to close Ish School be filed no later than July 28, 1993 (Docket No. 1916). Before the district court approved the closing of Ish School, Joshua raised only three issues with respect to the survey: (1) \"Although the Court may have approved the survey form and process, there was no effort made, on information and belief, to reach pre-school children which may or may not have included kindergarten children\"\n(2) \"The process was designed to fail\"\nand (3) LRSD and the district court should have assumed \"that an equal percentage of the students who did not return the forms would 1. e. , have opted for Ish to that percentage which actually did so, 55.4%\" and therefore should have presumed that the actual number of students preferring Ish would be 145. Joshua Intervenor's Opposition to Status Report (LRSD App., 265) Docket No. 1915) also attached to Joshua's response to order (Docket No. 1917). Joshua now contends that it \"objected not only to the survey format, but also to the fairness of the manner in which it was carried out. and whether it was done correctly even under the survey guidelines proposed by LRSD.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 56- 57. Joshua also contends that it \"raised issues about the validity 47of the survey which came to light only after it was done.\" Brief of Appellants, p. 57. The district court fairly viewed Joshua's objections as untimely objections to the survey process. August 2, 1993 Order, p. 2. The court's bench ruling makes it clear that LRSD was required to survey then current LRSD students. not families who might potentially enroll their students in LRSD schools the following year. The court said, for example, that LRSD would be required to survey the group of students \"attending Ish who live inside the zone\" which was \"about 93 students\", and an additional 90 students \"who attend Ish who live outside the zone\". LRSD App., 287. These were the numbers of students actually attending LRSD for the 1992- 93 school year. LRSD App., pp. 308-309. The survey process filed by LRSD contains no plan to identify and to survey students other than those enrolled in the LRSD system for the 1992-1993 school year. Had Joshua considered this to be a flaw in the survey process, it could have filed a timely objection. This is not an issue of whether the survey \"was done correctly even under the survey guidelines proposed by LRSD\", or an issue \"which came to light only after [the survey] was done\". Brief of Appellants, p. 57. The next issue raised by Joshua after the survey was completed was that \"[t]he process was designed to fail\". This is. on its face. an objection to the process which could have been timely filed. 48Joshua's final objection to the survey, that LRSD should have been required to extrapolate the actual survey results and keep Ish open if the number derived from that extrapolation exceeded one hundred, is also an objection to the survey process which could have been timely filed. It was clear from the survey process filed by LRSD that LRSD would count only those students who affirmatively selected Ish School. In its form letter to parents of potential Ish students which was filed as a part of the survey process, LRSD said: If fewer than 100 students choose to attend Ish Incentive School, Ish will be closed and those students who reside in the present Ish attendance zone will be assigned to King Interdistrict School. LRSD App., p. 240. The district court gave Joshua an ample opportunity to object to the survey process and plenty of warning about the time frame for doing so. Even if the issues raised by Joshua had been timely filed. the court could have properly decided them without a hearing. The court could have concluded without a hearing that if fewer than one hundred of those students residing in the Ish attendance zone and those outside the zone attending Ish for the 1992-93 school year failed to declare an interest in attending Ish, that there was insufficient support for Ish to justify keeping it open, even assuming that a new class of kindergarten students would arrive and even assuming that those who failed to respond to the 49survey would choose Ish in the same proportion as those who did respond to the survey. Each finding made by the district court is supported by the record, and Joshua does not argue that the district court's findings ar unsubstantiated. The district court carefully applied the standard for modification of consent decrees set out by this court in Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (Sth Cir. 1991), and Joshua does not argue that the district court misapplied that standard or should have applied some other standard. In fact, Joshua makes no argument at all concerning the appropriate standard for modification of a consent decree. The district court's factual determinations are supported by the record and its legal conclusions are the result of careful application of the appropriate standard for modification of consent decrees. There was no abuse of discretion. CONCLUSION The district court's finding that the Charles Plaintiffs failed to establish a violation of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, is not clearly erroneous. The district court did not abuse its discretion in modifying LRSD's desegregation plan. The district court's orders on these issues should be affirmed. /// /// The form letter to parents made it clear that failure to respond to the survey was, in effect, a vote against Ish School. The parents were notified that Ish would be closed if fewer than 100 students chose to attend Ish. LRSD App., p. 240. 50Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Little Rock School District By: Christopher He er State Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I caused a copy of the foregoing Brief for Appellant Little Rock School District to be served on the following people by hand delivery on April 19, 1994, addressed as follows: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 51Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher He 52 V rbcbivsd ^PR 2 2 1994 Oiiice oi Desegregation Monitofinfl U n DIG'irflCTCuU.\"T EASTERN D:GTniCTAr.\ni:\n:/s IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSA^i\n^ 2 Q WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCCSMAC:\n, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Ey.' I\u0026gt;ISINTIFF 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 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN Introduction This brief traces some of the history of the development of the present LRSD and Interdistrict desegregation plans in support of the argument that the parties intended, and now have in place. three interdistrict schools within the Little Rock School District. Some of the documents which were submitted by the parties to Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon do not appear on the docket. For the convenience of the Court and the parties. documents are referred to throughout this brief by their location in the Joint Designated Record which was used for the 1989 and 1990 appeals and subsequently by the district court. Those documents not contained in the Joint Designated Record are referenced by date and docket number.statement of the Case A. Desegregation Plans Aubrey McCutcheon filed his \"Interim Report and Recommendations of the Special Master\" on February 16, 1988. 4 J.D.R. 714. Special Master McCutcheon approved and recommended for immediate adoption certain \"Proposed Stipulations For Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan\" which had been agreed upon by the parties to this case. The Stipulations contained an interim plan as well as a planning process which was to result in a final plan to be submitted to the Special Master by September 30, 1988. The Little Rock School District submitted its proposed desegregation plan on October 3, 1988. 5 J.D.R. 1040. The October 3, 1988 Proposed LRSD Desegregation Plan contained the following language about Washington school: \"The new Washington will function as an interdistrict magnet school. A tri-district survey will be conducted in October 1988 to determine a theme. The Washington students who were temporarily reassigned for the 1988-89 school years will be assigned to the new Washington school. Washington's location is expected to be a major asset to its ability to attract white students. In particular, it is easily accessible to downtown office workers from both North Little Rock, Pulaski County and Southwest Little Rock. Also, Washington's proximity to 1-30 is expected to attract students who live outside of 2Pulaski County. The Little Rock School District is interested in opening the magnet and M-M programs to students who live outside of Pulaski County. 5 J.D.R. 1045-46. The October 1988 plan also recommended Stephens as an interdistrict magnet: \"The recommendations in this section are based on current demographics and geography which identify a need for new construction. It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary due west of and adjoining the Capitol Hill Complex. The new Stephens will house pre-kindergarten through sixth grades. The new Stephens will be similar to the new Washington in that it will have a capacity of six hundred students and serve as an interdistrict magnet. The magnet theme will be based on the results of the tri-district survey. In addition to being located on the 1-630 corridor, the new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel.\" 5 J.D.R. 1047-48 (emphasis supplied). The third interdistrict magnet school proposed in the October 1988 plan was King: \"The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area bounded by 1-630, Chester Street, Seventh Street and Center Street. In addition to being an interdistrict 3magnet, the big attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and child care facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock.\" 5 J.D.R. 1048. Working with the parties and the Special Master, LRSD prepared a long term desegregation plan. The plan was submitted in two parts on January 31, 1989. Volume I does not address student assignment issues. Volume II, which was modified slightly and resubmitted on March 23, 1989, describes \"student assignments\" and \"facilities\". An Interdistrict desegregation plan was submitted to the Special Master on February 15, 1989. The March 1989 LRSD plan lists Washington among the incentive schools (10 J.D.R. 2288) and provides the following description of Washington school (10 J.D.R. 2231-33): \"Washington school is closed for the 1988-89 school year. A new Washington school is being built at the same site with a projected capacity of 1,050 students. The students who were originally assigned to Washington for the 1988-89 school year have been reassigned to Ish, Mitchell, Rockefeller and Rightsell. These students (166) will have a preference to return to the new Washington in the 1989-90 school year.\" The March 1989 LRSD plan contains the following language about Stephens and King schools: 4\"It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house prekindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of 600 students. It serves as an Interdistrict school. The new Stephens will be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its Early Childhood Program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. 10 J.D.R. 3232. According to the March 1989 plan, the non-magnet enrollment in LRSD for the 1988-89 school year was 8,327 black students and 3,835 non-black students for a total of 12,162 students. The projected enrollment for the 1989-90 school year was 8,500 black students and 3,850 non-black students for a total of 12,350 students. 10 J.D.R. 2229. The March 1989 plan listed 22 elementary schools with a total capacity of 9,501 seats and a projected enrollment of 8,187 students. 10 J.D.R. 2227-28. The eight incentive schools. 5Including 1050 seats at Washington, would have a total capacity of 3800 seats. 10 J.D.R. 2228. Romine was to be established as an interdistrict school for the 1989-90 school year with a capacity of 490 seats, up to 49% of which would be allocated to PCSSD and at least 51% of which would be allocated to LRSD. 10 J.D.R. 2229. The February 1989 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan lists Washington as an incentive school (8 J.D.R. 1722), proposes the conversion of Romine into an interdistrict school (8 J.D.R. 1731- 32), and requires LRSD to construct two new interdistrict schools. King and Stephens. Stephens is described as follows in the February 1989 Interdistrict Plan: \"LRSD will build new Stephens Elementary School a operating at grades pre-K through 6 to be located near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. This school will be ready by the 1990-91 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable. These parties propose that this elementary center be constructed, owned, and operated by the LRSD and draw its black student body largely from the students then attending the old Stephens school and its white student population, to the extent feasible, from both dependents of state government employees and PCSSD students. This school will have an early childhood program. The old Stephens school building will then be closed.\" 8 J.D.R. 1732. The February 1989 Interdistrict Plan contains the following language about King school: bU]y\\Dewt-n.Bri 6\"LRSD will construct a new King Elementary School as a downtown Interdistrict School by the 1992-93 school year or as soon as reasonably practicable. These parties propose that this facility be located in the general area bounded by Interdistrict 630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. These parties believe that this location would serve as a natural attractor for individuals who work within the governmental and business centers of Little Rock.\" 8 J.D.R. 1734. The 1989 LRSD and Interdistrict Plans were among the plans the Special Master recommended for rejection on May 10, 1989 (Docket #1182) . The district court accepted the Special Master's recommendation and rejected the 1989 desegregation plans on June 27, 1989 (Docket #1200). All three school districts and the Joshua Intervenors appealed from the June 27, 1989 order. Following the June 27, 1989 order of the district court. metropolitan supervisor Eugene Reville relocated to Little Rock and commenced the task of preparing new desegregation recommendations for the three districts. On January 2, 1990 Mr. Reville filed his proposal, the \"Tri-District Plan\", with the district court. Docket #1291. Under the Tri-District Plan, Washington became an interdistrict magnet school for basic skills/math/science which was described as follows: \"This school will open in 1990-91 for students who learn well in a highly-structured setting\nwho are motivated by btlqr\\OMe|*n.Bri 7academic, physical, and social competition\nand who are interested in math and science.\" 16 J.D.R. 4329. The Tri-District Plan contains the following language regarding assignments to Washington: \"Assignment to Washington will be open to students from the Pulaski County Special School District or the North Little Rock School District based on majority-to- minority provisions and on the provisions of Act 609 of 1989 (the \"School Choice\" law). Preference will be given to black students in the Little Rock School District who live in the attendance zone for Washington School and to white students in the Pulaski County Special School District. Next preference will be given to students who attend schools that are less than fifty-six percent black.\" 16 J.D.R. 4250. The Tri-District Plan does not require the construction of a new Stephens or King Interdistrict School. On March 5, 1990 (Docket #1328) the district court entered an order approving the Tri-District Plan as submitted on January 2, 1990 with only minor exceptions. Washington Elementary School was closed and rebuilt on the same site during the 1988-89 school year. The new Washington school opened for the 1989-90 school year as racially a identifiable elementary school with 519 students, ninety-eight percent of whom were black. During the pendency of the appeals of the district court's order rejecting the settlement plans and 8approving the Tri-District Plan, the Tri-District Plan was implemented for the 1990-91 school year. Washington operated during the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced interdistrict magnet school. Fifty-seven percent of Washington's 762 students were black. One hundred thirty-two white students from outside LRSD attended Washington Interdistrict Magnet School during the 1990-91 school year. The desegregation plans presented to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in the joint appeal of the three school districts and the Joshua Intervenors required only three interdistrict schools within the Little Rock School District - King, Romine and Stephens. On December 12, 1990, the Court of Appeals approved those desegregation plans but recognized that a transition from the Tri- District Plan to the settlement plans would be necessary: 'It may be necessary, in order to make smooth a transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances. The parties should be able to agree as to whether any such adjustments are necessary, and, if so, what they should be. Absent such agreement, the district court is authorized to take such action as may be just.\" LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). Since certain existing schools, including Washington, were assigned different purposes under the Tri-District Plan than under the settlement plans, it became necessary for the parties to immediately resolve kMhyXDnec-n.Bri 9those differences. The parties reached the following agreement concerning Washington School: \"Washington School was a racially identifiable black school during the 1989-90 school year. Washington opened for the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced (57% black) magnet school. Washington should continue to operate as a magnet school. This agreement is recorded in a stipulation and consent order signed by all the parties and entered by the district court on February 13, 1991 (Docket #1434). On May 1, 1991, the parties jointly proposed certain revisions to their 1989 desegregation plans. Washington was removed from the list of incentive schools in the May 1, 1991 LRSD plan. 22 J.D.R. 5723, 5726, 5729. Although Washington is not listed as an interdistrict school in the May 1, 1991 interdistrict plan (see 22 J.D.R. 5864-70), the May 1991 LRSD plan describes the goals of the Washington Elementary School Basic Skills/Math - Science Magnet and explains how students will be assigned there: \"All students will be assigned to Washington Schools (sic) by the Student Assignment Office. The NLRSD and PCSSD will actively recruit students who are eligible for M-to-M transfers. The target racial balance at Washington will be 60 percent black and 40 percent white.\" 22 J.D.R. 5698. k\u0026gt;tlv\\DHet-n.Bri 10This court's final ruling on the May 1, 1991 desegregation plans was filed on May 1, 1992, approving \"the revised plans as attached to\" the May 1, 1992 order. Those are the plans under which the districts presently operate. The LRSD plan contains the following language concerning assignments to Washington Elementary School Basic Skills/Math - Science Magnet: \"All students will be assigned to Washington Schools (sic) by the Student Assignment Office. The NLRSD and PCSSD will actively recruit students who are eligible for M-to-M transfers. The target racial balance at Washington will be consistent with the Interdistrict Plan, seeking to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal to be 50 percent black/white.\" LRSD Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, p. 144. The difference between the racial composition proposed by the parties in the May 1, 1991 plan (60% black and 40% white) and the racial balance contained in the plan as approved by the district court dated April 29, 1992 (between 60% and 40% of either race with the ideal goal to be 50% black/white) is significant. The racial balance prescribed for Washington by this Court is the racial balance for interdistrict schools found in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan and described in this Court's May 1, 1992 Order: \"Provisions of the interdistrict plan target the ideal racial balance for the various types of LRSD schools: Interdistrict schools at 50 percent black/white with variance of 60 to 40 percent of either race ... a H kBth|y\\DMe(*n.Bri 11May 1, 1992 Order (Docket #1587), pp. 27-28. This Court would not have assigned to Washington the racial balance requirements of interdistrict schools if Washington were not, in fact, operating as an interdistrict school. The decision that Washington should be governed by the racial balance requirements for interdistrict schools set forth in the Interdistrict Plan reflects this Court's recognition of Washington as an interdistrist school. The 1989 desegregation plans approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals require the operation of three Interdistrict schools within LRSD - Romine, King and Stephens. 8 10 J.D.R. 2229- 32\nJ.D.R. 1721, 1731-34. LRSD presently operates three interdistrict schools - Romine, King and Washington. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans should be amended to reflect the fact that LRSD presently operates the number of interdistrict schools contemplated by the plans agreed upon by the parties in 1989 and approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1990. In its order with respect to the modifications proposed by the parties in the May 1991 plans, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said: \"It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable ... tl Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). In accordance with the 1989 plans approved by the Court of 12Appeals in December 1990 and the order quoted above, LRSD presently operates three interdistrict schools. B. Demographics According to the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans as those plans were approved by the Court of Appeals in 1990, LRSD was to establish three interdistrict schools, two of which would be located in central Little Rock in the general area along 1-630 between University Avenue and 1-30. One school was to be established \"near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" 10 J.D.R. 3232. The other was supposed to be \"located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue.\" 10 J.D.R. 3232. Since those plans were written, both King and Washington schools have been established as interdistrict schools within the area described in the plans. Also since those plans were written, 1990 census information has revealed a dramatic shift of population away from the area in which the interdistrict schools were to be located. This decline in population in the area targeted for the location of interdistrict schools is illustrated by undisputed evidence which was presented to the district court concerning the issue of revised election zones for the LRSD board. When the initial LRSD board member election zones were approved by Judge Woods on December 18, 1986 (Docket # 719), zones one and two had total populations of 25,399 and 25,295 respectively. Zones one and two cover most of central and east Little Rock, which is the 13primary area in which LRSD interdistrict schools were to be located. According to the 1990 census information, the population of zone one is 20,901, which is 4,498 people lower than the previous census. The 1990 population of zone two was 20,415, which is 4,880 people lower than the previous census. The 1990 census shows an eighteen percent decline of the number of people in zone one and a nineteen percent decline of the number of people in zone two. The movement of population away from east and central Little Rock is further shown in the testimony of Jim McKenzie about the election zone issue. Mr. McKenzie is the executive director of Metroplan, governmental planning and research organization composed of local government entities in the Central Arkansas area. Mr. McKenzie testified that his organization tracks demographic changes in Little Rock and that there was a material demographic change from the 1980 census to the 1990 census. April 13, 1993, Tr. 62-63. Although the population in eastern Little Rock a declined each year since 1980 (Tr. 67), most of the movement out of that area occurred between 1985 and 1990. Tr. 62-63. Mr. McKenzie testified that the \"center city\" will continue to lose population. Tr. 100-01. Mr. McKenzie prepared four proposals to adjust the LRSD election zones so that they would contain relatively equal populations. He testified that his proposal number four \"looks more to the future in terms of growth and shifts in population than the other proposals.\" See Memorandum Opinion and Order, June 21, taukorVDeaet-n.Bri 141993 (Docket #1853), p. 5. According to Mr. McKenzie's description of proposal number four, \"the areas of the City of Little Rock that are projected for growth have a negative variance from the mean while the areas that are projected to lose population have a positive variance. Id. In proposal number four, which was presented to the court in PCBE Exhibit 1, the only two zones which show a positive variance from the mean, indicating a projected loss of population, are zones one and two. See Tr. 101-02. The movement of population away from the area targeted for the establishment of interdistrict schools within LRSD is also shown in information provided to the parties by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. A document titled \"Incentive School Attendance Zones and Schools Attended\" shows a total population of the incentive school attendance zones (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens) of 1,946 for the 1993-94 school year. The incentive school attendance zones generally correspond with the area targeted for the location of interdistrict schools. In fact, the interdistrict schools were expected to draw their black student population from among \"those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an Incentive School\". 8 J.D.R. 1722. The present number of students in the incentive school zones (1,946) is dramatically lower than the capacity established for the incentive schools in the 1989 desegregation plans of 3800 students. 10 J.D.R. 2228. The parties projected in the 1989 LRSD Desegregation Plan that if 3600 LRSD black students attended kMlvMiMH-Pl.Bri 15incentive and interdistrict schools, the racial composition of the area schools would be 56% black. 10 J.D.R. 2231. According to the 1989 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, the incentive schools alone should be \"sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary academies) [now area schools] of 55% black and 45% white with a variance of 5%.\" 8 J.D.R. 1721. That means that in 1989 the parties expected that more than 3600 black students would attend the incentive schools from the incentive school zones, but today only 1,946 students reside in the incentive school zones. The Office of Desegregation Monitoring prepared and distributed to the parties in February 1994 a study of \"Enrollment In Downtown Elementary Schools\". That study defines downtown elementary schools as those located \"east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham.\" This is generally the area targeted for the location of LRSD interdistrict schools. This study shows that the incentive schools have a capacity of 2,305 students but that the October 1, 1993 enrollment was only 1,454 students. There are 1,429 available seats in downtown elementary schools. Those schools operate at only seventy-six percent of capacity. The February 1994 ODM study also shows that the two existing downtown interdistrict schools. King and Washington, are operating at 80% and 77% of capacity, respectively. There are 139 available seats at King and 218 available seats at Washington. King kitkor\\DBW(\u0026gt;n.Bri 16Interdistrict School has attracted 200 white students from outside the downtown area and Washington Interdistrict Magnet School has attracted 249 white students from outside the downtown area. Finally, both the Pulaski County Special School District, which was to be the primary source of white students for the interdistrict schools (8 J.D.R. 1721), and the Little Rock School District have experienced an unexpected overall decline in student population. The number of students attending PCSSD declined from 21,633 for the 1992-93 school year to 20,426 for the 1993-94 school year according to the October 1 enrollment count, a loss of 1,207 students. The number of students attending LRSD declined from 26,212 for the 1992-93 school year to 25,594 for the 1993-94 school year, a loss of 618 students. Both districts expect to lose more students for the 1994-95 school year. C. Plan Modification Process The PCSSD plan contains a desegregation plan amendment process (pp. 104-05) which this Court has found should be implied in the LRSD and NLRSD plans (Memorandum and Order, June 21, 1991, p. 17, Docket #1479). This Court has described the plan modification process as follows: \"Proposed amendments may arise in multiple ways. including by agreement or consultation with the other parties. Any proposal is first submitted to the PCSSD Office of Desegregation (Office) for initial review and analysis. The Office will make a recommendation to the kMtay\\Dnet*n.Bri 17superintendent who will in turn make the final recommendation to the Board. If the Board approves, the matter will be submitted to the Court, and formally submitted to the other parties to the litigation. If the Court approves, the plan shall be amended. Note that bv the Plans own terms, agreement of all parties is not required for amendment.\" 1^. (emphasis in original). LRSD has followed the desegregation plan amendment process with respect to its proposal to recognize Washington as an interdistrict school in place of Stephens. The proposal was first reviewed by the LRSD Desegregation Office as well as other administrators and the superintendent. Following that review. LRSD informally submitted the proposal to the other parties on November 12, 1993. LRSD proposed: \"That we seek to amend the desegregation plan to acknowledge the fact that both Washington and King have been established as interdistrict schools and that the establishment of two such schools within LRSD satisfies the Eighth Circuit's requirement that LRSD operate 'the agreed number of interdistrict schools'. PCSSD would be expected to 'engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts' to recruit students to Washington, but would be relieved of the expectation that the white student population of Washington would come primarily from PCSSD. White LRSD students presently attending Washington would be allowed to remain and LRSD would lathy \\DBMg-Pl.Bri 18continue to recruit white students for Washington in the future.  Letter to Counsel, November 12, 1993. LRSD further proposed: \"That we delay the construction of a school at the present Stephens site so that LRSD may complete its demographic study to determine how best to meet the requirements of its student population and the desegregation plans. If LRSD determines to build a new school at the Stephens School Site, the new school will be an incentive school and the parties will s\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_396","title":"Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 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":["1991/1996"],"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","Educational planning","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 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/396"],"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\nbyu 3- HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY 11 922-1 9941 ROBERT V. light. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM 111. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A, WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY e. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P A. WALTER M. EBEL UI, P.A. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, jR.. P A. CLYDE -TAB- TURNER. PA. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAVLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P A. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO. JR.. P A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. FAX NO. 501-376-2147 June 30, 1995 JUi 1995 Office of DesegrsgciiC'h i.-cr SCO H. TUCKER. P.A, JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M.GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY couMseu WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR.. P.A. 8.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. WRireil'S DIRECT NO. l50n 370-1 553 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas Mrs. Ann Brown Attorney at Law Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street 72206 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY i JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON t JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD, et al Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of LRSD's Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan and Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan which are being filed with the Court today. d iana\\pcsM\\aiiomey. it2Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown June 30, 1995 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney JLM/dtw Enclosures cc (w/enc): Dr. Henry P. Williams Dr. Russell Mayo Dr. Robert Glowers LRSD Board of Directors diana\\pcs$d\\at(orney. 1(2A IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL' DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL REGS''\"' DEFENDANTS , tazs MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Jill 1995 INTERVENORS D . Office of Desegregc.ticn Monitoring LRSDS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\") , for its Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan, states: 1. The LRSD currently operates approximately twenty-three (23) elementary area schools for the education of children in the various attendance zones for each school and as otherwise may be assigned to a particular school. Two of those schools. Fair Park Elementary School and Badgett Elementary School, have been identified for closing beginning'the 1995-96 school year after a thorough review of the facts. circumstances and financial constraints of the District. 2 . Attached hereto as Exhibit One (1) is a true and accurate copy of the business case developed by the Little Rock School District to support the recommendation to close Badgett Elementary diana\\pc5sd\\(nodirica(ion.nKK -1-School. Attached hereto as Exhibit Two (2) is a true and accurate copy of the Memorandum reflecting the time line for the various tasks necessary to give the appropriate notices and allow for the appropriate involvement of community, patrons and other interested parties. 3 . Attached hereto as Exhibit Three (3) is a true and accurate copy of the business case developed by the Little Rock School District to support the recommendation to close Fair Park Elementary School. Attached hereto as Exhibit Four (4) is a true and accurate copy of the Memorandum reflecting the time line for the various tasks necessary to give the appropriate notices and allow for the appropriate involvement of community, patrons and other interested parties. 4 . This Court has consistently encouraged the District to pursue budget reduction strategies which reflect its appreciation of the need to eliminate recurring expenditures through the use of strategies which are themselves recurring in nature from year-to- year. In light of the number of vacant seats which exist in the District, the under-enrollment of certain schools in the District and the major expenses required to operate and maintain a school. among other factors. the LRSD has determined that it IS a reasonable budget deduction strategy to consider school closings among the various other strategies reviewed and considered by it. Since the development and approval of LRSD's Desegregation Plan, there have been significant changes in conditions which warrant diana\\pcs$d\\modificaiioft. mo( -2-modification of that plan. Namely, there has been a significant decline in student enrollment at each school since the 1989-90 school year and, consequently, operational costs per student have continued to increase. Further, the physical structures are in need of renovation and upgrading. but to do so would cost considerably more than the average cost of renovating and upgrading other buildings in the District. 5 . The modification of the desegregation plan which is most suitably tailored to the changed circumstances is to permit the District to close Badgett Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School. Such a modification would allow the District to reassign the students currently attending those schools, reassign building administrators and staff to allow for greater efficiency and, to some extent. improve the racial balance at the receiving schools. In those instances where the racial balance of the receiving school will not be improved, the District will attempt to accomplish reassignment in such a manner that the current racial balance is not significantly impacted in a negative manner. Attached hereto as Exhibit Five (5) is a true and accurate copy of the District's rating sheet and explanations for the study made of its facilities to determine whether schools should be closed. As noted, Badgett Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School had the highest negative ratings. 6. This proposed modification is in compliance with the standards for modification of consent decrees set out in Rufo v. dianaxpcssdVmodificaiHJn.nxx -3-1  Inmates of Suffolk County Jail. 502 U. S. , 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d. 867 (1992) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d. 253, 258 (8th Cir., 1991). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above and in the accompanying brief. LRSD prays for modification of the LRSD desegregation plan to permit it to close Badgett Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School beginning with the 1995-96 school. year. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 72201-3493 diana\\pcsl\\nxxlificaiKxi.mo( 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 -4- 1  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan has been served by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, except as otherwise 7\u0026gt; indicated. on the 3o day of 1995, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered as per Order by the Court) Attorney at Law Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone dianftxpcssdkmodiftcaiiofl.mot -5-- exhibit 1 Little Rock School District Badgett School Relocation A Business Case January, 1995 Addition Modification 4 Deletion $523,000 savings EXHIBIT 1 'I'WiRadgett School Relocation Business Case 2 jExecutiv^umm^^ For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strate^es were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district s total building capacity and total enrollment shows many vacant seats. While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving mone), it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. The following are closing: reasons why Badgett Elementary School is considered for 1. 2. 3. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 68.87% of its capacity\nThe capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 475 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\nEnrollment since 1989 has declined steadily from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\n4. The school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257), students must come from elsewhere to fill the school. Successful experience in recruiting has not been achieved for this school. 6. The per pupil cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\n7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations. The additional population to fill the school must come from other attendance zones which will negatively impact other schools\n8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school one on the most expensive to operate annually\nand, 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed 51,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. t iBadgett School Relocation Business Case 3 By the opening of school fitr 1995-96, Badgett students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Plan. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. resources a The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: 1. New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\n2. 3. 4. The community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\nTransportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\nSpecial activities are plarmed and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\n5. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n6. 7. 8. Leaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\nImmediate cost savings is realized\nand, The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school 1QQC nr r o for 1995-96. Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way. Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience their friends\nsome disappointment in being separated from 2. Communit}' reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\nBadgett School Relocation Business Case 4 4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance general area of the city. zones in that Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school make new students and patrons feel welcomed\nto 3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Badgett\n0. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $523,000\nand,. 6. The Badgett School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone___________________ 1 Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately 2. Contact the principals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval____________ 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.___________________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Badgett School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Badgett School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone. Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste MayoBadgett School Relocation Business Case 5 Milestone  Develop notice of relocation and dale of community information meeting to send to a) parents 4 students: b) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 7 Conduct informational meeting with the pnncipal, faculty, and staff about the proc^ 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meetino to\"------ a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the infonnation meeting 10. Conduct community information meetings by 11 Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy _1_2. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relate students at aadgeff School 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment 14. Inventory building ' ------------------ 15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest. 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment' 17 Remove matenals and equipment from school --------- 18. Reroute transportation of students 19. Secure building 20. Reassign staff___________ 21. Send final assignment notices Date 2/10/95 2/10/95 2J2QI^S 2/22/9S 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/15/95 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/1/95 Person Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo Background For several years, the LzffZe Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. K ______J_____1____J . . . - . many vacant seats. Though many strate^es were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district's total building capacity and total enrollment shows While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is'to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Based on the criteria used, Badgett Elementary School is a school that must be considered for closing. It is located in the extreme eastern tip of the City of Little Rock. See Attachment A. Reasons for this conclusion are explained in this business case. I Problem Definition Badgett has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation.Badgett School Relocation Business Case 6 The following are reasons why Badgett Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 68.87% of its capacity\n2- The capacity of the school itself (257) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the school would not operate efficiently when compared to other average size schools\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined steadily from 237 to 177 and is expected to continue\nThe school is out of racial balance by 15.14%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this. A dramatic increase of 5.30% in percentage black occurred this year\n5. Because the attendance zone (160) is smaller than the capacity of the school (257), students must come from elsewhere to fill the school. Successful experience in recruiting has not been achieved for this school. 6. The per pupil cost has increased to $4021.87 in 1994-95 which is the highest of any area elementary schools\nThe additional 7. The school is geographically isolated from other populations. population to fill the school must come from other attendance zones which will negatively impact other schools\n8. Operational costs for the building have increased enough to make this school one on the most expensive to operate annually\nand, 9. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings. Figure 2 illustrates some of these trends.Badgett School Relocation Business Case 7 Figure I Badgett Elementary Enrollment History Criteria Enrollment % Black % Out of Balance Capacity__________ Attnd. Zone Ttl.~ AZ % Black 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93] 1993-94 237 76.00 16.00 92.22 222 74.77 14.77 86.38 220 73.18 13.18 85.60 202 76.24 16.24 78.60 189 69.84 9.84 73.54 135 65.93 1994-95 177 75.14 15.14 68.87 160 61.25   to bring children of different cultures together for 0 d^egXgZ To toe to M-M transte across that ime to Badgett, if permitted, would  ' J  , ,, - ------because that area of PCSSD ic North Little Kock School District, which does not participate in M to M Iransfeis now. To the west. the school is buffered from the See Attachment A. rest of the city by the airport and industrial complexes. Analysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with LRSD. Data on attendance a committee representing administrators in the zones, enrollment, ethnic makeup of students in the school as well as those in the attendance zone were reviewed, .^/considerable discussion It was decided that three things must be addressed for an alternative to be satisfactory. They were declimng enrollment, increasing costs, and location. Addressing only or two and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. one Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can 1 J J , , ----- uiai uic pruDiem ran be addressed adequately if the alternative offers quality for students and cost efficiency for tax.payers. To be a good alternative, it must address adequately all areas of concern. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. Change nothing This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\n' Enrollments are for Octoller of each year. Attendance zone data is available for two vears only.Badgett School Relocation Business Case s 2. Redraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Badgett School. per-pupil costs at Badgett but will increase costs elsewhere since :s zone must be reduced to enlarge Badgett's. Further it wnnlH impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. This reduces the another attendance areas of the problem. addresses all three a) A plan to relocate students will be devised. Attachment C\nOne possible scenario appears in b) An immediate savings of approximately $523,000 will be eliminating the need for management staff, food and utilities to name a few\nrealized by service, building maintenance, c) d) t Staff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract. I*  0 ihools under the program for that particular school. k r? location causes it to be ^ficult to desegregate. Recruitment has been tried in IKSD. The results havM ^n stgiuficM. U the enrollment of Badgett were increased by this effort, it would attendar^^zone \"* n- To the south of the if ^CSSD boundary line. M-M transfers across that line to Llk 'oL *T^oXh T  predominately Little Rock School ff ' in M to M transfers now. To the west the school IS Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. addresses all of the Objective By the opening of school for 2995-96, Badgett students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district.Badgett School Relocation Ptisincss Case 9 Fulfilling this proposal will Th. proposal support mllhof \" necessary to support schools and the desegregation Plan. to The problem will be considered solved if program. securing financial resources 1. 2. 3. 4. New attendance the following list of criteria is met\nzones affected by this relocahon will reflect a better racial balance\nThe community is given the opportunity to be heard Transportation is Special activities i re-routed to accommodate these students\non the decision\nStudents and patrons feel welcomed\nplemented by each new school to make the new \" and activities with 6. Leaders within the opportunity for inpu*^ \"\" P' have the 7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, 8. The relocation of students and staff for 1995-96. at will be complete before the opening of school Most of these benefits will Plan goals will not be altered. occur when the process concludes. Desegregation assigned school will be minimal. arent concerns about the process and their newly The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal.' District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buflto\nSv^e Z aranS::? Pamount concern to ^y co^unity members. _  Of the buildmg when the students are relocated. Some will --s ..\"J receive equal program quality in the reassigned know if a plan exists for use in the city. Some will want to want assurance that students will concerns are understandable, we believe we c^ offer an equal program in a more economical way. our students Negatives 1. Students and staff will their friends\nexperience some disappointment in being separated from 2 Community reaction will be strong against the decision for community a.s mentioned above\nfear of the impact on the Badgett School Relocation Business Case 10 3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency community\nor the 4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance general area of the city. Positives zones in that 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\nSpecial activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school make new students and patrons feel welcomed\nto New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\nElementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Badgett\n^mediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $523,000\nThe Badgett School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. The risks of implementation of this solution are several. Some are criticism for abandoning another school building in the community, inconveniencing the students who walk to school, and the possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly as anticipated. Timing It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. IBadgett School Relocation Business Case Resources Analysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to implement this proposal. 77 Instead, some positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her Job, however. Attrition will be used to eliminate positions. Financial A savings of approximately $523,000 is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. The savings are year-to-year. Revenue Source A source of revenue is unnecessiry. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the district's budget. I Force Field Analysis I I Primary supporters of this proposal will be those who do not have children attending the school. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunities and for cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. They may argue that too many buildings have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities\nThat a school is the life of a wholesome community. Some say that removing a school from a community removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key community people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns.I I bl I ! ! IH I il  I i 1 I I I! I i I!!: II ! I I' Badgett School Relocation Business Case I General Implementation Plan 12 The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Develop a list of key people in the community wtio should be contacted immediately   _______ /  -  11 \u0026lt;  I w  a A w \u0026gt;  2. Contact the pnncipals of surrounding schools who may be affected by the relocation -'X Hi IcirtAee I 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers. 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Badgett School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Badgett School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone: and. ___those who do not attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone. zone 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send tO' a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches: c) media (press release) d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 7. Conduct informational meeting with the pnngpal. faculty, and staff about the a ______________I_____- ...  .. iHccung wnn me pnngpal, racutty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meeting to a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches: c) media (press release)_______________ 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 10. Conduct community informabon meetings by 11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy 12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Badgett School_____ 13. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment.______ 14. Inventory building 15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest. ~ 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment___________ 17. Remove materials and equipment from school 18 Reroute transportation of students___________________ 19. Secure building ~ 20. Reassign staff 21. Send final assignment notices Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/20/95 2/22/95 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/1S/95 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7I3M95 31-1195 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste Mayo Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams Williams Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley MayoBadgett School Relocation Business Case J 3 Attachment A Copy of map of Little Rock, eastern most area, with Badgett Elementary and other schoolsBadgett School Relocation Business Case 14 Attachment B Copy of pages from 1994-95 Budget relating to the cost of Badgett Elementary SchoolHM* laaM MM .MM MM Little Rock School District Department Budget Unit Func Ob| - Description Actual 92793 FTE 92793 Budget 93794 Actual 93794 FTE 93794 Budget 94795 FTE 94795 0019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY_____________________ _______1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED__ ' 0210 SCX:iAL SECURITY TAX_________ 0240 INSURANCE____ ______________0380 FOOD SERVICES_______________ 04 i 0 SUPPLIES_____ ____________0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 1110 KINDERGARTEN_________________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_ ______0240 INSURANCE________________ '____0410 SUPPLIES__________________ 04 i 2 LOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN _____0416 SUPPLIES  SUPPLY CENTER 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY______________________ Olio REGULAR CERTIFICATED_______ 0117 STIPENDS____________________ di 20 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 02 i 0 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_________ 0240 INSURANCE_____________ 0326 REPAIRSEQUIPMENT__________ 0342 POSTAGE _________________ 0360 PRINTING A BINDINQ-INTERN___ 04 i 0 SUPPLIES _______________ 04 i 6 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER ______04 i 8 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES_______ 0421 TEXTBOOKS - LOCAL SOURCES ~ 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER fl20 ELEMENTARY 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0216 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE IV,,.. S' ^'01 Pri.p nutxx)2 29,078.00 9,960.00 _2.?8a54_ 2,935.05 2^510.10 325.76 _____000 0.00 47,795.45 66,968.40 5,123.11 3,116 29 13541 000 000 75,345.21 238,811.46 000 31,32381 20,665.95 15,887.16 _____25.00 66.31 000 4342 987.23 ______0 00 ______0.00 500 01__ 308,330.37 OQO 0.00 o'oo 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 e.oo 3.00 11.00 30,753.00 9,643.93 2,935.42 2,512.88^ ___10300 ___176.65 ___139 50 ____0.00 46,264.56 70,319.00 5,014.49 2,633.57 262.95 461.44 0.00 78,711.45 241,781.40 0.00 29,666.37 20,919.72 14,759.75 515.00 257.50 267.50 979.74 1j030.00 3,581'96 257.50 257.50 314,465.94 15,256.00 1,167.00 592.00 ___34,367.00 ____10,411.00 _____3 J 78 87 2,137.62 2,431.35__ 35.00 Mr47 _ 0.00 52,798.31 40,670.00 3,049.48 1,127.13 145.86 0.00 71.05 45,063.52 215,094.04 0.00 22,217.80 16,030.14 10,238.22 0.00 102.47 21.00 3,221.22 1,365 67 000 0.00 0 00 270,290.56 17,233.50 _____1,316 32 565.96 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 7.50 4.00 11.50 0.50 69.359 00 20,318 00 5,757 61 4,420.00 5,400.00 3,07600 178 00 3,600 00 102J 10.61 40,670.00 2,938.90 1,10500 240^00 0.00 000 44,953.90 206,775.00 300.00 22,893.30 16,016.24 11,602.50 500 00 100.00 ______0.00 200.00 1,892.00 0.00 0.00 ______0.00 262,281.04 17,635.00 1,274.34 552.50 2 00 200 4 00 t 00 1.00 7.50 3 00 10.50 0.50Unit ' 'U -I Little Rock School District Department Budget Func Ob| - Description 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC Actual 92/93 0.00 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 17,015 00 [ Actual 93/94 19,117.78 FTE 93/94 0.50 Budget 94/95 19,461 84 FTE 94/95 0 50 ____1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM __________0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ _ 0240 INSURANCE 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 0 00 0^00 o?ob 0.00 1.00 1.00 10,411.00 ___796 44 1,292 94 12,500 38 4,390.97 _336 00 425.11 5,152.08 1.00 1.00 4,164 40 300.93 442'00 4,907.33 0 40 0 40 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCTION ______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ______0240 INSURANCE____________ 1210 ITINERANT INSTRUCTION ___14,782.56 1,130.89 768.03 16,681.48 1.00 1.00 __15,627.5^ ____1^1442 _____654 92 17,'396.64 ___15,627.60 1,19544 ______561^4 17,384.08 1.00 1.00 ____16,029 00 '1,158 29 _______552 50 17,739.79 0 50 0 50 1220 RESOURCE ROOM__________ ______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ______0240 INSURANCE____________ 1220 RESOURCE ROOM 1560 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME_______ 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ______0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION ______0380 FOOD SERVICES___________ 0410 SUPPLIES_________________ ______0416 SUPPUES - SUPPLY CENTER _0416 PRIOR ENCUMBRANCES 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED____ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES_______ ______0116 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE Date 8/ 5/94 Prog: BUD002 l\u0026gt; HV 34,784.58 2,661.27 2,809.43 40,255.28 Ji^l 99.49 244.79 575.76 440.15 165.00 0.00 0.00 4,625J 9 11,888 24 909.40 636.56 13,43420 29,058 00 2,223.10 1,532.64 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0 50 24,892.00 1,775 06 1,776.20 28,443.26 33,886.02 2,365.61 2,662.61 38,934.44 1.00 1.00 13,216 50 955 20 552 50 14,726 20 0 50 0 50 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.10 172.10 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 ^162.72 11.49 0.00 9,174.21 0.00 0 00 0 00 000 0 00 aoo 0 00 o.ob^ 15,095.50 l'076.46 652.55 16,824.51 31,413 98 2,381.65 1'218.64 35,014.47 2.00 2.00 32,322.80 2,335.70 1.105.00 35,763.50 1 00 1 00 15,366.50 1,M5.79 653.77 15,366 52 1,154.68 563.86 0.50 _15.^8jpO__ _l.139 42__ 552'50 0 50MM .JMM Little Rock School District Department Budget Unit Func Obi * Description 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES Actual 92/93 32,613.74 [ FTE 92/93 0.50 Budget 93/94 I 17,116.0'6 Actual 93/94 17,085.06 FTE 93/94 0.50 Budgt 94/95 17,459.92 FTE 94/95 0.50 NliQSING^SERVICES_____________ 0120 REGULAR NON CERTIFICATED io SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 2134 NURSING SERVICES 90.62 6.94 ooo 97.56 0 30 0.30 0 00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 000 0.00 0 00 5,139 00 371.35 221.00 5,731.35 0 20 0 20 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES ______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED____ _____0120 REGULAR NON CERTIFICATEO 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE__________ 0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL _______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 0410 SUPPLIES 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 24io OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS OiiO REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY T/kX________ ~ 0230 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME 0240 INSURANCE_________________ 0321 UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL ______0322 UTILITY SERVICES-ELECTRIC 0323 UTILITY SER-WATER/SEWAGE/ 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES-BU P.iie S/VQ4 I'mg nunofl2 32,692.33 1,152.12 2,589.07 1,701.25 1,458.83 0.00 39,593.60 54,411.43 24,502.13 6,036.72 4,230.79 0.00 0.00 89,181.07 22,786.15 1,743.24 55251 2,481.37 6,901.65 18,764.99 2,493.27 55,723.18 893.05 893.05 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 34,540.67 0.00 1,770.37 1,420.74 176.85 257.50 38,166.13 34,455.67 0 00 2,614.46 1,166 64 1,553.64 0.00 39,790.61 1.00 1.00 35,364.58 _____0 00 2,555 51 1,105.00 1,607.00 0 00 40,632.09 1.00 1 00 58,104.28 25,304.67 6,099.61 3,769.99 176.85 257.50 93,712.90 57,067.14 15,229.39 5,47884 2,220.15 0.00 ____aoo 79,9d5 52 1.00 2.00 3.00 58,150 36 21,275.48 5,739.47 2,652.00 200 00 200.00 88,217 33 1 00 f40 2.40 21,511.93 1,656.04 573 68 2,421.08 8,400.00 17,500.00 2,700.00 54,762.71 23,571.00 1,803.16 673.60 1,684.73 7,358.75 19,225.15 1,382.87 55,799.26 2.00 2.00 23,106 65 1,669.74 __10.00___ 2,21000 O^OOO.OO 16,200 00 2,700.00 55,886.59 2 00 2 00 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,253.66 1,253 66 2,000.00 2,000.00Unit Func Ob|  Description 0019 BADGETT ELEMENTARY Dale: 8/5/94 lacc 64 Prog\nDUD()02 Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 92/93 RE 92/93 Budget 93/94 Actual 93/94 FTE 93/94 Budget 94/95 RE 94/95 724,769.38 24.05 737.551.84 686,853.56 27.50 711,871.49 24 50Badgett School Relocation Business Case 15 A possible scenario for relocating students  Badgett School Relocation Business Case 76 Possible Scenario for Badgett Relocation 1. Two four-year-old classes must be relocated intact or a plan modification must be submitted to eliminate these classes. 2. Work with Dr. Kohler, Special Education Dept., to relocate self-contained class of six 3. resource students (5 black and 5 non-black) to another building. ^nd the twenty-eight black students currently attending Badgett who are not living in BzinCTpf+c -TAWA 1,. lI___1-_____i.   Badgett's attendance zone back to their area school. 4. Encourage the thirty-seven non- i-black students to apply to either Booker Magnet School Q 1 T oLuuciiu, LU apply to eitner DooKer bchool or to Booker T. Washington Magnet School. For each white student assigned to Washington Magnet School, a black student who not 15 currently attending Badgett b^ause he/she could get into their attendance zone school, Washington, can be assigned to Washington if they are on Washington's waiting list 5. Badgett will lose twenty-seven sixth graders to jr. high school thereby leaving a total of 104 students to reassign (85 black and 37 non-black) if we are unsuccessful in convincing pyents to select Booker or Washington. If successful, we are looking at reassigning only about thirty- black students. 6 6/ a) PLAN FOR 85 BLACK STUDENTS i) Offer seats in the Incentive Schools ii) Enlarge Chicot and reconstruct the attendance attendance zone. b) PLAN FOR 30 BLACK STUDENTS i) Offer seats in the Incentive Schools zone to include the former Badgett ii) Reassign to Pulaski Heights Elementary' School Pulaski Heights currently vacant seats. has 26 6. iii) Offer Brady as the overflow school Effect of Racial Balance on receiving schools:^ a) b) Booker - Will remain the same 53.8% (if 37 non-black students and 37 black students opt to go to Booker). Washington - Will remain the same 57.3% (if 37 non-black students and 37 black students opt to go to Washington). c) Pulaski Heights' current percentage black is 47.6%, this will increase to 54.8 including Badgett s thirty black students. 0 o bv - student assignment must assign black students on a matching basis with non-black students to maintain the current racial balance within the attected magnet schools.Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM : exhibit 1. 2. To: From: Date: Subject: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent pL/ June 29. 1995 Closing of Badgett School Updated Timeline (Revised since 6/21/95 memo) I Miktteae Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately Design possible scenarios for new attendance zones 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval____________________ 4. Notify patrons at February registration of the possibility that the school will close.___________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Badgett School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Badgett School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Badgett School but live in the attendance zone._______________ 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community infonnation meeting to send to: Date 1/13/95 1/30/95 1/26/95 2/6/95 2/1/95 1/26/95 7. a) b) c) d) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meeting to: 1/25/95 1/26/95 9. a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release)___________________________________________________ Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 10. Conduct community information meetings_____________________________________________ 11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy_________________________ 12. Finalize a specific plan for new attendance zones_______________________________________ 13. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_______________________ 14. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Badgett Seftoo/___________ 15. Determine date for Student Assignment personnel to go to school and offer guidance to patrons about choices for their students._________________________________________________ 16. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement of closing and choices asking for a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after student assignment guidance meeting._____ 17. Develop flyer to parents and students with announcement of closing and date of guidance meeting at school to help patrons with choices._____________________________________________ 18. Receive court approval^ 19. Mail letter of relocation and date of guidance meeting to patrons____________________________ 20. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the guidance meeting_________ 21. Inventory building_________________________________________________________________ 22. Conduct patron guidance and information meeting no later than____________________________ 23. Mail letters to parents and students with announcement and notifying them of new assignment 24. Remove materials and equipment from school__________________________________________ 25. Reroute transportation of students___________________________________________________ 26. Secure building__________________________________________________________________ 27. Reassign staff___________________________________________________________________ 28. Send final assignment notices to patrons and students 1/26/95 2n/95 3/3/95 6/20/95 5/22/95 5/30/95 6/26/95 6/26/95 6/26/95 7/7/95 7/10/95 7/10/95 7/14/95 7/20/95 7/21/95 7131/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 6/3/95 C: Superintendent's Cabinet EXHIBIT 'Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. Modeste Mayo Williams Mayo Mayo Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Williams Williams Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurley Mayo M MAiainiar2 E X H1 Blt I 3 u Little Rock School District Fair Park School Relocation A Business Case January, 1995 Addition Modification Z Deletion $637,000 savings EXHIBIT 3 l/ MJFair Park School Relocation Business Case 2 I Executive Summary For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A comparison of the district's total building capacity and total enrollment shows many vacant seats. While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, die number of vacant seats is significant. Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Fair Park has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining . enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in building operation. The following are reasons why Fair Park Elementary School is considered for closing: 1. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 80.34% of its capacity\n2. The capacity of the school itself (351) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the size itself is significantly below the average\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined from 332 to 282 and is expected to continue\n4. The school is out of racial balcince by 12.34%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this\n5. The per pupil cost has increased\n6. Operational costs for the building have increased to make this school as one on the most expensive to operate annually\n7. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings\nBy the opening of school for 1995-96, Fair Park students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions will be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: 1. New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\nFair Park School Relocation Business Case 3 2. The community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\n3. Transportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\n4. Special activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\n5. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n6. Leaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\n7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, 8. The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation . Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way while achieving a better racial balance. Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being sepsurated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\n4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance zones in that general area of the city. Positives 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel'welcomed\nffl/r Park School Relocation Business Case 4 3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Fair Park\n5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $637,000\nand, 6. The Fair Park School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing distrirt costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management. It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately after the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be  generated in the community through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milectone 1. Develop a list of key people in the community who thould be contacted immediately 2. Contact the principals of sunounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval____________ 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community infonnation meetings. Include PTA president and ministers. ___ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Fair Park School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by\na) those who attend Fair Park School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone.___ 6. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to: a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release) d) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood_____________________________ 7. Conduct informational meeting with the pnncipal. faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meeting to: a) parents \u0026amp; students: b) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release)_________ 9. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and dale of the information meeting________________________________________ 10. Conduct community information meetings by_______________________________ 11 Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy______________ 12 File motion with the U S Federal Court to relocate students at Fair Park School Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 2/20/95 2/22/95 2/28/95 3/3/95 3/15/95 Peraon Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste Mayo Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Williams Williams WilliamsFair Park School Relocation Business Case 5 Milestone 13. Devotop totter to poontt and ttudonf with nnounewnent ond reitugnmeni. 14. Inventory buildinfl__________________________________________ 15. Deargn plan toe new attendance zonee in aouttrweet._____________________ 16. Mail totter to parents and atudentt with announcement and assignment_____ 17. Remove matanala and equrpment from sctxl__________________________ 18. Reroute transportation of atudentt 19. Secure bunding 20. Reaaaign ataff 21. Send final aaaignment noticea Date 4/18/85 5AXV95 6/1/95 6/1S/95 7/31/85 7/31/95 7/31/85 7/31/85 8/1/95 Peraon Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurtay Mayo Background For several years, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has faced austere budgets. Though many strategies were developed to cut costs, most have been one time cuts. A . comparison of the district's total building capacity and total enrollment shows many vacant seats. While a larger than normal number of seats are necessary for desegregation, the number of vacant seats is significant Said another way, LRSD has too many school buildings. The financing of any school is a major expense. Therefore, serious consideration must be given to closing some schools. It is a reasonable strategy. The savings are significant and are repeated from year to year. As attractive as it is to saving money, it is more unattractive to the patrons of the school considered for closing. Because it is an emotional issue, specific research criteria were used in making the decision about which school to close. Based on the criteria used. Fair Park Elementaiy School is a school that must be considered for closing. It is located north of 1-630 and just west of University Avenue in the City of Little Rock. See Attachment A. Reasons for this conclusion are explained in this business case. Problem Definition Fair Park has become expendable as a public school because of its isolation, its declining enrollment, and its increasing costs in per pupil expenditure and in Imilding operation. The following are reasons why Fair Park Elementary School is considered for closing\n1. As of October 1,1994, the school was filled to only 80.34% of its capacity\n2. The capacity of the school itself (351) is below the district average of 425 for area elementary schools. Therefore, if the school were at capacity, the size itself is significantly below the average\n3. Enrollment since 1989 has declined from 332 to 282 and is expected to continue\nFair Park School Relocation Business Case 6 4. The school is out of racial balance by 12.34%. It has not been within balance as far back as 1989 in spite of efforts to reverse this\n5. The per pupil cost has increased\n6. Operational costs for the building have increased to make this school as one on the most expensive to operate annually\n7. The building is in need of renovation and upgrading. Together these costs will exceed $1,000,000, which is considerably more that the average cost of renovation and upgrading needed at other buildings\nFigure 1 illustrates some of these trends. Figure 1 Fair Park Elementary Enrollment History ':x\u0026lt; 2S9\u0026lt;-9S Enrollntenfl % Black % Out of Balance Capacity Attnd. Zone Ttl.^ AZ % Black 332 72.00 12.00 94.59 345 80.87 20.87 98.29 320 80.31 20.31 91.17 243 79.01 19.01 69.23 263 76.05 16.05 74.93 343 49.27 282 72.34 12.34 80.34 348 53.44 Analysis of Alternatives Solutions were discussed with a committee representing administrators in the LRSD. Data on attendance zones, enrollment, ethnic makeup of students in the school as well as those in the attendance zone were reviewed. After considerable discussion, it was decided that three things must be addressed for an alternative to be satisfactory. They were age of building, increasing costs, and low capacity. Addressing only one or tuo and not all three aspects seriously compromises an effective solution. Inherent in the selection of an alternative is the assumption that the problem can be addressed adequately if the alternative offers quality for students and cost efficiency ' Enrollments are for October of each year. 2 Attendance zone data is available for two years only. k itrM Ik*Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 1 ioT tax-payers. To be a good alternative, it must address adequately all areas of concern. The alternative solutions considered are listed below: 1. 2. 3. Change nothing. This will not address any aspect of the problem and will allow costs to grow annually\nRedraw the attendance zone to increase the number of students attending Fair Park School. This reduces the per-pupil costs at Fair Park but will increase costs elsewhere since another attendance zone must be reduced to enlarge Fair Park's. Further, it would impact in negative ways the enrollment of other schools. Relocate students from Fair Park to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all three areas of the problem. a) b) c) d) A plan to relocate students will be devised. One possible scenario appears in Attachment C\nAn immediate savings of approximately $637,000 will be realized by  eliminating the need for management staff, food service, building maintenance, and utilities to name a few\nStaff will be relocated according to the provisions of the negotiated contract The curriculum offered at Fair Park will be offered at other schools under the program for that particular school. 4. Intensify recruitment ejfbrts. Recruitment has been tried. The results have not been significant. If the enrollment of Fair Park were increased by this effort, it would have a negative impact on neighboring attendance zones. Kecommeniation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Relocate students from Fair Park to solve the problem. This alternative addresses all of the problem areas. Objective By the opening of school for 1995-96, Fair Park students will be relocated, faculty will be reassigned according to the negotiated contract, and appropriate reductions in positions Uill be completed with a minimum of disruption to these individuals and the school district. Fulfilling this proposal will require a modification to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. This proposal supports LRSD goals relating to securing financial resources necessary to support schools and the desegregation program. The problem will be considered solved if the following list of criteria is met: az* *Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 8 1. New attendance zones affected by this relocation will reflect a better racial balance\n2. The community is given the opportunity to be heard on the decision\n3. Transportation is re-routed to accommodate these students\n4. Special activities are planned and implemented by each new school to make the new students and patrons feel welcomed\n5. New patrons are mcluded in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n6. Leaders within the community are made aware of the relocation plan and have the opportunity for input\n7. Immediate cost savings is realized\nand, 8. The relocation of students and staff at will be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. Most of these benefits will occur when the process concludes. Desegregation Plan goals will not be altered. Parent concerns about the process and their newly assigned school will be minimal. |lOTpflcfA^a/ysis | The desegregation plan must be modified to accommodate this proposal. District officials are aware that the community will be concerned about relocating the students. A number of school buildings have been abandoned in the city. These are of paramount concern to many community members. Some will want to know if a plan exists for use of the building when the students are relocated. Some will want assurance that students will receive equal program quality in the reassigned school. While these concerns are understandable, we believe we can offer our students an equal program in a more economical way while achieving a better racial balance. Negatives 1. Students and staff will experience some disappointment in being separated from their friends\n2. Community reaction will be strong against the decision for fear of the impact on the community as mentioned above\n3. The building may stand vacant for a period of time if not used by an agency or the community\n4. The general community may react to the redrawing of attendance zones in that general area of the city.Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 9 Positive* 1. Students will receive assignment to schools equal to current programs\n2. Special activities will be planned and implemented by each newly assigned school to make new students and patrons feel welcomed\n3. New patrons are included in appropriate school correspondence and activities with those who have been enrolled\n4. Elementary schools in contiguous areas are capable of absorbing the student population of Fair Park-, 5. Immediate and year-to-year cost savings will be realized of approximately $637,000\nand, 6. The Fair Park School facility may be available to the community for use pending court approval. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution is increasing district costs thus inhibiting the expected goals of desegregation and responsible fiscal management The risks of implementation of this solution are several. Some are criticism for abandoning another school building in the community, inconveniencing the students who walk to school, and the possibility that this solution will not realize all of the benefits exactly as anticipated. Timing It is critical that the process be complete before the opening of school for 1995-96. If this solution is to be implemented, patrons will need to know immediately eifter the Board of Directors decides to pursue this alternative. Awareness and input must be generated in the commxmity through meetings. Eventually, students must be notified of their new assignments, and a number of other tasks as noted in the timeline (later page) must be addressed. This will impact projected enrollment at other schools, transportation, food services, and the relocation of students, staff, and equipment. ^Resources^A^lysis Personnel No additional positions are necessary to implement this proposal. Instead, some positions will be eliminated. No one will lose his or her job, however. Attrition will be used to eliminate positions.Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 10 Financial A savings of approximately $637XX)0 is the estimated benefit under this plan. This includes the cost of relocating students, staff, and equipment. The savings are year-to-year. Revenue Source A source of revenue is unnecessary. Implementation of this proposal creates a cost-reducing strategy for the district's budget. I Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this proposal will be those who do not have children attending the school. The Board of Directors and administration of the school district  are well aware of the improvement this solution will bring for student opportunities and for cost savings. Those most opposed to the solution will be those in the immediate area of the school. These include some parents of students attending the school, community groups, and churches. They may argue that too many buildings have been closed, abandoned, and now are eye-sores in communities\nThat a school is the life of a wholesome commimity. Some say that removing a school from a community removes the last hope for the survival of that community. The negative reaction may be reduced by keeping everyone informed as the decision is made and implemented. One-to-one meetings with key community people will allow for their questions and an attempt to resolve their concerns. General Implementation Plan The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately 2. Contact the pnncipals of suirounding schools who may be affected by the relocation 3. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval____________ 4. Make contact with key people in the community who should be contacted immediately and solicit support for getting people to community information meetings. Include PTA president and ministers.___________________________________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Fair Par^ School attendance zone and those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by: a) those who attend Fair ParU School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend FairPait School but live in'tha attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone. Date 1/13/95 1/25/95 1/31/95 2/10/95 2/10/95 Person Modeste Modeste Williams Modeste MayoFair Park School Relocation Business Case n Mileatone 6. Davatop notice of relocation and data of communlly mformation maatmg to tend to: a) paranta \u0026amp; atudants\nb) community groupa and churcbaa\nc) madia (praaa ralaaaa) d) for door-to-door daHvary In the naiflbboftTOOd_______________________________ 7, Conduct Informational maatingwtth Iha principal, tacufty, and ataff about the procaaa 6. MaH notioa of poaaibla relocation and date of community nfotmaton maatmo to: a) paranta Aatudenta: b) community groupa and churchea\nc) madia (preaa ralaaaa)_________________________________________________ 9. Deliver fhera, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the mformation meeting______________________________________________________ 10. Cofiduct community information meatinga by__________________________________ 11  Notify finance peraon to includa thia aa a budget reduction atratagy________________ 12. File motion with the U. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Fair Park School 13. Develop tetter to parents and students with announcement and reassignment._______ 14. Inventory building_________________________________________________________ 15. Design plan for new attendance zones in southwest____________________________ 16. Mail letter to parents and students with announcement and assignment____________ 17. Remove materials and equipment from school_________________________________ 18. Reroute transportation of students _________________________________________ 19. Secure building 20. Reassign staff _______________________________________ 21. Send final assignment notices Date 2/10/95 2/10/95 205 2/22/95 2iaiK\u0026gt; ZIZI96 4/19/95 5/30/95 6/1/95 6/15/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/1/95 Peraon Mayo Modaeta Mayo Mayo WWiare Wtliaro Wtlltams Mayo ' Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Chaatham Eaton Hurtay Mayo IJ Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 12 Copy of map of Little Rock with Far Park Elementary and other schoolsA ,~1----- I _ rLittle T lefterson School A Jci t\nlbUil ouiluul leTS^\u0026lt; School ti W rest Pa V\\ \\ ' \\ \\ District .Forest Park School j|Williams Magnet SchoolSj^ A halpHigh'^chooP Swit \\ I T  r sis Hi*' Si /l/K ^Cf^OOL 7 School r High School! \u0026lt; t \\ ~l  __J f~ 1 jj et HSIC __J. _ EH3 B I- 630 .v \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ T I I I I I I. V i 1 Orth iclool^){sU tr(l\\ District- \\ X \\ \\ \\ 'Jr A \\\\ \\ \u0026gt; \\ \\ I \\ \\ \\ * A \\ VrW^  ~ \" - ^ulastoVle^ghts School FranKiin Incentive A X ------1 [SJ-j-Pu aski Heights AA \\ chooP - 1, L: Woodruff School  rrri Schoolr ^ts pl fephe OPf r phens T School 2 I t 7LRSD Adm king InterdistrictS^ool' aiieW^Wol' 1 i 11 Sfwr-.'M i^bs Magnet Sc J-1 Dunbar Junior High School I t ll'T I I H I 1 I n.i 1 iTT-t-t-t1-J Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 13 Attachment B Copy of pages from 1994-95 Budget relating to the cost of Fair Park Elementary SchoolMM Little Rock School District Department Budget UnH Func 0b| - Description Actual 92/3 FTE 92/M Budgat sayM Aaual n/M FTE 3/M Budgal MM FTE M/W 0023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY___________________ ________1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED_______ 0 i 20 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_________ 0240 INSURANCE___ ______________0380 FOOD SERVICES______________ ______________0410 SUPPLIES___________________ ______________04 i 6 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 0548 EQUIPMENT - SUPPLY CENTER 1105 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM 1110 KINDERGARTEN_________________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE________________ ______0410 SUPPLIES_________________ 0412 JLOCAL SUPPLIES SP TRACKIN 0416 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 1110 KINDERGARTEN 1120 ELEMENTARY_____________________ oi l 0 REGULAR CERTIFICATED____ ______0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFicATED _____ 0210__SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_________ ______0240 INSURANCE__________________ ______0326 REPAIRS-EQUIPMENT__________ ______0342 POSTAGE____________________ _____ 0360 PRINTING a BINDING-INTERN ______04 i 0 SUPPLIES___________ ______04 i 6 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER _____ 0421__TEXTBOOKS - LOCAL SOURCES ______0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 0548 EQUIPMENT-SUPPLY CENTER 1120 ELEMENTARY 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC________ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE Dale: 8/ 5/94 Page: 71 Prog\nBUD002 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61,466.31 4,703.86 3,081.67 256.47 0.00 0.00 69,530.31 406,546.70 35,167.90 33,793.04 25,237,13 2.64 262.92 ____109.00 606.15 3,560.75 239.27 1,347.06 469.90 507,401.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 12.00 5.00 17.00 0.00 10,411.00 687.75 1,000.68 0.00 1,977.93 0.00 3,600.00 0.00 17,677.36 68,212.00 4,864.25 2,624.26 ___212^2 412.00 45.32 76,370.05 421,628.06 3^567.28 35,039.40 23,663.51 515.00 257.50 257.50 1,414.77 1,701.66 257,50 0.00 519,074.70 15,256.00 1,167.00 592.00 0.00 9,907.00 745.02 997.20 2,572.05 2,049.00 209.03 ___245.13 910.07 10,444.70 68,212.00 5,166.06 2,229.66 436.66 0.00 0.00 76,066.42 398,583.85 23,946.96 31,403.34 17,076.75 4.05 163.68 302.80 ____906.46 3,246.62 0.00 0.00 476,111.48 17,233.50 1,310.32 505.96 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 13.50 4.00 17.50 0.50 24.089.00 20.066 00 3.190.73 3.315.00 5.400.00 3,233.00 0.00 3,600 00 0.00 62,893.73 69.014.00 4.967.06 2.210.00 200.00 200.00 44.00 76,655.06 352.097.00 26,721.70 31,300.44 17,127.50 300.00 100.00 96.50 1,200.00 i.7daoo 257.50 500.00 200 00 433,600.64 17.635.00 1.274 34 552.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 2 00 2.00 10 50 3.00 13.50 0 50UnH Furrc Obj  DaacrlpHon 1124 ELEMENTARY MUSIC 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM ______0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED ______02 i 0 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ ______0240 INSURANCE_________ 1195 ACADEMIC SUPPORT PROGRAM 1220 RESOURCE ROOM__________ ______0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 1220 RESOURCE ROOM Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 92/93 0.00 FTE 92/93 Budget 93/94 I 17,O15.o6~J Actual 3/M FTE 3/M 19,117.78 I 0,50 I Budoat 94/W 19,461.84 J FTE 94/95 0.50 ] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 10,411.00  796 44 1,292.04 12,500.38 6,246.71 456.12 600.11 7,302.94 1.00 1.00 6,246 60 451.39 663.00 7,360.99 0.60 0 60 ___14,392.56 1,101.13 765.59 16,259.28 1.50 1.50 14228.00 1,085.78 653.15 16,064.03 30,452.00 2,046.64 1,117.88 33,616.52 0.50 0.50 25,004.00 1,606.84 1,105.00 27,915.84 1 00 1.00 1 seo ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS ______0117 STIPENDS____________________ ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX ' 0331 PUPIL TRANSPORTATION_______ ______0380 FOOD SERVICES______________ 0410 SUPPLIES 0540 EQUIPMENT-PERSONAL PROPER 1580 ACADEMIC PROGRESS GRANTS 1910_Glf=TED AND TALENTED ______0ilO REGULAR CERTIFICATED 0210_^OCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 1910 GIFTED AND TALENTED 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES_______ 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ______0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX 0240 INSURANCE 2120 GUIDANCE SERVICES 2134 NURSING SERVICES _______0120_REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED ______0210 _ SOCI^ SECURITY TAX________ 0240 INSURANCE 2134 NURSING SERVICES Dale: 8/5/94 72 Prog: BUD002 4,703.31 751.69 040.37 20.00 2,585.83 1,079.24 10,089.44 18,044.54 1,380.55 645.79 20,270.88 71900 2^43.88  1^618.67 30,281.53 15,144.45 1,158.26 1,273.28 17,575.99 0.50 0.50 0 60 0.60 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,222.67 4,428.44 7,651.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.438.00 1^314.83 ___665.41 20,418.24 14,162.00 1,000.00 648.44 15,820.34 14,803.67 1^3061 1,089.98 17,033.26 11,043.69 644.81 358 46 12,246.88 25,657.47 1,^61 033.42 28,095.50 10,950.49 637.68 700.94 12,489.09 0.60 0.50 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.40 18,436 00 1,332.37 552.50 20,322.67 32.056.00 2,316.57 1,105.00 35,479.57 15,432.65 1,115.19 331.50 16,879 34 0 50 0.50 1 00 1.00 030 0 30Unit Fuik Obj - Description 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES _______0110 REGUL^R CERTIFICATED____ 0 i 20 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED ______02 i O SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ ______0240_INSURANCE ______0410 SUPPLIES _________ 016 SUPPLIES  SUPPLY CENTER 2222 SCHOOL LIBRARY SERVICES 2410 OFFICE OF THE f^INCIPAL 0110 REGULAR CERTIFICATED ______0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED _______0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME________ 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX_______ ______0240 INSURANCE ______0410_SUPPLIES____________ 04lie SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2410 OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 0120 REGULAR NON-CERTIFICATED 0124 CLERICAL OVERTIME 0210 SOCIAL SECURITY TAX _______0230 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREME 0240JNSURA2JCE_ ______0321__UTILITY SERVICES-NATURAL ______0322 UTILITY SERvicES ELECTRIC Disutility serwater/sewage/ 2542 UPKEEP OF BUILDINGS 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES BU __ 0418 SUPPLIES - SUPPLY CENTER 2590 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES BU 0023 FAIR PARK ELEMENTARY Date: 8/ 5/94 Page: 7J Prog: nUD002 Little Rock School District Department Budget Actual 02/93 FTE 02/93 Budget 03/94 Actual 03/94 FTE 03/94 Budget \u0026gt;4/98 FTE \u0026gt;4/05 40,513.28 12,269.00 ____4^037.91 2,990.07 2,090.80 ______180.95 62,081.99 44,209.33 16,998 68 0.00 4,682.36 3,010.54 24.95 0.00 68,925.86 25,945.41 0.00 1,964.69 698.30 1,866.60 ^304.62 28,873.70 2,327.05 G9.022.77 1.017.68 1,917.66' 873,357.37 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 31.00 41,729.11 8,698.61 2\u0026gt;04.26 2J32.79 176.65 257.50 56,399.12 47,375.24 16,059.30 0.00 4,621.13 2,566.65 176.85 257.60 71,056.67 21,574.11 0.00 1,660.80 394.30 1,202.79 5,500.00 43,500.00 2,000.00 75,832.00 2,000.00 2,666760 018,182.05 41,720.11 12,983.00 4,022.20 2,175.10 2,048.39 164.18 63,141.96 46,125.49 31,731.99 135.62 5,968.42 3.138.92 0.00 0.00 87.096.34 15,432.68 780.21 1,240.28 187.46 1,064.62 8,606.37 3^247.41 1,662 45 66,241.35 ^305.62 2,305.62 910,017.81 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 30.00 41.720.11 5,372.40 3,40365 1,547.00 1,141.00 1,141.00 54,334.16 47,631.00 17,194.65 000 4.684.49 2,210.00 180 00 260 00 72,161.04 22,962.97 0.00 1,660.80 0.00 2,210.00 6,000 00 37,000.00 2,500 00 75,353.77 2,000.00 2.000.00 004.418.87 1.00 0.40 1.40 1 00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 27 80Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 14 A possible scenario for relocating students 't Fair Park School Relocation Business Case 75 ^Possibl^cenariofoT^airJParf^Relocati^ 1. 2. 3. One four-year-old class must be relocated intact or a plan modification must be submitted to eliminate this class. Reassign the one hundred and thirty-two students (85 black and 47 non-black) who are not living in Fair Park's attendance zone back to their area school. Fair Park will lose thirty sixth graders to jr. high school (25 blacks and 5 non-blacks) thereby leaving a total of one hundred and twenty-one students (99 blacks cind 22 4. non-blacks) to reassign. Encourage twenty-two non-black students to apply to magnet schools, interdistrict schools. or 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Reassign 22 non-black students to Brady. Offer 99 black students seats in Incentive Schools. Encourage M-to-M transfers. Reassign zone blocks 511, 512, 513, and 554 to McDermott McDermott current capacity is 494 however, in past years it has been higher in to warrant an assistant principal. Effect of Racial Balance on receiving schools: 3 a) b) Magnet and Interdistrict school's racial balance will remain the same. Brady's racial makeup will improve. Brady is currently 64% black and 32.2% non-black. The new balance will be 62.2% black and 37.8% non-black. c) McDermott racial balance will shift to 69.3 black if all former Fair Park black students transfer to McDermott. *5 Student assignment must assign black students on a matching basis with non-black students to maintain the current racial balance within the altected magnet schools./ Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM EXHIBIT To: From: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent hi Date: Subject: June 29, 1995 Closing of Fair Park School Updated Timeline (Revised since 6/21/95 memo) 1. 2. 3. Develop a list of key people in the community who should be contacted immediately Design possible scenarios for new attendance zones_________________________ Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval 4. Notify patrons at February registration of the possibility that the school will close.____________ 5. Compile list and mailing labels of all students living in the Fair Park School attendance zone and 1/13/95 1/30/95 1/26/95 2/6/95 2/1/95 Modeste Mayo Williams Mayo Mayo 6. those scheduled to attend the school. Sort the lists by\na) those who attend Fair Park School but live outside of the attendance zone b) those who attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone\nand, c) those who do not attend Fair Park School but live in the attendance zone. Develop notice of relocation and date of community information meeting to send to: 1/26/95 a) b) c) d) parents \u0026amp; students\ncommunity groups and churches\nmedia (press release) for door-to-door delivery in the neighborhood 7. Conduct informational meeting with the principal, faculty, and staff about the process 8. Mail notice of possible relocation and date of community information meeting to: 1/30/95 1/26/95 9. a) parents \u0026amp; students\nb) community groups and churches\nc) media (press release)___________________________________________________ Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the information meeting 10. Conduct community information meetings______________________________________________ 11. Notify finance person to include this as a budget reduction strategy_________________________ 12. Finalize a specific plan for new attendance zones_______________________________________ 13. Business Case presented to the LRSD Board of Directors for approval_______________________ 14. File motion with the 0. S. Federal Court to relocate students at Fair Park School__________ 15. Determine date for Student Assignment personnel to go to school and offer guidance to patrons about choices for their students.__________________________________________________ 16. Develop letter to parents and students with announcement of closing and choices asking for a response by a deadline. Deadline must be after student assignment guidance meeting._____ 17. Develop flyer to parents and students with announcement of closing and date of guidance meeting at school to help patrons with choices._____________________________________________ 18. Receive court approval^ 19. Mail letter of relocation and date of guidance meeting to patrons___________________________ 20. Deliver fliers, door-to-door, announcing the relocation and date of the guidance meeting________ 21. Inventory building_________________________________________________________________ 22. Conduct patron guidance and infonnation meeting no later than____________________________ 23. Mail letters to parents and students with announcement and notifying them of new assignment 24. Remove materials and equipment from school__________________________________________ 25. Reroute transportation of students___________________________________________________ 26. Secure building__________________________________________________________________ 27. Reassign staff___________________________________________________________________ 28. Send final assignment notices to patrons and students 1/26/95 1/31/95 3/3/95 6/20/95 6/22/95 6/30Z95 6/26/95 6/26/95 6/26/95 7/7/95 7/10/95 7/10/95 7/14/95 7/20/95 7/21/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 7/31/95 8/3/95 C: Superintendents Cabinet EXHIBIT Mayo Modeste Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Williams Williams Mayo Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Mayo Neal Mayo Mayo Eaton Cheatham Eaton Hurtey Mayo I Remaining timeline is based on Court approval. U IlMtkUMK'X January 7, 1995 LRSD Area Elementary Schools Explanation of Rating Sheet for Facilities Study The criteria shown across the top of the chart are defined as follows: Desegregation Criteria Under Cap Low Cap Enroll Deci Bal Out Recfut Diffie Per Pupil $ AZ Isolat co I VP X lU TTrw*MSIW The extent to which this school is under its published capacity - \"1 = 85%-94% of capacity, \"5 = 75%-84%, and \"10\" = below 75%_____________________________________________________________________________________'----- The extent to which this school is under the average capacity for the district - The average capacity for a LRSD Area Elementary School is 425 students. Therefore, a rating is necessary only for schools with capacities below 425. A rating of 1\" = less than 50 below, \"5\" = 51-100 below, and \"10 more than 100 below the average.__________________ The severity of the rate of decline in enrollment for a school - A drop of 1%-2.99% = 1\", 3%-4.99% = 5\", and 5% or more of last years October 1 enrollment received a 10\".____________________________________________________ The extent to which the school is out of racial balance according to current guidelines and past trends indicate that it will continue - Ten percent or more beyond guidelines should receive a 10._________________________________________ The level of difficulty in recruiting to this school to achieve racial balance______________________________________ The extent to which per pupil expenditures exceeds the average of the district in this school - Under $2,550 = \"1\", $2,551 to $2,899 = \"5\", and $2,900 to $4,100 = 10\".________________________________________________________ The extent to which the school's attendance zone is isolated because it is too small and cannot draw more students without taking them from other zones. To some extent, this is a measure of the size of the attendance zone for the school and the geographic location of the building. The average size attendance zone is 353. Facilities Criteria Bldg Config Reno Need Oper Costs The extent to which the age and design of the building negatively impacts program, costs, and modern standards - Supports Program = \"1, Minor Shortfalls = 5\", and Major Shortfalls = *10.________________________________ The extent to which the building needs renovation to meet current codes - $100,000-$200,000 = \"1', $200,001 to $500,000 = 5\", and above $500,000 = 10\".__________________________________________________ The extent to which the per capita cost of maintaining this school is greater than similar schools - At or below average =  1 Between 10% \u0026amp; 25% above average = \"5\", Above 25% = 10' Upgrad Costs wiSs The cost of upgrading the building to support the academic program - Below $500,000 = \"1\", $500.000-$1,000,000 = \"5\". and Above $1,000,000 = 10_______________________________________________________________________January 7, 1995 LRSD Area Elementary Schools Rating Sheet for Facilities Study A rating is given in a column only if the criteria named at the top of the column has a negative influence on the desegregation plan, on the building itself, or on the budget. If so, then a rating of 1, 5, or 10 is given according to the extent of the negative impact. Therefore, schools with the highest total should gel serious consideration for closing An explanation of each criteria is included. Bale Under Low School Cap Cap -i-, :\u0026lt;r lr \u0026gt;4 ilQi IgrTi Uit-xrxy 1 = Minimal 5 a Considerable Desegregation Criteria Enroll Ded Bal Out X'i-KzxSgTfv-.^^rK-: Recrut Dif^ Per AZ 10 = Extreme Facilities Criteria Pupil $ tS? !f\u0026gt;K tihnin-r Isolat Bkfg ConTig W\n*wVx- Reno Need Oper Costs Upgrad Costs* Total 'lx'I'W.*.*. iBaWSr\u0026lt; Brady Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Forest Park Fulbright Gayer Springs Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Wilson (w'iijieiiiW SJixixcr, ___ 5TJi?fOrxi2Jc\" 10 10 10 (I*  ?ii Si 1 K xy. -ilQbs in-i(u.x*x6x.x Tejragi. 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 XO( XX'ft.X-XXwGfi.-ii?/ --------- SpOpi ill ysffstJt ifiitHirrnniaiM K{ WsSHijSigsj JsSS? *jPWkPii 10 'tpjw, a\u0026gt;trAKsxt, 10 10 !***\nMu'-' M agiaj 10 10 10 10 sj :*nwz .Kiow:^.' xiiSx* asbUtt SB 10 B 10 10  95 56 62 20 35 30 24 85 28 17 39 31 30 24 19 33 13 38 25 28 22 63 r/ \"7 5 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 litieSitfej\nifcPii\"K\nBewwjeai *^'^''.*15#^ i^f} 5 2 SsSSSaB^fei* *5S^SSS 1 l^h?ifJM-XJ .jwuiitlj 1 1 5 5 i T S 53 *!^Sr* * jFloi MiFj^\u0026gt;l\nM 1 5 5 1 1 1 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 1 5 1 Vi^iyff-  laiftiniftr^i akaBOfSa '.Bo  5 5 5 a ji**^^?**^ 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 MAJl.tM. JT 5^\n?S?S y^y*-~ieyifc\u0026gt; 1 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 5 fjF 5*\u0026lt;.-!:'?3r 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 9 1 5 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 1 5 30^ \u0026gt; 5 ubix iu 1 1 1 1 1 1 r/ ' This is a factor only if renovation is ever done. wraiIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL REC I? IVES! . DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL .1111 3 1995 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Office of Desegre. a' son Mon:icfing MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LRSDS MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN It The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or District\"), for its Memorandum Brief in Support of its Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan, submits the following: In the Court-approved LRSD desegregation plan. the LRSD indicated that it would operate twenty-three (23) area schools. various incentive schools, magnet schools and inter-district schools on the elementary school level. The LRSD has in fact operated the area schools as envisioned in the plan through and including the 1994-95 school year. As this Court has continued to monitor LRSD's implementation of the plan. the District has regularly updated this Court of its financial condition. In fact. at the Court's request, the District has provided this Court, from time-to-time, projections of its budget status for five-year diinaVpcssdXmodiOcaiKMi.brf -1-intervals. Those projections have included various scenarios of anticipated budget deficits with no millage increase/no cuts, no millage increase/cuts and millage increase/cuts. It is primarily in the last scenario that the District projects its ability to continue program operations while submitting balanced budgets in accordance with Arkansas state law. As a part of its review of the District's financial condition, this Court has consistently encouraged the District to pursue those budget reduction strategies which will yield recurring benefits. Namely, this Court has expressed concern over the use of revenue generating measures which are one-time in nature whereas the District's primary expenditures are recurring in nature. Accordingly, this Court has requested the District to determine the availability of strategies which yield recurring benefits. As this Court is well aware, the District has now embarked upon a program, planning and budget process whereby it makes an inventory of its programs, conducts program evaluations, conducts an analysis of the needs of the District as it relates to the District's goals and mission and, thereby, develops programs tied to the achievement of its goals and mission. The program planning and budgeting process is driven by the District's project management tool which tasks out the various components of the process to insure that the products to be produced from each sub-process will be available for the District's use in budget development. The project management tool for fiscal diani\\pcssd\\fnodiricaiion.brf -2-year 1996 was primarily implemented during the 1994-95 school year for the development of the District's budget for the 1995-96 school year. Among the many sub-processes identified in that tool to lead to the 1995-96 budget was a sub-process for school closings. As indicated by the business cases and time lines attached to the motion filed herewith, the District used processes and procedures which revealed a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant the requested modification of the desegregation plan. As reflected by the respective business cases, each school's enrollment as of October 1, 1994, was significantly below the available capacity. Further, even if each school was filled to capacity, the capacity of each school is significantly below the District-wide average for elementary area schools. As such, each school would not operate efficiently when compared to average sized area schools. The enrollment at each school has declined since 198 9 and continued enrollment declines are expected at both schools. One of the most severe consequences of such enrollment declines is the continued increase in per pupil expenditures at each school. For instance, the per pupil cost at Badgett Elementary School has increased to $4,021.87 during the 1994-95 school year, the highest of any area elementary school. Likewise the per pupil cost at Fair Park Elementary School as increased. In fact, operational costs for these two buildings have increased such to cause these schools d iana\\pcssd\\rTxxt ificat ton. brf -3-to become two of the most expensive schools to operate annually within the District. It is also significant to note that both of the buildings where each of these schools is housed are in need of renovation and upgrading. The cost to accomplish the necessary renovations and upgrades at each school is estimated to exceed $1,000,000 each. This is considerably more than the average cost which would be necessary to renovate and upgrade the other buildings in the District. Taking these changed circumstances into consideration, along with the fact that the District's total building capacity and total enrollment reflects many vacant seats, the number of vacant seats in the District has now become significant. Although, various factors may be considered as one searches for the cause of the increase in the number of vacant seats. it is important to recognize that the District has been extremely successful in its efforts to encourage its black students to take advantage of educational opportunities available in the Pulaski County Special School District through the interdistrict school program. As a consequence of these and other facts, the LRSD now has more school buildings and school seats available than needed to serve the students currently in the District and those reasonably anticipated to enroll in the District in the near future. Given the fact that financing the operational costs of a school is a major expense, it was only reasonable for the District diana\\pcsjd\\modiftcmon.l\u0026gt;rf -4-to give serious consideration to possible closing of schools as a budget reduction strategy which would yield recurring savings from year-to-year. In fact, it is estimatedthat the District could save approximately $523,000 during the 1995-96 school year by closing Badgett Elementary School and approximately $637,000 during the 1995-96 school year by closing Fair Park Elementary School. In light of these considerations, as well as the budget projections reflected in the LRSD's 1995-96 proposed budget filed with this Court on or about March 14, 1995, this District has attempted to comply with the mandates of this Court through recognizing the changed circumstances and the opportunity those circumstances present to allow the District to achieve significant savings without negatively impacting the quality educational programs available in the District. In recognition of previous filings made herein, the District would refer this Court to its Brief in Support of Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan filed herein on April 20, 1994, requesting that Washington Elementary School be recognized as the second required interdistrict school. In that brief, the District provided this Court with significant factual information regarding the demographics of the LRSD and the changes which have occurred in those demographics since the plans were agreed upon by the parties. That information is incorporated herein by reference as if set out herein word-for-word. The District also incorporates the argument portion of that brief wherein the law of modification of consent diana\\pcssd\\rTK\u0026gt;diftcaiKMi.brf -5-decrees is discussed and analyzed, the effect of changed circumstances, the demographics of the District and the importance of the financial constraints under which the District continues to operate. In light of the foregoing factors and circumstances, the board of directors considered the strategy of closing schools as a budget reduction measure. When initially reviewed by the board on April 12, 1995, the board only consisted of six voting members due to the recent death of board member 0. G. Jacovelli. At that time, the board was evenly divided on the issue, and the matter failed 3-3. Subsequent to that meeting, the vacancy on the board was filled by the selection of Ms. Stephanie Johnson to represent Zone 7 on the board of directors. Further, through continued discussions and review during the various budget work sessions held by the board of directors, the board continued to consider the various budget reduction strategies available to it--among those being school. closings. Finally, on Thursday, June 22, 1995, the board revisited the issue of school closings as it continued its budgetary process and voted to close both Badgett Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School beginning with the 1995-96 school year. This action was reported to this Court during the budget hearings held on Friday, June 23, 1995. In light of the changed circumstances as discussed herein including. but not limited to, declining enrollment. increased operational costs, increased vacant seats district-wide and severe financial constraints, it is hereby submitted that the diana\\pcud\\modirica(ion.brf -6-circumstances warrant the requested plan modification. Accordingly, this Court is hereby requested to grant the motion to modify desegregation plan filed herewith and permit the District to close Badgett Elementary School and Fair Park Elementary School beginning with the 1995-96 school year. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 72201-3493 duni\\pcud\\(nodiricatton.brf 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 -7-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan has been served by U. S. Mail, postage prepaid, except as otherwise indicated, on the 7 day of rJc/A^X. , 1995, upon the following: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Samuel M. Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. Attorneys at Law 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roachell ROACHELL \u0026amp; STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, Suite 504 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered as per Order by the Court) Attorney at Law Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone diini\\pcssd\\jnodirication.brf -8-HERSCHEL M. FRIDAY II 922-I394I ROBERT 7, light. P a. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A.  W. MOORE M. elSEMA.N. JR.. P.A. BELL. P.A. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW X6VIN A. CRASS. *.A. WILLIAM A. WAOO6LL. CUYO *TA8' rURNER* 9 J R . a A jwr,., C. SCMOLS. P.A. JAMES A. 3UTTRY. A. FREOEflICX S. URSERY. P.A. H. r. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR . OAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P A THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN OeWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL 3. 3ENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. 3URKS. A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P a. JAMES EOWARO HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. 3ACON. P A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY S. COPLIN. ? A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH 9. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P a CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL 3. MOORE. P A. OIANE 5. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE flOCX. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 Pax no. SOl-376-2147 August 1, 1995 RECEn/^O AUG I 1995 Calvin j. mall. p.a. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P a JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, p a ROBERT 3. BEACH. jR.. p 4, J. LEE aROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR. P a H. CHARLES GSCHWENO jR Pa HARRY A. LIGHT. P.a SCOTT M. TUCKER. P a JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH ? a GUY ALTON WADE. P a PRICE C. Gardner, p a J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES OAVIO D. WILSON JEFFREY M. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY.jR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY Mr. John W. Wal.ker JOHN W. WALiiCiR., P.A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY i JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol Sc Broadway Streets Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Offics of Desegregaiion Moriiicring Mrs . Ann Brown Attorney at Law ileritage West Building,. 201 East Markham Street ittle Rock, Arkansas Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL Sc STREETT Attorneys at Law First Federal Plaza, COUNtlL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELOREOCE. JR.. P.A. 3.3. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A, WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P A. wRiTSR-s oiaecr .'*o. (SOI) 370-1553 Suite 520 72201 401 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas LRSD V. PCSSD, et al Suite 504 72201 Since early spring the Little Roc.k School District has been following the Desegregation various plan modifications Plan approval. it will Amendment submit Process regarding :o the Court to tor We have received responses from the North Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District. Neither has any objections to the modifications as proposed nor any concerns have been resolved. dianixpcudVaitorney. Il4Gentlemen and Mrs. Grown August 1, Page 2 1995 Richard Roachell is checking with his clients whether the Knight intervenors will raise any object: I have received no response from Richard. to determine ton. To data. been requested to review and consider the prooosed and provide his response for our Likewise, Mr. Walker das modifications consideration and negotiation. I now write to update each oi you regarding the status of the proposed modifications. Enclosed please find the latest update on Desegregation Plan Modifications. As noted in the cover racari the rications. L\u0026gt; Memorandum : 'om Dr. Russ Mayo, or not presented to the parties several items were e consideration. the enctosec material represents the proposed modif currently exist. ther withdrawn Accordingly, zations as thev These modifications will now be oresented to the LRSD Soard of Directors for its consideration and action. If approvec, approval. they will be filed with the Court tor s review and Included herewith are: 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . A list of modifications now being considered\nA graphic of the modification process\nDesegregation Plan Modification Draft A Guidelines\nand. !py of the plan modifications as they currently stand. Thank each of you for your kind attention to and consideration of this matter. Sinc^ely Jerry u. Mauone LRSD Attorney DICTATED 3UT NOT READ JLM/dtw Enclosures cc (letter only)\nDr. Ms. Dr. Henry P. Williams Linda Pondexter Russ Mayo UiamxocudUuarney.l(4Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: July 13, 1995 Subject: Update on Desegregation Plan Modifications OlSice \u0026gt;'.1 1 \\995 ot Oesegtss'-i'-' ,D onAoting a The next step in our Desegregation Plan Modification Process requires your approval and recommendation of our proposed modifications to the Board of Directors. I am recommending the attached plan modifications for your consideration. We have heard no objections from the parties except the item noted below from the Magnet Review Committee. Below are changes since the modifications were first submitted to the parties: 1. McClellan Community School and Four-Year-Old Program modifications were withdrawn. McClellan was a reduction which does not require a plan change. School Closings modifications were never submitted because of the original vote of the Board\nand, 2. At the request of the Magnet Review Committee, I have removed the reference to geographic preference in the original Student Assignments modification. Included here are: 1. 2. 3. 4. A list of the modifications now being considered\nA graphic of the modification process\nDesegregation Plan Modification Draft Guidelines\nand, A copy of the plan modifications as they currently stand. If the you and the Board approve, these modifications will be filed for consideration by the Court. C: Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney UIH CnTTDICLittle Rock School District Desegregation Plan Modifications July 13, 1995 Budget Related Result 1. Staffing - Incentive Schools 2. Academic Progress Incentive Grants 3. Focused Activities Others 1. LRSD Biracial Committee 2. Student Assignments 3. Parent Coimcil - Incentive Schools 4. Parent Involvement/Community Linkages 5. Spanish - Incentive Schools 6. Recruitment of Private School Students 7. Incentive Schools Parent Recruitment LRSD Office of Desegregation Reduce Reduce Reduce Change Change 4 to 2 mon. visits Change Delete Change ChangeStudents Desegregation Plan Amendment Process WHO? HOW? WHY? Patrons Teachers Administrators Committees f 1. Initial Evaluation 2. Share with the LRSD Board of Directors Little Rock School District Propose Change (in writing) Failure of Deseg. Process Changes in Law Better Methods Discovered Demographic Changes Changing Circumstances Office of Desegregation (LRSD) If approved 3. When appropriate: Surveys \u0026amp; Public Meetings held Informal Consultation with Parties I Submit to Court (Share with Parties) ) 4. Final Recommendation to Superintendent 5. Superintendent Recommends to Board If the Court approves, the plan shall be amended noting the amendment \u0026amp; approved date. R. MayoLittle Rock School District Desegregation Plan Modification Draft Guidelines 1. Identify all references in the plan relating to the modification that is to be done\n2. For each topic to be modified, retype word-for-word those sections relating to the particular topic as follows: a) Clearly reference the section and page from the plan at the beginning\nb) Leave all words in place you want deleted but show them with a strike out line through them\nc) New wording must be shown as italicized in the appropriate place\nd) Summarize (one sentence) significant changes briefly in [brackets] at the end of certain paragraphs or sections. These bracketed summaries will remain in the final revision with the amendment date. Use a month and year approximately 6 months into the future for the amendment date. This date will be changed to the date of final approval by the court. The bracketed comments will serve as a reminder in future years of the additions, modifications, or deletions that are made to the plan\ne) Page numbers of the retyped modification must appear at the top right of each retyped page as Modification Page 1, for example. These numbers refer only to the pages of the modification. They are in no way related to page numbers in the plan. Plan page numbers are referred to at the beginning of each new retyped section\nf) If your word processing software will do it, line number each line or every other line down the left side of the page for reference purposes\nand, g) Add footnotes where you think appropriate. Once this is done, submit it to the LRSD Office of Desegregation for review. If you have questions at anytime, please call Russ Mayo (2408).LRSD Plan Modification Proposal Staffing - Incentive Schools February, 1995- 2 LUD Desegregation Plan Modification Page 1 (cftiw on ___ o L Oooofrototien Fl on and on Ftfo 172 of tHo (itoot tndoiod copy of tho Plan.) 4  universities to assist with teaching activities and extracurricular 8 activities\nassistance from social agencies to intervene if students need assistance in health and/or personal need situations. 10 12 14 16 B. College/Post Graduation Rwareaess - A mentoring program will be established which will provide interactive time for students to work with appropriate role models to enhance an awareness of skills necessary for successful entry into the world of work. The program will also serve to heighten student expectations with regard to their own abilities and potential to attend college and to graduate. Parents will also receive this information so that they may be aware of the options which are open to their children. 18 C. 20 22 tudy Skills - Counselors and teachers will be responsible for working with students to enhance test taking skills, listening skills and study skills. Practice will be provided for students in test taking, i.e., bubble sheets will be used on some class tests and a variety of question types will be used by teachers. e. 24 D. /ighborhood Meetings - Meetings with parents will not always be held at the schools. 26 Other Beetingss, for SBall groups of parents, will be scheduled at couaunity locations such as churches and sose hoses if 28 invited by parents. 30 These less formal meetings out of the school environment may more productive and can help forge a school/neighborhood partnership. It is suggested that local ministers be considered as part of the school partnership and community. be 34 Individual ind Group Counseling - Individual and group counseloing as well as peer facilitators will be employed at the school to assist students as they attempt to work through concerns and the normal issues which arise 36 as student growth and development takes place, taught conflict resolutions. Students will also be 38 F. 40 Incentive/Reeognition Programs - Incentive/recognition programs will be developed by students, staff and patrons at each school. Ideas awards 42 (suggestions) presented in teh subcommittee meeting included\nprograms, recognition days, good citizen clubs, free tickets to community and athletic events, tangible rewards such as a book of the student's 44 choice for academic growth and the like. 46 48 50 G. ^llness Program - A wellness program will be in place at each building with availability of a full time nurse. Students will be screened for physical health and will also receive information on topics like self- esteem, nutrition, drug prevention and awareness and first aid. Presentations will likewise be made to parents on similar topics for their information on a continuing education basis. 52 H. 54 58 Camp Pfeifer - Students in need of additional academic assistance will have access to programs such as that currently in place at Camp Pfeifer, whereby, they spend some time in residence at a program away from the school and the home which provides counseling, intensive academic support and time management skills. Parent involvement is an inherent part of this program in assisting them to work with students on homework and academics. 60 622 LRSD Desegregation Plan Instructional Aides Modification Modification Page 2 (Mfltn* on 14 af Nay 1, 1992 Court Ordar.) 6 20 students, If the district should choose to reduce class size to a aaxinuD 8 of 20 students in every kindergarten through sixth grade classroom in an entire incentive school, the Ceept the school will el lew that eeheel te have sufficient twa instructional aides fer e^ery \u0026lt;hres K- \u0026lt; slasspessie to implement apeeifie 10 functions, fnrfa Ilia Pam fpm, fiffr-rny grtrf ini*tcr rufruj\nrijnjJ tmialanee~n9-iie9igmiteti-by-tfte-pnneipitl-antl/9e-the~eiiuar9om-ieeKhei. In any case, an appropriate 12 number of supervision aides will be provided at each incentive school, regardless of whether- there is ene the number of instructional aides per olassreem 14 optin thei  sshoels whieh eleet te have- we sepe then \u0026gt;0 ehilSpew yg k 6 16 elaaapeem\ntwe inatpuetiewal aides pep-evpy three K-6 elaaapeema per building. Information presented at the hearings indicated that over half of all incentive school classroons presently have acre than 20 students. The Court 18 is sensitive to the tremendous disruption that changing schools causes for children and their parents. In adjusting to reduced class size for the 1992-93 20 school year, the Court will not require that students currently enrolled in the Incentive Schools be transferred mandatorily to some other school. Children 22 attending an incentive school during the 1991-92 school year may remain at that school until they move on to junior high or voluntarily transfer to another 24 school. No new student shall be enrolled in an incentive school if that student's enrollment would cause the ordered class size limits to be exceeded. 26 However, the Court is willing to permit an exception if the new student's enrollment would improve racial balance. 28 Academic Program - Given the importance of parental involvement, the Court does not approve a change that would remove the requirement for the district to develop a parent component model.. 2 LRSD Desegregation Plan Incentive School Staffing Modification Modification Page 3 4 (((irw on Rtf* 190 of l*S0 Ootefrofot ion Flan and Faga 186 of the I at Mt indaatd copy of tht Flan.) Section Three: Incentive School Staffing 8 The selection and support of quality staff sembers will be critical 10 factors in the success of Incentive Schools. Carefully planned staff-selection criteria and procedures will provide the quality personnel capable 12 of successfully attaining the goals and implementing the programs and curriculuB of these schools. Ongoing staff devalopaent for Incentive Schools 14 must prepare the staffs to attain the standards of excellence they will uphold for achieving student success and fulfillment of potential. 16 Itaffinq 18 I. Little Kock School District (LKSD) Incentive schools Staffing Coa*ittee 20 - A committee will be established to assess staffing needs for Incentive Schools, to set criteria for staffing, to recruit quality staff members, and 22 to determine procedures for staffing. The committee would be composed of teachers, parents, supervisors, principals, other administrators, and Joshua 24 Intervenors. 26 II. Staffing Moods Xssessnent - The needs and interests of student populations in the Incentive Schools will be considered before staff selections are made. 28 Factors to be considered before adding new staff include the following: 32 34 Number of students per grade level Race and gender Academic achievement needs and interests Disciplinary needs Social interaction needs Health needs 36 Program goals and curriculum of the Incentive Schools will also be examined. The LRSD Incentive Schools Staffing Committee will then utilize the student 38 data, goals, and curriculum to identify staffing needs for the Incentive Schools. 40 The following full-time positions except music, art, physical education, and social worker are 42 recommended for each school but are not all inclusive of positions which may be identified during the needs assessment process. 44 46 48 52 54 Classroom teachers Counselor Media specialist Music Art P.E. Social Worker Permanently assigned substitute teacher (for each Incentive School) Reading (remediation) Math (remediation)2 LRSD Desegregation Plan Incentive School Staffing Modification Modification Page 4 (tn* on * 1W of L\u0026lt;0 D**fret*tlan Rian and  186 of th* lotott ind*i*d capy of th* Olon. \u0026gt; 10 12 14 Computer lab attendant Resource Speech Specialist for alternative classrooa Media Clerk Instructional aides (ewe per elesspsea) {Une 11 * one per classroom deleft} Prograa specialist Principal Assistant Principal Non-certified supervision aides 6 8 16 Note: 18 Music teachers, art teachers, and physical education teachers will be assigned in accordance with the practice of providing a two (2) thirty (30) minute periods per week of preparation time for each regula classroom teacher. 20 22 Social Workers will be assigned based on student enrollment and the need to provide sodal services to students at the Incentive Schools. B III. Staff Beeruitaaat - The LRSD will implement ongoing nationwide recruitment etrategies with special emphasis on recruiting qualified minority staff 26 members. Current recruitment files will be maintained on an ongoing basis. A pool of prospective staff members also will be drawn from promising student 28 teachers and participants in the Master Teacher Program (as mentioned in the Staff Development Section, Item F). 30 IV. 32 A) Staff Salactioa The LRSD Incentive Schools Staffing Committee will develop criteria for principal and staff selection. \" ' 34 vacant. All positions in each school will be declared Principals shall be selected first for each school so that they may be involved in staff selection and collection and review of student data. 36 Selection criteria will include, but not be limited, the following: 38 40 42 44  Race and gener  Successful teaching and/or administrative experience with at-risk youth  Record of commitment to quality desegregated education  Strong recommendations from a variety of sources (i.e., colleagues, principals, college professors, and other administrators) B) The LRSD Incentive Schools Staffing Committee will work with the Human Resources Department to develop job descriptions and special contracts outlining program and contractual requirements. C) The Human Resources Department will advertise the positions. 48 50LRSD Plan Modification Proposal Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants February, 1995LRSD Plan Modification School Operations Focused Activities!Academic Progress Incentive Grant Modification Page I (c|im OB F(e It of LMSO Dce|rc|ilion Ph* * on P*|e 11 of ihc hlctt iadcwd eof^ of the phn) SCHOOL OPERATIONS FOCUSED ACnVITIES/lND ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT Each elementary area school shall have a fundamentally sound and strong basic education program. It shall also have the option of developing focused activities (which may center around a theme) after appropriate community and parental involvement All focused activities must promote the desegregation objectives ordered by the court and will be implemented through the appropriate goals identified in School Operations (LRSD pp. 28-47). The elementaiy area schools (non-incentive and non-interdistrict) will receive an annual allocation for implementing the focused activities for the school year. The purpose of the focused activities shall be threefold: (1) to promote the school as a \"community of learning\" among parents, staff, and students, (2) to provide enrichment opportunities at the building level\nand (3) to ensure equitable opportunities for participation in the elementary area schools. I. Elementary areas of Collaboration The Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Special School District agree that the implementation of focused activities (LRSD) and specialty programs (PCSSD) in the districts elementary schools could be a collaborative effort (1) in enriching each districts elementary curriculum and (2) in achieving greater racial balance through voluntary interdistrict and intradistrict transfers. Considering the first point, the PCSSD wants the specialty programs initially in a limited number of its elementary schools, whereas the LRSD plans to implement only focused activities in all of its elementary area schools. In relations to the second point of collaboration, the two districts agree to accept that only magnet, incentive, and interdistrict schools in Little Rock School District will have specialty themes, and the two districts agree to develop procedures whereby specialty themes will not be unnecessarily duplicated within the two districts. Also, the tvo districts will collaboratively publicize the specialty programs and encourage majority to minority transfers between theModification Page 2 two districts. Once a final decision is made regarding the implementation of specialty programs, additional areas of collaboration between PCSSD and LRSD will be explored. Also, at any time in the future that the North Little Rock School District decides to implement q\u0026gt;ccialty programs, PCSSD and LRSD agree to address any possible areas of collaboration with NLRSD. IL Overview The Little Rock School District will establish an Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program, the goals of which will be to (1) improve the education of all students and (2) reduce the disparity in achievement among students of different racial, socioeconomic, and gender groups. III. Expected Outcomes The following goals will be achieved by the Little Rock School District  Each non-magnet and non-incentive elementary school will provide focused activities for the total school population including attention to gender, race, and socioeconomic issues.  Each school will be recognized as a community of learning in which all students, staff members, and parents are totally involved and supportive.  The focused activities of each non-magnet and nonincentive elementary school will be integrated into the core curriculum or reflected in the schools environment and day-to-day activities.  All elementary area school students will participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities.  All elementary area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. Academic Progress Incentive Grants In response to n request for proposals (RFP), the To expend the funds, teachers. building administrators, and patrons of individual elemental area schoolswill develofs nouModification Page 3 yrepeb wriwwig apifw utilize the goals identified in School Operations (LRSD pp. 2847) to develop a plana for increasing achievement and decreasing disparity. A grant AMFitiwg Inservice will be offered by the District to assist schools in developing strategies that will facilitate the integration of these goals into appropriate goals of School Operations. Bagiaaiag with tha 1S\u0026gt;9O 91 tahoal yaart aneh aahoai will ba able to apply for-a total af aver a thaaa year pariodi Thia aaiawat win ba-iaaaed to the aahaals ia iaarewaats of taStOOO aaah yaart aad the aawyaoar of Biade will be parwitted. The aaatiaaatiaa of the Aoadewie Progress Inoeative Grant Program will be reviewed ot the end of the 1992 93 aahoal year.. Beginning with the 1995-96 school year, each elementary area school will be eligible to receive funding (at a rate of $20 per student) to implement the goals of Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants by using the goals in School Operations to establish a basis of developing an action plan. Magnet and incentive schools will not be eligible for these grants. The focused activities of each area school will be integrated into school operations and the core curriculum as well as reflected in the schools environment and day-to-day activities. The academic performance of area school students will indicate achievement gained partially as a result of enrichment experiences provided by the core program and enrichment activities. Area school studentswill participate in ongoing, meaningful enrichment activities that complement and extend the core curricular activities. All area schools will be viewed by the community as providing equitable and excellent educational programs. Allowable Activities Elementary zrez schools may receive funds to identify and implement strategies based on promising practices to enhance student achievement and reduce the disparities in academic achievement among groups formed on the basis of race, gender, and economic status.Modification Page 4 Teachers, b\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_417","title":"Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 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":["1991/1996"],"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--Evaluation","Educational planning","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Desegregation plan modifications (April 1992 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/417"],"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\nAssignments for LRSD Plan Modification Proposals McClellan Community School Horace Staffing-Incentive Schools Horace Focused Activities and APIG Horace Four Year Old Program Melissa Biracial Committee References Horace Student Assignments Melissa \u0026amp; Bob Parent Council-Incentive Schools Melissa Parent Involvement/Community Linkages Melissa Spanish-Incentive Schools Melissa \u0026amp; Horace Recruitment of Private School Parents Melissa Incentive School Parent Recruitment MelissaCOMMITMENT TO DESEGREGATION IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Little Rock School District is committed to a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment. The method of assigning students is merely the first step toward creating school and classroom environments that foster academic achievement and improve race relations among students and staff members. The next step involves a commitment to quality desegregated education by the District, parents and the community. Of course, real commitment always requires a plan of action. To that end, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to the following: A. B. The belief that all children can learn. The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests. C. D. E. F. G. H. Improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/incentive schools. Improving race relations among students and staff members. Ensuring that equity occurs in all phases of school activities and operations (i.e. school, class and staff assignments\nparticipation in extracurricular activities\ndistribution of resources\netc.) Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation. The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. The development and infusion of multicultural education in all areas of the curriculum. 1. Ongoing staff development activities to equip teachers, administrators, and other staff with the skills needed to achieve quality desegregated education. In summary, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to having quality desegregated education in all schools. Quality desegregated education will result in long-term stability and growth for the city of Little Rock and Pulaski County. It also will provide all Little Rock School District students with the academic and social skills needed for successful experiences in the future. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors hereby acknowledges its commitment to quality desegregated education and respectfully invites parents and community leaders to make the same commitment. Such a commitment has to occur in order to ensure stability in our schools and ultimately achieve unitary status. Page 1LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: School Operations Goal VII: Provide and ensure opportunities and encouragement to all students to participate in extracurricular and co-curricular activities. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Responsibility Date 1. Inform all students and patrons of co-eurricular/ extracurricular activities available for students and of participation requirements. 1.1 12 1.3 1.4 2. Staff recruitment of students to participate. 2.1 22 3. Increase student participation, particularly minority student participation in co- curricular activities. 3.1 32 3.3 4. Use of media and press. Send printed information to parents. Make clear public address system announcements to students. Use community agencies such as churches to assist with recruitment. Individual staff contacts with students encourage involvement. Staff shall specifically recruit from among students who do not typically participate in particular activities. Profile student involvement in each club or activity. Disaggregate participation data. Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Annually Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Evaluation w OQ fl) W SO Remove all barriers to equitable participation of students who wish to participate in extracurricular activities. 4.1 Develop school based recruitment plans. Provide a district transportation program for student transportation when necessary to assure equitable participation for students participating in district sanctioned extracurricular activities. Annually Ongoing 42 Provide a program for student access to equipment/ uniforms etc. needed for participation at minimal cost. Annually Ongoing Communications Dept Principals Staff PT A Board Educational Programs School based Dir of Extracurricular Activities Individual staff members Principal Staff Asst Supt Directors of Extracurricular Activities Manager of Support Services Asst Supts Assoc Supt Deseg Principals Log of announcements, media usage, other community student contacts Comparative review of data regarding numbers of applicants and participants by race Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profiles Yearly analysis of participation data and comparative profilesRECRUITMENT OF PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS Active recruitment of private school students to the Little Rock School District will be handled, in large part, by the PT As in individual schools. The Parent Recruiters will share and network recruitment strategies with each PT A. These strategies will focus on (1) the determination of those private school families who live within a specific schools attendance zone and (2) the recruitment of these students. Utilizing private school student directories and attendance zone maps, the PTAs can pinpoint those students living in their schools zone. Names of prospective kindergarten students can be obtained from directories of area pre-school and day-care facilities as well as informal sources in the community. The PTAs will be asked to contact these students families and provide opportunities to inform them about the attendance zone school. Suggested opportunities include open houses at the schools, coffees held in private homes, and invitations to school functions (carnivals, performances, spring picnic, etc.). The Parent Recruiters (and VIPS office) will provide direct assistance to those PTAs which have limited parental support and manpower. Also, the Parent Recruiters will meet bimonthly with the PT A Council and/or various PT A representatives to monitor recruitment activities. In an effort to contact those students who exited the Little Rock School District during implementation of the controlled choice assignment plan, the Parent Recruiters will obtain and forward to each school, computer printouts of students on the data base who are not presently enrolled in a district school. The PTAs will contact these students families and encourage them to reconsider their public school options. The Parent Recruiters will continue to foster a working relationship with area realtors in order to access those families with school-age children who are relocating to the Little Rock area. An explanation of LRSD programs in conjunction with building tours will provide new residents with information on which to base their decision to enter public or private school systems. The District will assess the effectiveness of recruitment strategies on an annual basis and share and discuss the assessment with the parties before seeking court approval of alternative strategies. Page 954. Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs a. Each school will establish a multiethnic cultural teacher/parent committee to design and implement school-based activities. b. Encourage all parents to become active members of a parent involvement program. c. Recruit prospective committee members from diversified communities including (among others) retired teachers and community leaders. B. Utilize parents in marketing educational programs and benefits that will result from desegregation. 1. Develop a resource list of parents who are willing to talk with potential patrons. 2. Establish parent recruitment teams in each school to encourage families to enroll in the public schools. 3. Seek positive media coverage featuring parents from all ethnic backgrounds a. Work through local parent/ teacher organizations to encourage positive media coverage. b. Designate a contact person at each local school to report to an established information center. c. Designate a contact person at each local school to report to an established information center. d. Produce video presentations of area schools for use by real estate offices, day care centers, local businesses, economic development agencies, and other community groups. C. Encourage community-wide multiethnic citizen/ parent/ teacher/ student committees for input into planning and decision-making. 1. Establish building, district and tri-district level committees which are racially, geo-graphically and socio-economically representative to provide input and feedback on the operations of the schools and the districts. D. Work with the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce Committee on Education on its advocacy for public school activities. 1. Expand the school/business partnerships. 2. Have a tri-district event to honor business partners in public schools. Page 132AREA: VIPS Goal: (continued) Objectives 1. (continued) 2. Utilize parents in the marketing educational programs and benefits that will result from desegregation of all three districts. LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Responsibility Date 1.7 1.8 2.1 22 2.3 Evaluation fl CW n\u0026gt; LZl Exchange information training and materials with other districts as requested. Provide training for school personnel on the use of volunteers in the school. Develop a resource list of parents v4io are willing to be contacted to taUc with potential parents. Establish parent recruitment teams in each school to encourage families to enroll in pubUc schools. Seek positive media coverage featuring parents from all multicultural back grounds: a. b. c. Work through local parent/teacher organizations to encourage positive media coverage. Designate a contact person at each local school to report to an established information center. Produce video presentations of area schools for use by real estate offices, utility companies and day care centers including Public Housing Authority. Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 Fall 1991 FaU 1991 FaU 1991 Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing VIPS Coors, PAC Coors of 3 districts Coors of the three school districts PTA Councils SAO Parent Recruiters PTA Councils SAO Parent Recruiters Communications Department Local PTAs Bldg level principals Local PTA Board Communications Information requested on file Completed training Increased number of staff members requesting and using volunteers Available resource lists Parent recruiters on file Increased # of media coverage news items that reflect persons from multicultural backgrounds for local schools \u0026amp; districts Designated contact person Completed videosSTUDENT ASSIGNMENTS I. n. Magnet Schools The assignment process to magnet schools will not change under this Plan. Interdistrict Schools LRSD and PCSSD agree to establish interdistrict schools as described in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. in. Elementary Area Schools 1. Students will be assigned to the elementary area schools by attendance zones. 2. The elementary area school attendance zones are drawn to establish a racial balance at each school of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students at these schools but no school shall have a racial composition of greater than 60 percent white. 3. Students presently assigned to elementary area schools will be given the option to remain in these schools (grandfathered). 4. After grandfathered students have been identified and assigned, students in the attendance zone will be assigned to the elementary area schools. 5. If there is no space available at a students zoned school or if assignment of the student to the school would put the school out of compliance with racial balance requirements, the student will be assigned to the closest school with capacity which meets racial balance requirements. 6. The elementary school zones will provide a feeder pattern for elementary students going to junior high school and for junior high school students going to high school. As a result all LRSD students can determine which schools they will attend for the entire course of their education in LRSD. Attached to this Plan are maps of the elementary, junior high school and high school attendance zones. 7. Students in elementary area school zones will be given the option to select an incentive school. IV. Incentive Schools 1. Each incentive school will have an attendance zone that encompasses the neighborhood around the school (primary attendance zone). Page 1392. Students presently assigned to incentive schools will be given the option to remain in these schools (grandfathered). 3. After grandfathered students have been identified and assigned, students in the primary attendance zone will be assigned to the incentive schools. 4. All incentive school students will have the option to be assigned to an elementary area school to be selected by LRSD in accordance with desegregation considerations. 5. In order to assist in meeting the desegregation requirements, a certain number of seats for black and white students will be reserved for each pre-kindergarten and kindergarten class. The seats reserved for white children shall not remain permanently vacant if unfilled. Sufficient time should be allowed for timely, vigorous, and sustained recruitment efforts before filling these seats. V. Desegregation Transfers 1. Junior and senior high school students may transfer to another school as long as the reassignment allows both the sending and receiving school to comply with the desegregation requirement and a seat is available. The minimum black percentage is twenty-five percent (25 percent) below the district-wide percentage of blacks in grades 7-12. The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for a desegregation transfer. The desegregation requirement in secondary schools is that all schools will remain within a range of 12-1/2 percent above to 25 percent below the district-wide percentage of black students at each organizational level (i.e., high school and junior high school). 2. Elementary Students may transfer to an incentive school only if such a transfer enhances desegregation at the incentive school. Desegregation transfers will be granted to elementary area schools that are difficult to desegregate. 3. A student may make two (2) desegregation transfers at each organizational level (primary, intermediate, junior or senior high school). The purpose of the second desegregation transfer is to allow a student to return to his or her previous school assignment. 4. Desegregation transfers will be granted during a limited period once each year. (Secondary Schools only). 5. LRSD will provide transportation for desegregation transfer students where it is cost effective to do so. Page 140 the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that has a seat available in the students feeder zone. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the students feeder zone, the student will be reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all reassignments. Reassigned students will be placed on the waiting list for the appropriate attendance zone school. 2. The minimum black percentage for each elementary area school is 40 percent black. Any assignment that causes a school to fall below the minimum black percentage will not be granted. In such cases, the student will be reassigned to the nearest school that meets the minimum black percentage requirement and has a seat available. If the student cannot be assigned to any of the schools in the students feeder zone, the student will be reassigned to a school in a contiguous feeder zone. IX. Student Assignment Office 1. The Student Assignment Office will: monitor new assignments\nprocess all data entry work for elementary schools\nprocess interdistrict M-to-M transfers and magnet assignments\nreassign students because of overcrowdedness or desegregation requirements\nconsider appeals\nconduct recruitment efforts\nprocess desegregation transfers\nassign all early childhood and incentive school students\nand process all special transfers (Act 609, Act 624, etc.). 2. New students to the District who enroll after May 17,1989 will not have to come to the Student Assignment Office to obtain an assignment. Each school will be authorized to enroll students who live within the attendance zone of that school. 3. The Student Assignment Handbook includes the timeline and procedures used by the schools and the Student Assignment Office to assign students. The Student Assignment Handbook will be revised each year, as necessary, to reflect any changes in the procedures for assigning students. Changes will be made as needed to indicate new deadlines and to improve the implementation of the court-approved student assignment plan. The Student Assignment Handbook is not included in this plan since it is a procedural document that is subject to change each year. The handbook will be developed by the Student Assignment Office and distributed to the schools and the parties each year. Page 142Capacity The capacities of the elementary area schools are determined in accordance with Arkansas accreditation standards which have the following limits: Grade Maximum Number of Students Per Class (Average) Maximum Number of Students in Any Class Kindergarten 20 20 First-Third 23 25 Fourth-Sixth 25 28 The total capacity of the 23 elementary area schools is 9,678. The incentive schools will have a maximum pupil/teacher ratio of 20 to 1. There may be more than 20 students per classroom, however, there will be an aide in each class and possibly a second teacher in those classes. The capacity of the incentive schools is 2558. The overall racial composition of the elementary area schools and the space available for recruitment at those schools depend upon the number of students who enroll in Incentive and Interdistrict Schools. The initial racial composition of the Incentive Schools is expected to be predominately black. It is expected that at least 600 black LRSD students will attend Interdistrict Schools. Stephens and King It is proposed that the District relocate Stephens Elementary near the 1-630 corridor between 1-30 and University Avenue. The new Stephens will house pre-kindergarten through sixth grades and will have a capacity of 696 students, including the four-year-old program. It serves as an Interdistrict School. The new Stephens wiU be easily accessible to downtown office workers, state department employees and University Medical Center personnel. The Little Rock School District also proposes to build a new King Elementary School in downtown Little Rock. The facility would be located in the general area along 1-630 between 1-30 and University Avenue. In addition to being an Interdistrict school, an attraction for this school will be its early childhood program and childcare facilities. This location is expected to serve as a natural magnet for individuals who work within governmental and business centers of Little Rock. Page 148INCENTIVE SCHOOL PROGRAM Introduction The Little Rock School District will have seven (7)* schools providing the incentive school program. Rockefeller may become an interdistrict school, but would continue to provide the incentive school program. The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. The following schools will provide the incentive school program: Franklin Garland Ish Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Stephens *The question of an additional incentive school for the 1992-93 school year is still under discussion. The parties do not seek to modify the plan at this time to add an additional incentive school. In order to be successful, the incentive program must address the academic, social and emotional needs of all student participants. The incentive program must also serve as a recruitment tool for meeting the desegregation requirements in these schools. With proper resources and expectations, the incentive school program will serve as a model of excellence for the county, state and nation. The success of the incentive school program is directly related to the success of the long-term desegregation plan in the Little Rock School District. In addition to the ongoing comprehensive programs in the incentive schools, the parties will explore the possible use of a trust fund to provide future college scholarship incentives. The parties will determine the costs of implementing a scholarship program for the students who attend incentive schools and will determine the feasibility of using trust funds to provide such an incentive. If feasible, the parties will have the responsibility for establishing the guidelines and criteria to be used in allocating any resources to the students. The trust fund would be used to provide an academic achievement incentive to students and would also assist parents and students in setting realistic goals for attending college. Page 149Section Five: Incentive School Parent Recruitment Aggressive marketing and recruitment are essential to the overall success of the incentive school program. Careful marketing of the incentive school program is the first step toward an effective recruitment program. The marketing phase of the parent recruitment program will focus on providing general information to the community. The black community will be targeted during the initial phase of marketing activities. Recruitment will be an ongoing process at the incentive schools. The purpose of the recruitment program is to encourage voluntary assignments that will enable the incentive schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. 1. To provide information to the community about the incentive school program. A. Mail final report on incentive school program to special interest and community groups (i.e. PTA Council, Junior League, Greek organizations. Ministerial Alliance: Tri-District Council, ACORN, etc.). B. Conduct information sessions at churches located near incentive schools and churches throughout the community with large memberships. II. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Conduct information sessions with special audiences. Establish Saturday information booths at such places as University Mall, Park Plaza Mall, Wal-Mart Stores, Safeway Stores, Kroger Stores, etc. Stores in the black community will also be targeted for information booths.* Secure special media coverage from local newspapers and radio stations. Develop highlights sheet for distribution to aU elementary parents (and new elementary parents). Use telephone hotline.* Place highlights sheet in local businesses.* Special media coverage from State Press and black radio stations. Note: *Will be done in conjunction with promotion of student assignment plan. To implement a recruitment program that will enable the incentive schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. A. Brochures - Produce a brochure for each incentive school. Brochures should include: photo of school, special resources, programs, theme information, partners- in-education information, grants received, honors, list of staff members with brief credentials. Page 215B. PSAs - Produce generic public service announcements for all incentive schools. C. Billboards - Use billboards, bus benches, etc., to advertise generic information about incentive schools. Seek donated space. Billboards throughout Pulaski County should be used. D. Media Blitz - Conduct an ongoing media (radio, TV and newspaper) blitz to heighten public awareness regarding incentive schools. Pursue funding donations from community. E. Videocassette Recordings - Produce short (10-15 minutes) videocassette recordings to be used in public presentations (i.e. PTA meetings, realtors, etc.) F. Flyers - Produce generic incentive school flyers to be distributed throughout Pulaski County. (Example: insert flyers in utility companies bills\nmass mailings to targeted K-5 white parents in NLRSD and PCSSD. G. Open House - Provide special open house opportunities at incentive schools. H. Neighborhood Blitz Target geographic areas/neighborhoods to receive informational blitz regarding a specific incentive school. Stress group preference as an assignment option. Mail individual school brochures to each elementary student in targeted area. I. Tours - Conduct small group \"For Your Information\" tours to acquaint parents, grandparents, businessmen, realtors, etc., with the incentive schools. J. State Department of Education - Request a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (i.e. \"Five Star Schools\", \"Model Schools\") to be used in marketing incentive schools. K. Celebrities - seek incentive school endorsements from local celebrities. Arrange visits by celebrities, news events, special ceremonies, etc., to generate media coverage. L. Conduct meetings with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers to incentive schools. M. Parent Recruiters - Hire two parent recruiters to conduct recruitment activities. N. Speakers Bureau - Establish a speakers bureau for each incentive school. The parents of white students enrolled in the incentive schools will be encouraged to serve on the bureau along with celebrities, teachers, etc. Page 216III. To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment program for the incentive schools. The Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Committee will also serve as the steering committee for the incentive school recruitment program. The Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation wUl be responsible for submitting bi-monthly reports on the implementation and effectiveness of various recruitment strategies. These reports will also be shared with the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. The Biracial Advisory Committee will review each bi-monthly report and recommend to the Board of Directors and/ or Office of Desegregation any changes needed in recruitment strategies/ activities. The Biracial Advisory Committee wall also appoint two ex-officio members with expertise in marketing/advertising to advise the Committee on recruitment strategies. The Biracial Advisory Committee will evaluate the recruitment program each quarter. The evaluation of the recruitment program will be addressed in the quarterly monitoring/evaluation report on the incentive school program. Page 217LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools Goal: To provide general information to the community about the incentive program. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 0 p m n NJ 00 1. Inform special interest groups and seek their assistance in disseminating information to general public. 2. Conduct special information campaign in black community. 1.1 12 2.1 22 Mail final report on incentive school program to special interest and community groups. June 1991 June 1991 Associate Supt.- Desegregation a. b. c. Get Court approval to release information on incentive schools. Design cover for final report and print. Update mailing list of community groups. Conduct information sessions with special audiences. a. Send invitation and information to special interest groups. Conduct information sessions at churches. a. b. c. February February May 1991 March January March February May 1991 April Ongoing as needed LRSD Attorneys Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters Assoc Supt-Deseg Assoc Supt-Deseg Identify churches and contact pastors. Schedule and publicize sessions. Send information package to other churches in the black community. Special media coverage from State Press and black radio stations. January January January January August Annually August Annually August Annually April Parent Recruiters Student Assignment OfficerLRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools Goal: (continued) Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 3. Distribute information to parents and community. 3.1 Develop highlights sheet for distribution to all elementary parents. January Annually February Annually Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department 32 Estabhsh Saturday information booths at University Mall, Park Plaza Mall and Wal-Mart Stores.* January Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3.3 Pbce highlights sheet in local businesses. March April Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3.4 Special media coverage. March April Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3J Use telephone hotline. March April Parent Recruiters Communications Department 3.6 Distribute Program description to all elementary parents. T3 p OQ fS Is) so * Will be done in conjunction with promotion of new student assignment plan.LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AREA: Incentive Schools Goal: To implement a recruitment program that will allow the incentive schools to comply with the desegregation requirements. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. To utilize a variety of marketing strategies to recruit white students to the incentive schools. 1.1 Produce a brochure for each incentive school. Brochure should include: a. Photo of school b. Photo of principal c. Special resources d. Programs e. Theme information f. Partners information g. Grants received h. Honors i. List of staff July Annually Nov. Annually Assoc Supt-Deseg \u0026amp; Schools Asst Supt-Incentive Schools Incentive School Principals Communications Department Parent Recruiters 12 Produce generic public service announcements for all incentive schools. June Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg \u0026amp; Schools Asst Supt-Incentive Schools Incentive School Principals Communications Department Parent Recruiters 1.3 Use billboards, bus benches, etc. to advertise generic information about incentive schools. August Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department 13 00 CD KJ KJ O 1.4 Conduct an ongoing media blitz to heighten public awareness regarding incentive schools. March Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department 1.5 Produce short (10-15 minutes) video cassette recordings to be used in public presentations. July Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications DepartmentAREA: Incentive Schools Goal: (continued) Objectives 1. (continued) LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1.6 Produce generic incentive school flyers to be distributed throughout Pulaski County. a. Insert flyers in utility companies bills. b. Mass mailings to targeted K-5 white parents in NLRSD and PCSSD. 1.7 Provide special open house opportunities at incentive schools. January January January August August August August November 1.8 Target geographic areas neighborhoods to receive informational blitz regarding a specific incentive school (using secondary zones). January Annually Ongoing 1.9 Conduct small group \"For Your Information\" tours to acquaint parents, grandparents, businessmen, realtors, etc. with the incentive schools. January Annually Ongoing \"T3 00 n\u0026gt; 1.10 Request a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education to be used in marketing incentive schools. March July Assoc Supt-Deseg Communications Department Assoc Supt-Deseg and Schools Asst Supt-Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Principals Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recniiters Incentive Schools Principals Parent Recruiters Incentive School Principals Assoc Supt-Deseg LRSD AttorneysAREA: Incentive School Goal\n(continued) Objectives 1. (continued) LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1.11 Seek incentive school endorsements from local celebritites. Arrange visits by celebrities, news events, special ceremonies, etc., to generate media coverage. September Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters 1.12 Conduct meetings with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-M transfers to incentive schools. January Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg Parent Recruiters 1.13 Hire two parent recruiters. July Ongoing Assoc Supt-Deseg *13 P 00 fS to KJ toAREA: Incentive Schools LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE Goal: To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the recruitment program for the incentive schools. Objectives Strategies/ Activities Beginning Date Ending Date Responsibility Evaluation 1. Provide a special inservice for the LRSD Bi-racial Advisory Committee on the Incentive School Program and the Long-term Desegregation Plan. 1.1 12 2. To utilize the services of individuals with eiqjertise in marketing/advertising. 2.1 3. To develop procedures for monitoring implementation of the recruitment program. 3.1 32 3.3 4. Notify committee of special meeting. Conduct special inservice meeting. (1) Review plan and focus on parent recruitment program. Appoint ex-officio members to Bi-racial Advisory Committee. Develop draft of monitoring procedures. Prepare final draft. Review monitoring procedures with superintendents cabinet, Bi-racial Advisory Committee, and incentive school principals. August August August August September September September September Assoc Supt-Deseg Assoc Supt-Deseg Assoc Supt-Deseg Bi-racial Advisory Committee Assoc Supt-Deseg Bi-racial Advisory Committee Chairperson Dir of Eval and Testing Assoc Supt-Deseg Bi-racial Advisory Committee Chairperson Dir of Eval and Testing Assoc Supt-Deseg Dir of Eval and Testing O p (TO fS to IQ CU 5. Recommend any changes needed in recruitment strategies/ activities. To evaluate the recruitment program. 4.1 5.1 Review bi-monthly reports on recruitment program. Prepare quarterly report and submit to Board of Directors June November Ongoing Ongoing Bi-racial Advisory Committee Bi-racial Advisory CommitteeFRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. F.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W . BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N . ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S . MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601*379-201 1 FAX NO. 601*379*2147 March 29, 1995 received MUR J 0 1995 KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. CLYDE 'TAB* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H. CHARLES 68CHWEND. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H . MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. 8PAINH0UR JOHN C.FENDLEY,JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY Oftice ot Oesegrega. yn' -9 COUNBEt WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. vHiTCR-e Direct no. (601) 370*1609 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., #510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL and STREETT 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Re: LRSD Proposed Desegregation Plan Modifications Dear Counsel and Ms. Brown: I inadvertently included a proposed plan modification concerning the LRSD Four-Year Old Program among the materials I sent you last week. respect to the Four-Year Old Program. LRSD does not propose a plan modification with document concerning that proposed modification. Please disregard the You hru Christopner Heller CJH/kAssignments for LRSD Plan Modification Proposals McClellan Community School Horace Staffing-Incentive Schools Horace Focused Activities and APIG Horace Four Year Old Program Melissa Biracial Committee References Horace Student Assignments Melissa \u0026amp; Bob Parent Council-Incentive Schools Melissa Parent Involvement/Community Linkages Melissa Spanish-Incentive Schools Melissa \u0026amp; Horace Recruitment of Private School Parents Melissa Incentive School Parent Recruitment MelissaREVIEW OF THE JULY SUBMISSION LRSD VOLUME I 1517-1518 - Commitment to Desegregation in the LRSD - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1519-1520 - Leadership - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1521-1526 - Early Childhood - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1527-1529 - Early Childhood - (HIPPY) Timelines - from the May Submission including the changes made in May 1530-1533 - Early Childhood Four-Year-Old Incentive School Program - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan (NOTE: on page 1533 the language regarding all schools in the district implement the four- year-old program is not changed in the July Submission - see example \"A\") 1534-1535 - Early Childhood Four-Year-Old Incentive School Program - Timelines - from the May Submission including the changes made in May Note: In the July Submission, the next page (SP-00324) apparently is out of order. It is the second page of the City-wide Early Childhood Program timeline. It is number 1541. 1536-1539 - City-Wide Early Childhood Education Program - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1540 - City-Wide Early Childhood Education Program - Timelines - from the 1989 Plan - Note: This timeline is on pink paper???? Note: This is the location the above noted sheet is suppose to go. Note: This timeline is on white paper. 1542-1543 - Special Programs - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1544-1545 - Summer Learning Program - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1546 - Summer Learning Program - Timeline - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1546-1550 - Asset Program - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1551-1553 - JTPA-Asset Program - Timelines - from the 1989 Plan 1554-1556 - School Operations - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1557-1578 - School Operations - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1579-1584 - Program for Accelerated Learning - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan1585-1592 - Program for Accelerated Learning - Timelines - from the May Submission including all the May changes (mostly deletions with reasoning of \"Completed\") Note: page 1592 is noted at the top of the page \"Delete All\" - this page is not legible 1593-1594 - Gifted Education - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1595-1598 - Gifted Education - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1599-1600 - Multi-Ethnic Curriculum - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1601-1615 - Multicultural Curriculum - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May (multi-ethnic changed to multicultural in timelines but not in narrative) - several pages lined through and noted \"completed\" 1616 - This page is moved - in the July Submission this page is following page 1622 - Content Area Programs - Narrative - from the May Submission noting to delete **** 1617-1622 - Content Area Programs - Timelines - new changes made, different from the May Submission (LRSD took the 1989 plan and made deletions, additions, and changes for the July Submission) **** Note: immediately following page 1622 is another set of pages 1616-1622 (Content Area Programs) - this time the pages are orange - from the May Submission including the \"Delete\" at the top of the page Note: immediately following the second set of pages 1616-1622 (the orange one) is yet another set of pages 1616-1622 - this time the pages are white - from the May Submission including the wording \"Delete\" at the top of each page. 1623-1626 - Focused Activities - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan 1627-1630 - Focused Activities - Timelines - from the 1989 Plan with manual date extensions to 1992 (Note: the May Submission asked to delete these pages and inserted one page to replace the three) 1631-1639 - Parkview - Nanative - from the 1989 Plan (Note: McClellan Community School is omitted from the July Submission) 1640-1641 - Recruitment of Private School Students - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1642 - Federal Programs - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1643 - Federal Programs - Timelines - from the May Submission 1644-1646 - Vocational Education - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1647-1654 - Vocational Education - Timelines - from the May Submission including all changes made in May (Note: on page 1651 a manual note is made to \"restore\" a part of that page1655-1656 - Library Media Services - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1657-1659 - Library Media Services - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May 1660-1664 - Special Education - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1665-1676 - Special Education - Timelines - from the May Submission including changes made in May - Note\npage 1665 was omitted from the May Submission - pages 1666-1677 has many changes. In the July Submission, page 1665 is copied from the 1989 Plan and pages 1666-1677 is copies from the May Submission, (p. 1677 is not in numerical order in the May Submission - the July Submission has the exact same order) 1678 - Staff Development - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan - Note\nthis page in the July Submission comes after page 1688 1679-1688 - Staff Development - Timelines - from the May Submission 1689-1691 - Support Services - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1692-1696 - Parent Involvement/Community Linkages - Narrative - from the 1989 Plan 1697-1703 - Parent Involvement/Community Linkages - Timelines - from the May Submission including the changes made in MayREVIEW OF THE JULY SUBMISSION LRSD VOLUME II 2198-2212 - Student Assignment - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2213-2214 - Student Assignment Desegregation Plan Timeline - from May Submission which is deleted 2215-2226 - Student Assignment Handbook - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2227-2232 - Facilities - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2232-2249 - Incentive School Program - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2250-2252 - Incentive School Program - Latin Timelines - from May Submission which are deleted (Note: the narrative regarding the Latin program is not deleted but the timelines crossed through) 2253-2256 - These are blank Pages in the 1989 Plan - omitted in July Submission 2257-2263 - Incentive School Program - Quality Academic Program Timelines - from May Submission which most are deleted (on page 2259 of JS date changes are extended manually by three years regarding incentive school curriculum - Note: the dates that are manually extended are being deleted by show of lines drawn through it - see example \"A\" attached) 2264 - Incentive School Staff Development Timeline - from May Submission showing the changes made in that submission 2266-2277 - Incentive School Program School Administration - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2278-2280 - Incentive School Support Programs and Procedures Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2281-2282 - Incentive School Procedures for Administration and Staffing Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2283-2285 - Incentive School Program of Counseling/Social Work Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2286-2287 - Incentive School Monitoring Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2288-2289 - Incentive School Policies and Procedures Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2290-2297 - Incentive School Staffing - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2298-2300 - Incentive School Staffing Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2301-2302 - Incentive School Staffing Timelines - from 1989 Plan - every place regarding developing curriculum the date has been manually extended by three years - see example \"B\" attached 2303-2306 - Incentive School Staffing Timelines (Staff Development) - from 1989 Plan - the wording \"Annually\" has been manually added to almost every timeline and dates regarding implementing the Teacher Demonstration Program has been manually extended by three years -see example \"C\" attached 2307-2309 - Incentive School Parent Involvement - Nanative - from 1989 Plan 2310-2321 - Incentive School Parent Involvement - Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2322-2326 - Incentive School Parent Recruitment - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2327-2334 - Incentive School Parent Recruitment - Timelines - from 1989 Plan 2235-2338 - Monitoring and Evaluation - Narrative - from 1989 Plan 2339-2341 - Computerized Transportation System - Narrative and Tentative Timeline - from 1989 Plan 2342-2343 - Data Processing - Narrative - from 1989 Plan Added after the last section is copies of orders: * Stipulation and Consent Order Regarding Little Rock School District Aerospace Technology Magnet School * Stipulation regarding construction * Stipulation and Consent Order Concerning Adjustments to Settlement Plans * Stipulation and Consent Order Concerning Adjustments to Settlement Plans SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF LRSD JULY SUBMISSION VOLUME II: 1. LRSD has used the 1989 Plan as the narrative. 2. LRSD has presented timelines in varying ways: A, Used the May Submission timelines B. Used the 1989 Plan timelines C. Used the May Submission timelines with some date extensions by three years D. Used the May Submission timelines with some \"annually\" wording added E. Used the 1989 Plan timelines with some date extensions by three years ???? - With the statement attached to the front of the LRSD Plan, \"The LRSD proposes that all deadlines referred to in the text of its plan be extended by up to three years to conform to the originally proposed schedule of compliance.\", does that mean that the manually made three year extensions are also extended \"up to three years\". For example, on one page of the timelines, some dates are left as they were in the 1989 Plan and some have been manually extended to 1992, See example \"D\" attached.3. In some instances, the narrative and timeline do not correlate. The narrative will be from the 1989 Plan and the timelines from the May Submission. For Example: Student Assignments, Incentive Schools Latin Program, Incentive Schools Academic Programs (including staff development) 4. Not noted in the July Submission neither in the narrative nor the timeline is the change regarding instructional aides in incentive school classrooms. Change made in the May Submission, but in the July Submission no change noted from the 1989 Plan. See example \"E\" attached.United.States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Nos. 91-2640EA, 91-2648EA, 91-2655EA, 91-2683EA Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, North Little Rock School District, and Mrs. Lorene Joshua, Appellants. * * it it it it it On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Siibmitted: September 4, 1991 Filed: November 14, 1991 Before ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. On December 12, 1990, we approved a comprehensive settlement of the Pulaski County, Arkansas, school-desegregation case. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990). We recognized, however, that the approved plans, which we shall call the 1989 plan or plans, would need some modification because of the passage of time. We remanded the case to the District Court with directions to adopt the plans with any necessary transitional changes. We also stated that the parties are \"free, by agreement, to modify the settlement plans by incorporating in them one or more provisions of the Tri-District Plan, subject, of course, to the approval of the District Court.\" 921 F.2d at 1393 n.l5.On remand the three school districts involved. Little Rock School District (LRSD) , Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD), and North Little Rock School District (NLRSD), and the Joshua Intervenors, representing the plaintiff class, met to discuss what modifications of the 1989 plan would be necessary or appropriate. After extensive negotiations, the parties agreed to a long list of modifications, and submitted them to the District Court for approval. The parties refer to their settlement as thus modified as the \"May 1991 Plan,\" and we shall adopt the terminology. same The District Court rejected the proposed modifications. In its view, they went beyond any authority conferred by this Court's 1990 opinion. That opinion. as the District Court read it. authorized only two sorts of changes: the incorporation of provisions of the Tri-District Plan, and an adjustment of details necessary to make a smooth transition between the 1990-91 school year, which had been governed by an interim order of this Court dated July 2, 1990, see 907 F.2d 76, and the 1991-92 school year. The District Court considered all other changes out of bounds under this Court's mandate, whether or not these changes had been agreed . to by all parties concerned. The Court directed the parties to submit a new modified plan in compliance with its view of this Court's mandate. \"Substantive modifications to the plans,\" it said. \"shall be only for the purpose of incorporating useful features of the Tri-District Plan.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. i, No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 15 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed June 21, 1991) . The Court explained: \"Nearly all the [proposed] . . . revisions . . . fall outside the narrow realm of modifications and adjustments deemed permissible by the Eighth Circuit. Thus, this Court cannot approve them. This is not to say that all the proposed changes are without merit, or that they all -2-would negatively affect desegregation in the three districts. It is simply a matter of compliance with the language of the Eighth Circuit's order.\" Id. at 14-15. The parties then moved for reconsideration. They emphasized that all the changes for which approval was being sought had been agreed to by all parties concerned. They took the position that the District Court should approve any modifications thus agreed to, provided that they met the standards set out in this Court's opinion for judicial review of the original, 1989, settlement. So long as the agreed changes did not render the plan plainly unconstitutional on its face, were not manifestly unworkable, and were not unfair to class members, see 921 F.2d at 1383, they should be approved, the parties said. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and summarized its position as follows\nThe Court sees the Eighth Circuit's approval of the plans as akin to establishing benchmark\nwe now have [a] distinct reference point, sure guide for ending this dispute and getting the parties out of court. revisions Some to the settlement plans will be needed initially to update the plans and to effect smooth transition from the Tri- District Plan\nthereafter, other modifications may be necessary conditions and in response to changing unforeseen developments. However, such changes should be minimal and occur at the margins, rather than at the core of the plans. a a a Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, No. LR-C-82866, slip op. 6-7 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed July 15, 1991). From these orders disapproving their proposed modifications, the parties have now appealed. All four parties involved, LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and the Joshua Intervenors, take the position that the District Court has confined them within limits that are too -3-narrow, and that ail of their proposed changes, being constitutional, workable, and fair, should have been approved. They ask us to reverse the orders of the District Court and remand the case with directions to approve all of the parties' modifications. I. There is much in the District Court's opinions with which we agree. The 1989 settlement which we approved last year should indeed be a benchmark for the future path of this parties are not authorized to modify it at will. case. Further, The we agree, for the most part, that any changes approved should be concerned only with the details of the plan, affecting it only at the margin, so to speak. We wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that an asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify reduction in their commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan, even if such a reduction were agreed to by the Joshua Intervenors, eventuality which, in any event, seems to us most unlikely. an The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments, not be disturbed. The essence and core of that plan should On the other hand, we think the District Court was too strict with itself. We did not intend, for example, to limit changes in detail to matters that are merely transitional, or to the selection of certain provisions from the Tri-District Plan. (We accept responsibility for any lack of clarity in our December 1990 opinion on this point.) If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major sxibstantive commitments to desegregation, the District Court has the authority to consider it. Some such changes, for example, as the District Court noted, may have merit, either because they advance desegregation, or for other reasons. Even changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover, could -4- abe approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including the lack of funds) for them. It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all-black) schools\n(2) operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable\n(3) operation of the agreed number interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable\nof (4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable\n(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races\n(6) the agreed elements of early-childhood education, at least in the incentive schools\nand (7) appropriate involvement of parents. For purposes of illustration, we will discuss a number of the proposed modifications, indicating which of them seem to us to concern mere details, and which of them, on the other hand, would require substantive justification. Items we consider to involve details include deciding whether Russian will be taught at Parkview\nfailing to include the 144-page appendix in the revised PCSSD May 1991 Plan\nchanging the plan's language with respect to a possible interdistrict school in Chenal Valley\nchanging the process to decide whether King Elementary School will be Montessori school\nand eliminating Explorer memberships 1 a for 1 students at incentive schools. In contrast, changes we consider to be significant, requiring justification, include reducing the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools from one per classroom to two aides for every three classrooms\neliminating incentive-school themes\nand eliminating a full-time nurse at each ^Students at the incentive schools, which are all on the elementary level, are too young to be Explorer Scouts. Addendum (J.A.) 102. Joint -5-school. Again, we emphasize that we do not mean to imply that these changes are not permissible. Rather, changes of this kind may be approved if the District Court finds they are justified. One other kind of change proposed by the parties deserves our attention: deleting requirements of the plan because the parties agree the requirements have been met. An example of this is LRSD's obligation under the 1989 plan to hire two parent recruiters to conduct recruitment activities for the incentive schools. In their \"Stipulation Regarding Little Rock School District and Interdistrict Plan Modifications,\" filed with the District Court on July 25, 1991, the parties stated that they deleted the requirement to hire the recruiters because the recruiters were hired in 1989. J.A. 105. We agree with the District Court's statements on this topic: \"Present performance does not excuse future obligation. What if the district stops doing what it promised? Without such commitments remaining readily identifiable in the plan, the Court cannot monitor [the] district's compliance with the plan.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 22 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed July 15, 1991) (emphasis in original). Perhaps LRSD will no longer need parent recruiters at some point in the future. Until that time, however, the district's obligation to hire and maintain the recruiters should remain in the plan. The appellants urge that we not remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings, order approval of their modifications as They ask us simply to a whole. or. in the alternative, to go through each of the modifications and indicate specifically which of them should be approved. and which disapproved. They suggest that a remand would not result in any additional factual proof. Justification for each of the proposed changes, they say, can be found in the stipulations they filed with the District Court. We can read those stipulations and apply them just as well as a trial court, the parties assert. -6-We believe the better course, though it will involve some delay before a final plan is in place, is to remand to the District Court with directions to review the proposed modifications under the standards set out in this opinion. On the most general level, the standard is, as the parties assert, the same one we originally- applied in approving the 1989 plan\nThe parties' agreement should be upheld if it is constitutional, workable, and fair to class members. On the other hand, the application of this test is affected by the new procedural context in which we now find the case. The 1989 settlement is a benchmark. Although changes can be made, the District Court and we must take into account the potential for confusion, even chaos, that constant change creates. The parties and the public deserve a period of stability. Changes in details, or at the margin, will not seriously interfere with this goal. Changes of greater significance, however, may well do so. and that fact must be taken fully into account when such changes are proposed and considered. We recognize that the language of this opinion is somewhat general. It leaves a considerable degree of latitude to the District Court. That Court must determine in the first instance, using the criteria we have suggested, what changes are mere details and what changes are outside that category. It must also determine. in its own best judgment. what changes should be approved, notwithstanding their going beyond the level of detail. because they would advance desegregation or for other sound reasons. The District Court should proceed with that discretion and flexibility that characterizes courts of equity. Its decisions, whatever they are, are of course subject to review on appeal, but the review will be on an abuse-of-discretion basis, and we will give a healthy measure of deference to the reasoned choices made by the District Court. -7-II. We turn to a few other matters requiring our attention. After the District Court rejected the May 1991 Plan, it ordered the parties to submit new modifications which complied with its interpretation of our December 1990 opinion. On July 22, 1991, the parties submitted their new proposed modifications. In view of our resolution of this appeal, the debate over the extent to which this so-called July submission conforms to the District Court's orders of June 21 and July 15, 1991, is now moot. Although the District Court disapproved the parties' proposed modifications, it entered a partial stay of its orders on August 22, 1991, pending the outcome of this appeal. The effect of the stay was to require the parties to abide by the 1989 plan, except with respect to those specific items mentioned in the order. We have no quarrel with this order. and it can. subject to any modification that may commend itself to the District Court, remain in effect pending the District Court's decision concerning the proposed modifications to the plan under the guidelines we have set foirth in this opinion. It troubles us. however. that the parties seem to be misinterpreting the pairtial stay. At oral argument, the attorney for PCSSD stated that the District Court's order of August 22, 1991, prevents the parties from taking other desegregative actions on subjects that are not covered in the 1989 plan. An example given at oral argument was a proposed program to encourage vendors to hire minority employees and deal with minority suppliers. We see nothing in the District Courts August 22 order prohibiting efforts by the school districts above and beyond those required by the 1989 plans. The District Court disapproved the May 1991 Plan, in part, because it viewed the plan as a reduction in the parties' commitment to desegregating public schools in Pulaski County. Nothing in its orders prevents the districts, without necessarily -8- coming to the Court for approval, from voluntarily increasing their desegregation efforts, as long as these efforts do not conflict with the districts' pre-existing obligations under the 1989 plan. as it may be modified from time to time. The District Court' s July 15 opinion makes this clear: \"The plans are a floor. not a ceiling.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. No. LR-C-82-866, slip op. 10 (E.D. Ark., opinion filed July 15, 1991). We reiterate, however, that these increased efforts may not supplant the districts' obligations under any court-approved plan. Finally, we think it prudent to mention the standard to be used by the District Court for reviewing proposed modifications to the plan (if any are sxibmitted in the future) to which all the parties have not agreed. As appellants have correctly noted. disputed modifications are governed by a stricter standard than agreed-to modifications. In Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell, 111 S. Ct. 630, 636 (1991), the Supreme Court rejected, as too burdensome, the requirement that a party requesting a dissolution or modification of a school-desegregation plan show \"grievous wrong evoked by new and unforeseen a conditions,\" under United States v. Swift \u0026amp; Co.. 286 U.S. 106, 119 (1932) . In rejecting the Swift standard, however, the Court did not indicate what showing would be necessary for a party to demonstrate the need for modification. We find the Sixth Circuit case of Heath v. De Courcy. 888 F.2d 1105 (6th Cir. 1989), instructive on this issue: To modify [a] consent decree[ ], the court need only identify a defect or deficiency in its original decree which impedes achieving its goal, either because experience has proven it less effective [or] disadvantageous. because circumstances and conditions , or have changed which warrant fine-tuning the decree. A modification will be upheld if it furthers the original purpose of the decree in a more efficient way, without upsetting the basic agreement between the parties. -9-Id. at 1110. Our review of the District Court's decisions concerning this kind of modification will also be subject to abuse-of-discretion standard. an * * The orders appealed from are vacated, and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We direct that our mandate issue forthwith. We ask the District Court, to the extent practicable, to give this matter priority on its docket, this appeal. Each party shall bear its own costs on It is so ordered. WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, concurring. Although I concur in the court's judgment vacating the orders appealed from and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings, I write separately to voice my concern that our holding may be too restrictive with respect to the changes that the parties should be allowed to implement. By way of example, it seems to me that the parties have already offered sufficient justification for their intention to reduce the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools, to eliminate certain incentive-school themes, and to eliminate a full-time nurse at each school. These are matters, among others, that I consider to be mere details, the implementation of which should be left to the discretion of the parties. The recurring theme expressed during oral argument was the knowledge and experience that the parties have gained during the past several years about those aspects of the desegregation plan that have been successful and those which have not. For example. -10- counsel for Pulaski County Special School District stated (and I paraphrase) \"What we have learned over the past two years is that brand new schools and a strong basic curriculum is what parents want.\" Counsel for North Little Rock School District explained that North Little Rock had abandoned precision teaching because it was found not to be effective. Likewise, counsel for the Joshua Intervenors stated (and again I paraphrase) \"We have seen that certain things don't work, theme schools.\" We know what won't work, for example. Of course these are arguments that can (and no doubt will) be made to the District Court on remand. I mention them here only to illustrate the deference that we, and the District Court, should pay to those who are charged with the responsibility of educating the children within the several school districts. Some might reply by saying that such deference represents a naive. too-trusting attitude. given the recalcitrancenay. outright obduracyof the parties in years past. Perhaps so. On the other hand, we should remember that this is not 1954 or 1957- -or even 1985, for that matterand the time has come to cease excoriating the leaders of the present for the sins of their forebears and to vouchsafe them some credit for the efforts they have made to comply with the several decrees that have been entered in this long-standing case. The court's opinion today takes this latter course, and I am pleased to join in it, differing only in the degree of detailed supervision that the District Court should be required to exercise over the parties' revised plan. If I thought that my somewhat more relaxed standard of supervision would lead to a cessation of the efforts that have heretofore been made to remedy the effects of legally-enforced segregation or a wholesale jettisoning of the plan that we approved in our opinion of last December, I would not espouse it. As it is. however, I would give the parties the opportunity of demonstrating -11-that the changes they have proposed do not affect, in the court's words, \"the major substantive commitments to desegregation.\" I view the continuing presence of the Joshua Intervenors as a powerful force to insure that the several school districts adhere to their conunitments to desegregation. My views have not carried the day, of course, and so we will never know whether the greater latitude I would have allowed the parties would have resulted in a commitment fulfilled or a promise rung hollow. A true copy. Attest\nCLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -12-OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: January 29, 1992 To: James Jennings, Asso. Supt. for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services From: Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Subject: Correction of Inconsistencies and Timelines Listed below are inconsistencies we have noted between the narrative and timelines in the May Submission: Pages 47-49: ASSET Program Timelines have been deleted but the narrative on page 37 has been restored. Also, the narrative on pages 43-46 regarding JTPA/ASSET is inconsistent with testimony regarding existing tutoring programs. Page 97: Multicultural Curriculum Under Evaluation and Monitoring, the reference to adding multicultural curriculum to the LRSD monitoring checklist was deleted and not restored. Ms. Matthis testified that reference to the checklist had been moved to the section on Educational Equity Monitoring. Although curriculum is listed in the addition to the incentive school monitoring and evaluation section on pages 371-72, multicultural curriculum is not specifically identified. Pages 208-212, 312-325: Parent Involvement and Incentive School Section The Parents in Learning Program has been deleted on page 208 but remains in the timeline on page 212. (Testimony indicated that LRSD would restore the Parents in Learning Program to the narrative.) \"Nationwide recruitment\" was restored to the narrative on page 325 but is still deleted from the timeline on page 312.January 29, 1992 Page Two Hiring of staff on initial one-year contracts has been restored to pages 324 and 325 but is still deleted in the timeline on page 312. \"Full time nurse\" has been restored in the page 304 narrative but is still deleted from the timeline on page 316. Pages 344-345: Parent Involvement Section - Parent Internship Program The May Submission is not clear regarding the LRSDs proposed changes on page 344 and the corresponding timelines on page 345: Page 344, #2, calls for the district to \"establish an Inoentive wide P-^arent hntemship P^rogram in all incentive schools with the purpose of employing parents as teacher aides.\" Yet the timeline has been changed to replace the original Parent Internship Program with a \"Parent Training Program with the purpose of utilizing parents as facilitators of support groups.\" Page 344, #3, reads \"recruit parents from the incentive neighborhoods for teacher aides and other positions for which they are qualified.\" The timeline has been changed to read \"recruit parents from the Incentive neighborhoods for group facilitators for which they will be trained. Page 344, #4, reads \"establish mentorships between teachers and parents in the incentive schools. It The timeline has been changed to \"establish mentorships between counselor (sic} and parents in the incentive schools.\" Pages 344 and 346: Parent Involvement Section - Monthly Communication Packet The narrative on page 344 deletes the word \"monthly\" regarding a monthly communications packet\nthe timeline on page 346 still contains \"monthly\". Pages 358 and 363: Parent Recruitment Section - Highlight Sheets The narrative has been changed: \"F. Develop highlight sheets for distribution to all elementary Distribute program descriptions to prospective elementary parents (and new elementary parents). (I Item \"H\" on that page states \"place highlights sheet in local businesses.\" The timeline states that program descriptions will be distributed to \"all parents\" and that highlight sheets will be placed in local businesses. Pages 359 and 365: Parent Recruitment Section - Flyers and Open House The narrative states that flyers will be inserted in utility companies bills and through mass mailings to \"all- targeted K-5 white parents in NLRSD and PCSSD, except the southeast quodraat. \"All\" and \"except for the southeast quadrant\" are not deleted in the timelines. ItJanuary 29, 1992 Page Three The narrative states, \"Follow mass mailings with Provide special open house opportunities at incentive schools.\" However, mass mailings are not deleted in the timeline. Listed below are timelines in the May Submission that are either totally or partially illegible\n42 86c 86d 92 93 98 99 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 426 449 450 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET RECE5VED TO: FROM: THROUGH: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 22, 1993 Mr. Sterling Ingram Marie Parker 72201 APR I 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring SUBJECT\nDESEGREGATION PLAN ISSUES The purpose of this memorandum is to direct you to address several priorities associated with the implementation of the Desegregation Plan as rapidly as possible so that we may be sure that we are making good faith effort to address the requirements of the Court with respect to these priorities. 1. 2. Please report in writing any specific programatic assessment processes required by the Desegregation Plan and the status of the implementation of these processes. As a part of this report please include any plans, systems documents, or timelines that outline the assessment processes mentioned herein. Please develop a plan and implementation schedule for any of the above assessments that have not been implemented. 3. Please develop a plan to meet the general requirement that we assess all aspects of the Desegregation plan. This assessment plan should specify each aspect of the Desegregation Plan in terms of two issues: (1) the purpose of the aspect of the plan being evaluated\nand (2) the measure which will ascertain the fulfillment of said purpose. \u0026gt; 4. Please prepare a report or \"audit\" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of programs outlined in the plan so that a document for the Federal Court can be developed as soon as possible. You may want to contact Diane Barksdale regarding this matter because she has done considerable work on this issue as a graduate school project. The information she has gathered may be quite useful to you as you prepare your report. In conclusion, please make an appointment with me to discuss the issues outlined in this memorandum. I believe all of them are important if we are to correctly implement our Desegregation Plan. ( cc: Cabinet Mr. Chris Heller 7 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 To\nLucille DeGostin I From: 'pAnn Brown Re: Corrections to the LRSD Desegregation Plan Date: May 28, 1992 Page 22, last line, 11th word should read \"is\" not \"a\". Correct reading: \"Programs and individual components will be continued if JTPA funding is available.\" Page 147, third line, fourth word should read \"four\" not \"\"one\". Correct reading: \"There will be seven incentive schools which are listed below with the capacity of each based upon 18 in four-year-old classes, 20 in kindergarten, 23 in grades one through three, and 25 in grades four through six (figures are based on LRSD 1991- 92 School Profile data: . . If Page 228, first line of last paragraph, 13th word should read \"two\" not \"tow\". Correct reading: \"In 1990-91, the District reduced its number of runs from three to two.' n Page 229, first date should read \"February 15, 1989\" not \"February 15, 1898\" Correct reading: \"February 15, 1989 Contract signature.\"FILED ITS. DISTRICT COURT,   EASTERM district ARKANSAS f 4 Vi FEB 0 2 1993 oS N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT t, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 3/\" WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSUVR., ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. OEP. CLERK PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS ^A. -I OeseQ^^'S''\" 1 ' CJK :J5C. -1 .* 1 MOTION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court as follows: 1. To require the (defendant) plaintiff Little Rock School District to consult with Joshua and the others parties prior to making any desegregation plan alterations which require court approval\nand 2. To require the defendants to include in their budget projections the scholarship commitments made either by the school district or by the Joshua Intervenors to the parties and to the Court, including the Court of Appeals, for the pupils who attend or have attended the incentive schools since the inception of the Court approved Desegregation Plan herein. The support for this motion is found in the Desegregation Plan itself as well as in the oral arguments in the Court of Appeals made by the school district. Those commitments have been reinforced by the testimony of Dr. Ruth Steele, Dr. James Jennings r Mrs. Estelle Mathis, and every other school official other than Dr. Mac Bernd who was not privy to the agreements or commitments made as set forth above. \u0026lt;t fy-, without the scholarship commitments being made integral part of the budget of the district, the district proposes to abort the settlement. I-'?'* ^5? a 5*? Joshua requests an Order regarding this matter so that either C i: r-party may appeal. This is so because the district, under the uperintendent, appears to disregard the basic leadership of a new s tenets of the agreement which caused the Court of Appeals to approve the settlement herein. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 ORIGINAL SIGNED BY UNDERSIGNFr John W. Walker, Bar #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon record by hand-delivery on this ___ day of ------ all counsel of , 1993. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL John W. Walker V s 'il-r Date: February 26, 1993 From: Ann To: Everybody MEMORANDUM Subject Provisions of Plans or Orders the LRSD Has Failed to Fulfill The Judge wants a very concise list of what plan and order provisions the LRSD has failed to fulfill so far. She wants to use this information in a statement she plans to read at the March 19 hearing. Please work up a list of whats not been done in \"your\" parts of the plan and orders. 111 need this list no later an next Friday, March 5. Sorry about the extra assignment, but with the right mindset, this could be fun. Thanks!A Provisions of Plans or Orders the LRSD Has Failed to Fnlfill Board Responsibilities The LRSD Board of Directors has committed to the following goals which it has failed to fulfill, according to the introductory section of the 1992 plan, page 1.  The elimination of achievement disparity between black and white students on norm- referenced and criterion referenced tests.  Promoting positive public reaction to desegregation.  The effective use of interdistrict and intradistrict recruitment strategies to meet the desegregation requirements in all schools and to avoid resegregation. In addition, under the title \"Leadership\" on pages 2-3 of the 1992 plan, the board and superintendent have failed to assert leadership in the following areas.  Clearly delineating the districts desegregation mission to the staff and the community.  Utilizing the desegregation mission as a guide for the development of policies and setting expectations for the superintendent to implement the policies.  Adopting a budget which will provide the resources necessary for an effective, desegregated school system. Making budgetary decisions consistent with district desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials, and equipment.  The conduct of an annual self-evaluation of their commitment to a quality desegregated education. Incentive Schools  Failure to reserve kindergarten and four-year-old program seats for white students and engage in documented, sustained, and vigorous recruitment to attract those students, (plan page 140, May 1992 order, page 28).  Program specialists have not been hired at all incentive schools (May 1992 order, page 41).  A staffing needs assessment has not been administered and analyzed (May 1992 order, page 41).  Themes have not been incorporated into the core curriculum at each school (May 1992 order, page 42). Little significant progress has been made toward desegregation of the incentive schools, with the exception of Rockefeller (1992 plan, page 149). Lack of coordinated recruitment and failure to implement all plan recruitment activities (i.e., individual brochures, marketing blitz) (1992 plan, pages 215-217).  The Parent Council has not begun to monitor or report on all activities related to the incentive school program (1992 plan, page 151). Equity Issues  Failure to show significant progress in the reduction of the achievement disparity between black and white students (1992 plan, page 1, 1989 Settlement Agreement, page 26).  Black students (particularly black males) continue to be disciplined at a rate disproportionate to their percentage of the student population (1992 plan, pages 28, 33-34).  Failure to effectively address the overrepresentation of black students (particularly black males) in special education (1992 plan, page 111). Recruitment  The district has not developed a Strategic Recruitment Plan pursuant to the ODM Incentive School Recommendations (page 4) and the LRSD Marketing Plan.  The Recruitment Tracking System, first requested during the March 1991 Construction Hearing, has not been implemented. Additional Items from the May 1992 Order  A plan has not been submitted describing the extended activities designed to address the needs of Washington Magnet School attendance zone students (May 1992 order, page 38).RECSW^O Oiiice ^PR 2 2 1994 of Desegregation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CODRf\nMonitoting EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASt3Rndi WESTERN DIVISION 'COUi tar:\n2 0 1594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JAMES VA McJv aMAG:pLA1NTIFF By.-____________________ CL? CLLRK 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 MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF DESEGREGATION PLAN For its motion, plaintiff. Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans require the establishment within LRSD of three interdistrict schools Romine, King and Stephens. The plans require that two of those schools. King and Stephens, be located in the downtown Little Rock area. Romine and King schools have been established as interdistrict schools. 2. Since the parties agreed that LRSD would establish the King and Stephens Interdistrict Schools in the downtown Little Rock area. there have been significant changes in factual conditions which warrant modification of that agreement. First, Washington Elementary School, which the parties agreed would be an incentive school. presently operates as an interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. Second, there has been a significant movement of population out of the area in which the parties plannedto locate Interdistrict schools. The schools in that area are experiencing low enrollment. There are many empty seats, including seats at the King and Washington Interdistrict Schools. 3. The modification of the desegregation plans which is most suitably tailored to the changed circumstances is to recognize Washington in place of Stephens as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area. This modification is in compliance with the standards for modification of consent decrees set out in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. ___, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992) and Appeal of Little Rock School District. 949 F.2d 253, 258 (8th Cir. 1991). WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above and in the accompanying brief, LRSD prays for modification of the LRSD and Interdistrict Desegregation Plans to recognize Washington as the second required interdistrict school in the downtown Little Rock area and to delete the requirement that LRSD construct a new Stephens Interdistrict School. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 B' Christopher He Bar No. 81083 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Modification of Desegregation Plan has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Helle 3 RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 7 1994 Office cf Desegregation Monitoring 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 MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF FOUR-YEAR OLD PROGRAM SITES The plaintiff. Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), for its Memorandum Brief in Support of its Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites, states: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (\"FRCP\"), Rule 7(b)(1), provides that an application to the Court for an order shall be by motion which shall be made in writing, stating with particularity the grounds for the motion and setting forth the relief or order sought. In accordance with the requirement, the LRSD has submitted its motion for approval of the sites for four-year old programs for the 1994-95 school year. Under the terms of the desegregation plan approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the LRSD committed itself to implement a four-year old program by the end of the 1993-94 school year in all schools in the District. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. !nd\u0026gt;br1990). However, the LRSD later proposed modifications to the 1989 settlement plans for consideration by this Court. Hearings were held in late 1991 and early 1992 regarding the proposed modifications. By Order dated May 1, 1992, this Court ruled on both proposed modifications. Among the modifications which had been proposed by the LRSD was the request that this Court release it from the obligation of placing a four-year program in every school in the District. Rather, the LRSD submitted that four-year old programs were both compensatory and desegregatory in nature since they impact disparity of academic achievement by better preparing children for kindergarten and also serve to attract white children to the public schools. In light of those facts, the LRSD persuaded this Court that it was more appropriate to place four-year old programs in those schools or areas which have proven difficult to desegregate. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, as well as other matters, this Court granted the request and relieved the LRSD from the requirement of placing four-year programs in every elementary school. In considering the modifications proposed by the LRSD, the Court did not release the District from serving the same number of children who would have been served had every school in the District offered a four-year old program as had been originally planned. However, the Court did relieve the LRSD of the obligation to completely implement the four-year old programs by the 1993-94 school year. Rather, the Court permitted the District to follow a Ifsd-br 2time schedule in which implementation could be completed by the 1994-95 school year. In accordance with its obligations to select locations which will best further the goals of disparity reduction and racial balance, the LRSD embarked upon a review to determine the most appropriate sites and the number of classes for each site. The LRSD has now completed that review and attached its report as Exhibit 1 to the Motion filed herewith. For the reasons stated herein as well as those contained in the Motion, the LRSD submits that the Motion should be granted. This Memorandum Brief is respectfully submitted in support of the Motion. , FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 Ind-br 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion for Approval of Four-Year Old Program Sites has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 5IQ. 201 East Markham Street \"\" Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Irad-br 4 RECBIV^D MAY 21994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS , FfLEO districtARKANSAS 29 1994 Office of Desegregation MonnonnS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT WESTERN DIVISION \"'MES w McCormack. ciERK By.-, p V. NO. LR-C-82-866 CURK PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an extension of time until May 12, 1994 in which to respond to Little Rock School District's motions filed on April 20, 1994 and received by undersigned counsel on April 25, 1994 regarding the following: 1) Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan\n2) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School a Magnet\nand 3) Motion for Approval of Four Year Old Program Sites. For their reasons, Joshua states: 1. Undersigned counsel has not had the opportunity to devote the necessary time towards the preparation of response to said motions due to other trials and discovery commitments that had already been previously scheduled. 2. Opposing counsel has been contacted and has authorized counsel to state that they have no objection to this request for extension. 3. Said motion is being made in good faith, and is not being made for the purpose of delay. Wherefore, Joshua respectfully prays the Court to grant thei  extension of time, up to and including May 12, 1994. Respectfully, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 ^John W. Walker 7^ 1 Iror  Ra r* Mn\u0026lt; ' Bar No\u0026lt; 64046 CZt CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel on this April, 1994. John W. Walker JpiBECE^^.^ MAY 9 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Offcd \u0026lt;oi ^iiSSQrsgalion xf.si^^xifirig NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Reply Brief, states that: 1. The Appellants' Reply Brief in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on May 10, 1994. 2. Due to the fact that the parties have been trying to reach a settlement on one of the appeals, an additional extension of time of twenty (20) days is necessary in which to file their reply brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through May 30, 1994. Respectfully submitted.Jo: Ma Walker Bar No. 64046 Burnette'- Bar No. 88078 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 5 day of May, 1994 . Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. ROCHELL \u0026amp; STREETT 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 John i Walkert  I- I'\nir' Id MAY-16-94 MON 10:10 SUSAN W WRIGHT r nun JUMN U.UBLKER P.O. FAX NO. 5013246576 To 3J46896 P.Ol P. 82 IN THE united STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern DISTRICT OF AK2CAWSAS WESTERN DIVISION little rock school district, kt al. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTV SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET, al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET aL, KATHERINE ff, KNIGHT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS defendants INTERVENORS INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO LRSD fgNDiNG MOTIONS BEFORE THE COUrt The Joshua Intervenors do interpose the following regarding the pending motions before the Court: 1) 2) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict. Motion for Modifioation ^School a Magnet, Of Desegregation Plan\n3) Motion for Approval of Four and Year Old Program Sites. O-oshua hao no objection to King Interdistrict designated a Magnet School. Sohool being Because ef little Seek School Districtfailure to respond to Joshua regarding the resolution respectfully request the Court pending motions, until after of the Stephens School issue, we to defer action on LRSDs other (8thJ Circuit rules a hearing or after euch time the Eighth on the pending appeal. Respectfully subnitted,. John w. Walker- p.a. 1723 Broadvay Little Rock, ar (501) 374-3758 7?206I MAY-16-94 MON 10:10 * \u0026gt;  I  SUSAN W WRIGHT I-Kun JOHN U.UBLKER P.b.  FAX NO. 5013246576 TO 124^096 P. 02 P.O: l4I i f l! I r 5 J V ? V [f f ? I SSliriGATE Qg SBRVlgR TnHn 147 XtfeTl *' \"  V, Jolin w. Walker Total p.esRBGE^VED iw MA'f 1 7 1994 Offics oi Dessgr.?gaticn Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'^ J me. UiUiLU 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSASS oiSTOCTC^sr WESTERN DIVISION A2Tc.Pf4 DS' T A?7KA\\J MAY V r-'Z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. KC tl PLAINTIFF: r Lt NO. LR-C-82-866 OEP c\" PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF JOSHUA INTERVENORS TO LRSD PENDING MOTIONS BEFORE THE COURT The Joshua Intervenors do interpose the following regarding the pending motions before the Court: 1) Motion to Designate King Interdistrict School a Magnet\n2) Motion for Modification of Desegregation Plan\nand 3) Motion for Approval of Four Year Old Program Sites. Joshua has no objection to King Interdistrict School being designated a Magnet school. Because of Little Rock cliool District's failure to respond to Joshua regarding the resolution of the Stephens School issue. we respectfully request the Court to defer action on LRSD's other pending motions until after a hearing or after such time the Eighth (Sth) Circuit rules on the pending appeal. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 / ( I'il irf',OF  Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: November 1, 1994 To: All Counsel of Record From: n S. Brown Subject: LRSD Proposal for Plan Modification: Desegregation Facilitator As you are aware, judge Wright has asked me to coordinate the desegregation plan modification process for a specific proposal, which was prompted by a LRSD business case presented to the Court during recent hearings. That business case proposed to eliminate the Desegregation Facilitator, to distribute the Facilitators duties to other district administrators, and to create a new Director of Student Assignment position. In an October 24, 1994 Order, the Court directed me to \"work with the LRSD to identify any deficiencies in the business case and to address them in ways that preserve the intent of the desegregation plan when it provided that a Desegregation Facilitator would serve the staff and students of LRSD schools.\" I have met at length with Dr. Russ Mayo to discuss the business case. As a result of our discussions and my observations. Dr. Mayo has completed a revised business case. The revision addresses deficiencies in the original proposal, which had to do with: incongruities within the business case, omitted plan mandates, the scope of the revised job description, possible neglect of plan-mandated responsibilities, and unclear accountability. In my opinion. Dr. Mayo has satisfactorily addressed those deficiencies through this revised proposal. Please review the revised business case, which is attached along with a letter from Dr. Mayo to me. If you have questions or concerns about the proposal, discuss them with Dr. Mayo and his attorney. Do your best to resolve any issues and determine whether the business case may need further revision. Let me know immediately the nature of any matters that remain unsettled or if you anticipate any additional changes in the proposal\nI will serve as a resource to further facilitate the modification process if necessaiy. 1 wish to conclude this phase of the modification process as soon as possible, certainly no later than November 10, 1994. By that date or before, please indicate in writing to me either that you do not object to the plan modification as proposed in e revised business case, or that you object to the modification for reasons which you specify. 1 will forward your written comments to the Court along with copies of this memorandum and the enclosures. The Court will issue a ruling based on this information, any other filings you may wish to make, and the record of this case. Thank you for your cooperation. Please let me know if 1 may be of further assistance. Enc. Little Rock School District Octobers, 1994 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 OCT 6 1994 Dear Ann: Office of Desegregation Mon V Our discussion of my business case for a Director of Student Assignment was helpful. As you know, the proposal is to eliminate the Desegregation Facilitator position appearing in the desegregation plan. The money for that position will be used for a Director of Student Assignment. 1, and others as noted in the business case, will assume the responsibilities mandated by the plan for the Desegregation Facilitator. Since this is a plan modification, I am asking for your assistance with the modification process. The attached business case has been rewritten to include all desegregation plan mandates for the Desegregation Facifitator, to clarify job responsibilities and accountability, to define a realistic job scope, and to correct some previous incongruities among sections of the business case. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors was presented the original business case by Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent, on June 14, 1994. There were no objecfions. On or about July 18, Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney, sent copies of the business case to all parties and submitted it to the court with the budget document. No objections were heard from any of the parties at that time. At a later hearing. Judge Wright requested clarification of specifically who would address the mandates of the plan in addition to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. A chart responding to her request is included. Since this is a modification to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the change should be reflected in the document for future reference. 1 suggest that the references to Desegregation Facilitator in the current plan be deleted. Again, thank you for your help with the business case. 1 look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, C. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation C: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment A Business Case I Addition  Modification Deletion Octobers, 1994Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment Business Case Executive Summary The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to insure implementation of our desegregation plan as well as to monitor the districts desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. This past year, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the districts progress in fulfilling its obligations under its plan. The Student Assignment Office is not receiving as much day-to-day supervision as it should to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions about when to release weiiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district. Careful and proper monitoring of racial balance and the student assignment process improves public confidence and maintains racial balance. Projecting demographic data and enrollments aids in planning for future marketing, recruitment, and school closings or constmction. Executing plans for closing schools requires attention to patrons who are affected and the assurance of acceptable options. The supervision of SAO personnel requires meetings, planning, and periodic training. Meeting with parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. These are examples of student assignment responsibilities requiring day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the role of the student assignment supervisor in addition to broader responsibilities. Though housed at the SAO, his responsibilities require his presence and attention elsewhere too often. This makes the day-to-day attention required by the student assignment impossible. This is a proposal to change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign responsibilities so the new director assumes the primary responsibility for student assignment, and the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation assumes primary responsibility for desegregation and the duties previously done by the Desegregation Facilitator. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment and allows for greater focus on the desegregation effort. This position will report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure 1.Director of Student Assignment Business Case 2 Now, more than before, senior management is totally involved in the desegregation effort. The responsibilities of the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel are all focused on the desegregation effort. The implementation of a planning and budgeting process has raised the effort to a new consciousness. Now monitoring of desegregation is more extensive than ever. Continuous discussions and analysis in meetings of the Superintendents Council have moved obligations to the forefront. The Program Budget Document and the Management Tool represent additional safeguards not previously used by the district. Therefore, the original intent of the Desegregation Facilitator has grown beyond a single individual into a way of life for senior management in the district. Addressing the need in the area of student assignment now becomes an important part of the solution. The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. He will be assisted by those persons listed in the chart below. Tasks 1. Work directly with building principals 2. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building 3. Providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs for desegregation concerns_____________ 4. Working very closely with the remaining associate superintendents^ as needed_____________________ 5. Allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day-to-day activities in the schools^_______________________________________ 6. Focusing on all aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not limited to achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interactions, and parent involvement. Person (s) Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Dlr. of Human Resources Dir. of Labor Relations Dlr. of Student Assignment Assoc. Supt for Deseg. Dir. of Staff Development Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Associate Supt. for Deseg. ' At present, only one Associate Superintendent exists. This reference is interpreted as other senior level administrators in the district. 2 This item is less of a task and more of a result. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 3 Cunently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant because of a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. The new person will know what is expected before filling the position. An extended period of training will be necessary once a person is employed. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once final approval is given. The busiest time of the year for student assignment is January through September. The sooner we can make this change\nthe sooner we can begin improving service to parents. The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5, 6. '.Sb- 7/ 8. 9. Milestone Meet with SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation^ Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approval Present Business Case to ODM to begin modification procedure Discuss this modification with all parties Submit plan modification to the Court for approved_________________ Court approval Advertise the position Interview 10. Report for work Date 8/30/94 6/14/94 6/14/94 10/03/94 10/14/94 10/21/94 11/04/94 11/07/94 11/22/94 12/05/94 Person Mayo Mayo Williams Attorney Attorney Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee Timely consideration of this modification is respectfully requested. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation September, 1994 3 Though discussed in staff meetings with this group, a specific date was not reflected in an earlier edition of this business case. /Another discussion was held updating this group on the progress of the business case. Therefore, the date appears to be out of sequence. 10/6(94 DIRSAOZ DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 4 Background The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to insure implementation of our desegregation plan as well as to monitor the districts desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. This past year, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the districts progress in fulfilling its obligations under its plan. Problem Definition The Student Assignment Office is not receiving as much day-to-day supervision as it should to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions about when to release waiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district. Careful and proper monitoring of racial balance and the student assignment process improves public confidence and maintains racial balance. Projecting demographic data and enrollments aids in planrfing for future marketing, recruitment, and school closings or construction. Executing plans for closing schools requires attention to patrons who are affected and the assurance of acceptable options. The supervision of SAO personnel requires meetings, planning, and periodic training. Meeting with parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. These are examples of student assignment responsibilities requiring day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the role of the student assignment supervisor in addition to broader responsibilities. Though housed at the SAO, his responsibilities require his presence and attention elsewhere too often. This makes the day-to-day attention required by the student assignment impossible. Analysis of Alternatives The following alternatives have been considered: 10/6/94 D1RSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assigrunent Business Case 5 1. Add a new position to cover the responsibilities of student assignment and to assist the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This creates an additional position and personnel costs. 2. Allow things to remain as they are. SAO and parents will continue to receive less Associate Superintendent Organizational Chart than attention. adequate 3. I Associate SupTintendent j I Director of Transportation staff Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Student Assignment Coordinator SAO tnformetton Coordinetor Director of Communications j (2) Recruiters | Ccmmunlly Ocvdopmcfrt Co^rdlnctor (VIPS) I staff i I ProqfI iMinar I (8) Studant Aaslafffat Asslstawtiii~] Figure 1 Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign responsibilities so the new director assumes the responsibility primary for Student and the assignment, Associate Superintendent Desegregation for assumes responsibility primary for desegregation and the duties previously done by the Desegregation Facilitator. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment and allows for greater focus on the desegregation effort. This position will report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure 1. Now, more than before, senior management is totally involved in the desegregation effort. The responsibilities of the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel are all focused on the desegregation effort. The implementation of a planning and budgeting process has raised the effort to a new consciousness. Now monitoring of desegregation is more extensive than ever. Continuous discussions and analysis in meetings of the Superintendents Council have moved obligations to the forefront. The Program Budget Document and the Management Tool represent additional safeguards not previously used by the district. Therefore, the original intent of the Desegregation Facilitator has grown beyond a single individual into a way of life for senior management in the district. Addressing the need in the area of student assignment now becomes an important part of the solution. The following are examples of responsibilities to be assigned to the new position: 1(V64 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 6 a) Supervises and coordinates the day-to-day operation of the Student Assignment Office\nb) Keeps the Associate Superintendent informed and updated on progress made in performing responsibilities relating to student assignment and on any relevant information discovered in the performance of these duties\nc) Assists with developmental planning in the areas of long-range student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, and equal educationeil opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\nd) Assists with monitoring and evaluating the districts desegregation plan\ne) Assists in identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process\nf) Provides immediate feedback on the day-to-day operations relating to student assignment\ng) Stays informed of current issues before the Board of Directors by attending Board Meetings\nh) Provides for the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training for Student Assignment Office personnel\ni) Coordinates the appeals committee\nand, j) Performs other duties as assigned. The LRSD Plan defines the position of Desegregation Facilitator. Those tasks are found in the Educational Equity Monitoring section of the plan. The primary responsibility for the tasks described in the LRSD Plan will rest with the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation with this proposal. In the plan, the Desegregation Facilitator is defined as follows: Office of Desegregation A desegregation facilitator will be hired to work directly with building principals. The desegregation facilitator will be solely responsible for identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building. The facilitator will also be responsible for providing technical assistance to building principals and their Steiffs, for desegregation related concerns. The use of a desegregation facilitator will eillow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day to day activities in the schools. The desegregation facilitator will report directly to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. However, the desegregation facilitator will work very closely with the remaining associate superintendents as needed. The desegregation facilitator will focus on all aspects of desegregation implementation. This includes, but is not limited to, achievement disparity. W\u0026amp;M D1RSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 7 extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interaction, and parent involvement. Timeline Develop Job Description Announce Position Hire Desegregation Facilitator March 1-15 April 1-15 May 30 The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. He will be assisted by those persons listed in the chart below. Tasks 1. Work directly with building principals 2. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building 3. Providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs for desegregation concerns______ 4. Working very closely with the remaining associate superintendents^ as needed_________________ 5. Allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day-to-day activities in the schools^___________________________________ 6. Focusing on all aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not limited to achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance eind counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interactions, and parent involvement. Personas) Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Dir. of Human Resources Dir. of Labor Relations Dir. of Student Assignment Assoc. Supt for Deseg. Dir. of Staff Development Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Associate Supt. for Deseg. 4 At present, only one Associate Superintendent exists. This reference is interpreted as other senior level administrators in the district. 5 This item is less of a task and more of a result\". 10/6/94 MRSAOZ DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 8 Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign tasks to make this position responsible primarily for student assignment. The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This change neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Objective Upon implementation of alternative 3, the Student Assignment Office will receive the day-to-day supervision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. Achieving this objective will permit: 1. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\n2. Greater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment\n3. Thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\n4. Quicker response to parent inquires\nand, 5. Identification of problems or practices in the student assignment process that impede the implementation of quality desegregation. Impact Analysis Negatives 1. Student Assignment Personnel will have to adjust to a third supervisor within three years. 2. Parties in the case may be concerned that monitoring of the districts desegregation obligations will be compromised. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 9 Positives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. eliminate delays in decision-making and responses to parents in the area of student assignments. permit efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation\nbring more focus and attention to daily decisions relating to student assignment\nprovide more thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information\nallow quicker response to parent inquires\nand, permit the identification of problems or practices in the student assignment process that impede the implementation of quality desegregation. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution are continued disorganization for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, complaints, limited compliance with our obligations, and continuation of a generally poor public image in the area of student assignments. Timing I Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant because of a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. The new person will know what is expected before filling the position. An extended period of training will be necessary once a person is employed. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once final approval is given. The busiest time of the year for student assignment is January through September. The sooner we can make this change\nthe sooner we can begin improving service to parents. Resources Analysis Personnel This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in the number of existing positions. 10/(3/94 D1RSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 10 Financial No increase will occur in the current level of funding for this position. Revenue Source Funding for this position will come from the current line item of the budget. Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this modification are council members, SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation. General Information Plan The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Milestone Meet with SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation^ Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approved Present Business Case to ODM to begin modification procedure Discuss this modification with all parties Submit plan modification to the Court for approval 7. Court approval -,3 8. 9. Advertise the position Interview 10. Report for work Date 8/30/94 6/14/94 6/14/94 10/03/94 10/14/94 10/21/94 11/04/S4 11/07/94 11/22/94 12/05/94 Person Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Attorney Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee -rt. \u0026gt; -* 5 J.+ '!f-.t5Cj.xe!5r4r\n: t3S! 6 Though discussed in staff meetings with this group, a specific date was not reflected in an earlier edition of this business case. Another discussion was held updating this group on the progress of the business case. Therefore, the date appears to be out of sequence. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCer 1 3il^W\u0026lt;ZM\u0026lt;^y^.4SKaSg?igSi^.w^ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 3, 1994 received NOV 4 1994. Judge Susan Webber Wright U. S. Federal Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed is a bound copy of the Pulaski County Desegregation Case foundation documents. Included are the Settlement Agreement, the Interdistrict Plan, the Court Order (May 1992) relating to plan modifications, and the LRSD Desegregation Plan. They (except the Cour\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_407","title":"Discipline, newspaper clippings","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":["1991/2004"],"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","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--21st Century","School discipline","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School management and organization","Newspapers"],"dcterms_title":["Discipline, newspaper clippings"],"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/407"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["newspaper clippings"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1991 ARKANSAS democrat w vvcuiNtzouMY, JULY 17, 1991  9A * LRSD stats show penalties against students rose 20% 0 BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat Start Water The number of serious disciplinary sanctions in the Little Rock School District rose 20 percent to 4,022 in the 1990- 91 school year, according to a 61-page report released Tues- day afternoon. Suspensions, ranging in length from 3 days upward. and expulsions were levied against 2,671 students, which is almost 11 percent of the districts enrollment. A total of 1,351 students were suspended more than once during the year. Superintendent Ruth Steele said the increases in suspensions and expulsions are partly the result of more stringent supervision at two of eight junior high schools. Efforts to reduce disciplinary problems will include an expansion of in-school suspension programs and alternative classrooms for misbehaving students, she said. District officials also are studying the relationships between absenteeism, academic achievement and suspensions as a way to help students before they be- come serious disciplinary problems. According to the report, firearm possession brought 13 sanctions in both 1989-90 and 1990-91. The number of sanctions levied for use of a weapon increased from six to eight. Assaults increased by 34 percent, from 65 to 87\nthe number sanctions for theft increased by 98 percent, from 36 to 71, and the number of sanctions for indecent exposure rose 70 percent, from 19 to 32. Disciplinary^ actions for possession of weapons, separate from the firearms possession statistics, rose 20 percent, from 49 to 59\nand sanctions levied for assault on staff members increased by 112 percent, from 12 to 26. A total of 3,340 sanctions, or 83 percent, of the 4,022 disciplinary actions were levied against black students, who made up 64.5 percent of the enrollment.ARKANSAS S LAtiGEST LOCAL NEWS SECTION Metro/State   Wednesday, July 17,1991 ytotenoe rises at LR schools Gazette staff  .... . BStort-term^suspensions were vious years, although a couple of up Oy bO7 to 3,7/1. ^tegories - verbal assaults on Ruth Steele, district superinten- inciting to riot  dedent, acknowledged that a dispro- portionate number of the suspen- number of firearms possessions fell on black males and said remained the same at 13, but  f- vu offireannswentupfromsixto principals and teachers in an effort 8ht. Possession of all weapons to bring that number down. from 49 to 59\nsuspensions for gang membership rose from seven Suspensions over all increased Physical assaults on staff mem- fror^o \" activity students were involved in 2 429 or more than doubled and the number 60.4 percent, of the cases  of cases of weapons po_ssession in- The renort indicat^rf that- creased by 10 in the Little Rock Schoo! District for 1990-91. The figures were released Tuesday in a report comparing the number of suspensions and offenses for school years 1989-90 and The report indicated that:  In 71 incidents expulsions suited, compared to 68 the suspen\u0026lt; The number of firearms Schools Continued from Page 1B sions increased from: OUS year.  Long-term suspensions of 11 days to a semester were up by 62 to 180. previ- will continue to assist Almost all offenses resulting in suspension increased from the districts 25,083 enrollment. I Five students were suspended I eight times, she said. Another 20 I students were suspended seven I times, 40 were suspended six times, | 60 were suspended five times, 120 I pre- to 15 and assaults on staff increased from 12 to 26, a record.  907 to 1,056 for fighting.  1,070 to 1,142 for failure to were suspended four times, 322 follow rules.  32 to 76 for refusing to serve detention. were suspended three times and 784 were suspended twice. Steele said the report would be  314 to 405 for abusive Ian- distributed to principals, teachers guage. and members of the districts  57 to 103 for repeated tardi- safety committee for further security measures. ness.  65 to 87 for assault.  36 to 71 for theft.  21 to 38 for vandalism. Besides alternative classes, the district operates in-school suspension programs in the junior high H 19 to 32 for indecent exposure schools, except for Mann Magnet or sexual contact. School, Steele said. Other mea-  162 to 199 for disorderly con- sures short of suspension, she said, duct. include detention hall and loss of  5 to 18 for forgery.  11 to 31 for possession of pag- privileges. Steele said fights at Central High ing devices. School decreased significantly this Steele noted that although sus- past school year and she credited pensions totaled 4,022, the number Johti Hickman, principal, with of students who were suspended providing tough but caring leader- was 2,671, or about 10.6 of the ship. SECTION B Steele said the increases point to the need for more alternative classrooms. The school board has approved additional alternative classes for three elementary schools and Dunbar Junior High School. In the past school year, 60 seats were available for junior high alternative classes at Carver. According to the report. See SCH00LS/8B suspen- i|. Arkansas .Gazette., /.^ursfiayr. , 1991 Assaults in Little Rock School District Physical Verbal assaults assaults \u0026gt; on staff on staff . 1990-91 1989-90 1988-89 '20* ' 12 12 1987:88, 16 1986-87, 1985-86 -95, 3 ,'?45* \" . 74 40 . 29 - 14 51 5 i s * Through Mardr TT ' ___^.^.^Gazetta SiWednesday, May 29, 1991...Arkansas Gazette 13 assaults on staff noted in LR schools, up from 7 i jBY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat Staff Writer Assaults on Little Rock School District teachers and staff in the first semester of 1990 nearly doubled over the\nsame period a year earlier, fig- i ures show. Statistics show 13 reported I cases of physical assault on ' teachers and staff in the first semester of 1990-91, compared\nwith seven cases in 1989-90 - i an 86 percent increase. I think that is a hard-core statistic that should be dealt with. said Sam Stueart. chairman of the district's Safety and i Security Task Force.  I think that is a hard-core \u0026gt; statistic that should be dealt with. I ) The figures were presented to the Little Rock School * Board at Thursday's meeting. j The statistics, which com- I pare first-semester offenses by students, show increases in six other categories:  t'lghting, from 429 cases in 1989 to 499 in 1990 - a 16 percent increase.  Student assaults. 35 to 46 - 31 percent.  Theft. 19 to 23 - 21 percent.  Indecent exposure, nine to 12 - 33 percent.  Possession of paging devices - one to 13. 1.200 percent. I'd be more tolerant if the LRSD offenses Offense 1989-90 1990-91  Percent First semester First semester increase Teacher assaults Fighting Student assaults i Theft Indecent exposure Carrying paging devices 7 13 86% J 429 499 : 16% 35 46 31% 19 23 21% i 9 1 district didnt have the resources to do the job,\" said Skip Rutherford, a school board member. This community passed a significant millage. yet many elements of the security task force have been rejected or ignored. Parents deserve -and expect safe schools.\" The security task force's report to the school board Thursday showed that 38 of its 102 recommendations had been carried out. Stueart. who headed the 58- member task' force, said a number of those recommendations could be easily carried out, such as keeping all school entrances except front doors locked from the outside. Why must every door be unlocked? Stueart wondered. Every vagrant can walk in any door. All we need to do is exercise a little common sense. Dr. Ruth Steele, the dis12 13 33% 1200% trict's superintendent, said officials will review security options for the 1991-92 school year. Td be more tolerant if the district didnt have the resources to do the job. This community passed a significant millage, yet many elements of the security task force have been rejected or ignored. Parents deserve and expect safe schools.  Steele said she isn't playing down the increase in offenses. But she said the higher numbers in some of the offenses can be attributed to a more rigid enforcement of the discipline code\" and an increase in security, particularly at the secondary level, resulting in more reported cases of offenses. '} I  ! I? (I 4 w\nI s d P y t i ?I I Pulaski Arkansas Democrat-Gazette SATURDAY, MARCH 14, 1992 i I I  J Search of LRSD schools yields 4 bullets, brass knuckles BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Four .32-caliber bullets and a pair of brass knuckles were among items discovered after a mandatory three-day search of all junior high and senior high students, a Little Rock School District spokesman said Friday. The spokesman said officials searched the area where the bullets were found, but no gun was found. No information was available Friday to identify the school where the bullets were found. The brass knuckles were found at Central High after a student search Thursday, Bill Barnhouse, the districts director of safety and security, said Friday. Superintendent Ruth Steele ordered officials at the eight junior high schools, five high schools and Metropolitan Vocational-Technical Center to search all students at least once for weapons Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. Steele said Tuesday she planned to review the reports and decide what instructions to give principals regarding security for the remainder of the school year. No decisions had been revealed Friday, the spokesman said. Steele called for the mandatory searches after campus supervisors found a weapon near Central High on Tuesday afternoon - the first reported discovery of a weapon since the district began random student searches with hand-held metal detectors Feb. 11. A Little Rock Police Department report said a student held a .380-caliber handgun on another Central student on the schools 14th Street sidewalk Tuesday afternoon. It is not known if the student ever had the gun inside the school. According to interviews Wednesday, Central campus supervisors Benny Johnson and Floyd Smith, Principal John Hickman and Assistant Principal Michael Peterson searched the area along with police. Johnson found the gun under a house at 13th and Dennison streets, less than two blocks from Centrals campus, according to interviews. Police said the handgun had been reported stolen. A 15- year-old student was charged with theft by receiving and aggravated assault. A .380-cal- iber bullet was found in the students book bag, which also was recovered at the house. The school district spokesman said that aside from the bullets and brass knuckles, the list of recovered items from students since Wednesday included: a pair of scissors, dice, smokeless tobacco, several packs of cigarettes, a handheld Nintendo game, a radio and several portable cassette players.! i it I Pulaski Arkansas Democrat-Gazette SATURDAY, AAARCH 21, 1992 LRSD tells schools when to search for weapons BY DANNY SHAMEER searches that principals must dering, Central High, Steele . . If a student has a metal locker searches. when they^can metal, can de-  Spectators at athletic con- tect anything from keys to guns tests or visitors during school  or knives. Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer\nAll junior and senior high school students will be searched with metal detectors ut least twice a month under new administrative orders by the Little Rock School District. Smaller groups - such as a busload, an entire class or a lunchroom crowd - will be searched at least once a week. The new instructions outline the first standards on the type, number and method of 1  carry out. No such written policy had been in place when the district began using hand-held metal detectors Feb. 11 to look for weapons. When Superintendent Ruth Steele first ordered the searches last month, she said had ordered that every secondary student be searched at least once from March 11-13, with new instructions on security precautions to follow. The result is the five-page administrative directive dated  If a student has a metal object found by the detector but fails to cooperate with search under the written procedures, parents will be called a at the time that the frequency of searches would depend on the results of the early screenings. After the discovery of a gun March 10 on the sidewalk bor- Tuesday and released by the district Friday. Under the directive:  District employees are barred from conducting strip searches or physical searches of students. to the school. If parents will not or cannot come, police will be called.  Secondary school principals will have to provide the district with a written plan for searches that includes staff assignments, securing the campus while scanning takes place and provisions for student- hours - including district employees who are not wearing identification badges - can also be subject to searches. Each of the districts eight junior high schools, five high schools and the vocational- technical center have at least three hand-held metal detectors. The detectors, which look like chain saws and screech r Under a step-by-step procedure. students who have anything that triggers the metal detector during a routine search could be told to empty pockets, pull up pant legs, or be asked to turn over a jacket, purse or book bag for a hand search. The student could also be asked to show the backside of a belt buckle so an official can see if a weapon is hidden there. 1Arkansas Democrat   TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1992 I I Discipline problems worsening LR teachers want administrative help BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Stall Writer The Little Rock School Districts student discipline problems are\\ worsening and ad- ministratdrs are doing little to help curb the problems, districtteachers complain in a re-, cent survey. Seventy-eight percent of the secondary and 87 percent of the elementary school teach- ers responding to the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association survey said they saw behavior problems increase this year. More than 80 percent said they felt that central office administrators limited their principals in dealing with errant students. Teachers feel they are expected to work miracles without support from the administration, Eleanor Coleman, CTA president, said Monday. Schools will close for the summer this week, but Coleman said a CTA committee of district employees will work through the break to develop ideas for improving student discipline. Coleman announced the results of the teacher survey at a school board meeting last week. She discussed the poll in an interview on Monday. Teachers reported that district rules are applied inconsistently from school to school, Coleman said. In addition, the number of disciplinary problems is underreported because teachers feel discouraged by principals and others from making the reports, she said. Coleman said principals do not always act on teacher complaints about a student. Some teachers responding to the survey said they have been blamed for student problems or have been cited on job evaluations for complaining about behavior problems. The districts records on discipline show that 2,818 students were suspended or expelled during the first three nine-weeks grading periods this year. That figure is slightly below 2,879 suspensions or expulsions for the same period last year.  Allf I I I i ( I I i ( 1- 'We don't want children out on the street. We want the dis- cipline problems solved, Coleman said. She said teachers want some options lor dealing with the students. Coleman formed a blue-ribbon task force in December to identify problems in the schools and suggest changes. The teachers union formed the task force in response to v members growing complaints \u0026lt; about control in the schools. In my eight years, we have ' never had as many calls as we , have had this year about administrators not complying with the (teachers') contract , when it comes to discipline. j Frank Martin, CTA executive 1 l( director, said. . . , n Martin said a surprisingly j, large number of the callers were elementary teachers. See BEHAVIOR, Page 10B UVIMW r Mvrx JI I I I I  Continued from Arkansas Page As many as 2500 surveys were sent to teachers and other school employees, with about 80 percent responding, Coleman said. The poll included some open-ended questions seeking suggestions for school improvement. Coleman said she anticipates the CTA committee will call for more discipline management training for employees, more alternative classrooms, administrative support and cooperation in dealing with misbehaving students, use of adult teams to work with individual students, mentoring programs, and more parent and community cooperation. The CTA has also included  proposal on improving discipline for the 1992-93 teachers contract, which will be negoti- a ated this summer. Teachers cited discipline as a top priority to be discussed in the contract negotiations, Coleman said. In IArkansas Democrat (j^azcttc WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 23, 1992 I -- ' -- Teacher punched in face\n' pupil with gun ticketed I A Little Rock junior high , school teacher was attacked Tuesday while trying to break up a fight outside her class, and a pupil at another city junior high school was ticketed Monday for carrying a gun on school property, police said. Sherrye Keaton, a teacher at Southwest Junior High at 3200 S. Bryant St,, said that a boy punched her in the face about 12:30 p,m, when she stepped between him and another student who had confronted each other outside her classroom, Keaton was treated at Baptist Medical Center and released Tuesday afternoon. Police said that Keatons attacker, who was believed to be 16 or 17, was loudly threatening a student in the hallway outside the classroom. Keaton told the threatened boy to go into her class and remained outside with the other youth, who punched her in the face, police said. Police did not know if Keatons attacker was a student at the school. No arrest had been made Tuesday night. Also on Tuesday, police ticketed a 14-year-old Pulaski Heights Junior High pupil about 4 p,m, Monday for carrying a weapon on school grounds, according to a police report, A school employee found the .25-caliber handgun on the boy, who told police he found the gun and was keeping it for himself. Police said the gun was unloaded. and the child was cited and released to his parents. It was the third incident this year involving weapons on school grounds, police said. SATURDAY. NOVEMBER 7. 1992   \u0026gt;3 Federal law stiffens drug, gun penalties in 29 school districts Id Bl 5a BY LINDA SATTER Democral-Gazene Staff Writer Fed up with criminals endangering schoolchildren and escaping long-term punishnient ' under state laws, federal offi- cials have started a crackdown against drugs and guns on and near school property in 29 Arkansas school districts. U.S. Attorney Chuck Banks said Friday at a news conference at Little Rock School District headquarters that increasing numbers of violent and drug- related events at schools, particularly in Little Rock, prompted him to start enforcing two federal laws in the states Eastern District. The federal gun statute has been in efTect since 1989 and the drug statute since late 1990. They impose strict penalties against anyone caught possessing firearms or illegal drugs within 1.000 feet of public or private school property. The federal laws are comprehensive and broader than . similar state laws. Banks said. For example, the federal firearms law pertains to possession or discharge of any firearm near public or private school property  including school buses or bus stops  while the state law applies only to handguns, and only near public school property. The federal firearms statute includes a mandatory $5,000 fine or a five-year prison sentence. Penalties under the federal drug statute include up to 10 years in prison, depending on the amount and type of illegal drug in a person's possession. Banks said. Under federal sentencing, theres no probation, theres no parole, theres no joking, theres no fooling, Banks warned. He added that unlike frequent consequences under similar state laws, theres no revolving door system under federal laws to allow criminals back into society more quickly than law enforcement officers can impose sentences. Banks said 29 of about 180 school districts in his jurisdiction have agreed to start a Gun- Free/Drug-Free Schools awareness program. The program began Oct. 15 in Little Rock. On Oct. 26, a spray of gunfire shattered a back window of a See SCHOOLS, Page 12A A li VA ja'rt!\n'.' t^K- :f- f r t? 4-' jfw 'll 'SWe.- Arkansas Democral-Qazerte/R\u0026gt;ck McFarlan' WARNING  Mac Bernd (from left), Little Rock School District superintendent talks with John Hickman. Central High School principal\nVictor Anderson. Hal High principal: and Jodie Carter, McClellan Community High principal, after receiving signs stating that their schools are drug- and gun-free zones. Schools  Continued from Page 1A McClellan Community High School classroom in Little Rock, 'forcing 12 students to hit the floor. No one was injured, but the 18-year-old man who was arrested faces both state and federal charges. I dont want to sound like were trying to militarize the schools. Banks said, explaining his enormous reluctance to bring the federal government and its criminal laws against young people. But. he said, the federal government has a responsibility to assure that schools are secure. For the past year or year and a half. Ive looked at these (crime) statistics pretty carefully. I had the position tliat school matters were best left to school officials, but over the course of the past 14 to 16 months, incidents occurring around our schools by young adults  not necessarily students  led me to believe these statutes need to be used ... and a more aggressive posture should be taken by the U.S. attorneys ofTice. I probably was a little remiss in not going along with it sooner, Banks added. Bill Cromwell, an assistant U.S. attorney in Fort Smith who represents the state's Western District, said in a telephone in- terview Friday that his area has no similar program. Cromwell said authorities  have had to use the federal laws in the western half of the state only once or twice because we've not had the extent of the problem the Eastern District has had. Participating schools will post metal signs with drawings of a syringe and a handgun, both crossed out, above the words \"Drug Free, Gun Free School Zone  Violators will face federal and state prosecution. The purpose of the signs is to create awareness, to give notice and to deter crime, Banks said. He said he knows of only two other U.S. attorneys in the country to start such a program. Its not a nationwide concerted effort. Its something I decided to do afier I saw they were doing it in Texas. Banks said. Its a tough program. remarked Mac Bernd, superintendent of the Little Rock School District. Accompanying him and Banks at the news conference were high school principals Jodie Carter of McClellan. Vic Anderson of Hall and John Hickman of Central. The program has been endorsed by Bernd and members of the Little Rock School Board. Banks said criminals can expect \"dual prosecutions (under both state and federal laws) as a matter of policy until we feel the public and the people prone to commit these crimes understand that we mean business. Under federal sentencing guidelines, he said, if you get sentenced to serve, even if youre a first offender, youre going to serve  and you're not going to like it. Bernd said school principals will continue to report crimes to local police, who in turn will notify federal authorities. AWEDNESDAY, JANUARY 6, 1993 a Student punishments drop 8.5% in LRSD I BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazerte Education Writer The number of Little Rock School District students suspended or expelled in the first quarter of this school year dropped 8.5 percent from last year, but a disproportionately high number of the suspensions continued to involve blacks. Rudolph Howard, the districts student hearing officer, told the Biracial .Advisory Committee on Tuesday night that the number of suspensions fell by 61, from 713 last academic year to 652 in the first nine weeks. The committee, appointed by the school board at the direction of the federal court, monitors certain schools and aids the board on desegregation matters. Eighty-five percent of the suspensions, 552, were of black students. Blacks make up 64 percent of enrollment. For every one white student suspended, 5.6 black students were suspended, he said. Junior high schools reported 396 sanctions compared to 208 in senior highs and 48 in elementary schools. The number of suspensions for less serious offenses declined, but the number levied for more serious offenses increased from 28 to 41. The more serious offenses, such as arson, weapons possession or physical and verbal assault of staff members, can be punishable by expulsion. Howard said the number of firearms violations increased from four to six this year, and possession of weapons such as knives jumped from two last year to 10 this year. He said the districts stepped- up weapons searches added to the higher number. The number of lesser offenses. such as fighting, profanity and tardiness, fell from 587 last year to 528. Category II offenses, or those falling in the middle, dropped from 98 to 83, Howard said. Those include assault, battery, theft and gambling. In another matter, the committee approved plans to\n Reorganize itself to improve meeting attendance.  Better monitor and address recurring desegregation-related problems that no other agency or committee monitors. A draft of a report that will be submitted Jan. 28 to the board says those problems include racial disparities in the suspension and expulsion rates, academic disparity between black and white elementary pupils, multicultural education, and human and race relations. To have sufficient time to plan and monitor those problems, the committee voted to ask U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright to suspend the committee's job of monitoring the seven incentive elementary schools.Arkansas Democrat 7^ (gazelle SATURDAY, JUNES. 1993 Copyright O 1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. Suspended students to get second chance Trial program lets 4 from Forest Heights complete work missed during year in the morning and spend the BY DANNY SHAMEER Democral-Gazelto Education Willet Officials are planning a trial program that will allow suspended Forest Heights Junior High School students to make up work they miss. The Little Rock School Board, in an unusual move in January, agreed to waive a policy that prevents suspended students from making up missed work. Only Forest Heights students in the program are affected., The Community Study Center had a dress rehearsal of sorts for about four weeks this spring, with four students who had b^en removed from Forest Heights, 5901 Evergreen St., for fighting earlier in the school year participating in the program. But the trial program will really get under way next fall, when up to 10 Forest Heights students at a time could be accommodated. I think it will be better next fall because we have had some experience with it already, said Jim Brown, Little Rock Boys Club director, who coordinates the project. \"It look a little while this year to try and gel it started working, but now were in the swing of things. Instead of wasting time during the school day, the suspended students spend the day in a structured setting at the Little Rock Boys Club. They have the chance to get credit for work completed according to the practice of their regular teacher. The credit is conditioned on the students consistent attendance and performance in the program. Andrette Killion, the centers teacher, thinks the one-on-one instruction will help the stu- dents get ready to return to their regular school and achieve academic success. The schedule can be flexible, Killion said. We cover the core subjects, and we let the students express themselves through writing, drawing and thinking. The goals of the program, which is voluntary, are\n Give students chance to continue their normal classroom work while suspended.  Motivate suspended students to achieve academically.  Connect suspended students with adult mentors, positive educational programs and activities that will further their academic growth.  Accelerate the suspended students return to school. The students are brought to the Little Rock Penick Boys Club, 1201 Leisure Lane, by van day in programs similar to those in place at Forest Heights. The program is now financed by a $9,000 grant from New Futures for Little Rock Youth. Next fall, the program will be financed by a $20,000 state Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention grant. New Futures developed the  program with the school district. Forest Heights, members of the Hoover Neighborhood Collaborative, the Little Rock Housing ' Authority and others. Forest Heights students who have long-term suspensions  those barred from school for a semester or the remainder of a school year  and live in an area bounded by Fair Park Boulevard on the west, Howard Street on the east. East Capitol Avenue on the north and Asher Avenue on the south are eligible for participation. I SATURDAY, JUNE 19. 1993   Committee to study bill to ban paddling in schools Damocrat-Gazette Capitol Bureau Legislation that would prohibit corporal punishment in Arkansas schools will be studied by an interim legislative committee. Legislative Council members agreed Friday. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Judy Smith of Camden, was tabled last month by the Legislative Council. Council members agreed Friday to send the bill to the interim Education Committee for further study. The Legislative Council handles legislative affairs when the full Legislature is not in session. Under the bill, school officials would be prohibited from spanking or paddling students. Corporal punishment does not work, Smith said Friday. In .Arkansas, its illegal to hit a prisoner and to beat animals, so why wouldnt it be illegal to hit children? Rep. Ted Mulleni.x of Hot Springs had asked the Legislative Council to table the proposed legislation at the May meeting. .I believe we have ... to get back to the basics in the school systems, and I believe discipline in the school systems is completely out of control,\" Mullenix said Friday. Mullenix stressed that he didnt advocate abuse of students and that corporal punishment must be monitored.\" The Little Rock and North Little Rock school districts have outlawed corporal punishment of students. I I12B  FRIDAY, AUGUST 13,1993 , Arkansas Democrat  azctte LRSD explores using volunteers in truancy nroeram BY SHAREESE HAROLD held liable for driving truant dren^s Home in west Little Rock, to have more details about the * O Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Volunteers soon may be on the lookout for students skipping school as part of a truancy pick-up program that the Little Rock School District and the held liable for driving truant students to a drop-off center, where someone would call parents to pick up the students and city of Little Rock are planning to start this school year. return them to school. Anderson serves on a task force of city representatives, school district volunteers and parents that is exploring ways to implement the program. One potential drop-off site . - ------------------- the committee may consider us- whethervolunteers eould.be ing is the United Methodist Chil- Victor Anderson, principal at Hall High School, is working with the city to determine said Estelle Matthis, interim district superintendent. Things are still being worked out, so we cant report much on this program right now,\" Matthis said. The concept is great, but the issue is' complicated. Well have to go into this program with our eyes open. Matthis also told the school board Thursday that she hopes program in a report she gives them at their Aug. 26 meeting. Regarding other items on the agenda, Matthis said she might report about the role the feder- $527,260 in funds which would be used to help improve student scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, eighth edition. ----------------- Rock. Personnel changes will also __ Sources said Wood accepted a math instructor job at the Uni versity of Arkansas at Little ally monitored school desegregation plan plays in school, operations. appear on the agenda. Dianne Wood, the districts mathematics supervisor, is re-  , signing. Wood, who has been V* district for 28 years, is  - J persou in an upper ucation grant application that management position to resign pniiln ensure the district since June. to approve a compensatory ed- could 4B  THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14,1993 Arkansas Democrat  azette LRSD suspends, expels more, but fewer for arms .BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The number of student suspensions and expulsions in the Little..Rock School District increased by 167 to 3,962 in 1992- 93, Khile the number of expulsions related to possession or use.of weapons fell by about 22 percent. The suspension and expulsion statistics were distributed Wednesday to members of the districts Biracial Advisory Committee. The committee routinely reviews the data because of concerns about the disproportionately high number of black students punished. For each of the past three years, more than 81 percent of all suspensions and expulsions were given to black students  who make up 64 percent of enrollment. In 1992-93, 83.7 percent, or 3,310, of the districts total disciplinary actions were levied against black students. There were 652 suspensions or expulsions levied against whites. For possession or use of weapons or firearms, 64 penalties were administered last year, compared with 82 in 1991- 92 and 80 in 1990-91. There were 14 suspensions or expulsions last year for possession of a firearm, 47 for possession of a weapon other than a firearm and three for use of a weapon. A majority of the weapons and firearms apparently were found in the first semester, according to the report, as 44 of the suspensions or expulsions occurred in the first semester, compared with 20 in the second School district officials strengthened their policies last year on random searches of students for weapons after a teacher was stabbed multiple times in her classroom at Parkview Magnet High School. The teacher was seriously hurt but survived the attack. Hand-held metal detectors are used in all the junior and senior highs to conduct the searches. The number of disciplinary actions taken because of verbal assaults against staff members rose from 59 in 1991-92 to 82 last year. The number of sanctions resulting from physical assaults against staff dropped from 18 to ....... 13. Twelve sanctions were junior high students as against levied against students for being gang members, up from 10 the previous year. The disciplinary report also said\n 1,044 suspensions were levied for fighting, 1,350 for refusing to obey rules, 329 for use of foul language and 231 for disorderly conduct.  139 suspensions were the result of assaults or battery.  20 suspensions were given to students for carrying pagers. District rules call for police to be notified when students are caught carrying pagers.  More than twice as many sanctions were levied against senior high students, 2,441 to 1,002. There were 519 sanctions levied in the elementary schools.  Parkview recorded the fewest sanctions among the high schools, with 43. Central High, the districts largest school, had 126, compared with 43 the previous year. Hall High had 332 suspensions or expulsions last year and 374 the year before. Fair High had 327 last year and 223 the previous year. McClellan High reported 133 sanctions last year and 92 the previous year.  Dunbar Magnet Junior High had the most sanctions levied, 406, in 1992-93 among the junior highs. Mann Magnet Junior High had the smallest number, 175.  In the elementary schools, Booker Magnet School reported 47 suspensions or expulsions. Badgett, Franklin Incentive and Williams Magnet schools reported no sanctions.Arkansas Democrat TgS azcUc SATURDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1993 5 Arkansas Democrat-Gazelte/Scotl Carpenter tricls new anti-truancy program to volunteers at the Martin Luther King School at 4800 W. 26th St. on Friday afternoon. TRUANCY TRAINING  Jo Evelyn Elston, director of Pupil Services for the Little Rock School District, explains the dis- LRSD revives truancy program, says go to school or face patrols BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-Gazette Education Writer Students attending the Murry Park Magnet School or the Park Plaza Mall Academy beware! The Little Rock School District  with help from other civic and public agencies  is reinstating an anti-truancy program absent for several years. Beginning Nov. 1, Little Rock police will pick up youth in the city who appear to be school-age but not at school. The patrol officers will deliver the students to a truancy center in the second-floor library of the old Oakhurst/King school at 4800 W. 26th St. There, truants will be interviewed by adult volunteers. Their parents will be called and the students taken to school, either by their parents or on a district school bus reserved for that duty. Parents will be asked to meet with school staff. A group of eight volunteers were trained Friday on interview techniques, district policies on truancy and attendance, adolescent behavior, and social service agencies. Some of the students will be hostile,\" Jo Evelyn Elston, director of pupil services for the Little Rock School District, told the volunteers. \"After all, they did not plan to go to school that day, and they have been brought here by the police. Our purpose is to defuse that hostility. \"They are not prison inmates, Elston said. They could be your kids or grandchildren. The students probably wicll spend no more than an hour at the center before they are taken to school, Elston said. Besides the Police Department, the district has worked with the New Futures for Little Rock Youth organization and two interdenominational religious organizations, the Greater Little Rock Religious Forum and Rock Vision. The anti-truancy program will be staffed by three district employees, a coordinator, a security officer and a bus driver. Plans call for two volunteers to work each day. Elston said it was impossible to predict how many students might go through the center on any given day. The staff will have some control over the number, however, as the coordinator can direct the police dispatcher to tell officers to stop picking up youth when the center becomes crowded. Little Rock School Board members, who approved.the anti-truancy program in August, have cautioned school district administrators against targeting absent students of any one race or neighborhood. The program is based on Act 867 of 1989, which authorizes school districts and law. enforcement agencies to cooperate to form stay-in-school programs. ---------------------------------------------------------- TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1993 Truants absent as center opens doors Workers predict busier days ahead as school year progresses BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Districts new truancy center opened for business Monday, a trained volunteer counselor was in place and a bus driver to take truants to school was on standby. However, the day turned into a dress rehearsal for the workers because no truants were picked up by police and delivered to the center, which is at 4800 W.-26th St., on the second floor of the old Oakhurst/King School. No, were not discouraged, Jo Evelyn Elston, district director for pupil services, said Monday afternoon. She said she and the staff at the center are continuing to work with Little Rock police officials to identify young people who are skipping school. The department is supportive of the truancy program, Lt. Charles Holladay, a spokesman for the police department, said Monday. This was just the first day. I believe youll see activity pick up. Youll see more and more of the students who are on the street picked up and taken to the truancy center. Holladay said a memorandum was distributed to officers describing the truancy program. He said the success of the program is dependent upon the initiative of the officers to pick up students. This program gives us an opportunity to get kids off the street who may otherwise get involved in criminal activity, he said. The officer will be doing the kid a favor by getting him back in school and, at the same time, deterring a crime. There will be days like this, Manual Jones, the interim coordinator for the truancy center said about the fact that no truants were picked up Monday. Its warming up now but it was chilly this morning. There probably weren't many people standing around outside. In the spring that may be different. Jones, who is on loan to the center from the New Futures for Little Rock Youth agency, said he expects to get periodic reports from the police about the number of daily contacts police make each day with youth. Students who have been suspended or expelled from the district will have a written notice to show officers and wont be picked up. Also, a suspected truant wont be taken to the truancy center if the police find that warrants are out for the persons arrest. The truancy center was established in response to a 1991 state law that allows school districts and police departments to work together to find truants. Until now. the district has had virtually no anti-truancy program for many years. The district used to use social workers to check on absentees but that was discontinued after state education standards required schools to have elementary school counselors. The center is a collaborative project put together by interdenominational religious organizations, the school district. New Futures and the Little Rock Police Department. A task force of representatives from various public and private agencies will oversee the operation of the center and examine ways to help chronic absentees attend school. We dont want children to go underground. We want them to go to school, Annie Abrams, a volunteer counselor at the center, said Monday. Abrams, 62, a grandmother, retired from the Little Rock School District in June after 10 years as the federal Chapter I parent involvement coordinator and 27 years as an employee of the Arkansas Teachers Association and Arkansas Education Association. I feel we have to get the students off the street, Abrams said. If this approach doesnt work, well be back with another approach. Abrams said that as a retiree she can work for youth in a broader way than she could within the Chapter I program. I wanted to be part of a system to get children back in school, she said. If we dont save the children, we're not saving our future. If members of the public see children and teens that they believe to be truant, they should call Elstons office at 324-2162. If the suspected truants are outdoors or in a public place, arrangements will be made to have a police officer pick them up and take them to the center. If the truant student is at home, arrangements can be made to send a district social worker to the home to investigate. Elston is seeking people who are interested in serving as volunteer counselors at the center. The volunteers must be at least 25 years old, able to relate to children and adolescents, and be available for at least two hours at a time during the week. All candidates will be interviewed to determine whether they have been the subject of child abuse and neglect complaints. The volunteers must undergo a minimum of six hours of training. The volunteer counselors will question truants delivered to the center to determine the students schools and the reasons for the truancy. The volunteers will make arrangements for each childs parents to take their child to school. If the parent is unable to pick up their child, the student will be sent to school on a bus stationed at the center.Push-ups called corporal punishment BY RACHEL O'NEAL Democral-Gazette Capitol Bureau Using push-ups to discipline unruly public school students is a form of corporal punishnient, according to an attorney generals opinion released Tuesday. In the opinion, Deputy Attorney General Elena Willis found push-ups are included under the legal definition of corporal punishment. While no case specifically addresses the issue, \"the practice would appear to fall within the broad definition, in the sense that it is a punishment inflicted on the body, Willis wrote in the opinion. She added that no state law forbids the use of push-ups or other forms of corporal punishment. The question of whether either is authorized in a particular school district, however, will depend upon local policy, Willis said. The opinion was requested after a Dunbar Junior High School students parents complained their child had to perform push-ups. The school is in Little Rock. In 1988, the Little Rock School District banned corporal punishment. That policy defines corporal punishment as \"the intentional use of physical force or physical contact upon a student for any alleged offense or behavior, or the use of physical force in an attempt to modify the behavior, thoughts or attitudes of students. The Little Rock policy also says that corporal punishment \"in any form will not be used as a disciplinary measure ... by any teacher, administrator or other school personnel. North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school district have banned corporal punishment as well. Jeff Cowell, a teacher and coach at the junior high, said Tuesday he gave students who misbehaved an option\neither reSee PUSH-UPS, Page 7B Arkansas Democrat (gazette Push-ups  Continued from Page IB main in a push-up position for two to three minutes or have a disciplinary notice placed in their file. Cowell said he had been using push-ups as a form of punishment for about five years. But he said he was told to stop doing so after the parents complained. \"My whole philosophy is Tf they are not in class, they ca'ii- not learn. Kids are kids. They are going to make mistakes, but we can learn from our mistakes, Cowell said. Cowell said almost all the students  both girls and boys chose to perform the push-up. He added he did not allow female students to perform the push-up until they had on appropriate clothes. Jerry Malone, attorney for the Little Rock School District, said Tuesday that he had not seen the opinion. Malone also said he didnt know if it was the school districts intent to include pushups and other forms of exercise in its corporal punishment policy.  The district, as always, will look at it and make as reasonable a determination as we can of what our next step needs to be, Malone said. Malone added that under the school districts definition of corporal punishment, \"it doesnt sound like push-ups are a physical force against a student by an employee. Rep. Mark Riable of Little Rock, who requested the attor: ney generals opinion, sent a letter Monday to Little Rock School District Superintendent Henry Williams suggesting that push-, ups and other forms of exercise be used as a form of classroom discipline. \"Certainly a little exercise will not hurt most children and certainly our classroom teachers need as much help as they can get to maintain an orderly environment for the benefit of all the students, especially those desiring to learn, Riable wrqte in the letter. Williams did not return telephone calls Tuesday. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1993 Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1993 EDITORIALS Annals of law An exercise in crime emember ^m class? The brutal rope climbing? The grueling jogs around the track? The endless sit-ups and jumping jacks? The sadistic smile on the coachs face you promised yourself youd wipe off someday? For generations of students, workouts like these made P.E. something to dread. Now it turns out that such exercise isnt only unpleasant\nit may be against the law. For the last five years, a junior-high teacher in Little Rock named Jeff Cowell has given unruly students a choice: Receive a formal disciplinary notice or do push-ups for a couple of minutes. Most kids took the push-ups. That is, until one students parents complained about this form of discipline. Push-ups, they argued, are a form of corporal punishment  something Little Rock schools have banned since 1988. Uh oh.  The debate went unresolved until Elana Wills, one of the states deputy attorney generals, handed down her opinion. Ms. Wills declared that pushups are not necessarily the healthy activity theyve been assumed to be for so long. In fact, she said, theyre a punishment inflicted on the body. , Of course push-ups are punishment. And of the most corporal kind. Which . makes Mr. Cowell a regular Torque-mada of the tenth grade. WE DID NOT MAKE THIS UP, as Dave Barry would say. ' Congratulations to D.A.G. Wills. Finally somebody has had the courage to speak the truth about push-ups. Theyre punishment, as any middle-aged, white-is J collar worker addicted to the candy machines will testify. Gym classes across the country will doubtless agree with this landmark decision and cancel all push-ups. Next on\nthe banned list: Sit-ups, jumping jacks, and other examples of cruel and all-too- usual punishment. After all, if physical exercise is an illegal form of punishment for bad behavior, surely it is even less justifiable when imposed on kids who havent misbehaved at all. Unless, of course, kids who act up have more rights than those who dont  an increasingly widespread suspicion. What we have here in Wills v. Common Sense is a legal breakthrough, or at least breakdown. A Magna Carta for couch potatoes. Any lawyer will immediately grasp Attorney Lieutenant Wills reasoning, though perhaps only lawyers will. At last the Nineties may have found their Dorothea Dix, sweeping the barbaric vestiges of a more primitive age from our public institutions. Theres no reason for Atty. Lt. Wills to stop now. There are all kinds of other medieval tortures being administered RIGHT NOW in local high schools\nBoring chemistry lectures. (An electroencephalogram would surely indicate brain death among some students within the first 60 seconds of exposure to such treatment.) Then there are pop quizzes, which have been known to make weaker hearts race. And what about having to climb all those stairs between classes? And, worst of all, the sound of chalk on black boards. Anything but that. Talk about corporal punishment: That sound makes the whole body wince. And so cruelly on... Atty. Lt. Wills could put a stop to this suffering with more of her revolutionary opinions. And maybe she will. We nominate diagramming sentences as the next target of her remarkable jurisprudence, or maybe getting to school on time, which has been known to put an unbearable strain on some adolescents. Just keep in mind the new motto of public education: No pain ... no pain. EDUCATION WEEK  NOVEMBER 17, 1993 Punishment Pushups: Fbrcing students to do pushups is a form of corporal punishment, a state official in Arkansas has ruled. Deputy Attorney General Elena Willis said this month that pushups are covered under the Little Bock school districts ban on corporal punishment. The opinion was requested after parents at a junior high school objected to a teachers practice of using pushups as a disciplin- apr measure. -The school has agreed to abide by the decision.1  THURSDAY. NOVEMBER 25,1993  Truants range from comical to sad BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Darold Maxfield, new coordinator of the Little Hock School District.s truancy center, has already heard all kinds of excuses from children who have been picked up for missing school. The most unusual one involved socks. It seems a couple of basketball players needed socks to wear to that night's basketball game. They went to the mall to buy the sock,s instead of to school. The mall wasnt open for business yet. While the kids waited for the doors to open, police picked them up and took them to the truancy center at 4800 W. 26th St. Not all the reasons for truancies are as amusing or innocent. Some of the 58 students who have been picked up since Nov. 1 have been unable to find care for their children. Others have family problems that keep them at home. One elementary pupil simply missed his bus. Some of the young people picked up by police have never enrolled in school this year, or have attended just one day. Others believe they have been suspended and cannot go back to school, or believe they cannot return without their parents accompanying them for a conference. Maxfield and his crew of vol- ' iinteers have the job of helping students solve their problems and getting them back into school. Now, in addition to handling students brought to the center, the adult volunteers are following up on cases from earlier in the month to see if those students are still in school. A * I T JI 'it . I??' ''-.A h Sf -JI \u0026gt; 011J TRUANCY CHECK  Malcolm Jackson, security officer at the Little Rock School Districts truancy center, makes Wednesday, one student at the center had been to scliool one day this year. The boys fattier was unaware of the absenteeism, but once he was called he got his child back in classes. After a slow start, business at the center picked up. Maxfield said. The center opened this year as the result of collaboration among the school district, the Police Department, New Futures for Little Hock Youth and interdenominational church organizations. \u0026lt;.. a Sira tf ''li Arkansas Democral-Gazette/Sleve Keeses a telephone call Wednesday about an absentee while Darold Maxfield, coordinator at the center, looks on. Police picked up only two students the first week the center opened. But Maxfield said Wednesday the center has had as many as 16 students in a day. On a typical day, the center handles four to six cases. There has been one repeater. Most of the students picked up are junior high age. Only one elementary child has been taken to the center. All but one of the truants have been black  a situation Maxfield wants to review because of Little Hock School Board directives against police targeting children of a single race. The students have been found all over the place. Maxfield said. A lot are picked up as the result of telephone calls to the center. At least one young man reported to high school alter a long period of absenteeism because he didnt want to be picked up by police and taken to the center. For information on volunteering or to report suspected truants, the telephone number at the center is 671-6398. Aritansas Democrat ' SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 6,1994 Unruly acts surging on LR school buses BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock school bus dri- vers who complain that student misbehavior is increasing now have numbers to support their claim. Brad Montgomery, the Little Rock School District transportation director, said Saturday there were 2,449 behavior incidents on buses as of Jan. 4. He projected the number will exceed 5,400 by the end of the school year. That compares with 3,912 incidents in all of 1992-93 and 1,318 incidents in 1991-92. We really need to look at this, Montgomery said about discipline problems on buses. A school bus is a dangerous place to misbehave. The consequences can be fatal.\" Montgomery gave a comprehensive transportation report to the Little Rock School Board at a daylong board work session Saturday. The board discussed a variety of issues, including concerns about parts of the districts desegregation plan, the need for regular replacement of roofs on school buildings and See BUSES, Page 4B Buses  Continued from Page 1B ways to improve the boards method of doing business. , Bus drivers have complained in newspaper and television news accounts about student behavior problems. Early this school year, one frustrated driver took her unruly passengers to the police department and left the bus. un- The most frequent bus behavior problems, 1,472 so far this year, occurred on buses transporting elementary pupils, but the more serious incidents involved junior high students, Montgomery said. There have been 885 junior high incidents and 92 senior high incidents. . District drivers have had 70 bus accidents this year, most of them minor, Montgomery said In half the accidents, the drivers were found to be at fault. The primary cause was driver inattentiveness or being distracted by students. The transportation department, which employs 344 drivers, aides, supervisors, dispatchers and mechanics, uses 279 buses to transport about 14,000 students every day. The buses run 558 routes each day, including runs for athletics and other after-school programs. The buses make 10,500 stops a day for students. Also during the work session, board members got the results of a transportation department loss-prevention study done by Gallagher Bassett Services Inc. of North Little Rock, a subsidiary of Arthur J. Gallagher and Co., one of the districts insurers. The loss-prevention study, done in December, made 28 recommendations for improving department safety. The study found:  A majority of drivers do not inspect their buses before starting their routes.  Drivers were observed loading students on heavily trav- eled streets without using emer- .gency flashers or stop arms.  Several drivers bring their children to work with them The children play in the bus lot, creating a hazard as buses leave the lot. Additionally, the children add to confusion in the congested dispatchers office' and drivers lounge.  The quality of the dispatch radio is poor. Dispatchers can be hard to understand, and are sometimes distracted and frustrated by activities in the dispatch office. The two-way radios in some buses are broken and the unnecessary chatter and occasional profanity on the radio could impede emergency calls.  The five driver supervisors are distracted from working with drivers in the peak morning hours because they must simultaneously answer complaint calls from parents. - Discipline for students who misbehave on the bus is inconsistent, insufficient numbers of security personnel are assigned to the transportation department, and employee discipline is poor as the result of the school board taking long periods to vote on recommended firings. More than one-third of theArkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1994 i Police beat 14-year-old jailed after knife fight Police arrested a 14-year-old boy Tuesday morning after an apparently gang-related fight on a Little Rock School District bus in Southwest Little Rock. Police said the boy was scratched on the arm when he allegedly pulled a steak knife during the disturbance. He did not require medical treatment, police said. The fight began about 8:15 a.m. when two other 14-year-olds began arguing about being in different gangs, police said. The driver, Roy Burnley, 42, stopped the bus without incident and separated the three boys until police arrived. The three boys were taken to the detective division and questioned, police said. The steak knife was stored in the Police Departments property room. The boy with the knife was arrested on two counts of aggravated assault. He was being held Tuesday night in the Pulaski County Juvenile Detention Facility.MONDAY, MAY 2, ,994 I LR schools lose track of truants Estimates rise to 1,200 a day BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democral-Gazsne Staff Writer Truancy in Little Rock schools has increased so dramatically that the system cant accurately count its AWOL students, officials say, One estimate puts the number of truancy cases in the district at 1,200 each school day. The problem is compounded because, for the most part:  School officials do not know who the truants are.  Officials can't obtain an accurate count of unexcused absences on any given day.  The odds are good that a students absence will not be reported to his parents, even though district policies require notification. In a report to the state Department of Education, the Little Rock School District cited only 250 cases of truancy for the 1992-93 school year. But a small volunteer-staffed truancy center set up last November already has dealt with 375 cases this school year, and coordinator Darold Maxfield says the operation has hardly dented the problem. Maxfield suspects that roughly 1,200 district students play hooky each school day. Spot checks with individual schools indicate Max-fields figure js on target. For example, attendance secretary Tracey Nelson said about 200 of Hall High Schools 976 students were absent April 22. She estimated only about 20 of those absences were excused and that truancy accounted for most of the rest. See TRUANCY, Page 5A J Arkansas Democrat :^azettc MONDAY. MAY 2.1994  5A Truancy  Continued from Page 1A Thats a typical day for the school, Nelson said. Southwest Junior High had 26 unexcused and nine excused absences Wednesday among its 679 students, attendance secretary Virginia Irving said. School ofllcials said the absentee rate was about average for this time of year. Jeanette Wagner, spokesman for the school district, said she did not know how last years truancy numbers were calculated. This years numbers have not been separated by excused and unexcused absences, she said. *A lot of times I just have to take it upon myself to get the kid back in school  Darold Maxfield, truancy coordinator Dr. Henry Williams, the district superintendent, did not return several telephone messages left at bis office. Jo Evelyn Elston, director of pupil services for the district, said officials began to address truancy as a serious problem when residents complained about the number of children on the streets during school hours. Last fall, the truancy center opened as a collaboration between the school district, the Police Department, New Futures for Little Rock Youth and sev-eral interdenominational church organizations. It is fi-  nanced mostly through private donations.  So far, the center is dealing with six to eight students a day. Maxfield said the center will . need more volunteers, truant officers and community donations to have a real effect. At firsL district officials were concerned that police would target black students. But about 60 percent of the truants who pass through the center are black, closely tracking the districts 65 percent black enrollment. Police say truants can be found almost anywhere in the city. Their reasons for skipping school range from enjoying nice 4* A M* s.r.A.Y. ArWftsw Oemocral-QazaaaUonts RIchartson 11 TRUANCY TROUBLES  Darold Maxfield, truancy coordinator for the Little Rock School District, estimates hat upwards of 1,200 students are absent from Little Rock schools on any given day. School officials say they do not know who the truants are and cant obtain an accurate count of the numbers of absentees. weather to escaping from dysfunctional families, Maxfield said. High school students get away with truancy more easily than junior high students, police say, because they often have cars and are harder to spot and catch. Police deliver truants to the truancy center, in the second-floor library of the old Oakhurst/King school at 4800 W. 26th St. Volunteers then interview students to find out where they attend school and how to notify their parents. Often, the process has a happy ending. Tenile Allen, 17, became one of the center's cases a couple of weeks ago when her mother, Angela Allen, found out she was playing hooky. Allen called the truancy center and asked them to talk with Tenile and explain to her what happens to truant students. She had a session with him (Maxfield), and he gave her a lecture on discipline, Allen said. Its been fine since then. But many parents cant take off from work to talk to school officials. In those cases, the truancy center tries to work with school officials to get the child back into class. A lot of times I just have to take it upon myself to get the kid back in school, said Maxfield, who has a military background and a degree in criminal justice. If a child is at home or on private proper^ where police have no jurisdiction, then the truan-cy center calls a social worker to find out why the child is not in school. Some parents keep their children at home to babysit younger children, while other children may stay home because of family problems, he said. More parents in the work force, economic needs that force children to skip school or drop out to find work, teen-age pregnancy and student apathy all contribute to truancy, Elston said. Arkansas law requires children between the ages of 5 and 17 to attend school. So any child can be picked up, even one who has dropped out of school or who was never enrolled. A truancy arrest is not counted as a real arrest or even a brush with the law. said Capt. W.W. Williams, patrol division commander for the Little Rock police. Punishments for truancy include detention, Saturday school or suspension. Court punishments can include fines and suspension of students drivers licenses. If a child does not report to school and a parent has not called by 8 or 9 a.m., school officials try to call the parents at home or work, Elston said. But absentees are often so numerous that it is impossible to notify every parent. We do not have the manpower to call every day, If school officials can't call the parent, they send a letter to the students home. By this time, the student may have skipped two or three days. Sometimes the letter never reaches parents because many families move without notifying the school, Elston said. Some parents do not have telephones or have good numbers, Elston said. On a students sixth absence, school officials ask parents to attend a conference. On the ninth absence, the school refers the parents to Little Rock Municipal Court. On the 12th absence, the student fails the semester, Elston said. If students miss so many days that they fail their classes, peer tutoring and summer school are available  but they are not free, Elston said. Another option for chronic truants is the districts Alternative School at 800 Apperson St. for junior high school students. But students must be referred to the school. Lynn Rodgers, manager of reTruancy case coordinator finds problematic link to curfew trouble, crimes BY CHRIS REINOLDS Oemocrat-Gazene Staff Wtiter Kelly Carter sees lots of truants. She also sees lots of curfew violators. And some young criminals. Often, she sees all three in one youth. You see primarily the same kids in the same situations for each program that is offered out there, said Carter, Little Rock Municipal Court truancy case coordinator. So far this year, police have picked up 388 truants and 145 youths for curfew violations, although not all of the truants were turned over to the Little Rock School Districts truancy center. Of the 145 youths who violated curfew, 13 also were referred to Municipal Court for truancy. The court is a last resort to solve a students truancy problem. Carter and Little Rock Municipal Traffic Judge Bill Watt said many of the students police pick up for truancy will also violate the curfew law. You get a tremendous number of kids in the same rotation. Watt said. Watt, whose caseload contains about 30 percent truancy cases, said the criminal justice system. Department of Correction and the schools lack a partnership to combat these youth problems. Were not even scraping the edge. Watt said. There is a direct correlation involving truants, curfew violators and youths who get involved in crimes, according to a sample of 400 youths the court tracked. Of those youths, all were victims, suspects or witnesses in more than 1,200 police incidents. Watt said. Police averaged three contacts per child. If the kids are not in school, they are a major problem for you on the street. And if hes not doing what hes supposed to during the day then hes not doing it during the night, Watt said. Little Rock Municipal Court started issuing fines in 1987 for parents who were derelict in sending their children to school. Most of the cases involve junior high and high school students. Watt said' about 60 percent of truants are  lightweights, and the other 40 percent are problems. First-time truancy offenders parents are fined $10 a day for each day missed. Secondtime offenders can be fined between $20 and $50 a day for each day missed. Carter said. The curfew calls for the youths to be issued citations and their parents contacted on the first offense. For subsequent curfew violations, parents can be fined up to $500. Little Rock. Jacksonville, Sherwood, Maumelle, Benton and Searcy and Pulaski County all have curfews. Little Rocks curfew, started in January, requires youths under age 18 to be home by midnight on Fridays and Saturdays and by 10 p.m. on other nights. Exceptions to its provisions include constitutionally protected activities. such as protests. search evaluation at New Futures, said it would be a great help if the district could calculate truancy. Hopefully, at some point the Little Rock School District could establish those measures. Rodgers said. We just don't have anything that looks at truancy. Its just really difficult to figure that issue out. Each district is required by law to submit truancy numbers in an annual disciplinary report. said Ray Lumpkin, coordinator of the Principals Assessment Center-Student Discipline for the Department of Education. It is difficult to compare truancy rates in different school districts across the state because districts report truancy numbers differently, said Rodger Callahan, the departments associate director of accountability. Arkansas Demcxrrat CBazctte WEDNESDAY, MAY 4,1994 Not trailing truants The Little Rock School District has admitted that it cant keep track of its truants because as many as 1,200 students play hool^ every day. The district confessed that it constantly violates its policy that parents of children who miss school must be notified of the absences. Its going to be hard to convince any reasonable person that a school district that cant keep track of its children stands much of a chance of giving them an adequate education.\\ THURSDAY, MAY 5, iyy4 .Z oi.------ ---------------------- Jpg NLR,-county have grip on truancy LR district underreports student absences to state BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer The North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts say they have truancy problems  but nothing like the one in Little Rock. Officials from both districts say they have a firm grasp on now often truancy occurs and who the truants are. The Little Rock School District has about 1,200 truants a day, according to the estimate of truancy coordinator Darold Maxfield and spot checks with school attendance officials But in a report to the state, the school system recorded only 250 incidents of truancy for the 1992- 93 school year. And school offi- ' cials said they often do not fol- ' low the district policy that requites them to contact parents whose children miss school. Pulaski County schools re- ported-1,329 incidents of truan- I cy,out'Of 21,633,-Students en- f rdlled for the 1992-93 school . include L ,.. Chronic truants.TfrttStddtiai' jisi truant siYHihAc u io I 1 re- I I six times, it is counted SIX truancy incidents. ' Rock reported 1 ana ------ j------- icpurieu oftruMcy for the school yeaf out of 9,251 V Students. Bobby Aeklin, the district s assistant silpdrintendent tor ^tudent affairs, said the 1992-  no 1\" \" Wsher than the lu9T-92 figures because of a  tougher truancy policy. Now the J .patching more stu- - oents through increased roll checks and pplice'/kssistance, Ackiin said. Eddie Collins, Pulaski Coun- , ty assistant superintendent for pupil personnel\n, attributed his districts lower truancy rate to a closed-campus policy and a predominantly rural district. He said the truancy numbers for the district are accurate. We have not had any concerns that truancy is a problem, Collins said What we really enforce is the attendance policy. The students know they could fail that course if they miss 10 days, and the kids have been pretty receptive to that notion. And when students skip school, parents are always notified, Collins said. The schools use an automatic calling system to contact parents in the evening. The prerecorded telephone message tells parents their child did not show up for school. Some schools follow up with a letter, Collins said. I We dont have a problem with contacting parents, Collins said. If the child has been absent [ five days and parents have not contacted school officials, then the principal usually calls parents to let them know the student is in danger of losing credit, Collins said. A child who misses 10 school days fails. North Little Rock schools also use an automatic calling system. That does OK, but the students can get around it, Ackiin said. We do get lots of responses back though. North Little Rock police have an agreement with the schobl district to pick up truants and take them to the districts alternative school, until school officials decide where they belong. Police have picked up 145 students since.the 1993-94 school . year started.'This is the second I year police have worked with the schools\n  We think its better for everybody if we can keep them in school and off the street, A^in said. 0 Truancy  Continued from Page 1B If students begin to miss five or six days in a row, the principals should try to reach the parents, Ackiin said. North Little R'ock allows a student to miss up to 12 school days. After the 12th day, he loses credit. When a student is constantly missing, we try to catch it before and try to call, Ackiin said. While most schools across the state report truancy numbers to the state, state officials say there is no clear definition of how to calculate truant students. Ray Lumpkin, coordinator of the Principals Assessment Center/Student Discipline for the Department of Education, said school districts should declare a student truant when the school and the parent dont know the students whereabouts. The state publishes its annual disciplinary report to help school districts identify areas where they need to improve. The truancy numbers are part of that report. Lumpkin said the state doesnt police school districts numbers, but workshops are available to help districts combat disciplinary problems. It ought to make school districts look at problems, Lumpkin said. Little Rock district officials should have noticed a problem with the extremely low truancy numbers, Lumpkin said. School districts are required by law to keep track of unexcused absences because schools must determine how many days a student can miss before losing credit, Lumpkin said. The state reported 22,154 truancy incidents in the 1992-93 school year out of an enrollment of 440,682. I26 ARKANSAS TIMES * AUGUST 25,1994 I MEDIA A BETTER HEADLINE: DUCK THIS B.S. BY MAX BRANTLEY__________ Never has the Arkansas Democrat- Gazettes institutional bias against the Little Rock School District been more evident than in last Mondays newspaper. Under the headline School Security. From hickory stick to ducking bullets\" police reporter Jim Kordsmeier began a report thusly\nAsk most adults to describe their first days of school and the memories most likely will be similarnew clothes and pencils, the first football game, the sanitary smell of clean rooms and waxed hallways. Ask astudentin the Little Rock School District the same question and the memories might be altogether different locker searches, fights, random metal detector sweeps, guns, the navy blue shirts of security guards. Gonearethedayswhenreading.riting ' and tithmetic were taught to the tune of a hickory stick. In the Little Rock School District, school can be adangerous place. And on what is this overwrought, Gannett-style lead based? It is the news that some 167 Little Rock high school students were expelled for fighting in the last school year. That is less than one expulsion a day in a community of more than 5,300 teen-agers, the majority fixim underprivileged circumstances. The premise might have had some validity had the writer attempted to compare the numberof fights per capitain Little Rock with.the number recorded in neighboring school districts, or, say, the crime statistics in a poverty-stricken community of5,300 people somewhere in Arkansas. But this is not the DOG s way when it comes to the Little Rock School school supplies. The halls smelled clean and the floors were freshly waxed. We didnt see a security guard, but we did see dozens of old friends from previous years, all smiling and none looking nervously over shoulders. We didn taccompany our daughter to day one at Central High School. Her embarrassment would have been far too great But it was her second year to attend Central, so shes an old hand at dodgingknives and bullets. Funny thing, of all the topics discussed in daughters District. When it examines standardized test scores, for example, it is careful to note the wide disparity in scores between blacks and whites in Little Rock. But it never goes on to note No gun was fired in Little Rock schools last year. first year at Centtai, not mentioned once were locker searches, fights, random metal detector sweeps, guns or the navy blue shirts of security guards. that, when broken down by race. Little Rock whites and blacks score far above the state average and far better than the neighboring districts to which whites with media-induced panic flee from the whizzing bullets of the Little Rock schools. Ducking bullets? No gun was fired on campus in the Little Rock schools last year. None. And speaking of violence, to the best of our recollection, the last school teacher in Pulaski County injured by an assault was a teacher at the exclusive Pulaski Academy. Her leg was broken by a marauding intruder in the school. The Democrat-Gazette did not report that story, of course. It didnt happen at Central High. J We have aconflict of interestbutit happens to have some relevance. We took a fourth grader to Gibbs Elementary in the Little Rock School District Monday. Onr son had a new haircut, new clothes and a backpack full of new Fact is, through a cumulative 13 years of Little Rock schooling at three elementaries, one junior high and one high school and a couple of years of mentoring in an inner city elementary, weve never had occasion to seriously doubt the safety of eitherourchildren orthose weve worked with. There has been violence in the Little Rock schools. The potential for more remains, here and everywhere. The District is responding to that potential with a variety of security measures, as are many other school districts. It is a pity that such a need exists. But to single out Little Rock with a headline about ducking bullets (derived from a baseless quote by a security guard with a Say McIntosh complex) and to suggest that the average Little Rock students impression of school is a place fraught with danger is worse than unfair, itis wrong. Anditdamages every single person who calls Little Rock home. I iTUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 1994  I LR studies day curfew 1 for students  Board looks at plan to cut high truancy 1 BY KEVIN FREKING Democrat-Gazette City Hall Reporter i The Little Rock Board of Directors this week will take up a youth curfew for school hours. A curfew ordinance com-\nposed by City Attorney Tom- Carpenter would require youths 17 and younger to stay off public property such as streets,, parks or sidewalks between 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on school days- . ,  The penalty for violating the, ordinance would match that im-, posed for night curfew violations. The first offense leads to a citation and parental notification. Subsequent offenses lead to a fine of up to $500 for parents. , , City Director Michael Keck said he read about school-time curfews established in San Antonio and Austin, Texas, to deter juvenile crime and truancy. The reason why I brought it up, the first part of the year, there was a great increase in daytime burglaries, and (Municipal) Judge (Bill) Watt didnt think there was aggressive enforcement of the truancy laws, Keck said. Although the city board could enact the ordinance as early as next Tuesday, Keck said, he wants to hold one or two public hearings to give res- See CURFEW, page 7A Curfew  Continued from Page 1A idents more opportunity to comment on the proposal. The state already has truancy trict had about 1,200 truants a laws designed to ensure children attend school. Watt, who oversees truancy and curfew cases in Lit- tie Rock, said the Little Rock school attendance officials. School District is supposed to refer students to his court after 10 unexcused absences. At that point, the judge can ----------  ------- _ fine parents a minimum of $10 absences from a class. After six tistics are not yet available to per day or as much as $50 per absences, a school administrator determine its effectiveness. He day for unexcused absences, is supposed to meet with the \"\"........ The judge can also suspend a parents or guardians. students drivers license. Reaction to a proposed cur- A daytime curfew ordinance few from a handful of students fore the curfew was put in would dictate that truants be cit- outside Central High on Monday place showed that 35 percent of ed to appear in Watts court as ranged from ambivalence to op- crinie in Austin was committed early as the second time they position. during school hours. are caught by police for skip- The only problem I would When a minor is stopped in ping school. have with it is if you had a job, Austin during school hours, the Watt said he discussed the said Adrienne Matlock, 16. student is taken to a processing Tonya Mitchell, a senior, said center to determine whether he is truant. During the first few daytime curfew with Carpenter on Monday. He said they also discussed an alternative to the daytime curfew that entails tow- fight authority. She said the ing truants cars. same thing happens now with When you cut down on their the night curfew. I dont think you should fine mobility, you have everybody showing up in court because parents, said her sister, Tolice they want their car back, Watt Mitchell, a junior. A lot of there is a provision to penalize said. times, its not the parents parents. Rose said. Watts suggestion also would fault. School started Aug. 15, and Carpenter said the board weve got it in full operation, will need to address what to do Rose said. Its just as an ob- bring the youths to his attention more quickly than when officials rely on the school district with youths in home-school proto report a child after 10 unexcused absences. Watt has criticized the Little home school right now, Car- Rock School Districts truancy penter said. I guess we can put reporting in recent months. The in an exemption for home truancy problem is worse than schooling. Thats one question the district has reported. Watt thats been raised. The Austin daytime curfew believes. The Little Rock School Dis- day, according to May estimates eral exceptions, including for home-school students and private from the districts truancy coordinator and spot checks with Under the school districts guidelines, the district notifies sistant city attorney in Austin, parents or guardians when a Rose said the curfew began student has three unexcused about six months ago, and sta- a curfew may push some students to skip school as a way to grams. A significant number are in also runs from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on school days and contains sev- school students who have different days off than public school students, said Bob Rose, an assaid the curfew was generated by a neighborhood group fed up with crime. He said statistics be- months of the program, the students were taken back to school. Parents were not cited. Rose said. This year, the students will be cited for violations, and servation, but I think everyone agrees the hard-shell truant it probably wont affect. It will certainly impact the casual truant.f- Arkansas Democrar^^azetteJ SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1994 comtwnt O Little Rock Newspapers. Irw. Better schools require strict discipline A' 21 s most parents know, the weird thing about an ele- .mentary school is that. St (low n deep, you have no idea what exactly happens to your child behind its closed doors. The place exists in an orbit beyond your reach\none sometime.s imagine.s his offspring fending for himself in black space. This reality makes you reluctant after a while to accept the pronouncements of graduate school deans and highly paid public school superintendents further from the classroom I doui s than you. If you trust the observations on the system of anyone it tends to be those on the front-lines, the ones behind the closed doors. And what these soldiers have been saying lately does not jibe with the pronouncements of superintendents, whether theyre coming from Little Rock, New York or Los Angeles Michael Leahy because things might get a lot worse later and we might really want then to (remove him from school) for a couple of days.\" A disgusted Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams denies that teachers are hindered from suspending any student for iamses out there. Five, ten years from now, if nothing has a lengthy period. Yet, in his next ..... ............ ...................breath, Williams betrays a jarring that he had given himself over ambivalence over how tough voice so level that she felt afraid to doing it. school discipline ought to be. Re- She would liot let her trauma fleeting upon the classroom bul-interfere with hci normal class [y the .22, he says, Just be-routine, such as it was. She cause this boy threatejts to hurt a taught arithmetic and reading, re- teacher doesnt mean he should cited stoi'ie.v ,u,d, to the disgust of be suspended from his school. So her other .siudrots, spent about stunning does this policy decla-one- third of all class time re- ration seem to be in its potential spending to the incorrigibility of for disaster that a listener reads While_ _th_eI superintendents and----- educational think tanks wring changed, the politicians will yield to a growing clamor for private school vouchers, the public schools will become the exclusive hellholes of the have-nots, and the gulf between the social classes will make the Grand Canyon look like a tiny gulch. What can we do? To start with, forget about fancy new programs for ten minutes\nwe have an abundance of programs, and plenty of innovative, committed teachers. Think discipline. Demand the regular in volvement of parents or guardians as early as a childs preschool year. Remove all older troublemakers and place them in separate rooms and buildings with caring teachers and support Yes. thats personnel, until theyre ready to right  if cooperate. Give the kids who hes a special back quote the to Williams. thats hands over Underlying Causes and Promising Reforms, a funda- A education student,\" the superintendent adds. Twenty-want to learn  the vast majority of them  a real chance. This kind of talk doesnt come easily for some of us. Our instincts run toward wanting to help the earnest masses while simultaneously coming to the rescue of sullen rebels  even when these two things are mutually exclusive. It is the enduring conundrum of our liberalism. Yet, if we now feel ourselves about to get weepy over the whitmental dilemma of the schools now involves something parents cant see happening in that insular world. The problem, in short, usually comes down to a prototypical bully making life miserable for someone in a cramped classroom. The quandary lies in the reality that, no matter what a codebook says, the bully often can torment and threaten with impunity. and that during Septem-bei. in east Little Rock, the bully knew it. I am goin^ to come back, with my gtin tomorrow aud I am goiug to kill you. he told his prey one morning. There ain't nothing you can do. He was not a young man gone berserk over a pi^ailed girlfriend who had left him. He wao not a teenage drug dealer threatening a potential witness. He was a nine-year-old boy, diagnosed as hyperactive, and she I his young schoolteacher of he? brightest studenLs vriwed, They say they can remove any -------- , r ,u The boy, an elementa^ stu- this made her heart sink, this kid. But, still, when a teacher schoolteacher last week of the dent in the Little Rock School bgp wonder whether she gets shoved or another teacher fledgling gang b^ully who d District, had been a serious dis- p^ght be on the brink of losing gets hit by a chair when two stu- threatened to kill her. The boy ciplinary problem since the be- best dents are fighting and, if theyre had been removed from class not ginning of the school year, dis- special ed students, the (super- by the school district but rather rupting his class, exploding into schoolteacher intendents and assistant super- by his dissolute mother, who had a 1 age when chastised. He intendents) attitude seems to be, abruptly left Arkansas with him warned the entire class, in what I seldoin pursu warrant, seemed no idle boast, that he -L toainct in,, vn mile hnllv Im sure^they have rules, but its The teacher felt worried for would S()on be initiated into a Ho ag^^inst volafi e ^hat you pick up. the child, but relieved for her 17 feared street gang Soon after, be leying pretty truth if ..... now, things are better, they get pvt HU' t li four hours later, a high-ranking administrator in the district's special education de-partment contradicts the superintling of once sacred tenets, we ought to be mindful that the old lias been an abysmal burdeciaring failure in lifting in great numbers the groups we purport to care so deeply about. In a school tendent. all his statement inoperative. 11 \u0026gt; We can remove a stu-system now two-thirds black, the troublemakers have made the the bully, capiivc to his fury, alternately cojtli\n,\nand adnionish-dent from a particular (school) struggle of good Little Rock kids anytime we wish..., declares the all the more arduous. When a ing him. Uthcu in the class, readministrator. bully in either high school or an sentful that tin. bad boy had - - stolen cente. .viagv and devoured refiects the murkiness of the dis- ----------- . hours meant loi them, threatened trict's overall discipline policy, frightened teachers\nenergies mutiny Do .sumedihig about lum or They have all kinds of policy, *' srhnnl Im goiug to do bud stuff, too, one says the young schoolteacher, of her brightest students vowed, rpmove anv Yet the confusion at the top elementary grade consumes one-third of a class time and a then the center of that school has come apart. Hes gone, said the young and this made her heart sink, this kid. But, still, when a teacher schoolteacher last weeK oi ine made her bully might be on tin. brink of losing gets hit by a chair when two stu-her best. dents are fighting and, if theyre The young schoolteacher seldom considered pursu_ ing stem disciplinary action against the volatile bully. special ed students, the (superintendents and assistant superintendents) attitude seems to be. Oh, do your best to work it out. Im sure they have rules, but its don't really seem to underfailed to respond, the boy final ly reappeared at school, more angry than ever in moments, telling the teacher on that frightening morning that he would shoot her with his .22. his 'special education' student, and stand.\" the policy i.s thot you can't treat The grumblings at the grass-those students like the rest, she roots, among teachers and par-the that cant savs. And (my school's princi- ---------- pal) and 1 didn't want to use all schools ought to blare like an of the ten days up at that point alarm for all the Henry Will- __________________ all my time these days,\" she said ents alike, about disorder in the softly. There are no fairy tales in her school, but now at least 17 kids have a chance. Arkansas Democrat [ FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1994 Copyright  Little Rock Newspapers. Inc Teachers are schools problem, not children, minister says  BY SUSAN ROTH Ipnce in schools, the session was voice. Stewart look the teachers 'ypocnsy.^and they .,noctori ihnl ipnph- ? Democrat-Gazelle Education Writer ^The problem with today's schools is the teachers, not the children, the Rev. Hezekiah Stewart declared Thursday. Stewart, director of the Watershed Project, a Little Rock prdgram that counsels troubled youngsters, addressed more than 200 teachers at a session of the Arkansa.s Education Association's annual convention at Rqbinson Center. pevoted to the issue of vio- lence schools, the session was one of hundreds aimed at educating teachers during the three-day convention. Also speaking was Dr. Barbara Stanford, associate director of the Arkansas International Center at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Stanford introduced a conflict resolution program she developed that focuses on consistency of discipline, good listening skills and student mediation. In his booming preacher's to task for failing to get along with each other, with parents and with administrators. You act like you get along but you reall.v don't, he said. The white teachers get togeth- and talk about the black er teachers and the black teachers get together and talk about the white teachers. Students see that, Stewart said. They respond to your facial expressions more than to what you say. Kids cant stand Youngsters say they dont think teachers care about them. Stewart said. How do you manage getting up in the morning hungry? How do you manage to sleep when your parents are up all night Fighting, or there's crack cocaine or alcohol in your house all night? he asked. A child leaves home and brings that to school and you want him to sit down? Forget it. It's not going to Stewart suggested that teachers spend the first hour of the school day giving children encouragement and hope. Children need to be loved by some- one, and love is conducive to learning, he said. Administrators should also go back to classrooms to learn about the to problems students bring school with them, he said. Teachers should also make an effort to build relationships with parents, Stewart said.Voices WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1994  9B [f only teachers had time to teach\nreminded recently that there is e to improving education than can bund in buying more textbooks, hir- )re teachers and enhancing test Behavioral problems might be reduced there is too much abuse and not enough reminder came from a local read- has been following our ongoing di- about the state of education. ewith, an excerpt from his letter front of Hall High School is a sign ming that the school is drug-free i-free.... Theres another si^, iden- front of Forest Heights Junior High, isume theyre in front of all Little chool District high and junior high Meredith Oakley a sad commentary on our life and on our children and our schools, gns such as this are considered ap- ite. ,ed, it is a sad commentary, not because such signs recognize that re these types of problems in pub- xjls, but because such signs impart oneous message that drugs and ive been expunged from the school ition. lot convinced that guns and drugs eliminated: theyve been around ?, and they have become too acces- ven grade-school pupils have been with them. res no easy solution to the problem, s can do only so much. Im afraid : blame accrues to the parents, be- hats where behavioral problems lu think the state of education is OU should consider the environ- n which troubled and troublesome youths are reared. The words squalor and deprivation do not begin to describe the situation. Aberrant behavior is a natural byproduct of familial instability and inadequacy. I truly believe that some children are irrevocably lost before they ever hit their teens. We might have a fighting chance of separating young people from guns and drugs if we could make all parents care what happens to their offspring, but that is an improbability. Although we like to think that evep^ parent wants whats best for his or her children, taint necessarily so. Neither is a sign outside a school that declares the school to be free of guns or drugs. Thats wishful thinking at best. Schools cant even eliminate gum chewing. Sound fatalistic? Sure it does. But that is not to say that all at-risk youths are corruptible in the face of poor parenting skills. In trying to improve the state of education, we should not ignore the state of the family unit. The state of the family unit in many households is not very good. You have households with too many children and too few parents, and households in which discipline. Actually, teachers, not parents, are our first line of defense against the development of aberrant behavior. As another reader pointed out, a public schoollhat exists in any community or society will mirror the social values and ills of that particular community. If we are to attack behavioral problems, we must give teachers the tools diey need, and what they are most in need of is the freedom to teach in an environment that tolerates no nonsense. As Other Reader pointed out. if a student doesnt want to learn, or if his parents present more of a problem than the student does, public school teachers must still try to educate the student, Teachers dont have time anymore to teach. Society simply must find a way to untje the hands of educators when it comes to discipline, but in a manner so that they have leeway, not,license. .. We have become such a litigious society that Im not sure how to help teachers do their job, but it seems logical that a mix of better teachers, smaller class sizes and less paperwork would go a long way toward improving the state of education..^ It wouldnt hurt too much for the government to provide more support for parental counseling in its welfare programs. Im confident it would improve tlje teachers lot Associate Editor Meredith Oaideys column, appears every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. ' 'Arkansas Democrat [ MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1994 Coovrieht  Llttl Rock irw Going to school 'with dad The ultimate deterrent I f public schools enforced the same rigid policy on truancy as __they did back in the 50s and beyond, a judge named Bill Watt might not have to haul parents into Little Rocks municipal court  or have them attend classes with their children to make a point. There was a time when truancy wasnt much of a problem. Students were expected to attend school, and all but a few did. Most kids didnt want to be embarrassed by being marked as a truant. An unexcused absence was rare, and it meant carrying a bright pink admittance card from class to class for each teacher to sign. .A visit to the dean of boys or girls was a fearful thing, and being expelled almost unheard of. Kids whispered when they talked of it. Today, the policy in public schools is to allow nine absences before anybody need take much notice. By then, skipping school may have become a habit. Unlike the school systems. Judge Watt has been cracking down on truancy the past couple of years. He sees a connection between missing school and daytime crime  especially thefts of property and break- ins. His latest gimmick to discourage truancy  bringing the parents into the picture  seems to be working. No wonder. He offers parents a choice: Attend classes with their child for 15 days or pay a fine of $1,500. One parent chose to attend class because he had lost his job and couldnt pay the fine. Going back to school made sense for him, even if it meant having to take a night job. But his 16-year-old daughter threw a hissy, she even offered to find a job and earn enough to pay the fine if thats what it took to keep from having dad sit next to her in class for three weeks. (Gosh, that could be even worse than having to carry around a pink card from class to class.) Can a little judge from Little Rock have discovert the functional equivalent of the 50s pink slip in the '90s? We can hear the shocked whispers now\n\"She had to take her mother to class! Talk about gro^'. 'Then again, the girls father says his punishment wont change his daughters attitude because she doesnt want to attend school. He may have a point. But if compulsory attendance doesnt change attitudes, it might change behavior. Specifically, it could cut down on the citys crime problem. Its worth a judicious try.. Arkansas Democrat (Bazctte [ FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1^ Copyngnt \u0026lt;9 Little Rock Ncwspaoereaw LR board OKs discipline book, power to bar disruptive pupils BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer - All Little Rock School District teachers and administrators will undergo further training next month on the districts new student discipline handbook, the school board decided Thursday. The board also reaffirmed a in provision the existing teacher contract that allows teachers to bar disruptive students from their classrooms. Board members said the votes were an attempt to assure parents and employees that state laws and school district policies on discipline and safety will be enforced. Both measures were unanimously approved. Board President Linda Pon- dexter proposed both mea- sures in response to numerous complaints from teachers and parents this year. Pondexter, who teaches junior high civics in the neighboring Pulaski County Special School District, earlier this month asked that the board rescind the new student discipline handbook and return to the discipline handbook used last year. She said Thursday, though, that the cost and logistics of printing and distributing the old handbook by the time the second semester begins next month made the proposal impractical. Pondexter said the contract provision allowing teachers to bar disruptive students from class was possibly the districts best-kept secret. She said the provision allows teachers to maintain order in . , - ------------ on tests, they wont be sus- their classrooms but also re- pended but will be subject to quires the teacher, a parent other penalties, such as in- and the principal to meet with- school suspension or detention in 48 (lours to decide how to re- hall. solve the behavior problem. That requirement makes every- ___ __ _____ one involved accountable, she handbook \"had \"been watered down, but he agreed that more A total of 353 students were training on the handbook was barred from their classrooms last year. Of those, 319  about 90 percent  were black. \"I dont like to see that a dis- ------ we will enforce them, Riggs proportionate number of the said. students are African-American,\" Pondexter said. \"But if a disproportionate number of African-Americans misbehave, olution supporting plans to then a disproportionate num- ' ber should be put out of class. ... People have the impression ture with the city of Little that we are putting statistics Rock, the state Department of above the safe^ of our children Human Services and other and our staff community organizations Pondexter was applauded Cloverdale Junior High will frequently by audience mem- be the first school to host a bers, largely parents and staff Beacon program, based on a members from the Chicot and similar program in New York Mabelvale elementary schools. City. Activities and programs Henry will be offered at the school for Williams said he agreed that children and adults. parents must be involved in re- People in the community solving discipline problems will decide what the programs but said staff must be flexible should be. in scheduling times when The new Stephens Elemen- wcjrking parents can visit the tary School also will host a Bea- school. con program when it opens in 1996-97. The district this year adopt- ed a new handbook that reduces the number of offenses for which students can be suspended. When students fight or cheat Board member John Riggs said he didn't believe the necessary. I want our parents to know that we have a set of rules and The training will be held at each school. The board also passed a resopen schools after hours to the community through a joint venArkansas Democrat ' WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1994 Truants, principals risk wrath of Watt BY CHRIS REINOLDS Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer I In its first effort in at least 17 years to track truancy, the i 11 I Little Rock School District counted 3,680 truants during the 1993-94 school year, figures obtained Tuesday show. But Little Rock Municipal Judge Bill Watt said the problem is much larger than the figures indicate, and he promised to jail principals if. 1 they dont report chronic i truants, as state law requires. Im going to turn some heat on, and it will get interesting, Watt said Tues- day. Theyre (the district) getting funded for phantom students, and theyre giving a bogus number of 3,000 students for the whole year. ' Watt said he discussed Truancy  Continued from Page 1A dents involved in truancy cases instead of the incidents of truancy. Elston said the number represents only students who were caught for truancy. She said she didnt know how many students evaded school officials and Little Rock police. Elston said students who forge their parents signatures on excuse notes and parents who lie to school officials could contribute to a higher truancy number. There may be some kids ' were not catching, Elston said. Last year, the district officially reported only 250 truancy incidents among the 21,633 students enrolled for the 1992- 93 school year. Elston said Tuesday that that number represented students suspended for truancy  not incidents of truancy. This year, students wont be suspended for truancy. The building principal will either assign in-house suspensions or another form of discipline, Elston said. Elston said the district tallied a more complete count of truants last year to aid the new truancy center. Last fall, the taking action against princi- luc  truancy center opened as a col- pals with Little Rock Super- i intendent Henry Williams ! during the summer. Williams' couldnt be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon. In May, the Little Rock laboration between the school district, the Police Department, New Futures for Little Rock Youth and several interdenominational churches. The center dealt with six to eight students a day. School District truancy coordinator, Darold Maxfield, estimated that about 1,200 students among the 25,594 enrolled for 1993-94 were truant, on a typical day. Spot checks at several schools'supported his estimate. .- But Jo Evelyn Elston, di- - ___________.. rector of pupil services, dis- ! school officials should start We wanted to have some base-line data so we could get some handle on the number of Watt said Central High School didnt report one truant last year, but Watt has court records that show Central High School students with more than 10 truancy incidents. If I was the district. Id use this (the court) as a tool, he said. Watt said many of the 4,000 to 5,000 juveniles he sees for traffic and curfew violations each year also have been truant  but not reported. Once the students are referred to the court, many other problems, like absent parents and criminal activity, can be addressed. The North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts have kept track of truants every year. North Little Rocks number ofJruants rose last year while Pulaski Countys truancy rate declined. The North Little Rock district reported 2,215 incidents of truancy last year  393 more than in the 1992-93 school year. The enrollment for the 1993-94 school year was 9,085 students. Bobby Acklin, assistant superintendent for desegregation, said the higher number reflects a crackdown by school officials and police.\nThe schools are doing a better job of searching for them, Acklin said. It ought to reach a peak and then I hope to see it go down. The students know its a priority for us. Acklin said Little Rocks numbers are lower comparatively because that district has a larger area to cover. Were not as spread out as truants, Elston said. Although Elston said the district was dealing with the truancy problem. Watt said puted Maxfields estimate.  I wouldnt put any stock in it other than its just conjecture, Elston said. This year we have some hard ferring more truants to not just counting them. recourt, data based on schools. ,, Maxfield said he couldnt comment on the latest numbers. Elston said this was the first time the district had tracked truants since she started working for the district 17 years ago. The report indicates the number of stu- See TRUANCY, Page 13A State law says schools should refer students who miss more than 1() days of school without a valid excuse to the Little Rock Municipal Court. At court parents and students face fines of up to $50 a day for each school day I missed. ' Little Rock and Pulaski County (districts), Acklin said. Ours go to McCain Mall. The Pulaski County district reported 1,029 students disciplined for truancy in the 1993- 94 school year. In 1992-93 the district caught 1,329 students playing hooky. Eddie Collins, assistant superintendent for pupil services, said those students represented the bulk of the truancy problem 'in the district. i Enrollment for the 1993-94 I school year was 20,426. Collins said the district may be missing some truants, but he feels administrators are doing a better job of keeping students in school. We have a very good attendance reporting system, everythings computerized, Collins said. T, Arkansas Democrat ^(Bazcttc [ FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16. 1! Copyngnt O Little Rock Newspaoer LR board OKs discipline book, power to bar disruptive pupils BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat\u0026lt;3a2etta Education Writer All Little Rock School District teachers and administrators will undergo further training next month on the districts new student discipline handbook, the school board decided Thursday. The board also reaffirmed a provision allowing teachers to ed a new handbook that rebar disruptive students from duces the number of offenses class was possibly the dis- \" ' ' tricts best-kept secret. ed a new handbook that for which students can be suspended. When students fight or cheat ,, . , - ---------- on tests, they wont be sus- their classrooms but also re- pended but will be subject to quires the teacher, a parent other penalties, such She said the provision allows teachers to maintain order in Teand the principal to meet withas in- . ----------------- in 48 hours to decide how to re- provision the existing solve the behavior problem, teacher contract that allows That requirement makes everv- teachers to bar disruptive stu-  '     dents from their classrooms. in school suspension or detention hall. Board members said the votes were an attempt to assure Board member John Riggs ----------. said he didn't believe the one involved accountable, she handbook had been watered down, but he agreed that more training on the handbook was necessary. I want our parents to know that we have a set of rules and A total of 353 students were , . barred from their classrooms parents and employees that last year. Of those, 319  about state laws and school district 90 percent  were black  policies on discipline and safe- ty will be enforced. Both mea- sures were unanimously ap- students are African-Ameri- prwed. can, Pondexter said, But if a Board President Linda Pon- disproportionate number of dexter proposed both mea- African-.Americans misbehave sures in response to numerous then a disproportionate num- complaints from teachers and ber should be put out of class parents this year. - . . 1 dont tike to see that a dis- we will enforce them  Riggs proportionate number of the said. The training will be held at each school. The board also passed a resolution supporting plans to open schools after hours to the Pondexter, who teaches junior high civics in the neigh- _________ boring Pulaski County Special and our staff School District, earlier this . .--------------- community through a joint ven- ... People have the impression ture with the city of Little that we are putting statistics Rock, the state Department of above the safety of our children Human Services and other !\u0026gt;nr! nn communlty organizations. month asked that the board rescind the new student disci- Pondexter was applauded . ,, , J----- ------ bers, largely parents and staff pline handbook and return to members from the Chicot and the discipline handbook used Mabelvale elementary schools, last year. Superintendent She said Thursday, though,  , , *---------- Cloverdale Junior High will frequently by audience mem- be the first school to host Beacon program, based on a a similar program in New York Williams said he agreed that that the cost and logistics of parents must be involved in reprinting and distributing the solving discipline problems old handbook by the time the but said staff must be flexible City. Activities and programs Henry will be offered at the school for second semester begins next month made the proposal impractical. Pondexter said the contract but said staff must be flexible in scheduling times when working parents can visit the school. The district this year adopt- children and adults. People in the community will decide what the programs should be. The new Stephens Elementary School also will host a Beacon program when it opens in 1996-97.Arkansas Democrat ^(gazette TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1995 School-hours curfew begins for LR children under 18 I i Democrat-Gazene Start Little Rocks daytime cur- few begins today. Children under 18 are barred from city streets and parks from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on school days. Since last year, the city has had a curfew barring children under 18 from being on the streets from 10 p.m. to a.m. 5 Sunday through Thursday, and from midnight to 5 a.m. Fridays and Saturdays. Curfew exceptions allow children to be out if working, attending school activities or accompanied by an adult. Those caught breaking the curfew are given a citation on the first offense and, for subsequent offenses, their parents are fined up to $500. The school-hours curfew doesn't cover holidays, afterschool hours and summer vacations. The Little Rock Board of Directors approved the curfew Jan. 3. The day curfew covers students who are registered as home-school students. Technically, the ordinance prohibits a child who is too young to attend school from being outside, unaccompanied by parent or a guardian, from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Little Rock police said truancy regulations address students skipping school, but a day curfew will also prevent students who have been expelled or suspended from school from roaming city streets and parks.Arkansas Democrat (gazette ?  WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1995  Curfew nets 6, puts teens at mall on spot BY JULIAN E. BARNES Oemocral-Gazene Staff Writer Seventeen-year-old Michael Ward of Bryant hadnt heard of Little Rocks new day curfew, until he went to check out the sneakers in J.C. Penneys. (The clerk) asked me, Shouldn't you be in school? Then he told me about the curfew. said Ward, a junior at Bryant High School, Its a free country. When you go to the mall you shouldnt have to worry about the police. Still Ward, like most of the young people at University Mall on Wednesday, said that, while he didnt want to watch his back for the mall cop, the curfews intent  to keep kids in school  was good. Little Rock police issued six citations for violations of the school-time curfew Tuesday the first day the law was in effect, Lt. Charles Holladay said. Although the rainy streets were mostly empty, there were youth in the mall, many from Bryant. Bryant schools had the day off for teachers conferences, but young people from other cities whose schools werent closed were in violation. Kelly Davidson, 15, who was hanging out at University Mall about 30 minutes before the end of her school day in North Little Rock, said she wasnt in violation of the curfew because she was with her parents and had a doctors appointment. While Davidsons parents werent immediately to be found, Case Dillards mom was sitting right beside him as the two ate lunch at Park Plaza Mall, If I want to go to the mall, I have to have an adult with me, said Case, 12, of the new curfew, I think they could find an easier way to keep kids from crime, he said. He said he had never been to the mall during school hours without a parent. Still, it was the principle of the thing. Park Plaza Mall officials said they already questioned young people in the mall and dont expect the daytime curfew to change things. But there are those who think the day curfew might make the mall cops more quick to question people about whether they are truant. After visiting his mother in the hospital, Casey Green, 9, had lunch with his dad at the University Mall McDonalds, Finishing his lunch quickly, he took $2 and went to the arcade, A cop stopped me and asked me why I wasnt in school, Casey said. He was a little shaken by the confrontation, but his father said such scrutiny is now a necessary evil. I think its a shame its come to this, Rick Green said, But over here in Little Rock, they need it,FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 1995 \u0026lt; Expulsion appeals survive LRSD vote Motion: Only parents could plead BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer A school principal's decision to expel a student for misbehavior should be final unless a parent appeals, the Little Rock School Boards president said Thursday. But the board didnt agree, rejecting Linda Pondexters motion in a 3-3 vote. Passage requires a majority vote. Board member O.G. Jacovelli was absent. The tie vote came during a lengthy board meeting in which administrators hinted at programs that could be eliminated or modified next year to achieve $8 million in projected budget cuts. Early-childhood education programs for 3- and 4-year-olds, vocational education, portation. nursing transservices, safety, security and the McClellan community education program are among some 15 areas targeted for cuts or changes. Few details were available Thursday. The administration is reviewing the recommendations before presenting them to the board in the ne.xt few weeks. I Appeals  Continued Irom Page 1B plan. In making the motion to up- hold principals' expulsion recommendations, Pondexter cited a district report showing that while principals recommended 57 students for expulsion last semester, only one student was actually removed. That causes me a great deal of concern. Pondexter said. I want assurances that the principal's recommendation stands unless the parent appeals. 1 dont want one individual to be able to set aside a recommendation, she said, adding that the district's hearing officer i.s given too much latitude in handling disciplinary matters. An expulsion is effective for either the remainder of a se- mester nr the school year. Stu- dnnt.s can be expelled and reinstated only by a vote of the Most of the proposals would have to be approved by both the school board and U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who monitors the districts compliance with its desegregation See APPEALS, Page 9B school board. Students who appeal an expulsion have the right to a hearing before a district administrator and can then appeal to the board. Offenses warranting expulsion include use of a weapon, possession of a firearm, physical assault on or verbal abuse of staff, drug sales, arson and gang membership. Pondexters motion came after several highly publicized fights at area junior and senior high schools that have resulted in 23 students arrests since Jan, 13. Dr. Henry Williams, superintendent, said he agreed with Pondexter. He announced that a coalition of district administrators, principals and teachers will hold a news conference Monday to announce measures to provide more support to principals. We plan to make a strong statement about reclaiming our schools and to show that thi.s foolishness going on in our schools won't be tolerated, Williams said. Pondexter and others contend that at least some of the recent school fights stem from the fact that students suspended last fall are returning to school for the new semester. She said she didn't have any numbers to back that up. A fight at McClellan High School was allegedly started by students who either had returned from suspensions or had transferred from other schools. Our kids are in the news every day, but they don't do anything serious enough to be expelled? Pondexter asked. She noted that 22 expulsion recommendations came from Henderson Junior High and 11 came from Central, but none of the students were expelled. The principals recommendations should be upheld unless a parent asks for an appeal. We need to return local control back to the schools, Pondexter said. Unfortunately, children are getting a message that if we mess up, its OK because they'll be back in school in a few days.  Larry Robertson, the districts hearing officer, said ne tried to remove misbehaving students from school by placing them on long-term suspension.s and, in some cases, placing them in alternative settings. His goal is to keep students off the street, and he has heard complaints from only one principal, he said. Long-term suspensions last longer than 10 days and can cover an entire semester. Board members Pondexter, Pat Gee and Judy Magness voted for the motion. Dr, Katherine Mitchell, John Riggs IV and Kevin OMalley opposed it, Mitchell questioned how Pondexters proposal was any different than current policy, while OMalley complained that the proposal was out of order because it wasn't on the agenda for the meeting.SATURDAY, JANUARY 28, 1995 We will no longer coddle kids Williams  Continued from Page 1A has said he believes that fight was started by one student who had been suspended but who returned to school for the new semester and by two students who peals the recommendation to the central office or the school board. In I principals have been asking for - - - that the district be Unruly face ouster, LRSD chief vows BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Educ\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":"abj_p15099coll2_11","title":"Donald Harris interview","collection_id":"abj_p15099coll2","collection_title":"Oral Histories","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249"],"dcterms_creator":["Harris, Donald, 1936-","Cook, Ben"],"dc_date":["1991/2000"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["audio/mpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Birmingham, Ala. : Birmingham Public Library"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Birmingham Black Barons Oral History Collection"],"dcterms_subject":["Birmingham Black Barons (Baseball team)","Baseball--Alabama--Birmingham","Oral history","Negro leagues","African American baseball players"],"dcterms_title":["Donald Harris interview"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["Birmingham Public Library (Ala.)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://cdm16044.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15099coll2/id/11"],"dcterms_temporal":["1991/2000"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["This material may be protected under Title 17 of the U. S. Copyright Law which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research."],"dcterms_medium":["audiocassettes","MP3"],"dcterms_extent":["16:50"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Harris, Donald, 1936-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_becu_55","title":"Dorothy Height Speaking at a Podium While Others Listen, 1991","collection_id":"hbcula_becu","collection_title":"Bethune-Cookman University Digital Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Florida, Volusia County, Panama Beach, 28.86832, -81.22778"],"dcterms_creator":["Bethune-Cookman University"],"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["President Bronson (seated at far left) is shown listening to Dr. Dorothy Height speak at a podium."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"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 women","Special events","Speeches"],"dcterms_title":["Dorothy Height Speaking at a Podium While Others Listen, 1991"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"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/becu/id/55"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All rights to images are held by the respective holding institution. This image is posted publicly for non-profit educational uses, excluding printed publication. For permission to reproduce images and/or for copyright information contact University Archives, Bethune-Cookman University, Daytona Beach, FL 32114 (386) 481-2186. https://www.cookman.edu/library/index.html"],"dcterms_medium":["black-and-white photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47551","title":"[Elaine Eason Steele and her mother Bertha Wallace Eason at the Henry Ford mansion (Fair Lane), Dearborn, Michigan] [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":["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":["[Elaine Eason Steele and her mother Bertha Wallace Eason at the Henry Ford mansion (Fair Lane), Dearborn, Michigan] [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.47551"],"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":["Steele, Elaine Eason","Eason, Bertha Wallace"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_897","title":"Elementary School, Parent-Student Handbook","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":["North Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1991/1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School discipline","Student activities","Students","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Elementary School, Parent-Student Handbook"],"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/897"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["handbooks"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n1991--1992 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PARENT-STUDENT HANDBOOK NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Parent-Student Statement of Responsibility Student Name Date The statement below must be signed and returned to the homeroom teacher within one (1) week after the student receives the handbook. We have read the North Little Rock Parent-Student Handbook. We understand the District's discipline policies and realize that the student must adhere to these and to the other policies, rules and procedures contained in the Handbook. In the event that we are not entirely certain of some aspect of school policy, we will contact the principal for clarification. Student Signature Parent/Guardian Signature Date State law (80-1629.6-80-1629.8) requires documentation of student and parent receipt of student discipline policies. This document will become part of the student's file. (over) Emergency Procedure Information Date ____ Student's Name _______________ _ Dale of Birth _________________ .,___ ___ _ Address ______________ Horne Phone ____ _ In case of emergency, illness or accident to the student named above, the school is authorized to proceed as indicated. Number below in order of desired action. __ Contact parent at number listed above. __ Contact father at Business Name Phone __ Contact mother at ___________________ _ Business Name Phone Contact other ____________________ _ Name Phone Physician's Name _____________ Phone ____ _ Hospital Preference ____________________ _ Signature of Parents or Guardians: Mother's Signature Father's Signature Student's Signature It is very important that this be returned to the school office as soon ti pos.gble. ELEMENTARY PARENT-STUDENT HANDBOOK NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT James R. Smith Superintendent 1991, 1992 if'lliII! ~@IK\u0026lt;irllil 11,,lTiiif'ImL@.I~! IK\\ IP'@lm!L.~I~l~lli l@@ll,,~ ADMINISTRATIVEO FFICES 2700 POPLARS TREET August 1991 Dear Students and Parents, The North Little Rock School District is recognized as a quality educational institution. Sound academic programs, great variety of offerings, special programs to meet student needs, and strong school spirit have led to educational excellence in our schools. Excellence has been maintained through the outstanding support and cooperation of the students and patrons of our school district. I thank you for that support and cooperation and look forward to a continued good working relationship. This handbook has been provided so that you will better understand the purposes, policies, and regulations of the North Little Rock School District. It is important that you familiarize yourself with the total contents and that the handbook be retained for reference from time to time. If you have questions regarding information included in the handbook or any other matter, please contact the principal's office. We welcome suggestions that will help make the North Little Rock Schools even better. I hope that this school year is a happy and productive one for you. 'i\n\"U James Smith Superintendent of Schools P.O. BOX 687, NORTH ume ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/758-1760 ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITIES The undersigned superintendent for the North Little Rock School District in Pulaski County, assures the Director, General Division, Arkansas Department of Education, that all Schools within the District are in compliance with the following Civil Rights Regulations as stated: ******** Title VI, Section 601, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the grounds of excluded for of, or be or activity No person in the United States shall, on race, color, or national origin, be participation in, be denied the benefits subjected to discrimination under any program receiving Federal financial assistance. Title IX, Section 901, of the Education Amendment of 1972 No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or 'be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. This is to certify that the District's Civil Rights Coordinator is: Name: Mable Bynum Telephone:_7_7_1_-_8_0_0___0_ __ _ Address: 2700 Poplar Street (P.O. Box 687) North Little Rock, AR 72115 July, 1991 Date COMPLAINTS AND PROBLEM SOLVING A good communication link between the school and the home is necessary if students are to receive the maximum benefits from the educational opportunities available to them in the schools of North Llttle Rock. Good communication results from open, frequent and objective dialogue among students, teachers, parents and school administrators. Most school problems are the result of poor communication among the parties involved. Proper communication, therefore, usually solves most, if not all, problems that are related to the school. In order to ensure that problems are discussed and solved as quickly and fairly as possible, the following procedure is to be employed in the North Llttle Rock School District. If a parent becomes concerned about a problem at the classroom level, the parent should make an appointment with the teacher and thoroughly discuss the matter. Most problems are solved at this level. Should the problem not be solved through discussions with the teacher, or if the problem is not related to classroom activities, the parent should contact the principal for further attempts to find a workable solution. If the parent- is not satisfied with solutions offered at the building level, the matter may be appealed to the appropriate educational director or assistant superintendent at the District Administrative Office. The phone number is 771-8000. After other appeals have been exhausted, the parent may appeal to the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent may uphold, overturn or modify decisions made by other District administrators. An appeal of a decision by the Superintendent may be heard only by the School Board while an official meeting of the Board is being held. ,. I I S M T w T F s North Lmle Rock s M T w T F s Aug. 18 SD \"'-I .... 1 ~ SC2 4 SchooDl istrict Jan. H H H 4 25 1262 7 28 29 30 31 1991-9C2a lendar 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Sept. Aug2. 6,f irsts chool 12 13 14 15 16 1 H 3 4 5 6 7 day lo! students 17 18 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Sept2. . LaborD ay, 19 H 21 22 2] w 25 nosdlool 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Nov. 1 . taachel 26 g1 28 29 30 31 wori\u0026lt;dany,o school 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Nov. 7-8, AEA meetingsn. os dlool Feb. 1 29 30 Nov. 11-15, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 parenct onferences, Oct. 1 2 3 4 5 schoool ut 1 houre arly 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 6 7 8 9 Nov.2 8-29, 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 10 11 12 Thanksgivinhgo idays, no sdlool 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Dec 23-Jan. 3, 23 SD 25 26 27 28 29 20 21 22 23 24 25 winterh olidaysn, o school 26 Mar. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jan. 20, Dr. Krig Day, 27 28 29 30 31] nosdlool 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ', Jan. 24, 1NCher Nov. w 2 wori\u0026lt;dany.o school 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 3 ~ 5 $0 Feb. 24, Slaff dewlopment 22 23 24 25 26 w 28 6 H 9 day,1 '10s chool 10 pc !I(\npc I''- ..,. . March2 7,t eacher 29 SB SB 11 12 13 14 15 16 wori\u0026lt;dany,o school 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 March 30 -April 3 Afx. se SB SE spring bfeak, 4 24 25 26 27 H H 30 no sdlool [~ r I''- ~c pc Ap,i 6-10, 5 8 10 11 Dec. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 parenct onfllllOIIS, 12 13 14 15 16 H 18 I schoool ut 1 houre arly 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ap,i 17, holiday, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nosdlool 15 16 17 18 _19 20 21 May 25, Memorial 26 27 28 29 30 Day, no school 22 H H H H H 28 June 3, last May 1 2 29 H H schoodl ay 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ID 176s choodl ays 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1,1 187t each8d1a ys 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 W TeacheWr orkdaSy,t udenHt oliday SD StaffD evelopmeDnat yS, tudenHt oliday ~ H 26 27 28 29 30 includerse quiredde segregationnse rvice H Holidafyo rS tudentasn dS taff [ BeginN ineW eeksP eriod June 1 2 !] w 5 6 ] EndN ineW eeksP eriod SBS ponBg reak 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Table of Contents Absences And Excuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Academic Skills Development Plan Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Arrival/Departure Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Arkansas School Law Governing School Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Arkansas School Law Governing Compulsory Attendance Age . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Behavior At School Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Breakfast Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Bus Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Care Of School Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Change Of Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Communicable Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Conduct To And From School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Contact With Students While At School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Corporal Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Demonstrations And Disorderly Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Detention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Discipline For Handicapped Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Disruption Of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Distribution Of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Drugs And Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Electronic Communication Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Emergency Phone Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Entrance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Expulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Field Trips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Gifted/f alented Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Guidance Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Handguns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Homebound Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Homework/Independent Study Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Honor Roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Injuries/Illnesses At School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Leaving School During School Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Lost And Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Lunch Program .............................................. 12 Magnet Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 How To Apply For Magnet School Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 M-to-M Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 How To Apply For M-to-M Transfer ............................... 14 Make-up Work ............................................... 14 Medication .................................................. 14 Notes From Parents Regarding Absences ............................ 14 Parent-Teacher Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Physical Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Promotion/Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Public Display Of Affection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Religion In Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Reporting Student Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Safety Regulations Bicycles/Motorcycles/Other Vehicles ................. 16 Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 School Closing In Inclement Weather .............................. 16 Search, Seizure And Interrogation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Seasonal Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Special Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Student Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Student Behavior - Prohibited Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Student Dress And Grooming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Student Insurance ............................................. 19 Student Records .............................................. 19 Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Suspension From School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Tardies ..................................................... 21 Telephones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Testing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Tobacco And Tobacco Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Weapons And Dangerous Instruments .............................. 22 Yearbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 ABSENCES AND EXCUSES The Board believes the fundamental right to attend public schools places upon students the accompanying responsibility to be regular in attendance. Regular attendance can be assumed to be essential for a student's successful progress in the instructional program. In accordance with Board policy, only the following absences shall be considered excused absences, provided that in such instance parental confirmation has been received of the reason for the absence: 1. Illness 2. The existence of a family emergency or other family situations which have received prior approval by the principal 3. When the student is on official school business. When a student returns to school after being absent, he/she shall bring a written statement from the parents with an explanation of the reason for the absence and the date of the absence. Students having unexcused tardies or absences shall be disciplined accordingly. No make-up work shall be allowed if the absence is unexcused. Except in the cases of illness or other excusable reason, students are expected to attend every day in which school is in session. The Board does not recognize \"skip days\" or other similar days when students willfully miss school. Such absences shall be unexcused, and no make-up work shall be allowed. An elementary student is not permitted more than twenty-four (24) absences during the school year including excused and unexcused absences. Exceptions will be granted only by the principal after consultation with teacher, guidance consultant and others who have knowledge of the circumstances. If a student exceeds twenty-four (24) absences during a school year, and no exception is granted, then the student may be retained in that grade for the next school year. Excessive absences or patterns of absences may result in court action being taken against the parent. ACADEMIC SKILLS DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONFERENCES Act 474 of the Arkansas General Assembly requires conferences to be organized and held by the public schools with the parents, guardians or persons in loco parentis of students in grades three, six and eight who failed to master the state's minimum performance test. The school district shall evaluate students and develop academic skills development plans to assist students in achieving mastery of the basic skills in subject areas where performance is below mastery. ARRIVAUDEPARTURET IME Ideally, students should not arrive at school more than 10 minutes before school opens ( or before bus departure time) except to participate in scheduled activities. The District recognizes that this ideal cannot always be realized because of family schedules\nhowever, because children must have the security of supervision, absolute limits must exist as to when the school will assume responsibility. The North Little Rock School District assumes this responsibility up to 30 minutes before school hours for students who do not ride a bus to another school and up to 15 minutes for those who do. Students should vacate the school grounds immediately after school. Bus 1 students should vacate the grounds immediately upon arrival at the home base school. Parents must make other arrangements outside these limitations. ARKANSAS SCHOOL LAW GOVERNING SCHOOL ATTENDANCE Arkansas school law pertaining to school attendance is as follows: Section 1. Arkansas Code 6-18-222 is hereby amended to read as follows: (a)(l)(A) The board of directors of each school district in this state shall adopt a student attendance policy as provided for in 6-18-209 which shall include a certain number of excessive absences which may be used as a basis for denial of course credit, promotion, or graduation. However, excessive absences shall not be a basis for expulsion or dismissal of a student. (B) The legislative intent is that a student having excessive absences because of illness, accident, or other unavoidable reasons should be given assistance in obtaining credit for the courses. (2) A copy of the school district's student attendance policy shall be provided to the student's parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis at the beginning of the school year or upon enrollment. whichever event first occurs. (3) The student's parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis shall be notified when the student has accumulated excessive absences equal to one-half (1/2) the total number of absences permitted under the school district's student attendance policy per semester. Notice shall be by telephonic contact with the student's parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis by the end of the school day in which such absence occurred or by regular mail with a return address on the envelope sent no later than the following school day. ( 4) Whenever a student exceeds the number of excessive absences provided for in the district's student attendance policy, the school district shall notify the prosecuting authority, and the student's parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis shall be subject to a civil penalty in such an amount as a court of competent jurisdiction presiding in the presence of a representative of the school district may prescribe, but not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) plus costs of court and any reasonable fees assessed by the court. The penalty shall be forwarded by the court to the school attended by the student. (5) Upon notification by the school district to the prosecuting authority, the prosecuting authority shall file an action in the appropriate court to impose the civil penalty set forth in subdivision (a)(4) of this section and shall take whatever action is necessary to collect the penalty provided for therein. The failure of the prosecuting authority to timely file an action or pursue collection on a case once notified shall be considered neglect of duty, subjecting the prosecuting attorney to the provisions of 16-21-116. (6) The penalty set forth in this section is to impress upon the parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis the importance of school attendance and is not to be used 2 as a primary source of revenue. When assessing penalties, the court shall be aware of any available programs designed to improve the parent-child relationship or parenting skills. When practicable and appropriate, the court may utilize mandatory attendance to such programs as well as community service requirements in lieu of monetary penalties. (7) In cases where the court determines the student's unexcused absences cannot be attributed to the parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis, the action may be suspended or dismissed conditioned on a petition being filed in juvenile court to seek services on behalf of the student. (8) As used in this section, 'prosecuting authority' means the elected district prosecuting attorney or his appointed deputy for schools located in unincorporated areas of the county or within cities not having a police or municipal court and means the prosecuting attorney of the city for schools located within the city limits of cities having either a police court or a municipal court in which a city prosecutor represents the city for violations of city ordinances or traffic violations. (9) In any instance where it is found that the school district or prosecuting authority is not complying with the provisions of this section, the State Board of Education may petition the circuit court to issue a writ of mandamus. Act 876 of 1989 authorizes school districts to enter into cooperative agreements with law enforcement agencies to detain suspected truants during school hours. The North Little Rock Police Department will detain and question school-age children who are not in school on those days and hours that the North Little Rock schools are in session. Students who are off school grounds without permission from the school will be transported to the Alternative School from where parents will be contacted for further action on the truancy. ARKANSAS SCHOOL LAW GOVERNING COMPULSORYA TTENDANCEA GE Arkansas School Law pertaining to compulsory attendance age is as follows: Section 1. Arkansas Code 6-18-201(a) is hereby amended to read as follows: \"(a) Every parent, guardian, or other person residing within the State of Arkansas having custody or charge of any child or children age five (5) through seventeen (17) years on October 1 of that year, both inclusive, shall enroll and send the child or children to a public, private, or parochial school or provide a home school for the child or children as described in 6-15-601 et seq. under such penalty for noncompliance as shall be set by law with the follow exceptions: (1) Any child who has received a high school diploma, or its equivalent as determined by the State Board of Education, is not subject to attendance requirement. (2) Any parent, guardian, or other person residing within the state and having custody or charge of any child or children may elect for the child or children not to attend kindergarten if the child or children will not be age six (6) on October 1 of that particular school year. If such an election is made, the parent, guardian, or other 3 person having custody or charge of the child must file a signed kindergarten waiver form with the local district administrative office. Such form shall be prescribed by regulation of the State Department of Education. On filing the kindergarten waiver form, the child or children shall not be required to attend kindergarten in that school year. (3) Any child enrolled in a postsecondary vocational/technical institution, a community college or a two-year or four-year institution of higher education, is not subject to this attendance requirement. (4) The local school district may grant a waiver of this requirement with notice to the State Board of Education.\" BEHAVIOR AT SCHOOL ACTMTIES Students attending school sponsored activities, on-campus or off-campus, shall be governed by school district rules and regulations and will be subject to the authority of school district personnel. Failure to obey rules and regulations and/or failure to obey reasonable instructions of school personnel may result in loss of eligibility to attend school sponsored events. Failure to comply with District rules and regulations may also result in disciplinary action applicable under the regular school program. BREAKFAST PROGRAM Breakfast will be served in all elementary schools. In the case of late school openings because of inclement weather, breakfast will not be served. Students may pay on a daily basis in the breakfast line. The first school day of each week, reduced price and paying students may go to the cafeteria before school and pay for any number of meals over one. BUS CONDUCT Since the school bus is an extension of the classroom, students shall be required to conduct themselves on the bus in a manner consistent with established standards for classroom behavior. When a student does not conduct himself/herself properly on a bus, such instances shall be brought to the attention of the building principal by the bus driver. The building principal shall inform the parents immediately of the misconduct and seek their cooperation in controlling the student's behavior. The principal shall discipline guilty students as deemed appropriate. A student who becomes a serious disciplinary problem on the school bus may have transportation privileges suspended or terminated. In such cases, the parents of the students involved shall become responsible for seeing that their children get to and from school. 4 CARE OF SCHOOL PROPERTY Deliberate destruction or damage to school property will result in payment for loss, as well as other disciplinary action which may include police involvement. Careless destruction or damage may result in a requirement to pay damages. CHANGE OF ADDRESS It is the parent's responsibility to keep addresses current in the school office. COMMUNICABLE DISEASE The Board of Directors hereby authorizes the Superintendent to make determinations on the exclusion of a student/individual suffering from a reportable disease, as defined by the Arkansas Department of Health, on a temporary basis not to exceed ten (10) school days. An exclusion longer than ten (10) days shall be brought before the Board of Directors immediately for a determination on the individual's status. Before any official action is taken by the Board for an exclusion longer then ten (10) days, the individual shall be provided an opportunity for a hearing before the Board of Directors upon appropriate notice. Students/individuals excluded for reason of infectious/communicable disease shall be readmitted by one or more of the following methods as determined by the State Department of Health: 1. By permit for readmission issued by the State Department of Health. 2. After a period of time corresponding to the duration of the communicability of the disease as established by the State Department of Health. 3. By application to the School Health Advisory Committee and upon the recommendation of the School Health Advisory Committee. CONDUCT TO AND FROM SCHOOL School officials may take disciplinary action against any student who does not exhibit proper personal conduct while traveling to and from school. Walkers must cross street only at crosswalks and must obey the crossing guard. Students should walk facing oncoming traffic. CONTACT WITH STUDENTS WHILE AT SCHOOL In case of question about the legal custody of a student, the principal shall require the necessary documentation in order to make a valid determination of who has custody and what, if any, limitations are imposed. In cases of estrangement where legal custody has been afforded a parent, or where other legal restrictions have been decided, it shall be the responsibility of the custodial parent to make such information known to the principal. Estranged parents may visit with students during school hours with consent of the parent holding legal custody. Without such consent, visits shall be in the presence of the principal. If the police, SCAN, or family se1vice agencies wish to contact students for 5 the purpose of obtaining information, the principal shall cooperate. If removal from school is requested, the principal shall inform the parent or legal guardian prior to any release of custody of the student. If the principal is presented a subpoena by a police officer or if an agent of the social services presents a court order signed by a judge, he must release the student with or without communication with the parent or legal guardian. CORPORAL PUNISHMENT Corporal punishment in any form will not be used as a disciplinary measure in the North Little Rock Public Schools by any teacher, administrator, or other school personnel. DEMONSTRATIONS AND DISORDERLY ACTMTIES Demonstrations and disorderly activities on the part of any student or group of students at any time on school grounds shall not be tolerated. Participation in any such demonstration activities, no matter how well-intentioned, may bring about immediate suspension and possible expulsion from school. Demonstration and disorderly activities on school grounds during school hours shall, if circumstances justify, be promptly handled by civil authorities. DETENTION Elementary and secondary school principals may establish student detention (D Halls) as a means of discipline to preserve an effective learning environment. Detention may be used before and/or after regular school hours. Parents shall be notified in advance that early/late detention has been assigned and shall assume responsibility for student transportation. DISCIPLINE FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS Handicapped students who engage in misbehavior are subject to normal school disciplinary mJes and procedures so long as treatment does not abridge the right to a free, appropriate public education. DISRUPTION OF SCHOOL No student shall by use of violence, force, noise, coercion, threat, intimidation, fear, passive resistance, or any other conduct intentionally cause the substantial and material disruption of obstruction of any lawful mission, process or function of the school. Neither shall a student engage in such conduct for the purpose of causing the substantial and material disruption or obstruction of any lawful mission, process, or function of the school if such a dismption or obstruction is reasonably certain to result. Neither shall a student urge other students to engage in such conduct for the purpose of causing the substantial and mate1ial disruption or obstruction of any lawful mission, process, or function of the school if the disruption or obstruction is 6 reasonably certain to result from his/her urging. Any student who threatens a teacher or a teacher's family shall be disciplined by the building administration. The student will not return to class until the building administration has taken appropriate action concerning the incident. A conference with the custodial parent or guardian, an administrator and the teacher will be scheduled by a building administrator as soon as possible following the incident. DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE All publications edited, printed or distributed in the name of, or within the schools of the North Little Rock School District, shall be under the direction and control of the school administration and Board. In allowing the distribution of student literature, the principal shall set firm and fair regulations for students to follow. DRUGS AND ALCOHOL The North Little Rock School District recognizes that student alcohol and other drug use is illegal and harmful and can seriously impair capacity to learn and to function effectively in our schools. Therefore, the North Little Rock School District prohibits the possession, use, distribution or sale of such substances as outlined in Student Policy FBO. Further, the North Little Rock School District supports a comprehensive program approach which includes prevention, early identification/referral, intervention, and support/after-care to prevent or disrupt the use of alcohol and other drugs. Policy FBO applies to any student who is on school property, who is in attendance at school or at a school-sponsored activity (including any student who has left the campus for any reason and who returns to the campus), or whose conduct at any time or in any place interferes with or obstructs the mission or operation of the school district. It shall be a violation of policy for any student: 1. To sell, supply or give, or attempt to sell, supply, or give to any person any of the substances listed in this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance listed in this policy. 2. To possess, procure or purchase, to attempt to possess, procure or purchase, to be under the influence of (legal intoxication not required), or to use or consume or attempt to use or consume, the substances listed in this policy or what is represented to the student to be any of the substances listed in this policy or what the student believes to be any of the substances listed in this policy. Prohibited substances shall include, but not be limited to: alcohol or any alcoholic beverage\nmarijuana\nany narcotic drug\nany hallucinogen\nany stimulant\nany depressant\nany other controlled (illegal) substance\nany substance, legal or illegal, that alters the student's ability to act, think, or respond\nany other substance that the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibiteu by this policy\nor any substance manufactured to look like a substance prohibited by this policy. Any student engaging in any of the activities with any of the prohibited substances listed above shall be subject to the following penalties: A. Use or possession of any substance prohibited by this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by this policy. 7 (1) First violation: The student shall be suspended off-campus for a mmimum of ten school days. The police may be called. Proof of professional help is required when the student returns to school, and a parental conference is required prior to readmission. (2) Second violation: The student shall be expelled for the remainder of the school year. B. Selling any substance prohibited by this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by this policy. (1) The police will be summoned. (2) The student will be expelled for the remainder of the school year. Any student suspended or expelled in accordance with this policy shall be required to seek professional counseling prior to readmission to school. The student will receive full counseling through District approved professional counseling services at his/her own expense. Upon readmission, continued enrollment shall be contingent upon completion of the alcohol/drug counseling program. Failure to complete the alcohol/drug counseling may be grounds for expulsion. ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DEVICES The North Little Rock School District will enforce Act 146 of 1989, which prohibits elementary and secondary students from possessing paging devices or electronic communication devices on school campuses. EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS Emergency phone numbers where parents can be contacted are to be provided for each student enrolled in the school. It is the parent's responsibility to keep these numbers current and up-to-date. ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS In order to enroll in a school in the District, a student must be a bona fide resident and must meet age requirements. The minimum age for enrollment in public school kindergarten shall be age five on or before October 1 of the year of initial enrollment. Any student who has been enrolled in a state accredited or approved kindergarten program in another state for a period of not less than sixty days, who will become five during the school year in which he is enrolled in kindergarten and whose parents or guardians establish domicile in a public school district in the State of Arkansas may be enrolled in kindergarten upon written request of the student's parents or guardians. The minimum age for enrollment in the first grade of any public school in the state shall be age six on or before October 1 of the year of initial enrollment. Any student who has been enrolled in grade one of an accredited or state approved elementary school in another state for a period of not less than sixty (60) days, who will become age six during the school year in which he is enrolled in grade one and whose parents or guardians are residents of Arkansas, may be enrolled in grade one upon request thereby in writing by a parent or guardian. Any six year old who has not completed an accredited kindergarten program prior to initial enrollment in a public school district shall be evaluated by the District and placed in the first grade if the evaluation results indicate that the child is ready for enrollment at the first grade level. Uthe evaluation results indicate that the child is not ready for enrollment at the first grade level, the child shall be enrolled in the 8 District's kindergarten program. Each school must have a placement committee consisting of the principal, a kindergarten teacher, a first grade teacher, and the child's parent/s. The committee's primary task is to determine whether the student should be placed in a kindergarten or a first grade classroom. A student who has been enrolled in a first grade of an Arkansas School District or a private school but whose parents reside in the North Little Rock School District shall not be allowed to enroll in the first grade in the District if the child's sixth birthday falls after October 1 of that year. Act 838 of 1991, mandates that no child shall be admitted to any public school without an official copy of that child's birth certificate and that child's social security number. School authorities may temporarily admit a child who has not been provided an official birth certificate or social security number if: 1. other proof of the child's date of birth is submitted along with a completed, postage-paid application and money order so that an official birth certificate can be secured\nor 2. a completed and postage-paid application for a social security number is provided so that a social security number can be obtained. Act 838 also states that if there is an objection to using the social security number on school records, parents can waive the requirement by signing a notarized statement regarding their objections. With that waiver, an individualized number similar to a social security number will be assigned to the student. When a student moves into the District from attendance in an accredited school, he/she shall be placed in the same grade that would have been assigned in the fonner school. Students who have attended an unaccredited school shall be evaluated by the District and proper grade placement determined. Arkansas law requires that all students be immunized against poliomyelitis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whopping cough) and red (Rubeola) measles. Students who do not comply with this requirement shall be excluded from school enrollment. A student entering a school in the District for the first time shall submit a copy of his/her immunization record. EXPULSION The Board of Education is authorized to expel a student for the remainder of the school term: 1) for conduct that is deemed to be of such gravity as to make a relatively short temporaiy suspension inappropriate, 2) when the Board finds that the student's continued attendance at school would be unacceptably disruptive to the educational program, or 3) when continued attendance would present unreasonable danger to other students and faculty members. Arkansas Statute 80-1516 provides that directors of a school district may exclude students for immorality, refractory conduct, insubordination, infectious disease, habitual uncleanliness or other conduct that would tend to impair the discipline of the school or harm the other students. FIELD TRIPS A field trip is defined as any organized educational experience outside the classroom involving travel. Written parental consent must be obtained for each field trip. Only local field trips may be sponsored for elementary students. 9 GIFTED/TALENTEDE DUCATION A program of gifted/talented education is provided for those students who require differentiated activities and services beyond those normally provided in the regular school program. Students who are above average in ability, task commitment and creativity may be considered for the program. Students must exemplify an interaction of these three traits. Referral for consideration to receive se1vices through the gifted/talented program may be made to the principal by school personnel, parents, peers or the student. The decision for placement is made after all available data are reviewed by a referral/placement committee. GUIDANCE SERVICES The North Little Rock School District maintains a guidance program in its elementary and secondary schools consistent with state and North Central Association regulations. The program provides counseling for students, parents and school personnel relative to students' academic progress, behavior and personal matters. Parents and students are encouraged to seek guidance services at any time. HANDGUNS The North Little Rock School District will enforce Act 649 of 1989, which prohibits minors from possessing or carrying handguns. In Section I, a handgun is defined as, \"a firearm capable of firing rimfire ammunition or centerfire ammunition, which is designed or constructed to be fired with one hand.\" HEALTH SERVICES Health services by the school nurse are primarily inspectional rather than diagnostic in nature. Screening for vision and hearing is conducted for new students and is available for others at teacher and/or parent request. Students receiving special education services may be screened more often depending upon the date of their last comprehensive evaluation. HOMEBOUND SERVICES Students with medical conditions certified by a medical doctor which will require them to be absent from school for four or more consecutive weeks are eligible for homebound services. Application forms need to be completed as far in advance as possible and are available from Special Services (771-8033). HOMEWORK/INDEPENDENTS TUDY SKILLS Recognizing that homework is a flexible and individual instructional responsibility, teachers in the N01th Little Rock Schools shall consider the following in making this type of assignment: 10 That parent-student understanding of the necessity for homework is desirable. That homework shall be within the limits of individual student ability. That, within the limits of good judgement, homework should vary gradually from fairly light (no more than 15-30 minutes per day) in $rades 1-3 to fairly heavy ( no more than 60-120 minutes per day) in grades 10-12. That teachers, particularly at the seconda1y level, shall, at all times, be aware of the student's problem of multiple assignments. That homework, to be purposeful and worthwhile, should, in all probability, vary from day to day depending upon the needs of the students. That the availability of study materials such as reference books at home be considered in assigning homework. The following guidelines for homework and the development of students' independent study skills will be observed in making homework assignments: Assignments will be considered as an extension of the classroom instruction for the purpose of either independent skill practice for mastery or for review of previously mastered skills/concepts. Assignments will not involve skills/concepts which have not been previously taught. Assignments to achieve mastery of new skills/concepts will follow guided practice to ensure that the learner can successfully practice the skills/concepts accurately. Maximum use of classroom time for input and supervised study should be planned for each lesson. Some homework assignments can best be accomplished du1ing supervised study conducted as part of the allotted instructional period. Assignments will be designed to provide short, frequent practice sessions focused on small segments of learning while maintaining maximum meaning for the learner. Assignments will be made which address common needs of groups of learners and specific needs of individuals rather than automatically assigning common homework to all learners without regard to the individual learner's need. Immediate feedback should be given to the learner whenever possible. 11 HONOR ROLL Honor Roll selection will be made each nine weeks and will be based on the current nine week reporting period. The following subjects will be used to determine honor roll status: reading, English, spelling, mathematics, science/health, and social studies. If a student receives all A's, all B's or a combination of A's and B's, he/she will be placed on the honor roll provided no N's appear on the card. A student will not be placed on the honor roll if he/she has an N on the report card in any area. This includes behavior, handwriting, and music, art, and physical education participation. INJURIES/ILLNESSES AT SCHOOL When a student is injured in the school building or on the school grounds, the parent will be called immediately. The student may be taken to the family doctor if parents have made emergency numbers and the name of the family doctor available. When a student becomes ill at school, the parent is called immediately. The student will remain in the health room until the parent can check the student out of school. If contact with the parent cannot be made, the principal and teacher will do what is expedient and safe for the injured and/or seriously ill student, which may include taking/sending the student to the emergency room of a hospital. The school assumes no responsibility for treatment. LEAVING SCHOOL DURING SCHOOL DAY If at any time during the school day it becomes necessary for a student to leave school, the student must report to the office to obtain permission from both a parent or guardian and a school official. The check-out sheet must be signed by the parent/guardian/parent designee or a school official. Parent designee must be documented by a written statement from parent/guardian. Any student arriving at school after the tardy bell or returning after an absence during a part of the school day must report to the office to get permission to return to class. Only those students who live within walking distance (five blocks) and have written parental consent may be granted permission to go home for lunch. LOST AND FOUND Students are encouraged to label all belongings. Lost and found items will be kept in a designated area. Unclaimed items will be discarded periodically. LUNCH PROGRAM Hot lunches are provided in the school cafeteria. Students are encouraged to participate in this nutritionally balanced program\nhowever, students may choose to bring a lunch from home. Students who have doctor verified milk allergies may have fruit juice with their lunch in lieu of milk. The medical doctor must specify the alternate beverage. 12 Each student who lives within five blocks of the school will be allowed to walk home during the lunch pe1iod provided that a note is brought from the parents stating a desire for a lunch permit to be granted. Students will not be excused to eat lunch anywhere else except at home, and only those students having a permit will be allowed to leave the school campus during the lunch period. The North Little Rock School District operates a lunch assistance program which complies with federal guidelines. Students may pay on a daily basis in the lunch line. The first school day of each week, reduced price and paying students may go to the cafeteria before school and pay for any number of meals over one. MAGNET SCHOOLS Ten magnet schools located in Little Rock are available for North Little Rock students. Each offers one or two areas of specialization for students of all ability levels. Magnet schools offer highly-trained staff members and enriched learning activities. Optional enrollment is open to all students, kindergarten through grade twelve. Registration is on a .first-come/.first-seivedb asis. Once enrolled, a student has priority to continue attending the magnet school, until he or she chooses to transfer to another magnet school or back to the assigned school in North Little Rock. Transportation will be provided for students involved in Magnet Schools. HOW TO APPLY FOR MAGNET SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Fill out one application for each child. Place in a stamped envelope and mail to: Student Affairs Department, North Little Rock School District, P.O. Box 687, North Little Rock, AR 72115. Applications may be obtained by calling 771-8010. Applications are accepted on a first-come/first-seived basis according to priorities set by the court. If the target enrollment for a school has been reached, students are placed on a waiting list. Parents receive notification of their child's acceptance by mail. M-TO-M TRANSFERS The plan approved by the U.S. District Court allows for majority-to-minority (M-to-M) transfers among the three Pulaski County districts (North Little Rock, Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts.) A student who is enrolled in a district in which his or her race is predominant may enroll in any district and school in the county in which his or her race is in the minority, provided that school offers appropriate programs for the student's needs at his or her grade level. Therefore, any white student in the North Little Rock School District (which is predominantly white) may elect to attend any school in the Little Rock School District (which is predominantly black.) Transportation will be provided for students involved in M-to-M transfers. 13 HOW TO APPLY FOR M-TO-M TRANSFER Fill out one application for each child. Place in a stamped envelope and mail to: Student Affairs Department, No1th Little Rock School District, P.O. Box 687, North Little Rock, AR 72115. Applications may be obtained by calling 771-8010. Applications are accepted on a first-come/first-served basis according to priorities set by the court. If the target enrollment for a school has been reached, students are placed on a waiting list. Parents receive notification of their child's acceptance by mail. MAKE-UP WORK A student who misses school due to an excused absence shall be afforded the opportunity to submit make-up work. Following the absence, the teacher and student shall make arrangements for completion of the assignments. In order to receive credit, all work must be complete within the prescribed time. A student who misses school due to an unexcused absence shall not be afforded the opportunity to submit make-up work for credit. MEDICATION Written parent consent is required for the school to administer any medication. A medication consent form should be completed, even for medication given on a temporary basis. Prescription and non-prescription drugs must be brought to the school office in the original container stating the dosage and method of administration. Reasons for the medication must be clearly stated. All medication, including non-prescription drugs, will be kept in the principal's office and will be administered by designated school personnel. Students are encouraged not to possess any non-prescription drugs. (Possession of illegal drugs is addressed in the School Board Policy on Drugs and Alcohol FBO.) NOTES FROM PARENTS REGARDING ABSENCES To be readmitted to school, a student shall bring a note from a parent or legal guardian stating the reason for the absence and the dates of the absence. Notes will be presented to the approp1iate staff member. If a note is not received on the day of the return, the student will be readmitted to class with an unexcused absence. PARENT-TEACHERA SSOCIATION Parents are encouraged to join and participate in Parent-Teacher Association activities. Elementary Parent-Teacher Association meetings are usually held on the second Thursday of each month. 14 PHYSICAL EDUCATION Each elementary student shall be required to participate in physical education activities unless a doctor's statement is on file in the principal's office recommending that the student be excused from this activity. Any student who has religious objections to certain activities in the physical education program will be allowed to substitute other activities. Religious objections must have supportive documentation. Upon written request from the parents, a student may be excused from physical education activities on a temporary basis due to illness or injury. PROMOTION/RETENTION Generally, students will progress according to their chronological ages. Retention must be substantiated by a student's records. The principal and teachers will confer with the parents regarding student retention. Decisions to promote or retain students will be made before the end of the school year. PUBLIC DISPLAY OF AFFECTION Public display of affection is considered inappropriate behavior. Failure to abide by this rule may result in disciplinary action. RELIGION IN SCHOOLS The Board respects the sincere religious beliefs of all students and staff members. The Board believes that teaching about religion, as it relates to a study of the historical development of civilization is appropriate. Moreover, it is proper for teachers to enumerate and emphasize the generally accepted moral and ethical principles of the different religions. Teachers shall not, however, evaluate, advocate or place values upon any particular religion or religious belief. No student shall be required to participate in programs or activities which are contrary to the tenets of his/her religion. Speakers who are affiliated with religious organizations shall be allowed to speak in schools only upon the approval of the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent's decision should be guided by the following considerations: The presentation is designed for all students who might attend the assembly or meeting. The presentation does not advocate the beliefs of any denomination, religious group or faith. The presentation does not encourage students to attend worship services or activities associated with specific denominations or beliefs. REPORTING STUDENT PROGRESS Report cards are issued to students at the end of each nine week grading period. In grades one through six, written interim reports will also be sent home to parents if a student's performance is below the grade of \"C.\" A grade is the summary of a student's performance during the entire 15 grading period. It is based on many things including class participation, completion of assignments, quality of work, test scores and using skills and concepts in new situations. The following grading scale will be used in grades one through six for academic subjects: A = 93%-100 %\nB = 83%-92%\nC = 70%-82%\nD = 60%-69%\nF =59% and below. Participation grades are given for art, music and physical education. Students are also graded on work habits and behavior. Kindergarten children receive a report card designed specifically for the kindergarten curriculum. Formal parent-teacher conferences are held after the first and third nine week grading periods. Parents receive the report cards at the conferences. If a parent does not attend a conference, the report card will be sent home with the student. Report cards for the second and fourth grading periods will be sent home after the grading periods end. Parents are encouraged to confer with teachers and administrators throughout the year concerning the progress of students. Appointments should be made through the school office. SAFE1Y REGULATIONS BICYCLES/MOTORCYCLES/OTHEVRE HICLES Students may ride bicycles to school. Motor vehicles are not allowed. Bicycle riders must: 1. Walk bicycles while on the school ground to minimize the possibility of accidents. 2. Observe the same traffic regulations required of automobile drivers. 3. Ride single on the bicycle. 4. Park in designated places and leave the area immediately. Bicycles may not be ridden during the day. 5. Skate boards and scooters should not be ridden on the school grounds. The school cannot be responsible for stolen bicycles\ntherefore, students are encouraged to use locks. SCHEDULES Assignments to classes are based on available data and are generally expected to be permanent. If errors or changes in student enrollment should occur, the school staff will approve appropriate changes. SCHOOL CLOSING IN INCLEMENT WEATHER Weather conditions sometimes force the cancellation or alternate scheduling of school. It is not always possible to provide in advance alternative plans and procedures for students to follow because of the varied circumstances of times and conditions that might arise. Therefore, the District administration is charged with the responsibility of making alternate plans, procedures and schedules as the weather conditions warrant and notifying students and parents through the means of broadcast and print media. The guiding principle will be the safety and welfare of the students. 16 SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INTERROGATION The District respects the rights of students' privacy and security against arbitrary invasion of their person or property. School officials do have the right, however, to search students and their property in the interest of the overall welfare of other students or when necessary to preserve order and discipline in the school. School authorities may conduct searches of student lockers, desks and automobiles when a reasonable cause exists to believe that stolen items or items prohibited by law or policy are contained in the area to be searched. School officials may seize illegal contraband, weapons or stolen property found in a search. The search of a student's person shall be conducted by a school official of the same sex and with an adult witness of the same sex present. Interrogations by law enforcement authorities shall be conducted in private with the school principal or designee present. Efforts shall be made to have a parent or guardian present. In the event a parent or guardian cannot be present within a reasonable length of time, law enforcement officials shall be permitted to proceed with questioning. SEASONAL PARTIES Seasonal parties are limited to two per year in the elementary schools. These are at Christmas and Valentine's Day. The Christmas party will be planned by the teachers and principal. The p1incipal and teachers may work with parents in planning the Valentine's Day party. Other parties are at the discretion of the principal. Food served to students must be prepared in a facility inspected by the State Health Department. SPECIAL EDUCATION A special education program is provided for handicapped students whose handicapping conditions result in educational deficits. Special education services are available for: l. Speech/Language handicapped 2. Learning disabled 3. Mentally retarded 4. Orthopedically handicapped 5. Emotionally disturbed 6. Severely/profoundly handicapped 7. Hearing or visually impaired 8. Other health impaired Referral for consideration to receive special education services may be made to the principal by teachers, administrators, parents, counselors and students. The decision for appropriate placement is made after all available data are reviewed by an evaluation/programming committee and appropriate school personnel. STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS School attendance zones for elementary, middle school and high school students shall be established in accordance with the Federal Court ordered desegregation plan. Students shall attend the schools as assigned by the District. 17 If a family moves from one attendance zone to another during the final nine weeks of school, the students may, at the option of the parent or guardian, elect to complete the school year in either of the two zones. Students who establish residence in another school district may, at the option of the parents, continue enrollment in a North Little Rock school if the change in residence occurs within the final nine weeks of school. STUDENT BEHAVIOR - PROHIBITED CONDUCT Appropriate learning opportunities can be afforded students only in an environment that is free from conflict, distraction, intimidation and various other influences that result from student misbehavior. Certain students' actions are beyond the definition of acceptable student behavior and are, therefore, prohibited in school and while traveling to and from school. Prohibited conduct may include, but is not limited to the following: 1. Disregard of directions or commands of teachers, administrators, bus drivers or other authorized school personnel. 2. Disruption and/or interference with the normal and orderly conduct of school and school-sponsored activities. 3. Behavior that involves indecent and/or immoral acts. 4. Wagering or any form of gambling. 5. Physical abuse or assault to a school employee, other student or any other individual. 6. Possession of a knife, razor, ice pick, explosive, pistol, rifle, shotgun, pellet gun or any other object that can be considered a weapon or dangerous instrument. 7. Using, offering for sale, or selling alcoholic beverages, any narcotic drug as defined by Arkansas law, or what the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by the district policy on drugs and alcohol. 8. Destruction of or the attempt to destroy school property. 9. Stealing or the attempt to steal school property or the property belong-ing to another individual. 10. Cheating or copying the work of another student. 11. Failure to abide by attendance rules. 12. Use of profanity, vulgar language or obscene language. 13. Committing extortion, coercion, blackmail or forcing another person to act through the use of force or threat of force. 14. Engaging in verbal abuse such as name-calling, ethnic or racial slurs or using derogatory statements to other students, school personnel or other individuals. 15. Hazing. Hazing includes any willful act done by a student, either individually or with others, to another student for the purpose of subjecting the other student to indignity, humiliation, intimidation, physical abuse or threats of abuse, social or other ostracism, shame or disgrace. 16. Students shall not belong to or participate in secret societies of any kind. Gangs or similar groups, whether organized in the community or in other settings are prohibited on school grounds or at any school sponsored activity. Clothing, outer wear, pins, symbols or insignia of such organizations shall not be worn to school or at any school-related activity. The School District reserves the right to establish rules in addition to those 18 appearing in this policy and to punish those who are guilty of their violation. Punishment may include detention study hall, suspension and expulsion. Any of these disciplinary actions may occur on the first offense or any subsequent offense depending upon the nature of the situation and the age of the student involved in the situation. The student shall be informed of the offense and shall be afforded an opportunity to explain the actions before disciplinary action is taken. STUDENT DRESS AND GROOMING The general climate of any school is reflected by the dress, grooming and manners of the students\ntherefore, students are expected to wear appropriate clothing and to present a neat appearance at all times. Students, with the help and approval of parents, know what is acceptable attire for school activities\nmoderation in type and style should be the basic standard. The following guidelines should be followed: 1. Grooming or dress which could cause blocked vision or restricted movement is discouraged, as well as dress styles that create or are likely to create a disruption of classroom order. No hats or sunglasses will be allowed to be worn in the building. 2. Clothing which displays profanity, nudity or suggestive comments or clothing that is supportive of illegal chemicals, tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, drug paraphernalia, etc. will not be tolerated. 3. Clothing or shoes made of materials or of such structure that cause damage to school facilities will not be permitted. 4. During warm weather, students will be permitted to wear shorts\nhowever, the appearance of students should not be disruptive to the educational atmosphere of the school. 5. For health and safety reasons, students must wear shoes at school at all times. 6. Clothing shall be clean and appropriate for school wear. Articles of dress which are distracting or which fail to conform to reasonable rules of decency shall not be worn. If, in the judgement of the administration, a student's attire is a health hazard or a distraction to the educational atmosphere of the school, the student will be asked to go home and make proper adjustments. Disciplinary action may occur if grooming or dress violations continue. STUDENT INSURANCE An accident insurance policy is offered to all students at the beginning of the school year on a voluntary basis. Parents may choose school day coverage or twenty-four (24) hour coverage. Expenses above and beyond either policy covered by the student accident insurance will be assumed by the parents. STUDENT RECORDS Authorized school personnel shall have access to students' records. The parent or legal guardian shall have access to his child's records upon written request to the principal. If a student is 18 years old or older, he/she has the right to determine who, outside of the school system, may have access to his/her records. 19 A student's records may be released to other school systems upon the written request of the parent or guardian, or student if he/she is 18 years old or older. A student's records may also be released to other school systems upon their request, provided that notification is given to the parent or legal guardian, or student if he/she is 18 years old or older. Parents have the right to request that the school withdraw material from a student's record. Refusal by the school entitles the parent to a hearing to determine if material is accurate and appropriate. If at the hearing, material is ruled to be accurate, material remains in the file, but parents may prepare a statement to be placed with the material stating their objection. The statement is to be made available with objectional material whenever access is permitted. Directory information may be made available for noncommercial uses by the school principal without the prior consent of the parent. However, at the beginning of each school year, the parent may request that all or part of such information not be made available. Directory information shall be defined as:  Student's name  Activity participation  Address  Height and weight, if member of  Phone number athletic team  Parent's name  Dates of attendance  Grade level  Honors and awards received  School(s) attended SUPPLIES Parents are responsible for furnishing school supplies. Basic supplies are available for purchase at the school. SUSPENSION FROM SCHOOL The Board of Education recognizes that many alternatives are necessary to a workable system for maintaining good student conduct. Among those alternatives is student suspension. The Board views student suspension as a serious matter and believes that all other less severe measures should be tried before students are excluded from the regular school experience. The school principal is authorized to suspend a student from class attendance for disciplinary reasons for a period of time not to exceed ten school days, including the day upon which the suspension is imposed. The suspension may be off-campus or may be to the on-campus student assignment class. A student may be suspended if he/she: 1. Violates school policies, rules or regulations. 2. Is guilty of conduct which substantially interferes with the maintenance of essential school discipline. 3. Is guilty of conduct which, in the judgement of school administrators, warrants the reasonable belief that substantial disruption of school operations wilJ likely result. 4. If guilty of incorrigible conduct, including insubordination, disorderliness, and defiant and hostile acts\ntruancy or cutting class\nfighting or other hostile behavior\ndestruction of school property\nact involving moral turpitude\nor violation of parking regulations. School officials shall determine whether the alleged misconduct, if proven, would warrant a suspension from classes, and then shall proceed as follows: 20 1. The student shall be advised of the exact charges against him/her. 2. If the charges are denied, the evidence shall be explained and the student given the opportunity to present his/her facts or opinions. 3. If the school official finds the student guilty of the misconduct, a suspension may be imposed. 4. If possible, prior to the suspension, the custodial parent or guardian will be notified of the reason for the suspension, its duration, and the manner in which the student may be readmitted to class. If the suspension results from an incident with a teacher and if the teacher requests a conference, the student will not be readmitted to classes until a conference with the custodial parent or guardian has been scheduled by a building administrator. Every effort will be made to schedule the conference when the teacher is available. Availability would be defined,\"before/after school and during the teacher's preparation period.\" 5. On the day the suspension is imposed, a written notice of suspension will be mailed to the parent or guardian at the address shown on the school records of the student. Absence from school due to off-campus suspension shall be treated as an unexcused absence. TARDIES Promptness to class is necessary in order to maximize learning opportunities for all students. Students are, therefore, expected to be in class and ready for instruction at the appropriate time. Principals shall implement suitable discipline procedures to encourage promptness in class attendance. TELEPHONES School telephones are for school business only. Students will be called to the phone only in case of emergencies. Important messages will be delivered by office personnel. Parents desiring to talk with teachers should call the office and leave a phone number. The calls will be returned at a convenient time. When pay phones are available, use will be regulated by building rules. TESTING PROGRAM Standardized tests are administered in grades one through six. In accordance with state regulations, minimum performance tests are administered to students in grades three and six . TEXTBOOKS The North Little Rock School District furnishes textbooks to all students and provides access to library books and other media materials. Loss or destruction of books or other media materials will result in payment to the school district. 21 TOBACCO AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS Students shall not be permitted to have tobacco products (including matches and lighters) in their possession. This restriction applies to students at school, on school grounds, at bus stops, on school buses, and/or any school-sponsored event during or after regular school hours. TRANSFERS The students of the North Little Rock School District will attend school according to assigned residence zones or as assigned under the Federal Court-ordered desegregation plan. If a family moves from one attendance zone to another during the final nine weeks of school, the student may, at the option of the parent or guardian, elect to complete the school year in either of the two zones. VISITORS All visitors are required to register with office personnel. Classroom visitations should be arranged in advance through the principal's office. Student visitors in the classroom are strongly discouraged and should be permitted only after careful consideration by the building principal. WEAPONS AND DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS No student shall possess, handle, or transmit any object that can reasonably be considered a weapon: l. On the school grounds during, before, or after school, 2. On the school grounds at any other time when the school is being used by a school group, or 3. Off the school grounds at any school bus stop or at any school activity, function, or event. A weapon is defined as a firearm, knife, explosive device, or any other instrument or device capable of causing bodily harm. Expulsion from school may result and/or criminal charges may be filed against any student who has possession of a weapon as described herein. YEARBOOK No commercially prepared yearbook shall be produced at the elementary school level. 22\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eNorth Little Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_437","title":"Enrollment","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/2006"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/437"],"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\nDate: From: May 18, 1993 Alm Brown To: Marie Parker MEMORANDUM Subject: McClellans Enrollment for 1993-94 Im concerned about reports Ive received regarding student assignments to McClellan. Below are some comments and information to set the context of my concerns about McClellan and the crucial pre-school recruitment and registration period. They are followed by some specific questions about enrollment, magnet seats, parent complaints, desegregation transfers, and recruitment. As you know, McClellans white enrollment has been steadily declining for a number of years. Since the 1989-90 academic year, the schools black enrollment has been higher than any other LRSD high school. The McClellan community school program and business/communications magnet program are very well-thought-out (and expensive) attempts to improve the schools racial balance. The district has invested considerable resources in the McClellan specialties and, with proper management and intensive recruitment, these programs hold great promise for improving desegregation at McClellan. The chart below depicts McClellans annual enrollment since 1988-89. The figures for 1993-94 reflect the schools enrollment according to information available May 10, 1993: 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Black White Total % Black 615 634 613 640 638 576 447 390 340 328 1,191 52% 1,081 59% 1,003 61% 980 65% 966 66% (710) (230) (940) (76%) The following provision regarding desegregation transfers appears at page 140 of the LRSD Desegregation Plan: Deseg^gation Transfers 1. Junior and senior high school students may transfer to another school as long as the reassignment allows both the sending and receiving school to comply with the desegregation requirement and a seat is available... The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for a desegregation transfer. The desegregation requirement in secondary schools is that all schools will remain within a range of 12-1/2 percent above to 25 percent below the district-wide percentage of black students at each organizational level (i.e., high school and junior high school). Secondary enrollment for the 1992-93 school year determined that the acceptable maximum for a desegregation transfer on the senior high level was 675% black. Please answer the attached questions as soon as possible. If youd like to arrange a time for us to talk over these items. Ill be happy to meet with you. Thanks so much for your help. cc: Mac Bernd1. March enrollment On March 10, 1993, school assignment letters were mailed to parents. At that time, what was McClellans total enrollment (excluding kindergarten)? What was the black percentage of that number? How many of that number were 10th, 11th, and 12th graders? How many of the children in each grade were black and what percentage of each grades enrollment did that number represent? What were the comparable enrollment figures at the other LRSD high schools at that time? 2. Current enrollment What is the current enrollment of McClellan (excluding kindergarten)? What is the black percentage of that number? How many of them are 10th, 11th, and 12th graders? How many of the children in each grade are black and what percentage of each grades enrollment does that number represent? Currently, what are the comparable enrollment figures at the other LRSD high schools? 3. Magnet seats and enrollment What is the number of total magnet seats at McClellan by grade level and race? During 1992-93, how many of those seats were filled (by grade level and race)? By grade level and race, how many of the magnet seats are currently filled? 4. Parent complaints Some parents have told ODM that, according to Student Assignment, there are presently no McClellan magnet seats available and their children would have to be put on a waiting list. Is this information correct? One parent complained that someone in the LRSD Student Assignment Office discouraged him from enrolling his child at McClellan. What could account for this parents impression? 5. Desegregation transfers By grade and by race, how many desegregation transfers have been permitted from McClellan so far during the current pre-school registration period? To which schools were these transfers made? What criteria are being use to grant desegregation transfers from McClellan? 6. Recruitment What recruitment efforts have been made this year to recruit white students to McClellan? What recruitment efforts are still to be implemented to increase white enrollment at McClellan? When are these efforts scheduled?ALtS-27-1993 10:31 LRSD 501 324 2146 P.001 Vj KCg0E 5 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324:2146 _ DATC TO FROM SENDERS PHONE # -U SUBJECT SPECIAL INSIKUCnONS Number of Pages (include cover page)_z^ Fax Phone Number Speed DialAUG-27-1993 10:31 LRSD 501 324 2146 P.002 To\nFrom\nRe\nDate\n5\u0026lt;^ CKCBBBi Little Rock School District Ms. Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Sterling ingram^^irector - Planning, Research and Evaluation Request for Student Enrollment August 27, 1993 On Friday, August 27, 1993, you to request the third (3rd) day Rock School District. I am : I am a .m. called at approximately 9:20_ enrollment figures for the Little faxing that information to you in response to your request. Thanks. cc: Estelle Matthis Jerry L. MaloneftUG-27-1993 10:52 LRSD 501 !4 2146 P.003 IJrSDS^ooI Checklist Hiflh School* [5] Grode* 10-12 ---------------------- TdZL---------------- 1500 Pork, 72202 - 376-4751__________ -----77^^--------- .5201 Dovid O-\"0odd, 72210 - 224-66OT ------------------------------------------ 6700 \"H\", 72205 - 661-9000 _ McClellan  nior  9417 Geyer Springs, 72209  565-0314 Pnrkvifiw Fine Arts Mognet  Junious Bobbs  2501 Borrow, 72204 - 225-6440 V,ntioHol-Tchnkt\u0026gt;l Center [f] Grode* 10-H i-ii^kg Metropolitan - Df\u0026gt; Doyl^ Diitohunty - 7701 Scott Hamilton, 72209 - 565-8465 lueiof High S\u0026lt;hool7] Grode* 7-9* Cloverdole - Ounbor - _ Forest Heights - Henderson - Mobelvale - . 6300 Hinkson Rd.. 72209  565.8426 1100 Wright Ave., 72206 - 375-5574 - 5901 Evergreen, 72205 - 66a-3391 _____. 401 Borrow Rd., 72205 - 225-3358 10811 ,V\\abelvaleW^^________________ PG Box 187, Mobelvale,_72103 - 455-2413--------------- . -3793123 Mann MognTT, - 1000  2 ? Puloski Height?: _ 401 N- ------------------------ 4n..HM^t. - 3301 S.Bryont, 72204 - 565-4416 Elementory Sthool* [37] Grode* K-6 6900 Pecan Rood, 72206  490-1582 Badgett - Mory Golston - ______ ftnU - levcnno Wilson - 6501 W. 32nd, 72204  565-6621 -------------------------- . 3623 Rnseline Rd., 72209 - 565-5589 Boseline - Booker Arts Magnet - Brady -  2016 Sorbet, 72206 - 376-3319 - 7915 W. Morkhom, 72205 - 225-1315 __ Carver Mognet School - Mery Guinn - 800 Apperson, 72202 - 374-3783 (2hicot - Otis Preslor - 11100 Chicot Rd.,  PO Sox 405, Mobelvoie, 72103 - 563-2554______ -  Cloverdol?^ _ - ^SOO Hinkson Rd., 72209 - 565-0986 Dodd - 6423 Stcgecocch Rd., 72204 - 455-3110------------: F\ni7~Pa?k~--------------- . 616 N. Horrison, 72205 - 666-0359 \" 16QQ N. Tyler, 72207 - 666-5415 _ Forest Park - Virginia Ashley -, Franklin * - 1701 S. Harrison, 72204  666-0348 7ulbright . Mac Huffmon - 300 Pleosont Volley Dr., 72212 - 22^gS Gorlond - __________ Geyer Springs - Eleanor Cox . 3615 W. 25th, 72204 - 666-9436 o\u0026gt; T 21^ A-3^ 321 :-V5g\u0026gt; -if! 1 }')(\nGibbs Mognet - Donno Do vis  ' \u0026lt;* /\\ rs e I 5240 Mobelvoie Pike, 72209 - 565-0184 1115 W. 16lh. 72202 - 372-0251 20 i \"1 Z-l rrswii*??' ^**\u0026gt;*4?*' ih. i-n i22- 1 ^7nkn^l, 2-7-i^v^ gX ' ' I , QMri 5 i 71 130 12'2 203- C? Id 511 iJ-L ZU-O. i~i5 no- 3 '' Up,  S' i^^Sl ! I ' 7.fc 1,2^ i i . m I h 5ZLm+.^ L , I L-x-n l4- \\ SJJ342iA 2^2! i 2*^7! '-1-^ I m 1 I   I 11^ 2OS Ith Jefferson - King - Mobelvale - . 3001 S. Puloski, 72206 - 376-3629 _________ . 2600 N. McKinley, 72207 - 663-9472 4800 W. 26th, 72204 - 663-6397  ,r . 9401 Mobelvoie Cut-off_____ PO Box 207, Mobelvale, 72103 - 455-2227 _______________ McDermott- ~ 1200 Reservoir Rd., 72207 - 225^^ M,,rlnwrl\nff - Jerry Worm '- 25 Sheraton Or., 72209 - 563-032 Mitcheir'  P41Q aottery. 72206 - 375-6931 _ Otter Creek - 16000 Otter Creek Pkwy., 72209 - 455-3320 Elementary SchoeU  l\u0026lt;antinu\u0026lt;il an back) inSi 201 3^ n 3Z S3: mi 275 lX:3iZ W i 4^:^3' mo ^tlXiS 22,61/ ll 15212, x,o\\z- uMzV (ii=l\u0026gt;7^ S(L) 3^^ CM- I a^3 u/iuif 1 6pW^ 1^17Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring Based upon information furnished by the LRSD Little Rock School District Enrollment Comparison Oct 1 1992 vs Sept 71993 Day after Labor Day 1 School Principal 1 2 5 8 12 Central High Hall High______________ Parkview High__________ Fair High McClellan Community High Totals for High Schools 1 1 1 1 1 Rudolph Howard Vic Anderson Junious Babbs Al Niven Jodie Carter Black 92-93 1133 560 485 562 638 3378 White 92-93 761 390 358 310 312 2131 Other 92-93 56 11 14 ___W 123 Total 92-93 1950 976 854 886 966 5632 edacity Black 93-94 1070 544 469 580 641 3304 White 93-94 630 321 297 282 243 1773 Other 93-94 43 34 20 8 7 112 Total 93-94 1743 899 786 870 891 5189 Black Diff -63 -16 __ 18 3 -74 White Diff -131 -69 -61 -28 -69 -358 Other Diff -13 8 9 -6 -9 -11 Total Diff -207 -77 -68 -16 -75 -443 Total % Diff -10.62% -7.89% -7.96% -1.81% -7.76% -7.87% 92 Black Percent 58.10% 57.38% 56.79% 63.43% 66.05% 59.98% 93 Black Percent 61.39% 60.51% 59.67% 66.67% 71.94% 63.67% Percent Diff 3.29% 3.13% 2.88% 3.24% 5.90% 3.69% 3 7 9 10 11 13 15 16 Mann Jr. High Dunbar Jr High Forest Heights Pulaski Hts. Jr High Southwest Jr High Henderson Jr High Cloverdale Jr. High Mablevale Jr. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Marian Lacey Nancy Volson Richard Maple Ralph Hoffman Charity Smith Clell Watts Gayle Bradford 505 410 554 452 Totals for Junior High Schools 523 685 571 438 4138 327 283 319 166 215 192 226 1948 17 12 13 3 6 14 12 3 80 849 705 787 774 695 914 775 667 6166 479 438 542 432 507 678 528 339 3943 336 243 187 357 145 199 122 169 1758 18 9 14 6 10 25 7 6 95 833 690 743 795 662 902 657 514 5796 -26 28 -12 -20 -16 -7 -43 -99 -195 9 -40 ~-33 38 -21 -16 -70 -57 -190 1 -3 1 3 4 11 -5 3 15 -16 -15 -44 21 -33 -12 -118 -153 -370 -1.88% -2.13% -5.59% 2.71% -4.75% -1.31% I -15.23% -22.94% -6.00% 59.48% 58.16% 70.39% 58.40% 75.25% 74.95% 73.68% 65.67% 67.11% 57.50% 63.48% 72.95% 54.34% 76.59% 75.17% 80.37% 65.95% 68.03% -1.98% 5.32% 2.55% -4.06% 1.33% 0.22% 6.69% 0.29% 0.92% 19 17 22 6 18 21 28 yr 32 23 24 25 48 26 37 27 49 30 35 46 20 Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King Mablevale McDermott 3 3 3 6 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 6 4 3 5 3 3 Mary Golston Levanna Wilson Mary Jane Cheatham Dr. Cheryl Simmons Mary Menking Mary Guinn________ Otis Presler Frederick Fields Barbara Means Virginia Ashley Franklin Davis Mac Huffman Robert Brown Eleanor Cox Donna Davis Stan Strauss Francis Cawthon Sadie Mitchell Julie Davenport Mike Oliver 154 248 262 345 275 329 350 291 183 192 198 352 225 233 177 191 182 204 48 62 74 269 111 262 177 71 121 49 242 50 296 17 105 134 5 273 0 11 3 7 12 7 8 4 0 2 4 9 9 6 0 11 0 6 202 321 339 621 398 598 535 366 304 243 444 411 530 256 282 336 187 483 278 275 219 220 3 14 500 509 257 401 390 656 467 613 558 492 328 351 376 544 540 346 328 353 0 492 7M 515 517 126 222 262 324 255 319 352 304 177 198 197 293 244 182 182 168 a 206 371 310 251 52 62 71 262 131 257 136 78 94 67 254 34 269 3 ^80 118 0 280 202 172 237 0 12 6 11 14 7 5 7 5 5 3 6 17 21 4 g 0 4 7 3 15 178 296 339 597 400 583 493 389 276 270 454 333 530 206 266 295 ~0 490 580 485 503 -28 -26 0 -21 -20 -10 2 13 -6 6 -1 -59 19 -51 5 -23 -182 2 371 32 -24 4 0 -3 -7 20 -5 -41 7 -27 18 12 -16 -27 -14 -25 -16 T 7 202 -47 17 0 1 3 4 2 0 -3 3 5 3 -1 -3 8 15 4 -2 0 -2 7 0 1 -24 -25 0 -24 2 -15 -42 23 -28 27 10 -78 0 -50 -16 -41 -187 7 580 -15 -6 -11.88% -7.79% 0.00% -3.86% 0.50% -2.51% -7.85% 6.28% -9.21% 11.11% 2.25% -18.98% 0.00% -19.53% -5.67% -12.20% -100.00% 1.45% 76.24%, 77.26% 77.29% 55.56% 69.10% 55.02% 65.42% 79.51% 60.20% 79.01% 44.59% 85.64% 42.45% 91.02% 62.77% 56.85% 97.33% 42.24% 70 79% 75.00% 77.29% 54.27% 63.75% 54.72% 71.40% 78.15% 64.13% 73.33% 43.39% 67.99% 46.04% 88.35% 68.42% 56.95% -5.45% -2.26% 0.00% -1.28% -5.35% -0.30% 5.98% -1.36% 3.93% -5.68% -1.20% 2.34% 3.58% -2.67% 5.66% 0.10% -3.00% -1.18% 55.60% 54.03% 42.04% 63.97% 63.92% 49.90% -0.20% 8.32% -4.13%Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring Based upon information furnished by the LRSD Little Rock School District Enrollment Comparison Oct 1 1992 vs Sept 71993 Day after Labor Day 2 School Principal 33 34 50 38 39 36 40 41 47 51 42 52 29 43 44 45 Meadowdiff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hts. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 3j 4 3 s' 4 4 ? 4 3 3 5 3 3 6 3 3 Jerry Worm Samuel Branch Carolyn Teeter Lillie Carter Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Lionel Ward Lonnie Dean La Dell Looper Willie Morris Karen Buchanan Teresa Courtney Totals for Elementary Schools Dr. Ed Jackson Gwen Ziegler Pat Higgenbotham Black 92-93 292 232 143 198 239 250 277 202 238 347 483 332 209 275 265 147 9073 White 92-93 147 28 203 173 9 104 74 7 286 147 332 117 124 218 90 83 4947 Other 92-93 1 4 7 8 1 7 ___10 0 17 6 ____ 2 2 9 0 4 201 Total 92-93 440 264 353 379 249 361 361 209 541 500 822 451 335 502 355 234 14221 Capacity 442 346 351 351 346 425 467 298 492 492 939 492 328 517 394 324 16256 Black 93-94 294 205 130 192 182 237 233 139 242 322 450 365 209 240 259 143 8785 White 93-94 134 18 195 199 4 93 68 3 290 107 261 86 117 211 89 82 4816 Other 93-94 1 2 6 11 1 8 14 1 26 6 12 0 3 10 4 5 271 Total 93-94 429 225 331 402 187 338 315 143 558 435 723 451 329 461 352 230 13872 Black Diff 2 -27 -13 -6 -57 -13 -44 -63 -25 -33 33 0 -35 -6 -4 -288 White Diff -13 -10 -8 26 -5 -11 -6 -4 4 -40 -71 -31 -7 -7 -1 -1 -131 Other Diff 0 -2 -1 3 0 1 4 1 9 ____0 5 -2 1 T 4 1 70 Total Diff -11 -39 -22 23 -62 -23 -46 -66 17 -65 -99 0 ___ -41 -3 -4 -349 Total % Diff -2.50% -14.77% -6.23% 6.07% -24.90% -6.37% -12.74% -31.58% 3.14% -13.00% -12.04% 0.00% -1.79% -8.17% -0.85% -1.71% -2.45% 92 Black Percent 66.36% 87.88%, 40.51% 52.24% 95.98% 69.25% 76.73% 96.65% 43.99% 69.40% 58.76% 73.61% 62.39% 54.78% 74.65% 62.82% 63.80% 93 Black Percent 68.53% 91.11% 39.27% 47.76% 97.33% 70.12% 73.97% 97.20% 43.37% 74.02% 62.24% 80.93% 63.53% 52.06% 73.58% 62.17% 63.33% Percent Diff 2.17% 3.23% -1.23% -4.48% 1.34% 0.87% -2.76% 0.55% -0.62% 4.62% 3.48% 7.32% 1.14% -2.72% -1.07% -0.65% -0.47% Totals for the School District 16589 9026 404 26019 16032 8347 478 24857 -557 -679 74 -1162 -4.47% 63.76% 64.50% 0.74%fl d ur FEB 19 1993 Offica of Cese^\nn f.' FORMULA FOR CALCULATING ACCEPTABLE RACIAL RANGE 1993-94 Basis of calculations\nOctober 1, 1992 enrollment Elementary: Enrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Total 14,003 2,057 Area School Enrl. 11,946 Black 3994 1140 7854 %Black 64 55.42 65.75 65.75 X .125 8.22 73.97 74.00% Maximum Black % 40.00% Minimum Black % (Set by Plan) Junior High: Enrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Area School Enrl. 6166 849 5317 4138 505 3633 67 59.48 68.33 68.33 X .125 8.54 76.87 76.75% Maximum Black % 68.33 X .25 = 17.08 51.25% Minimum Black % Senior High: Enrollment Less Magnet Enrl. Area School Enrl. 5632 871 4761 3378 501 2877 60 57.52 60.43 60.43 X .125 7.55 67.98 68.00% Maximum Black % 60.43 X .25 15.11 45.32 45.50% Minimum Black %School Enrollment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area Badgel Elem Bale Elem Baseline Elem Booker Elem Brady Elem Carver Elem Ghicol Elem Cloverdale Dodd Elem Fair Park Elem Forest Park Franklin Elem Fulbright Elem Garland Elem Geyer Springs Gibbs Elem Ish Elem Jefferson Elem King Elem Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitdieft Elem Otter Creek Pul Heights Rightsell Elem 189 303 343 595 397 595 609 386 292 263 458 345 520 205 288 299 504 553 488 509 434 230 341 398 189 70 74 77 54 33 55 70 79 65 76 44 87 45 88 72 57 42 65 64 51 71 93 41 48 97 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 Incentive Magnet Inter- diSt Magnet Inter- dist Magnet Prog 4-Year- Olds Prog X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Annexed X X X X X X X X Comments Closed after the 1992-93 school year. Qpbri^ frit the 1993^94 sishSchool Enrollment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area Incentive Magnet Inter- dist Magnet Inter- dist Magnet Prog 4-Year- Olds Prog Annexed Comments Rockefeller 340 71 X X X X An incentive school with an early childhood magnet program serving children beginning a 6-weeks old Romine Elem 334 74 X X Stephens Bern Terry Elem Waketieid Elem Washington Watson Efem Western Hills Williams Etem Wilson Elem Woodruff Elem Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Jr. Forest Heights Henderson Jr. Mabelvate Jr. Mann Jr. Pulaski Heights Southwest Jr. Central High Fair High HallMigh McClellan High Parkview High High Sch Kind 145 561 447 721 442 332 472 354 236 701 701 788 915 654 851 790 679 1,829 899 958 866 768 127 97 43 7S 63 80 65 74 62 81 63 73 74 69 58 65 77 64 65 61 75 58 87 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X An area school with a magnet program. X X X X X X X X X X X X X An area school with: a magnet program. An area school with a magnet program. All high schools house 1 or 2 kindergarten classes.School Acceptable Balance Otter Creek Jefferson Terry Forest Park Fulbright Pulaski Hts. McDermott Out of Balance Woodruff Mablevale Dodd Western Hills Brady Meadowcliff Chicot Badgett Geyer Springs Wilson Wakefield Bale Fair Park Baseline Watson Cloverdale Incentive Franklin Garland Mitchell Stephens Rightsell Rockefeller Interdistrict Washington King Romine Magnet Booker Williams Carver Gibbs LRSD Enrollment Showing Available Seats and Excess Capacity Principal Carolyn Teeter Francis Cawthon La Dell Looper Virginia Ashley Mac Huffman Lillie Carter Mike Oliver Pat Higgenbotham Julie Davenport Mary Menking Jerry Worm Otis Presler Mary Golston Eleanor Cox Gwen Ziegler Willie Morris Levanna Wilson Barbara Means Mary Jane Cheatha Teresa Courtney Frederick Fields Franklin Davis Robert Brown Samuel Branch Lonnie Dean Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Karen Buchanan Sadie Mitchell Lionel Ward Capacity Black Other Total 93-94 Black Available Dr. Cheryl Simmons Dr. Ed Jackson Mary Guinn Donna Davis Totals for Elementary Schools Below Capacity Seats \u0026amp; Percent of Capacity BOBSSPEC.XLS 93-94 93-94 93-94 Percent Seats 351 492 492 376 540 351 517 141 213 243 200 233 190 262 200 291 318 258 287 208 247 3119 1482 1809 341 504 561 458 520 398 509 3291 41.35% 42.26% 43.32% 43.67% 44.81% 47.74% 51.47% 45.03% 10 -12 -69 -82 20 -47 8 -172 324 515 328 328 467 442 558 257 328 394 492 401 351 390 492 492 147 311 189 215 265 306 346 124 208 263 337 216 200 247 353 277 89 177 103 117 124 128 144 49 80 91 110 69 63 65 89 69 6559 4004 1567 236 488 292 332 389 434 490 173 288 354 447 285 263 312 442 346 5571 62.29% 63.73% 64.73% 64.76% 68.12% 70.51% 70.61% 71.68% 72.22% 74.29% 75.39% 75.79% 76.05% 79.17% 79.86% 80.06% 71.87% 88 27 36 -4 78 8 68 84 40 40 45 116 88 78 50 146 988 544 346 346 298 346 425 300 181 215 141 184 240 2305 1261 939 728 487 1667 451 357 247 808 660 515 613 351 321 257 325 170 2139 1073 45 24 15 4 5 100 193 270 196 87 466 274 215 270 129 888 345 205 230 145 189 340 1454 721 553 334 1274 595 472 595 299 1961 15789 8628 4923 13551 2238 86% 86.96% 88.29% 93.48% 97.24% 97.35% 70.59% 86.73% 62.55% 64.56% 73.95% 63.42% 53.95% 54.45% 54.62% 56.86% 54.72% 63.67% 199 141 116 153 157 85 851 218 175 153 546 65 43 18 52 178 2238Date: May 17, 1993 From: Bob \u0026amp; Polly MEMORANDUM To: Subject: Ann McClellans Enrollment for 1993-94 Below are the highlights of a telephone conversation between Polly and Mattie Ruth Tipton, McClellans registrar, on May 17,1993 about McClellans 1993-94 enrollment and the loss of 109 students. On March 11, one day after all assignments had been made and letters mailed to parents, Mattie Ruth pulled up on the terminal McClellans enrollment: 1,029 students (not including kindergarten students) 75.1% total black population 427 tenth graders 336 black 91 white 78.7% black 213% white All other high schools were eight to ten percentage points higher than McClellans black percentage. On April 23, Mattie Ruth pulled up on the terminal McClellans enrollment: 929 students (not including kindergarten students) 75.4% total black population 336 tenth graders 268 black 68 white 79.8% black 203% white McClellan had lost 100 students, 91 of which were tenth graders, between March 11 and April 23. Mattie Ruth and Mr. Carter met with Marie Parker on the 23rd to find out why McClellan had lost so many tenth graders. Reason given: student assignment had \"worked the deseg transfers\".On May 10, Mattie Ruth pulled up on the terminal McClellans enrollment: 920 students 755% total black population No tenth graders transferred 9 eleventh and twelfth graders transferred out 5 black 4 white This information was given to Marie Parker during a meeting on April 23, Dr. Bernd during a meeting on May 10, and the Biracial Monitoring Team last week during a monitoring visit. Both Mattie Ruth and Mr. Carter attended the meetings with Marie Parker and Dr. Bernd. Reported incidents: Dr. Stanford from UALR wanted to enroll a child in McClellan. At the Student Assignment Office, Dr. Stanford was discouraged about enrolling in McClellan: no magnet seats, lives in Central attendance zone, really does not want to send child to McClellan. Enrolled at Central Another person wanting a McClellan assignment was told by the Student Assignment Office they would have to be put on a waiting list. Enrolled in another district high school. A tenth grader wanted to be assigned to Fair where her boyfriend attended. She received a deseg transfer to Fair. A parent was dissatisfied with the McClellan baseball coach. Student Assignment granted a deseg transfer. McClellan has a 100% black satellite attendance zone. We requested and Bob picked up from Mattie Ruth the attached copies of the enrollment print-out for the above dates.General Information: McClellans Enrollment 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Black White Total % Black 615 576 1,191 52% 634 447 1,081 59% 613 390 1,003 61% 640 340 980 65% 638 328 966 66% 710 230 940 76% Desegregation Transfers 1. Junior and senior high school students may transfer to another school as long as the reassignment allows both the sending and receiving school to comply with the desegregation requirement and a seat is available... The minimum and maximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for a desegregation transfer. The desegregation requirement tn secondary schools is that all schools will remain within a range of 12-1/2 percent above to 25 percent below the district-wide percentage of black students at each organizational level (i.e., high school and junior high school). Desegregation Plan, page 140 LRSD For the 1992-93 school year, the acceptable maximum for a desegregation transfer on the senior high level was 6750% black. Questions: With McClellans black enrollment, why were deseg transfers permitted after March 11? According to our information, McClellans magnet program has never been full. Why were parents told either there were no seats or they would have to be put on a waiting list? Why are personnel in the LRSD Student Assignment Office discouraging parents to enroll their children at McClellan? What recruitment efforts have been made this year to recruit white students to McClellan? Why did not a \"red flag\" appear in student assignment when McClellans black enrollment increased 10 percentage points since last school year? How does LRSD plan to correct the increasing black enrollment at McClellan? Why can parents so easily get deseg transfers from McClellan?/TA Po// Little Rock School District September 3, 1993 RECEiVEO SEP 7 1993 To\nMrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor From: ,stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Subject: Office of Desegrcgaiion i. aing Enrollment Figures for Romine and Washington Interdistrict Schools Per your request, the following information is provided by the District's Student Assignment Office: INTRADISTRICT TRANSFERS - 1992-93 School: Romine Interdistrict Elementary School Students: Black 144 White 59 Total Enrollment 203 School: Washington Elementary Interdistrict School Students: Black 176 White 186 Total Enrollment 362 We will make I regret the delay in responding to your request. an extra effort to be more timely. Please call if additional information is needed. EM:nr 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-200009/.08/93 15:08 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 001/004 ( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE: TO: \u0026lt;3 . FROM: SENDER'S PHONE#: SUBJECT: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Number of Pages (include cover page . Speed Dial _________ Fax Phone Number ^7/ - C\u0026gt; I CiC\u0026gt; 09/08/93 15:09 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 0002/004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date\nSeptember 8, 1993 To: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor From: Sterling Ingramf^Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Enrollment Data Attached you will find the eleventh day enrollment data, as requested. Official October 1, 1993 information will be forwarded as soon as the report is completed. If additional information is needed, please let me know. bjgt 09-08-93 13:09 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst s\u0026gt;ep ODM 08,93 0003-004 11:06 Nc ,002 P .02 r LRSD School Checklist , niff High SehooU [SI Grade, 10^ 12 _r_ar^l - Everett Hawks - 1500 Pork, 72202'- 376-475 -\n:A12P' - Soni Sloeort  5201 ^'cvld O. Dodd, 72210  Bill Bornhouta ' ~  6700 \"H\", 72205 -?61-90dQ' ^2.**]!'  '^'^olph Howard - 9217 Ge^g Porkvie^^,- f  224-6609 ir Springs, 72209 . SdS-OSU Bobbs  2501 Borrow. 72204' 225-6440 VoeeHonol-Technicol Cenf.r [I'fGrodAs lolfx' '  _ Metropa!a_an_-r. DoyleJ^lahani^ Homiltoi. 7'25H77\n74:^ Junior Htflh SchooU [8J Gro'des 7-9 --------, 63'oo Hlnksan Rd., 72209 - \"f.dTwx\" --------Lacey - 11?6 Wright Ave., 722O6r37S:n74------------------------------------ Forest Heights  James Wise -~'S9Xl\"'Evergreen, 72205 -'66r33?r~ ____Gradberry  401 Borrow Rd., 72205  225-3358\" ____.Mobelvale  Clell Walls - igsi'~Mobeivale W.. -------------------------- PC 3x 1S7, Mobelvaie, 72103 . 455-2^13 ft ......J-M  -tp ....U-IMasJJji' -^^'1 j \u0026gt; ! 5% xo.. W'^ .'nL. 5Vh^ (pt-j 1 5. m.O..] (1,3 * - V i.yB I 0 3\u0026amp;d-R. -----  loop E. Roosevelt Rd\", 72206 - 372-3123 uloiki Heights - Dr. Jim Haley - 401 N. Pine, 72205 - 664-\"7073-------------------- -------McLaughlin -3301 .5, Bryant. 722Dr.\"56S-44i6 '--------------------------------------------------------- EUmantory Sehook [37] Grades K-S' '  6900 'p'^roiT^pd, 72206 - '4^1582------------------ Wilson . 6501'77.' 32nd, 72204 - 565-6621--------------------  T^nno Tatum  3623~Baseline Rd., 72209 -'\"sdST^-------------------- ''.'1 - 2016 Barber, 72206 - SZdlaS 19 --------glSfy ihomas - 7915 W. Marfcham. 72205  225-7'815 -------^^ir_^.'?Snttt School Mary Guimi'\"-\" 800 A7p~erson. 72202 - 374.T77r\" Chicot - Olis'Prusiar - IIIQ'q Chicot Rd., ---------------------------  6900 Pc-con Rood, ^2206  490.1562 icm Carver Magntfl 72205  2251615 PO Box 405^ Mabatyglp, 72103  568-25^ 14 Dednson . 6500 Hinksan~PH 72209 : 565:^ ..........Nelson - 6423 Stogacoaeh Rd.. 72204455-3110 ......-''' Qill  616 N. Harrison, 72205 - 666^359 \" ' ..........Ashley 1600 N. Tylur, 722d7'^^\n34T5_____________________________ i-rrwLli  A  ak - .. . . * -^^_______ _____ Rd.. 72204 - 455-3110 .-rcnklin - Connie Aston 1701 S. Ilniiitori, 72204 - 666-0348 I  ____ * * Wv'\\*v*v Huffman - 300 Pieasent Volley~5^.' 722127224-2350 --------'. Pp.Cheryl A.\" Simmons . 361.5 \\w\"2Slh. 72204 - 666-9^'6~ Eleanc^r Cax - 5240 --------Magnei  Donno Davis - 1115 W, 16th^ 72202 - 372-02.81 --------iZhcMiihq^liyer - 30^\n'Pu[oski, 72206 737613629'................ -------- 663-9472 --------Goodwin - 4800 W. 26th, 72204 - '663-6397 ' 2 - 224-2350 on*\n--------Foull.ner-'9d0-| \"Mobelvule Cul-^ff _______207, Mobelvole, '72103  455-2227 -------- --------Mcber^H lynn Moore - 1200 Rcservair Rd., 72207 - 22T61^6S..... . .Meodoweliff  Jerry Wom77~25 Sheroton Dr., 72209^ Mikheil  Danila .Hu^eth - 2410 Bettery, - 565-0324 Qner Creek - PoTPrice 72206 - 37.5-6931  16Q0Q Oner Creak Pkwy., 72207 ** l*l-w*rrfirtzv^ / 423-3320 i3(, 425 ^l3'd Ji ) 0 .233 ..,5^ .2^^' .5^ ' r:',o r/ JA^J' 6 i'r2Tj) \"hI A' 7^^''  -f -m. cis-.S' 7 I?) 'll .ky. S5'  3^ I '*7*^ in fl I I 3 46'^^ H5 -......^13 ..J^ ri.,_ sjo 34 (, I -----'Jxl M' { ------------..luj H lACL-U-i, ......IVl. \\\\T i 5'1 ! iaoG ij'^5 11L ?lb I . I .....J.-3^ iT'Kd' c3__ --U 15 I 331 ( J09/08/93 13:10 0301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 004/004 IB LRSD School Checklist Etamentary School* [37] Grode* K\u0026lt;-6 (conttnutd) Pvioski Haights - E6dja McCoy - '319' N. Pine, 72205  663-9469 ___Rightsell ~ Kay lost  911 W. 19th. 72206 - 374-7448___________ Roeke^eller - Anne Mongon - 700 E. 17fh, 72206 - 374-1226 Romina - Lionel Ward  3400 Romine Rd., 72204  225-8tl33 - __^hert5_- Stan Strouts - 3700 W. iSth, 72204 - 663-8374 Terry - Noncy Volsen - 10800 Mora Lynn Dr., 72211 -225-1215 Wakefield - Lloyd Black - 75 Westminster, 72209 - 568-3674 f Woth'tngton  Lonnie Sue Peon  115 W, 27th, 72206  375-5275 _ Wattcn - Dr. Diana Glaae - 7000 Votisy Dr., 72209  565-1577 Wastarn l-lill - Maggie Puckett - 4901 Western Hills, 72204 - 562-2247 _Williams Magnet - Dr. Ed Jackion - 7301 Evergreen, 72207  666-0346 Wilson - Seine Price - 4015 Stannus Rd., 72204.565-0924 Woodruff - Keren Buchanan - 3010 W. 7th, 72205 -.665-4149 q' ^^- i).  A bn gits) nt AnZ cMJ \\%^1. 1 ss lis m3. .'iii lg3S7 - 13. ...zJl. -e2-O T _L JJl -A- 0 _3. IH-S im. J1J_ .W, ^.^\\. \"1^ jiJh.. 1^ \u0026lt; i' yn n'U MH i,^.5 ... . 1 ( I I -1 I I I I 1 I i f00/08/93 15:08 301 324 2032 L R School DISt ODM @001/004 ( LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE: -?3 TO: FROM: SENDER''S PHONE#: SUBJECT: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Number of Pages (include cover page Speed Dial__________ Fax Phone Number S-7J \"G ICiC\u0026gt; oa/08/93 15:09 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date\nSeptember 8, 1993 To\nMelissa Guldin, Associate Monitor From\nSterling Ingramf^Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Enrollment Data Attacbed you will find the eleventh day enrollment data, as requested. Official October 1, 1993 information will be forwarded as soon as the report is completed. If additional information is needed, please let me know. bjgI 09'08/93 13:09 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 08.93 0003.-004 ll''O6 Nc .002 P , 02 t r . High SchooU [5] Grodet 10-12 LRSD School Checklist - Centrol . E~ver(t Howks - isop Pc^2202 ' 376-4757 .\n___i-A. Pair - Sqm St,  ------- ------------------------------- iy.yPO  ^701 pcvid O. Dodd, 72210 - 224-6609 Hall R-ll a k-------------- - - 444-6609 -2^.Ml?nf'Ouse - 6700 \"H\", 72205 - 6779000---------------------------- ^Oellon - R'-'d9l_ph H^7r7^417A^^r\n^7^^ -------  2SQ] Borrow. 72204 ft ...Cl-'Zi.. FzI. .....4 - Had..u a.'ixi ^25 1 c: h 0 ^3/7 -  - VeeQlone|.T,ehnict,[ Cnt,, [lyGrgda, 10-12 S6S-846S \u0026gt; \u0026lt;^ F\\ I /5 / I VA ...'JU, Uc Junior High SchpoU [sf Gra'dei - -  ------i~ --------Sooth . 630FH\nnl\u0026lt;jan Rd., 7226\n. --------5H!LLM2'-fpn Lacey - 11^' Wright Ave,, 7220?7375,' barest Heights  Jomas Wie,-. _  --------n3....... - ' a63-3391 --------*^0^ Borrow RdJJ 72205  72209 . 65-8426 ::-S574 - 5901 Evergreen, 72205 - 663-3391 -------Mobelvale - Clell Wgtl\n-'laSlTMabelvnle W \"'----------- FO Sux_I87, Mobelvale, 72103 . 455-2413 ---------^^7  V'7?\nAnderson - IQQQ E.^Rj^^eyelt Rd.,_722n6 ^^g9ht5 - Dr-Jim Holey - 401 hi. Pine,'72205 - 664-7073------ --------McLoughlin . ,3301 .5. Brygnt, 722br.~5A4.42ix ' ' Elemantory SehooU [oFf Grodes K-6   664.7073  372-3123''  ^90D Pfccon Rood, 72206 --------------- M/iison - dsom 32nd. 72204.56S-662'l--------------------- ------- Anna Tolum  3623ba^e Rd..'729nP ---------------- --------1227 :,Hgle_n Thoff,a,  7915 W. Marfchcm. 72205  225-\"lS15 Sehpol M7.2A2*5='725or3S:H , _ Chjcot - Olli, PrcJcr . ] n QO Chi ------  565*5539 -\u0026gt;.\"1.0..j' (,3 ' 11L ''J f \u0026gt;-f jAy-'Chj\n' ,-9\u0026lt;j.'j(ill -zAV'Oi ..h LS bi Ut. rM^^-lAClsj^a tu  n r- .c\u0026gt;. H-... .s.C)\n-] JO 21 .5^ .3 n ^s- snil'Sa , p  0 11'1^)' l\"\"'71 li Ab9\\.. Li3i i#: I Wr'ii ,'i ' l3 'I. 'll _________ licot Rd., PO Box 405, Mabelvale, 72103.568-2554 -----gy?-L. ..'..{?oqoollp* Deamon - 6500 Hinkson Rd., 7220? i 565-0986 --------Agf Nelson - 6423 Stggecoqch Rd., 72204 J 455.35'10 .......N. Harrison, 72205 - 666^0359 ' --------Ashley'. 1600 ,\\. Tylur, 72207~66(l^------------------------------------------------- .-rqnklin - Connie Aston 1701 S. ' '^ ------------- 1-1011 bon, 722C4 - 666.0343 --------Moc-Huffmon . 300 Pleasant Volley Dr..\"72?~i\n~224.235Q cjorland . Or. Cheryl A. Simm, ....... I- -- \n-.-... --\n\"r. Z1..ZIU. - 666-94.16 Springs- aegno^Caz^^^ 7\n2Gg --------^bbs Mggnei . Donno Davis - 1115 W. 76fh,\"722D??37rii2r----------- --------Slij ' Michce^Oliver - SOOTsrprioiki, 72206 -\"3777629' ................ --------. 663-9472 --------Bobbie Goodwin - 4800 W. 26th 7??rir: AAyj.2a-r XAnkA ii^lx. . Pk _  l  * * \" ion*\n 3615 W.''2Slh. 72204 - 666.9436 --------Foutkner- 9401 Mqbelvule CulAfF'---------------------------------------------------- -----------^Q7, Mobelvoie, 72103  455.2227 --------------------------- --------^i'^^Lynn Mporc'.' 1200 R\n7\nir Rd., 72207.2\n2To^61-----  7  ^^7.yw^n,?72nh\n7\ni\n7K77^^  . . MOehell - Oon.la He^peth  2410 Sctte,7. 72204 . q75.xc.Qi------------ f^PlAr { VAJhL t\u0026gt;_ n.-' - '' * _Qner Creek - Forprice. i6qqq 6T\nrc?\nz\u0026gt;iz: f * * F wrt \u0026gt;ut..R^ r- 7220? 455 3320 aaq. sq- .m. .^J. .^33/71 : I -i I \"I yyi (-I -s I -UelZiSj.,5\" '7J\\ .3.... a'7/. U4 -------U.iJ55J..5-MS-B 73 lamm 3 a-s'-j 43 5 45/^ ----------- -----------zi(\n: .1^? MU XVL  T^lb '*! li. Ji olbC ^^3 i ...b-.'i i 5'7 i i 213C, -4^-S i' if'-t ....nii I?. 3\u0026lt;SI w. 130 --k -bsa.-.-T 0 \u0026lt;r\\ /I f LdLi5 33} i09/08/93 15:10 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 0004/004 LRSD School Checklist ElTnntQry Sehoel* [37] Grad* K-4 (eontfnutd) Piilo$ki Haights - Eddia MeCoy  319 N. Ping, 72205  6639469_____________ Rightsall ~ Koy toss  911 W. 19th, 72206  374-7448_______________________ Rockafaller - Anne Mongon  700 E, 17th, 72206 - 374-1226 Romina  Lionel Word - 3400 Rornina Rd'., 72204 - 225-8833 - Stephens - Stan Strauss - 3700 W. 1 Sth, 72204 - 663-8374 Terry - Nancy Volsen - 10800 Mora Lynn Dr,, 72211 - 225-1215____________ Waketield - Lloyd Black - 75 Westminster, 72209 - 568-3674 Washington - Lonnie Sue Peon  115 W, 2ih, 72206  375-8275 Watson - Dr. Diana Glaze - /OOb'Voiley Or-, 72209  565-'1577 Wastarn Hilts  Margie Puckett - 4901 Western Hills, 72204 - 562-2247 _^W!Iiiams Magnet - Dr. Ed Jockion - 7301 Evergreen, 72207  666-0346 Wilson  Reine Price - 4015 Stonnus Rd.. 72204 - 565-0924 Woodruff - Keren Suchonan - 3010 W, 7fh, 72205 665-4149 AAA' \"A ..I i *13 Ah! An. _JU. Bilk s. __ZJA 1^^ ay? i 9, fm SS :5^sr AL3_ \\^3 M _L Aik jL IS o _3. _A I 5KS' AiL^ jSSX 2BLi. Jl]_ .w.. US. JL^. U (g Al_' -kAi... azik.. 11^1 r-^iMru I I -1 I  i 4.. - I 1 I I I 1 I {Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: September 10, 1993 To: Little Rock School District Board of Education Members From: in Brown Subject: 1993-94 LRSD Enrollment Figures After last nights Agenda Meeting, my associate Bob Morgan gave the enclosed chart to Estelle Matthis because there had been an inquiry about enrollment numbers during the meeting. Bob used ODMs PC software to quickly compile and format this information. The chart compares school-by-school October 1, 1992 enrollment data with the numbers we received from Sterling Ingram on September 7, 1993. We hope you will find this preliminary information helpful. Enc. cc: Hank Williams Estelle MatthisPrepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring Based upon information furnished by the LRSD Little Rock School District Enrollment Comparison Oct 1 1992 vs Sept 7 1993 Day after Labor Day 1 School Principal 1 2 5 8 12 Central High I Hall High______________ Parkview High__________ Fair High McClellan Community High Totals for High Schools 1 1 1 1 1 Rudolph Howard Vic Anderson Junious Babbs Al Niven Jodie Carter Black 92-93 1133 560 485 562 638 3378 White 92-93 761 390 358 310 312 2131 Other 92-93 56 26 11 14 16 123 Total 92-93 1950 976 854 886 966 5632 Capacity Black 93-94 1070 544 469 580 641 3304 White 93-94 630 321 297 282 243 1773 Other 93-94 43 34 20 8 7 112 Total 93-94 1743 899 786 870 891 5189 Black Diff -63 -16 -16 18 3 -74 White Diff -131 Ira -61 -28 -69 -358 Other Diff -13 8 9 -6 -9 -11 Total Diff -207 -77' -68 -16 -75 443 Total % Diff -10.62% -7.89% -7.96% -1.81% -7.76% -7.87% 92 Black Percent 58.10% 57.38% 56.79% 63.43% 66.05% 59.98% 93 Black Percent 61.39% 60.51% 59.67% 66.67% 71.94% 63.67% Percent Diff 3.29% 3.13% 2.88% 3.24% 5.90% 3.69% 3 7 9 10 11 13 15 16 Mann Jr. High Dunbar Jr High Forest Heights Pulaski Hts. Jr High Southwest Jr High Henderson Jr High Cloverdale Jr. High Mablevale Jr. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Marian Lacey Nancy Volson Richard Maple Ralph Hoffman Charity Smith Clell Watts Gayle Bradford Totals for Junior High Schools 505 410 554 452 523 685 571 438 4138 327 283 220 319 166 215 192 226 1948 17 12 13 3 6 14 12 3 80 849 705 787 774 695 914 775 667 6166 479 438 542 432 507 678 528 339 3943 336 243 187 357 145 199 122 169 1758 18 9 14 6 10 25 ~T 6 95 833 690 743 795 662 902 657 514 5796 -26 28 -12 -20 -16 -7 -99 -195 9 -40 -33 38 -21 -16 -70 -57 -190 1 -3 1 3 4 11 -5 3 15 -16 -15 -44 21 -33 -12 -118 -153 -370 -1.88% -2.13% -5.59% 2.71% -4.75% -1.31% -15.23% -22.94% -6.00% 59.48% 58.16% 70.39% 58.40% 75.25% 74.95% 73.68% 65.67% 67.11% 57.50% 63.48% 72.95% 54.34% 76.59% 75.17% 80.37% 65.95% 68.03% -1.98% 5.32% 2.55% -4.06% 1.33% 0.22% 6.69% 0.29% 0.92% 19 17 22 6 18 21 28 31 32 23 25 48 26 37 27 49 30 35 46 20 Badgett Bate Baseline Booker Brady Carver______ Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King________ Mablevale McDermott 3 3 3 6 3 6 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 6 4 3 5 3 3 Mary Golston Levanna Wilson Mary Jane Cheatham Dr. Cheryl Simmons Mary Menking______ Mary Guinn Otis Prester Frederick Fields Barbara Means Virginia Ashley Franklin Davis Mac Huffman Robert Brown Eleanor Cox Donna Davis Stan Strauss Francis Cawthon Sadie Mitchell Julie Davenport Mike Oliver 154 248 262 345 275 329 350 291 183 192 198 352 225 233 177 191 182 204 48 62 74 269 111 262 177 71 121 49 242 50 296 17 105 134 5 273 0 11 3 7 12 7 8 4 0 2 4 9 6 0 11 0 6 202 321 339 621 398 598 535 366 243 444 411 530 256 282 336 187 483 278 275 219 220 3 14 500 509 257 401 390 656 467 613 558 492 328 351 376 544 540 346 328 353 0 492 728 515 517 126 222 262 324 255 319 352 304 177 198 197 293 244 182 182 168 0 206 371 310 251 52 62 71 262 131 257 136 78 94 67 254 34 269 3 118 0 280 202 172 0 12 6 11 14 7 5 7 5 5 3 6 17 21 4 9 0 4 7 3 15 178 296 339 597 400 583 493 389 276 270 454 333 530 206 266 295 0 490 580 485 -28 -26 0 -21 -20 -10 2 13 -6 6 -1 -59 19 -51 5 -23 -182 2 371 32 -24 4 0 -3 -7 20 -5 -41 7 -27 18 12 -16 -27 -14 -25 -16 -5 7 202 -47 17 0 1 3 4 2 0 -3 3 5 3 -1 -3 8 15 4 -2 0 -2 7 0 1 -24 -25 0 -24 2 -15 -42 23 -28 27 10 -78 0 -50 -16 -41 -187 7 580 -15 -6 -11.88% -7.79% 0.00% -3.86% 0.50% -2.51% -7.85% 6.28% -9.21% 11.11% 2.25% -18.98% 0.00% -19.53% -5.67% -12.20% -100.00% 1.45% 76.24% 77.26% 77.29% 55.56% 69.10% 55.02% 65.42% 79.51% 60.20% 79.01% 44.59% 85.64% 42.45% 91.02% 62.77% 56.85% 97.33% 42.24% 70.79% 75.00% 77.29% 54.27% 63.75% 54.72% 71.40% 78.15% 64.13% 73.33% 43.39% 87.99% 46.04% 88.35% 68.42% 56.95% -5.45% -2.26% 0.00% -1.28% -5.35% -0.30% 5.98% -1.36% 3.93% -5.68% -1.20% 2.34% 3.58% -2.67% 5.66% 0.10% -3.00% -1.18% 55.60% 54.03% 42.04% 63.97% 63.92% 49.90% -0.20% 8.32% -4.13%Prepared by The Office of Desegregation Monitoring Based upon information furnished by the LRSD Little Rock School District Enrollment Comparison Oct 1 1992 vs Sept 71993 Day after Labor Day 2 School Principal 33 34 50 38 39 36 40 41 47 51 42 52 29 43 44 45 Meadowcliff Mitchell Offer Creek Pulaski Hts. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry______ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodnrff 3 4 3 3 4 4 5 4 3 ? 5 3 3 6 3 3 Jerry Worm Samuel Branch Carolyn Teeter Lillie Carter Sharon Davis Anne Mangan Lionel Ward Lonnie Dean La Dell Looper Willie Morris Karen Buchanan Teresa Courtney Dr. Ed Jackson Gwen Ziegler Pat Higgenbofham Totals for Elementary Schools Black 92-93 292 232 143 198 239 250 277 202 238 347 483 332 209 275 265 147 9073 White 92-93 147 28 203 173 9 104 74 / 286 147 332 117 124 218 90 83 4947 Other 92-93 1 4 7 8 1 7 10 0 17 6 7 2 ____2j 9 0 4 201 Total 92-93 440 264 353 379 249 361 361 209 541 500 822 451 335 502 355 234 14221 Capacity 442 346 351 351 346 425 467 298 492 492 939 492 328 517 394 324 16256 Black 93-94 294 205 130 192 182 237 233 139 242 322 450 365 209 240 259 143 8785 White 93-94 134 18 195 199 4 93 68 3 290 107 261 86 117 211 89 82 4816 Other 93-94 1 2 6 11 1 8 14 r ___26 6 12 0 3 10 4 5 271 Total 93-94 429 225 331 402 187 338 315 143 558 435 723 451 329 461 352 230 13872 Black Diff 2 -27 -13 -6 -57 -13 -44 -63 4 -25 -33 33 ____0 -35 -6 -4 -288 White Diff -13 -10 -8 26 -5 -11 -6 -4 4 -40 -71 -31 -7 -7 -1 -1 -131 Other Diff 0 -2 -1 3 0 1 4 1 9 0 5 -2 1 1 4 1 70 Total Diff -11 -39 -22 23 -62 -23 -46 -66 17 -65 -99 0 -6 -41 -3 -4 -349 Total % Diff -2.50% -14.77% -6.23% 6.07% -24.90% -6.37% -12.74% -31.58% 3.14% -13.00% -12.04% 0.00% -1.79% -8.17% -0.85% -1.71% -2.45% 92 Black Percent 66.36% 87.88% 40.51% 52.24% 95.98% 69.25% 76.73% 96.65% 43.99% 69.40% 58.76% 73.61% 6239% 54.78% 74.65% 62.82% 63.80% 93 Black Percent 68.53% 91.11% 39.27% 47.76% 97.33% 70.12% 73.97% 97.20% 43.37% 74.02% 62.24% 80.93% 63.53% 52.06% 73.58% 62.17% 63.33% Percent Diff 2.17% 3.23% -1.23% -4.48% 1.34% 0.87% -2.76% 0.55% -0.62% 4.62% 3.48% 7.32% 1.14% -2.72% -1.07% -0.65% -0.47% Totals for the School District 16589 9026 404 26019 16032 8347 478 24857 -557 -679 74 -1162 -4.47% 63.76% 64.50% 0.74%Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Nancy Acre, Faith Donovan, and Joyce Underwood Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors Dunbar Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Friday, October 8,1993 at 10:00 a.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Dunbar. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the Sth. Enrollment Data:  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1990- 91 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1991- 92 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of LRSD students recruited by grade, including race, gender and where they were recruited, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (ie. white sixth grade PCSSD students at Lawson, Baker, Romine), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Clell Watts and Joyce Stiedle Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors Henderson Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Thursday, October 7,1993 at 10:00 a.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Henderson. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the 7th. Enrollment Data:  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992-93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of students recruited who live in Hendersons attendance zone by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (ie. white sixth grade PCSSD students at Lawson, Baker, Romine), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results.ST) f u-t Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Rudolph Howard and Dorthy McDonald Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors Central Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Friday, October 8,1993 at 1:40 p.ra. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Central. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the Sth. Enrollment Data:  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1990- 91 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1991- 92 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of LRSD students recruited by grade, including race, gender and where they were recruited, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (all white PCSSD junior high students, private school students, and LRSD junior high students), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: September 29, 1993 To: From: Subject: Jodi Carter and Steve Garrett Horace Smith and Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitors McClellan Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Thursday, October 7, 1993 at 1:30 p.m. We are very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate McClellan. At this time we will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. We will also need certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the 7th. Enrollment Data:  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992-93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1992- 93 school year  October 1 total school enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by grade, including race and gender, for the 1993- 94 school year  The number of new students by grade, including race and gender, enrolled in your program for the 93-94 school year  The number of students by grade, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program since the 1992-93 school yearRecruitment Data:  The recruitment committee roster by race, gender, and position  Recruitment committee agenda and minutes  A list of all recommended recruitment strategies developed and implemented by the recruitment committee  Recruitment training documentation,including the person(s) responsible, topic,location, time, sign-in sheets, and evaluation criteria  The number of students recruited who live in McClellans attendance zone by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of private school students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of PCSSD students recruited by grade, including race and gender, during the 1992-93 school year  The number of any additional students recruited by grade, including race and gender, and where they were recruited during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities - For example, if you developed a brochure name the person(s) responsible for the brochure, identify your targeted audience (all white PCSSD junior high students, private school students, and LRSD junior high students), state the date it was distributed, report how much was budgeted for the brochure and distribution and how much it actually cost, and explain how you tracked your results. If you made a presentation, include the person responsible, type of presentation, date, location, sign-in sheets and explain how you tracked your results.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 October 20, 1993 Sue Pederson LRSD Student Assignment 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Sue: As we discussed today, I anticipate receiving the following information from you by Wednesday, October 27,1993: October 1, 1992 four-year-old enrollment by school, including race and gender Information on where each of these children are as of October 1,1993 (For example, are they currently enrolled in a kindergarten class at the school where they were enrolled in a four year old class, have they transferred to another LRSD school, and if so which one, or have they left the LRSD.) I will be out of the office until October 26,1993. If you have any questions, please call me on the 26th at 376-6200. Sincerely, Connie Hickman Tanner Associate MonitorOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: October 26, 1993 To: Donna Grady Creer From: Melissa Guldin Subject: Magnet School Enrollment In reviewing the 1993-94 enrollment figures for the Little Rock School District, I noted that none of the magnet schools is filled to capacity and some have enrollments significantly below their maximum. In order to complete monitoring of this years enrollment, I will need some information from the Magnet Review Committee. Please provide the number of unfilled seats at each of the six original magnet schools. In addition to identifying empty seats by school, also indicate the number of vacancies attributed to each school district, and whether the empty seats are reserved for black or white students. I have included a chart that you may wish to use in order to simplify the reporting process. Since the information requested is part of an ongoing monitoring project, I would appreciate receiving the figures as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation.The Number of Unfilled Magnet Seats as of October 1,1993 School LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL Black White Black White Black White Black White Booker Carver Gibbs Wiliams Mann Parkview- A  A 1^- Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: November 1, 1993 To: From: Subject: Anne Mangan and Pat Price Connie Hickman Tanner, ODM Associate Monitor Rockefeller Magnet Program Enrollment and Recruitment This memo is to confirm our meeting on Monday, November 15,1993 at 11:00 a.m. ODM is very interested in your magnet programs success, since it was designed to help desegregate Rockefeller. At this time I will be looking for answers to a variety of questions regarding your recruitment efforts and results. I will also need to review certain documentation. Please bring copies of the following information to our meeting on the 15th. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 376-6200. Eorollment Data:  October 1 magnet program enrollment by age level, including race and gender, for the 1989-90 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by age level, including race and gender, for the 1990-91 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by age level, including race and gender, for the 1991-92 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by age level, including race and gender, for the 1992-93 school year  October 1 magnet program enrollment by age level, including race and gender, for the 1993-94 school year  The number of new children by age level, including race and gender, enrolled in the magnet program as of October 1,1993  The number of children by age level, including race and gender, who withdrew from the magnet program between the 1992-93 school year and the 1993-94 school yearRecruitment Data:  The number of children recruited to Rockfellers magnet program by age level, including race, gender, and where they were recruited, during the 1992-93 school year  Documentation of all recruitment strategies and activities during the 1992-93 school year and those planned for the 1993-94 school year Examples: A. If a strategy involves developing a brochure: name the person(s) responsible for its development and distribution\nprovide a copy of the brochure, if it has been completed\nidentify the audience targeted to receive the brochure (day care centers, PCSSD children, private school students, and targeted LRSD students), state the brochure distribution dates\nidentify the amount of money budgeted for the brochures development and distribution, the total expenditures to date, and any remaining budget expenses\nand explain how you will track your results. B. If an activity involves a presentation: identify the persons(s) responsible for developing and making the presentation\nidentify the audience targeted for the presentation\nbriefly describe the type of presentation, including the date and location\nprovide copies of participant sign-in sheets\nand explain how you will track your results.\u0026gt;1 1-1 Little Rock School District RSCSIVFD November 24, 1993 NOV 2 9 1993 Cr:c3 or Desi3\nc'nsl\no\ni fZo\nMrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building LittleRock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown\nThank you for your letter of November 9, 1993. Obviously, I did not use October 1, 1993 enrollment figures in reporting to the Board. Instead, I attempted to give an updated report which I thought included enrollees since October 1. Please be assured that the information supplied to your office regarding October 1 enrollment by this District is correct. We will be updating the Board as it relates to enrollment trends at Washington Magnet School. Again, thank you for your assistance. Sincerely yours. Larry S. Robertson cc\nEstelle Matthis 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 November 19, 1993 Mr. Larry S. Robertson Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, ?\\R 72201 Dear Larry: At the districts Board of Education meeting last night, 1 heard you and Estelle Matthis answer the boards questions about the number of students attending Washington Magnet and the schools racial balance. The board also asked about the number of Washington M-to-M students and how the schools total 1993-94 enrollment compared to that of the previous year. You told the board that Washingtons enrollment was 765 and its racial distribution was within the desegregation plans racial balance mandate of between 60% and 40%. ODM annually compiles enrollment data based on the October 1 figures reported to the State by the three Pulaski County school districts. The attached chart reflects Washingtons October 1 enrollment data for the last five school years, information which the LRSD furnished ODM. Note that Washingtons 1993-94 enrollment is 721, 101 fewer pupils than the previous year, and that the schools racial balance is 63% black, a proportion that places the school in violation of the desegregation plan. Our records also indicate that 106 M-to-M students presently attend Washington, 69 of them from PCSSD and 37 from NLRSD. We phoned Washington this morning to see if there had been some recent influx of children into the school that would account for the 765 total you reported to the board last night. We were told that the school presently has 722 students enrolled, 63% of whom are black. Because ODM is an arm of the Federal Court, 1 necessarily place a great deal of emphasis on the accuracy of all information given us by the school districts. If ODMs October 1 enrollment information on Washington is incorrect, please immediately furnish me with the accurate figures. If, however, you agree that our records are correct, 1 trust you will immediately supply Mrs. Matthis and your Board of Directors with accurate data on Washington so they can make decisions based on sound information. Sincerely yours. in S. Brown Enc. CC: Estelle Matthis FIVE YEAR ENROLLMENT COMPARISON Using October 1 Enrollment Washington Elementary School 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 Washington Elem Black 510 438 480 483 451 White 313 356 332 260 Other 11 10 Total 519 762 841 822 721 % Black 98 57 57 59 63 8 1 5 7 Prepared by ODM based on information supplied by LRSDAikansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20,1993  Public school rolls plunge by 1,933 in county BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Enrollment in the three Pulaski County school districts has dropped dramatically this year  by 1,933 students compared to last year, according to the official Oct. 1 enrollment reports the districts submitted to the state Department of Education. Nearly all  1,885, or 97.5 percent  of the missing stu- dents are white. The loss of students has significant financial implications for the districts. The bulk of the decrease occurred in the Pulaski County Special School District, where enrollment fell by 1,207, from 21,633 to 20,426. Little Rock School District enrollment also dropped by a significant number, 618, from 26,212 to 25,594. North Little Rock School Dis- trict enrollment fell by 108, to 9,085. The decrease represents 3.4 percent of the total enrollment in the three districts last year. \"If I had to give my best guess, I would say the drop has to do with the instability of school assignments, Eddie Collins, assistant superintendent for pupil personnel in the county district, said Tuesday. r  Collins said parents have voluntarily called or sent letters to explain why they left the system. Many said they went elsewhere when they were unable to send their children to neighborhood schools because of overcrowding. When a schools enrollment reaches capacity, surplus children are assigned to more dis- See SCHOOLS, Paqe 16A Schools NLR enrollment PCSSD enrollment School 1992 1993  Continued from Page 1A tant schools. Some parents chose not to accept the assignment, Collins said. Estelle Matthis, deputy superintendent of the Little Rock district, said Tuesday that administrators are making student recruitment a priority this year. The emphasis will be on showcasing each individual school and the district, educating the public on the choices available in the district, and making the enrollment process user- friendly,\" she said. She said the enrollment decline resulted from a number of factors, including uncertainty last summer about leadership at Central High and in the district superintendency, and a perception that the schools are unsafe. Statistics show that the number of weapons and firearms found in the schools declined last year. Matthis said district officials need to get the message out about school safety, and the good programs and students in the schools. Matthis said the district will contact parents who have left the schools to solicit suggestions for improvement. District officials said Tues- The county district lost day that the loss of more than 1,144 white and 63 blacks, ac- '   ............. Elementary Alternative Amboy Baring Cross Belwood Boone Park Central Crestwood Glenview Indian Hills Lakewood I School 1992 1993 1b1el % Black iblal % Black Elementary iblal SBisch Total % Black Lynch Drive Meadow Park LRSD enrollment School 1992 1993 20 70 390 44 14 36 171 42 450 61 468 54 241 44 230 57 447 45 277 51 464* 48 243 51 North Heights 403 48 Park Hill Pike View Redwood Seventh St. Total_____ Secondary Alternative Baring Cross 210 45 429 49 239 60 363 49 5.058 50 30 77 31 71 Lakewood Md. 545 46 Ridgeroad Md. 578 46 Rose City Md. ... _. NLRHS-East 1,339 45 408 51 NLRHS-WesI 1,204 44 Total Grand total 4.135 46 9,193 48 25 52 380 51 13 46 168 45 441 62 429 60 251 45 237 54 387 44 255 52 449 54 264 56 418 47 276 46 370 50 210 62 338 46 Adkins Arnold Baker Bales Bayou I Cato Moto 4 911 52 66 70 35 71 539 40 544 53 366 51 1.419 46 1.205 44 4.174 46 9,085 49 College Stetlon Crystal HHI Dupree Fuller Harris Jacksonvltle Landmark Lawson Oak Grove OakbfCK\u0026gt;ke Pino Fores! Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan HOIs Taylor Tolleson Total Secondary 420 36 390 17 283 27 680 45 648 1 650 21 326 33 603 36 458 23 524 57 546 40 847 27 518 46 321 14 469 24 592 18 518 20 682 28 420 25 191 35 490 24 735 18 420 26 569 24 12.300 28 411 37 348 23 294 25 599 45 649 1 569 22 277 40 746 43 428 22 473 60 479 47 763 31 498 46 304 16 438 24 600 21 434 21 580 31 411 24 147 34 450 27 685 23 388 31 532 24 11.503 30 Elementary Ibtal % Black BadgeH Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdata Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbrighi Gariand Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King Mebelvats McDermott Meadowdlff Mitchell Otter Creek 202 76 321 77 339 77 621 56 398 69 598 55 535 65 366 60 304 60 243 79 444 45 411 86 530 42 256 91 282 63 336 57 187 97 463 42 500 56 509 54 440 66 264 88 353 41 Iblal %Blacl 189 70 303 74 343 77 595 397 54 66 595 55 509 70 388 79 292 65 263 76 458 44 34S 87 520 45 205 88 288 72 299 57 504 42 553 65 488 64 509 51 434 71 230 93 Adult Learning Ctr, 66 24 Fuller Jacksonville N. Jacksonville S. 935 45 654 26 602 34 Jacksonville Hi. 1,023 29 Combined 1992 enrollment lor Lynch Drive and Rose City Elementary Schools. students. The Oct. 1 report showed a decrease of 84 students compared to the enrollment on the eighth day of school this year. The eighth-day figures showed a loss of 682 students compared to the eighth day last year. MUIS N. Pulaski Northwood Oak Grove Robiruon Jr. Robinson HI. Sylvan Hills Jr. Sylvan Hills HI. Tbtal Qrarxl total 627 44 837 22 939 25 915 23 411 27 408 26 932 25 935 46 9.284 31 21.584 29 949 43 594 31 566 36 967 30 671 48 838 21 948 23 869 25 485 27 354 25 919 26 796 26 8.858 30 20,361 30 Pulaski Heights 379 52 Highlsell Rc^efeller Romlne Stephens Terry Wakefield Vfeshinglon Watson Western Hills Williams WBson Woodruff Total_______ Secondary 249 96 361 69 361 77 209 97 541 44 500 69 822 59 451 74 335 62 502 55 355 75 234 63 14,221 63 341 398 189 340 334 145 561 447 721 442 332 41 48 97 71 74 97 43 75 63 80 65 472 54 354 75 236 62 14 017 cording to the statistics. The Little Rock district lost 566 whites and 52 blacks and the North Little Rock district lost 175 whites but gained 67 black students. Thirty percent of the pupils in the county district are black and 70 percent are white or are of other races. The county districts enrollment was 30 percent black and 70 percent white. Last year the enrollment was 28 percent black. The district lost 903 students at the elementary level and 300 in the secondary schools. The fact the district lost a 1,200 students seemed high but the figures were the most accurate they had. The Little Rock district remains the largest in the state. The black enrollment in the district grew by 1 percent to 65 per- cent black, after remaining stable at 64 percent since 1989. ficial Oct. 1 enrollment fell from 9,193 last year to 9,085 this year. The districts racial composition is nearly 50-50 black and white. Whites make up 50.6 percent of the enrollment, while blacks make up the remaining 49.4 percent. The Oct. 1 enrollment total is considered the official enrollment for the schools. While it is not the number used to determine state funding for a district, it does have implications for the state aid. Central Fair Han McClellan Parkview Cloverdale Dunbar 1,999 59 905 64 994 57 985 67 871 58 775 74 705 58 1.879 65 918 976 65 60 886 75 Foreel Heights 787 70 Henderson Mabelvale Mann 914 75 667 66 849 59 Pulaski Heights 774 58 Southwest  Iblal Special Grand Total 695 75 11.920 64 71 39 26,212 64 . 788 701 701 788 915 654 851 790 679 11.526 51 25.594 59 81 63 73 74 69 58 55 77 67 53 65 Elementary enrollment in If the numbers are accurate, Little Rock fell by 204 students they could cost the three disand the secondary school enrollment dropped by 414. Matthis attributed the secondary school drop in part to a small class moving into the 10th grade this year. The class is small as the result of the con- --------------------- .XX..V  troversialcohtrolled-choicestu- large number of students this dent assignment plan in the mid year became evident in the - early September enrollment reports. However, the loss at the time did not exceed 1,000 1980s, she said. That plan resulted in a large enrollment decline at the time. In North Little Rock, the of- tricts together over $4 million in future years  up to $3 million for the county district, as much as $1.5 million for the Little Rock district and about $264,000 for the North Little Rock district. The financial losses would not hit the already financially strapped districts all in one year, though. Dr. Robert Shaver, associate director for finance in the state Department of Education, said Tuesday that a relatively new state law allows districts that are losing students to collect state aid based on their average student enrollment for the last three years. That would cushion the loss, especially if enrollment can be increased in subsequent , years. / Traditionally, state aid to | school districts is not based on J the Oct. 1 enrollment but on a  formula that uses the average enrollments for the first three  quarters of each school year. Each school year consists of four nine-week grading periods . or quarters.Arkansas Democrat (gazette  WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20,1993  NLR enrollment PCSSD enrollment School 1992 1993 School 1992 1993 LRSD enrollment Elementary Total % Black Total %.BIack| Elementary School 1992 Total % Black Total % Black 1993 Elementary Total % Black Total % Black Alternative Amboy Baring Cross Belwood Boone Park Central Crestwood Glenview Indian Hills Lakewood Lynch Drive Meadow Park North Heights Park Hill Pike View Redwood Seventh St, Total________ 20 70 390 44 14 .. 36 171 42 450 61 468 54 241 44 230 57 447 45 277 51 464* 48 243 51 403 48 210 45 429 49 239 60 363 49 5,058 50 25 52 380 51 13 46 168 45 441 62 429 60 251 45 237 54 387 44 255 52 449 54 264 56 418 47 276 46 370 50 210 62 338 46 4,911 52 Secondary Alternative Baring Cross Lakewood Md. Ridgeroad Md. Rose City Md. 30 77 31 71 545 46 578 46 408 51 NLRHS-East 1,339 45 NLRHS-West 1,204 44 Total Grand total 4,135 46 9,193 48 66 70 35 71 539 40 544 53 366 51 1,419 46 1,205 44 4,174 46 9,085 49 Adkins Arnold   Baker Bates Bayou Meto Cato - College Station Crystal Hill Dupree Fuller 7 Harris Jacksonville Landmark Lawson Oak Grove Oakbrooke Pine Forest Pinewood Robinson Scott Sherwood Sylvan Hills Taylor Tolleson Total Secondary 'Combined 1992 enrollment for Lynch Drive and Rose City Elementary Schools. 420 36 390 17 283 27 680 45 648 1 411 37 348 23 294 25 599 45 650 21 7 326 33 603 38 458 23 524 57 546 40 847 27 518 46 321 14 469 24 592 18 518 20 682 28 420 25 191 35 490 24 735 18 420 26 569 24 12,300 28 649 1 569 22 277 40 746 43 428 22 473 60 479 47 763 31 498 46 304 16 438 24 600 21 434 21 580 31 411 24 147 34 450 27 885 23 388 31 532 24 11,503 30 Adult Learning Ctr. 66 24 Fuller Jacksonville N. Jacksonville S. Jacksonville Hi. Mills N. Pulaski Northwood Oak Grove Robinson Jr Robinson HL Sylvan Hills Jr. Sylvan Hills Hi. Total Grand total 935 45 654 28 602 34 1,023 29 627 44 837 22 939 25 915 23 411 27 408 28 932 25 935 46 9,284 31 21,584 29 949 43 594 31 566 36 967 30 571 48 838 21 948 23 869 25 485 27 354 25 919 26 798 26 8,858 30 20,361 30 Badgett Bale Baseline J... Booker ' Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowdiff Mitchell 3, Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine -fd:.\n' ' Stephens Terry Wakefield - - 202 76 321 77 339 77 621 56 398 69 598 55 535 65 366 80 304 60 243 79 444 45 411 86 530 42 256 91 282 63 336 57 187 97 483 42 500 56 509 54 440 66 264 88 353 41 379 52 249 96 361 69 361 77 209 97 541 44 5004 69 Washington \n822 59 Watson Western Hills. Willfama:  451 74 335 62 ______ '.'502 55- Wilson fe-,, Woodruff 7 Total______ ^.355:\u0026lt;75 234' 63 14,221 63 Secondary Central Fair , Hall McClellan:'\nParkview Cloverdale Dunbar: Forest Heights  Henderson Mabelvale Mann ' Pulaski Heights Southwest Total Special Grand Total 1,999 59 905 64 994 57 - 985 87 871 58 775 74 ... 705 58 3T.737 70 914 75 667 66 849 59 774 58 695 75 11,920 64 71 39 26,212 64 189 303 343 70 74 77 595 54 397 595 66 55 509 70 386 292 263 458 345 520 205 288 79 65 76 44 87 45 88 72 299 57 504 553 488 509 434 230 42 65 64 51 71 93 341 41 398 189 48 97 340 - 71\n334 74 145 561 447 721 442 332 97 43 75 63 80 65 472 54 354 236 14,017 1,879 918 976 886 788 701 701 788 915 654 851 790 679 11,526 51 25,594 75 62 64 65 65 60 75 59 81 63 73 74 69 58 55 77 67 53 65Tension, fear drive some from Central I I BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer 1 Whitney Singleton, Rachelle Rexer and Mike Lierly were sophomores at Little Rock Central High School last year. But, like dozens of other white Cen-' tral students, the three left the school and are attending classes elsewhere. Centrals official Oct. 1 enrollment dropped this year by 120 students to 1,879 from 1,999 last year. The white enrollment decline was even greater, 143 students, but that was offset by a slight increase in black enrollment. Central was no fun last year, Singleton, a junior at North Little Rock High School, said in an interview. Students were hostile to each other, and some of the teachers felt threatened by their students. There was some tension and fear. But Rexers reasons for leaving Central, also to at- See ENROLLMENT, Page 12A I { I12A  SUNDAY. NOVEMBER 7, 1993   Enrollment  Continued horn Page 1A lend North Lillie Rock High, were different. She said her de- LRSD eiimlltfteHt sutyey dj/iion was based on conve- nience and family tradition  her brother went to North Lit- de Rock High. Concerns about safely or other conditions at Central were not factors in her decision, she said. In fact, she misses some things about Cen- ii al  for instance, playing the viola in the schools orchestra and the diverse student body. Bobbi Lierly said her son Mike transferred lo North Lillie Rock High because he wanted to lake a two-hour commercial art class that was not available at Central, and lo take ad- ' vantage of a seven-period class day that allows students to take iilore elective courses. Central has a six-period day, although if also has an early morning \"Zero Hour\" class period. I^Belween Oct. 1,1992, and this year, the Little Rock School Dis- (ricl's total enrollment dropped by 618 students  599 of them white. That is bad news for a 65- pErcenl-black district that is struggling to desegregate its vir- thally all-black elementary schools in east and central Little Rock, and maintain racial balances in other schools. t-Dislrict officials are pulling tolellier a comprehensive stu- dfent recruitment plan that ^lould be completed by the end of next month and implement- bd before spring registration. Qhe purpose is to reverse the enrollment decline at Central and dislriclwide. Dr. Russ Mayo, associate superintendent for de- sj^regation, said last week. District officials have talked about tracking students who leR the city's public schools to find Util where they went and why, but that has nol yel been done. *The while enrollment fell al Central pai Uy for demographic i^asons. There are fewer white slydents in the ninth-grade class that moved into 10th grade this year than there were in the 12th- gfade class lliat graduated. Bui some students al the .wbool last year chose lo leave (enlral to atleiul other public High schools such as North Little Rock High, Parkview Magnet High or Hall High. riAt lea.st six Central students I Sr. high Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Total Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabcivale Mann Pulaski Heights Soutliwest Total Elementary Badgett Bate Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jelferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Teriy Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Total Special schools , Grand Total Black 1,228 596 586 666 463 3,539 566 439 575 678 453 494 434 524 4,163 132 225 265 321 263 325 356 304 189 200 200 300 233 181 208 170 213 357 311 262 306 215 141 190 184 240 247 141 243 337 451 353 215 257 263 147 8,945 27 16,674 AsotOc.t /. 1993 While 616 314 362 213 315 1,822 Other 33 8 28 7 10 86 Tola! % Black 1,679 918 976 886 788 5,447 65 65 60 75 59 64 hoods, and even in the same families, to different schools. 'll was a complete zoo. Htilherford said, adding lh.nl llie classes of sludcnls now in niiilli and loth grades were in elementary school at the time and were hit the _______ aiid Fulbright lost lOstiidenls. The 12 schools reported a net gain of 95 while.'? (his year compared lo Iasi year. Of the schools, only Fulbright actually losl white sludcnls, 10, ac- 4'Erc accepted al the new ^jkansa.s School for Malliemat- ica and Sciences in Hot Springs. A'couplc of others moved to - viZa.shington, D.C., with relatives vbho work in President Clinton's adjninislratioii. ^Increased enrollmenl in .\u0026lt;dme of Little Rock's private (Jdlools, including Pulaski Acad- \"Tiy and Central Arkansas irislian High School, indicates Il some Little Rock students wr tJSl 41pin(loned public schools. Sim- IJarly, enrollments have Increased in school districts surrounding Pulaski County. J-A recent University of Arkansas at Little Rock study aq population migration showed 'lat 2.3,000 people left Pulaski le'unly between 1980 and 1990, 130 251 195 210 197 341 351 141 1,816 57 68 76 265 122 163 147 75 97 60 253 40 272 3 78 121 287 189 174 232 127 12 195 197 93 73 3 292 106 260 89 114 207 87 84 4,822 23 8,463 \"The morale was gone. It seemed like the center was mis-sing. She told of visiting the school before her daughter decided lo attend. Two students had a fistfight in a hallway. 3he staff broke it up and Ihe.stndents, escorted by the principal, apologized to the Singletons and said Ihey hoped their fight hadn't ruined the Singletons' image of Central. Those who left Central and those who stayed cited concerns about safety and security. Central is a large, inner-city .school in a rundown neighborhood. \"I had apprehensions about going to Central,\" said one mother whose daughter is now a Central 10th- grader. It was not so much about the academic quality as it was about safely. mother. The who many of them went to Saline Faulkner counties. Faulkn- -------------- . and Saline counties gained named, said she fi,b00 people in the last decade through migration. * Mary McGehee, an associate demographic specialist at asked not to be planned to bail out if her 5 11 18 27 4 16 5 14 100 0 10 2 9 12 7 6 6 3 5 5 15 21 2 8 7 3 15 1 3 5 11 1 7 14 1 26 4 10 0 3 8 4 5 250 437 701 701 788 915 654 851 790 679 6,079 189 303 343 595 397 595 509 386 292 263 458 345 520 205 288 299 504 z 553 488 509 434 230 341 398 189 340 334 145 561 447 721 442 332 472 354 236 14,017 51 25,594 81 63 73 74 69 58 55 77 69 70 74 77  54 66 55 70 79 65 76 44 87 45 88 72 57 42 65 64 51 71 93 41 48 97 71 74 97 43 75 63 80 65 54 75 62 64 53 65 hardest. In addition to controlled- choice problems, Rutherford said, enrollment was affected by the school districts Iwo-year \"crime coma.\" in Tlie district the early 1990s did not respond quickly  enough to escalating violence in the schools. There are 618 while 12th- graders in the Little Rock School District Ibis year, and 600 while llth-graders. In the 10th grade, the number drops lo 572, and in the ninth grade, 539. In the seventh and eighth grades, however, the numbers of whiles arc significanlly higher, 632 and 639. respectively. The largest class of whiles in the district is 718 in the first grade. Skip Rutherford, the father of a Central High lOlh-gradcr and a former Lillie Rock School Board member, Entdllment by race (Llltle Rock School District) Grade White Black Other K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ungraded Spec, schools 4-year-olds Total 662 1.245 718 1,269 662 1,190 660 1,258 663 1,196 618 1,206 625 1,290 639 1,474 632 1,359 539 1,308 572 1,323 600 1,115 618 61 23 191 955 174 27 285 39 38 29 41 40 23 25 32 29 39 21 33 31 0 1 16 blamed the small ninth and 10th grades on problems from tlie mid-1980s, when the districtimplemented the con- Grand total 25,594 Seuree: LUile Rock School Olsltlel 8,483 16,674 437 cording to the stati.slics. The Enrollment history Year (Central High School) Total enrollment % Black 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1,879 1,999 1,771 1,629 1,863 2,070 65% 59% 61% 60% 60% 57% 1987 ------- 2.108  - 37% 1986 1985 1984 1983 2,088 1,989 1,989 1,947 Source: LIWo Rock School DMIilcI he said. As a result, people leR the public schools. 'Violence got out of hand before the district took steps to increase security officers and assign city police officers to schools, lie said. Rutherford said he and his wife considered private schools for their son a year ago because of their disappointment with the way the district handled security. He said he continues to question the district's coinmitmenl to school safety, but he also said the quality of the academic program al Central is second lo none and that be is pleased with the school and its staff. racial composition i!i the schools 59% 59% 61% 61% ranged from 42 percent black and 56 percent while or other at Jefferson Elementary to 76 percent black and 24 percent while or other nt Fair Park Elementary.  In the 11- area schools south of Asher, only Cloverdale, Geyer Springs and Baseline elementaries showed enrollment increases. Cloverdale grew by 20 pupils, Geyer Springs by six and Baseline by four. Enrollment at Chicot, Dodd, Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, Wakefield, Watson and Western Hills fell by a total of 133 students. Of the H Southwest Little Rock schools, the percentage of black students increased or remained stable in 10. The racial composition at the schools ranged from 41 percent black and 59 percent while or other al Otter Creek Elementary to 80 percent black and 20 perffent Following are other pieces of  white or other at Watson misinformation gleaned from the districts enrollment statistics. were 70 percent or more black. mentary. Eight of the schbqls  The enrollment fell not :  The racial makeup in, the only at Central this year but in j eight junior highs ranged from four of the districts five high | 55 percent black at Pulaski schools. Fair High reported an 1 Heights Junior High to 81- increase of 13 students. | cent black at Cloverdale Junibi  Enrollment in the district s High. Cloverdale had the ttbSt incentive schools decreased by dramatic change in the studfeirit 25 percent this yey, fa ling[by ^ody. The school lost 74stu-- dw rhihirpn rrnii 1.937 lo 1.4o4. dents and the percentage, of black students grew from 73'pier- 483 children from 1,937 to 1,4M. Incentive schools gel extra district money for programs lo improve the education of black children and attract whiles to the vir- tually all-black schools. The decrease in the incentive school count was partly a result of the districts decision to close Lsh Incentive Elementary, enrollment 187, but each of Ilie other incentive school.\"! lost students. Some of the incentive school pupils went lo the new King In- lerdistrict Elementary, which has a black enrollment of 357 pupils, most of whom are from Lillie Rock, and a while enroll- iiicnl of 109 pujiils, many of whom are from the Pulaski County Special School District.  Regular noiimagnel, noniii- cenlive area elemenlary schools in the west and northwesl sections of Little Rock (north of Asher Avenue) were more likely to show an increase in enrollmenl cent to 81 percent. Total enrollment in the.Jji^ nior highs fell by 87 students from 6,166 to 6,079. WhiteMft- rollment dropped by 132.'t0- dents, from 1,948 to 1,816. eu liic evil- ----------------- ------- trolled-choice  including an increase in while enrollment  than schools in desegregation plan. \"It was a nightmare that drove over 1,000 people out of the district, Rutherford said other parts of the city. Of the 12 schools, six showed increases in total enrollment and three remained stable. Fair Park, Forest Park, JefTerson, Pulaski Heights, Terry and Woodruff elementaries report- last week. ed increases in total enrollment, \"I said back while Brady, McDermott and Wilson remained stable. Bale (JALR, said populations pro- j^tions show the trend will continue. \nMcGehee also said 43,753 people in Lillie Rock are under 18 years of age. Of that group, 49.2 (Jfercent are white, and the re- ihaiiider. 50.8 percent, are black (jrof oilier races. i^ljltle Rock enrollment num- tiSts showed some signs of hope, ^ludy showed that white en- ijjjlment increased or stabilized ijTSome elementary schools  iMstly in west Little Rock. Parots and students who chose to ^(ck with Central, which got a of adverse publicity last year, said in recent interviews dfey dont regret it. daughter did not feel secure at the school, but her daughter ad- justed well. She said her daughter's friends from Pulaski Heights Junior High scaltered\none went to Parkview High School, two others went to Mount St. Mary's Academy and another went lo Hall High. The mother said it angers her as a parent and district patron that she and other parents have to worry about safety in a school. Another key reason for the enrollment decline this year is that Little Rocks ninth- and lOth-grade classes have fewer whites than other grades. Even if Central hadn't generated negative publicity last year, its enrollment might have declined anyway because last years graduating class was replaced by a smaller class of lOth-graders. then that the district would feel the repercussions of controlled choice lost 18 students, Romine lost 27 for years, Rutherford said. It will take a whole generation of students  I mean 12 years  lo recover from it. We are beginning to see some signs of recovery at some of the elementary schools where white enrollment is up or has stabilized. Rutherford said one of the districts strengths now is Rs stable and predictable student assignment plan that assigns many students to schools in their neighborhoods, but also gives them some choice. In the controlled-choice plan, students were assigned to schools and then given the opportunity to choose other schools. Decisions on transfers were based on racially balancing the schools. A persons residence had no connection to the school assignment. Al the time, parents complained that the plan senl children in the same neighbor- 5^he drop in white enrollment ^-Central, from 761 to 618, caused a striking change in the a\u0026amp;iools racial composition. For fifyears, the racial makeup at t^ntral hovered around 60 per- eent black, 40 percent white. TKIs year it shot up to 65 per- \u0026lt;*4it black and down to 35 percent white, as compared to 59 percent black and 41 percent white last year. '.The suspension of former Central Principal John L. Hiek- mpn Jr. in January and resulting furor concerned parents, some of whom moved their chil- di^n out of the school. Hicknian w^s suspended and not rehired based on allegations of sexual and financial misconduct. His suspension was highly publicised and bitterly divisive among students, staff and parents. After he left, things seemed to^o downhill, Carolyn Sin- gleton. Whitneys mother, said.The district is following our obligation to phase out Grandfathering, whereby students were allowed to remain in their current school, whether or not the school was the Attendance Zone school. Because of this effort, many Incentive School students have elected to go to their Attendance Zone school. This effort resulted in a total increase of 165 students in our incentive schools in August of 1994 over the October 1993 student count. This increase occurred with one (1) less Incentive School in 1994-95 than in 1993-94. The Little Rock School District also has moved toward actively and aggressively recruiting students to our district. During the 1993-94 school year, a districtwide recruitment plan was written to address requirements in the desegregation plan, court orders, as well as monitoring reports. The document includes plans for incentive, area, magnet and interdistrict schools. As part of the districtwide recruitment plan, each school is required to have an individual recruitment plan and a school recruitment team to implement activities in their plan. Recruitment efforts for Clinton Elementary, Pulaski County Special School Districts new interdistrict elementary school, were extremely successful. More than 200 Little Rock School District students were part of the desegregation exchange and will now attend Clinton Elementary. LRSDs four-year-old program continues to grow and serve parents of preschool children in preparing them for kindergarten. With the addition of eight more classes, the district enrolled 695 students in the program for the 1994-95 school year, an increase of 203 students over last year . The Little Rock School District will continue to comply with every aspect of our Desegregation Plan. 9CENTRAL SUBTOTAL KG TOTAL FAIR SUBTOTAL KG TOTAL HALL SUBTOTAL KG TOTAL McClellan SUBTOTAL KG TOTAL PARKVIEW SUBTOTAL KG TOTAL TOTAL SR TOTAL SR/KG SUBTOTAL Little Rock School District Enrollment Count Octobers, 1994 1101 Ungraded 10 11 12 Black White Other Total Black % #08 Ungraded 10 11 12 #02 Ungraded 10 11 12 #72 10 11 12 nos Ungraded 10 11 12 6 389 291 305 991 49 1040 0 204 141 203 548 0 548 0 16 18 15 6 100.00% 609 450 523 49 1588 0 63.88% 64.67% 58.32% 62.41% 49 100.00% 49 1637 63.53% 21 245 190 162 818 13 631 7 66 110 93 276 3 279 0 28 3 314 0 300 4 259 7 901 0 16 7 917 75.00% 78.03% 63.33% 62.55% 68.59% 81.25% 68.81% 19 266 199 178 662 7 669 19 276 205 164 664 20 684 0 135 137 148 420 15 435 4 105 112 92 313 13 326 7 77 61 58 203 0 203 0 117 117 94 328 0 328 3355 1668 104 16 3459 1684 Office of Desgregation Page 1 0 10 11 15 23 381 322 285 36 1011 0 20 36 1031 82.61% 69.82% 61.80% 62.46% 65.48% 35.00% 64.89% 0 4 2 4 10 0 10 0 17 7 13 37 0 37 26 357 268 226 877 73.08% 77.31% 76.49% 72.57% 75.71% 20 100.00% 897 0 269 261 255 785 76.25% 50.19% 52.49% 58.04% 53.50% 15 100.00% 800 54.38% 139 5162 0 120 64.99% 86.67% 139 5282 65.49%CLOVERDALE JR TOTAL DUNBAR TOTAL Little Rock School District Enrollment Count October 3, 1994 ms Ungraded 7 8 9 #07 Ungraded 7 8 9 FOREST HEIGHTS 1109 Ungraded 7 8 9 4 161 179 177 521 2 46 30 41 119 0 3 1 3 7 6 210 210 221 647 66.67% 76.67% 85.24% 80.09% 80.53% TOTAL HENDERSON #13 Ungraded 7 8 9 TOTAL MABEL VALE JR #16 Ungraded 7 8 9 TOTAL MANN MAGNET 1103 Ungraded 7 8 9 TOTAL PULASKI HEIGHTS P10 Ungraded 7 8 9 TOTAL SOUTHWEST JR iH1 Ungraded 7 8 9 TOTAL SUBTOTAL 0 172 175 121 468 0 79 80 68 227 0 7 4 1 12 0 258 259 190 707 66.67% 67.57% 63.68% 66.20% 10 179 187 189 565 8 65 64 60 197 0 2 12 4 18 18 246 263 253 780 55.56% 72.76% 71.10% 74.70% 72.44% 22 223 222 194 661 2 80 76 71 229 0 11 11 5 27 24 314 309 270 917 91.67% 71.02% 71.84% 71.85% 72.08% 15 130 136 136 417 0 151 157 148 456 10 172 123 126 431 20 145 170 152 487 4006 6 37 50 68 161 0 139 114 113 366 4 101 126 103 334 1 27 30 47 105 1738 Office of Oesgregation Page 2 0 1 2 4 7 0 9 7 7 23 0 2 3 1 6 0 7 7 18 118 21 168 188 208 585 0 299 278 268 845 14 275 252 230 771 21 179 207 203 610 5862 71.43% 77.38% 72.34% 65.38% 71.28% 50.50% 56.47% 55.22% 53.96% 71.43* 62.55* 48.81* 54.78* 55.90* 95.24* 81.01* 82.13* 74.88* 79.84* 68 34%BADGETT TOTAL BALE P4 K TOTAL BASEUNE TOTAL BOOKER TOTAL BRADY TOTAL Little Rock School District Enrollment Count October 3,1994 1)119 Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 0 0 6 100.00% 20 12 16 9 24 11 16 19 133 Ungraded 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 19 25 34 28 19 29 31 24 214 1(^22 Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 S 6 Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 S 6 Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 23 44 31 30 33 27 24 30 245 }^6 36 42 41 40 48 48 48 305 ^18 2 8 45 35 35 24 38 35 32 254 5 0 25 80.00% 8 0 20 60.00% 8 0 0 4 0 24 13 28 66.67% 69.23% 85.71% 6 0 17 64.71% 2 7 44 6 14 13 12 13 8 11 3 7 87 1 13 12 7 13 3 12 6 8 77 32 37 28 39 30 40 39 245 1 9 27 27 17 23 13 11 9 137 Office of Desgregation Page 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 3 5 5 4 2 2 2 23 0 0 6 4 1 0 1 1 17 18 26 177 11 35 38 48 43 28 41 34 31 309 36 58 38 43 37 40 32 38 326 73 84 74 83 80 90 89 573 3 17 78 66 56 48 51 47 42 408 88.89% 73.06% 75.14% 45.45% 54.29% 65.79% 70.83% 65.12% 67.86% 70.73% 91.18% n.42% 69.26% 75.00% 63.89% 75.86% 81.58% 69.77% 89.19% 67.50% 75.00% 78.95% 75.15% 52.05% 50.00% 55.41% 48.19% 60.00% 53.33% 53.93% 53.23% 66.67% 47.06% 57.69% 53.03% 62.50% 50.00% 74.51% 74.47% 76.19% 62.25%CARVER TOTAL CHtCOT TOTAL Little Rock School District Enrollment Count Octobers. 1994 Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 S 6 Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 CLOVERDALE ELEM Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 S 6 TOTAL DODD TOTAL Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 5 6 FAIR PARK TOTAL Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 11121 0 31 35 42 46 52 51 52 309 11128 9 9 36 51 47 48 51 47 46 344 19131 0 34 44 42 39 41 29 35 48 312 itf32 10 27 26 24 19 33 29 25 193 11123 0 18 27 32 25 29 25 25 23 204 Office of DwgrffgatKXi Page 4 0 26 29 41 42 46 45 36 267 15 7 21 16 19 17 16 19 21 151 0 12 13 14 11 8 7 3 6 74 1 9 18 19 9 14 17 10 97 0 15 11 13 8 10 3 8 5 73 0 2 3 0 3 2 0 2 12 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 8 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 6 0 0 2 3 0 1 2 0 8 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 59 67 83 91 100 96 92 586 24 18 42 67 66 66 68 69 66 503 47 59 106 52 53 105 43 54 392 11 36 47 46 31 79 53 41 296 36 38 45 33 40 28 34 28 282 52.54% 52.24% 50.60% 50.55% 52.00% 53.13% 56.52% 5X55% 37.50% 50.00% 85.71% 76.12% 71.21% 7X73% 75.00% 68.12% 67.65% 68.39% 72.34% 74.58% 39.62% 75,00% 77.36% 27,62% 81.40% 88.69% 79.59% 90.91% 75.00% 55.32% 50.00% 61.29% 41.77% 54.72% 60 98% 64.77% 50.00% 71.05% 71.11% 75.76% 7X50% 89 29% 73.53% 6X14% 72.34%FORESTPARK TOTAL FRANKUN TOTAL FULBRIGHT TOTAL GARLAND TOTAL Little Rock School District Enrollment Count October 3.1994 Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 GEYER SPRINGS Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL ltf24 0 0 0 23 33 36 38 30 18 20 196 1^5 12 46 99 49 37 42 36 36 34 393 F48 2 34 34 39 26 36 35 29 235 ill26 6 15 33 31 26 35 30 35 35 246 ^7 0 23 31 37 31 30 18 32 21 223 37 36 33 23 37 36 26 228 4 21 7 2 1 Q 3 1 2 41 4 41 38 29 40 39 50 48 289 1 0 0 3 0 1 1 2 1 9 0 11 7 10 11 6 8 9 4 66 Office of Oesgregation Page 5 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 6 1 5 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 1 3 2 2 2 4 2 2 18 0 3 6 3 5 2 3 3 2 27 0 3 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 11 60 70 70 61 69 55 47 432 17 72 107 51 36 42 40 40 36 443 1 78 7A 70 66 79 37 79 542 7 18 39 37 31 38 34 40 38 282 0 37 42 79 43 36 27 41 25 300 38.33* 47.14* 51.43* 62.30* 43.48* 32.73* 42.55* 45.83* 70.59* 63.89* 92.52* 96.08* 97.37* 100.00* 90.00* 95.00* 94.44* 88.71* 28.57* 43.59* 45.95* 55.71* 36.24* 45.57* 36.71* 43.36* 85.71* 83.33* 84.62* 83.78* 83.87* 92.11* 88.24* 87.50* 92.11* 87.23* 62.16* 73.81* 46.84* 72.09* 83.33* 66.67* 78.05* 84.00* 74.33*GtBBS TOTXU. JEFFERSON TOTAL MLK TOTAL Little Rock School District Enrollment Count Octobers, 1994 Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 S 6 Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 4MSfZ.U4Z. ELEM Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL MCDERMOTT Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 19 24 24 20 25 23 25 160 5 21 36 24 32 31 34 35 218 0 32 57 44 45 27 42 32 30 309 ilf46 9 9 46 47 45 46 48 47 43 340 ^20 0 25 36 33 36 35 42 34 241 17 17 18 14 21 18 16 121 2 36 37 46 39 48 30 41 279 0 31 34 23 26 28 23 34 28 227 0 8 11 16 13 15 21 16 24 124 0 30 35 32 34 33 35 34 233 Office of Desgregatton Page 6 2 3 2 2 1 2 0 12 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 5 0 3 4 2 1 1 2 2 0 15 0 1 1 2 3 0 2 0 1 10 0 3 2 6 2 3 3 1 20 38 44 44 36 47 43 41 293 7 58 74 71 71 79 66 76 502 0 66 95 69 72 56 67 68 58 551 9 18 58 65 61 61 71 63 68 474 0 58 73 71 71 71 80 69 494 50.00% 54.55% 54.55% 55.56% 53.19% 53.49% 60.96% 54.61% 71.43% 36.21% 48.65% 33.80% 45.07% 39.24% 51.52% 46.05% 43.43% 48.48% 60.00% 63.77% 62.50% 48.21% 62.69% 47.06% 51.72% 56.08% 100.00% 50.00% 79.31% 72.31% 73.77% 75.41% 67.61% 74.60% 63.24% 71.73% 43.10% 49.32% 46.48% 50.00% 49 30% 52.50% 49.28% 48 79%MEAOOWCUFF TOTAL MITCHELL TOTAL OTTER CREEK TOTAL Little Rock School District Enrollment Count October 3.1994 Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 S 6 0 0 0 0 41 19 0 60 68.33* 49 42 47 39 31 30 219 8 19 36 34 28 26 40 35 34 2!\u0026amp;a F50 9 13 23 25 19 32 19 23 154 PULASKI HEIGHTS ELEM 1138 Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 5 6 9 29 24 38 26 24 29 27 14 21 22 23 20 12 131 0 0 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 8 0 27 25 22 23 37 34 28 196 0 28 41 34 24 28 25 27 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 1 9 0 2 4 3 0 3 2 2 63 63 69 62 51- 43 411 8 19 38 35 31 28 42 36 35 272 0 40 SO 49 44 69 55 52 359 0 59 69 75 SO 55 56 56 n.78* 66.67* 68.12* 62.90* 60.78* e9.77% 67.88* 100.00* 100.00* 94.74* 97.14* 90.32* 92.86* 95.24* 97.22* 97.14* 95.59* 32.50* 46.00* 51.02* 43.18* 46.38* 34.55* 44.23* 42.90* 49.15* 34.78* 50.67* 52.00* 43.64* 51.79* 48.21* TOTAL 197 207 16 420 46.90% RIGHTSELL TOTAL Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 17 37 20 34 27 35 20 35 225 Office of OatQregation Paga? 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 38 20 35 27 36 20 35 229 94.44* 97.37* 100.00* 97.14* 100.00* 97.22* 100.00* 100.00* 98.25*ROCKEFELLER TOTAL ROMINE TOTAL TERRY TOTAL WAKEFIELD Ungraded K TOTAL WASHINGTON TOTAL Little Rock School District Enrollment Count Octobers, 1994 Ungraded PI P2 P3 P4 K 1 2 3 4 S 6 Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 F36 0 0 0 5 5 5 7 6 0 1 0 10 10 13 50.00% 40.00% 53.85% 32 16 5 S3 60.38% 32 20 2 54 59.26% 41 X 26 33 24 X 264 ^0 13 18 34 43 24 23 17 28 34 234 0 29 n X 28 40 X X 234 lUSI 0 44 51 45 52 51 43 41 327 #42 7 3 51 80.39% 19 21 10 11 4 124 0 16 14 10 11 10 3 4 5 73 0 46 41 X X 41 X 295 0 12 9 10 9 5 12 16 73 1 1 0 2 0 15 0 2 2 5 1 0 1 2 3 16 0 4 3 6 3 S 7 2 X Q 4 1 2 1 2 2 1 13 50 48 43 37 34 403 13 X X 58 X 33 21 34 42 323 0 79 71 94 75 X 84 7e 559 0 X 61 57 62 X 57 X 413 60.00% 54.17% 76.74% 64.86% 68 24% 65.51% 1X.00% X.00% 68.00% 74.14% 66.67% 69.70% X.95% 62.X% X.95% 72.45% X.71% X.03% 40.43% 37.X% x.00% 42.X% 47.37% 41 .X% 73.X% X.61% 78.95% 83 87% 87.93% 75.44% 70.69% 79.18% Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 1 0 3 X.67% X X X X 47 78 61 48 443 11 22 X X X X 31 31 211 Office of Desgraoation Page 8 5 3 4 6 3 2 6 4 X 52 78 89 95 X 106 X X X7 69.23% 67-95% 61.80% 66 32% 56 63% 73.58% 62.24% 57.83% 64.48%Little Rock School District Enrollment Count October 3.1994 WESTERN HILLS 11129 TOTAL WILLIAMS TOTAL WILSON TOTAL WOODRUFF TOTAL SUBTOTAL GRANO TOTAL Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ungraded P4 K 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 29 28 34 26 33 33 32 215 1143 0 31 34 33 36 39 37 40 250 #44 18 9 32 46 29 28 20 35 37 254 #45 0 18 25 25 28 12 11 14 15 148 8900 16365 8 2 39 7436* 14 13 18 14 10 18 95 0 28 32 35 30 28 32 29 214 3 8 11 12 12 13 6 12 6 83 0 16 7 13 14 8 14 8 7 87 4751 8173 Offtca of Oesgregalion Page 9 1 0 1 1 1 1 7 0 1 1 0 3 4 1 0 10 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 3 8 0 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 8 43 47 45 48 44 51 317 0 60 67 68 69 71 70 69 474 21 18 43 60 42 41 27 47 46 345 0 36 33 40 43 21 26 22 22 243 400 14051 657 25195 65.12% 72.34% 57.78% 68.75% 75.00% 62.75% 67.82% 51.67% 5075% 48.53% 52.17% 54.93% 52.86% 57.97% 52.74% 85.71% 50.00% 74.42% 76.67% 69.05% 68.29% 74.07% 74.47% 80.43% 73.62% 50.00% 75.76% 62.50% 65.12% 57.14% 42.31% 63.64% 68.18% 60.91% 63.34% 64.95%L Arkansas Democrat THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1994 Little Rock School District Enrollment i 'SS'M SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS SPECIAL SCHOOLS DISTRICT TOTAL SOURCE: uno Rock School District EnroWment 5,447 5,079 14,017 51 25,594 Percent black 85% 88 84 53 _ 85 Enrotlment 5,282 5,882 14,051 38 25,231 Percent black 05% 42 88 Arkansas OMnocral-Gautte Slightly fewer enroll in LR School District Total off 1.4%\nracial breakdown static BY OANNY SHAMEER Oemocrai-Gazefle Education Writer The Little Rock School Dis- trict's enrollment dropped slightly compared with a year ago. the official October enrollment count shows. The district, the state's largest, reported having 25.231 students  363 fewer than the 1993-94 count, and a 1.4 percent decrease from 1993-94'.s 25.594. The district's black enrollment remained at 65 percent. The count on the first class day in October is considered the official enrollment for public schools in Arkansas. While it isn't the number used to determine state funding for a district, it does have state aid implications. Neither the North Little black students and 289 fewer white students than a year ago. In other racial categories, the district gained 220 students. At this time last year, black students had decreased by 52 and white students had decreased by 599. Dr. C. Russell Mayo, associate superintendent for desegregation, said Wednesday. Last .year, the district's overall enrollment dropped 618 students from the 1992 1993 school year enrollment count. Little Rock enrollment figures included 540 students who came from the Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District under majority-to-minority student transfers. The Little Rock district stu- Rock School District nor the Pu- dent assignment office reported laski County Special School 1.507 students who left the dis- District had official enrollment trict for the Pulaski County Spe- figures available Wednesday. ' \" '  The information is due at the cial School District or the North Little Rock School Dis- state Department of Education trict under the transfer pro- by Oct. 15. gram. The The Little Rock districts en- majority-to-minority rollment showed 294 fewer transfer program allows stu- dents to cross district lines to aid in desegregation. Mayo said Wednesday that the district is sending 236 more students out of Little Rock under the transfer program than last year. The net decrease in total enrollment would be 127. Mayo said the net decrease was 532 students last year. Central High School, which has an international studies magnet program designed to recruit white students, had 1,637 students overall  242 fewer students than a year ago. Not every student in the school is part of the magnet program. The school had 186 fewer black students and 70 fewer white students than last year. Four of the five incentive schools continued to have high black enrollment. Those schools had only 34 more white students than a year ago.10'07'94 13:39 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst 0001 LirrLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 I' .6 FAX (501) 324-2032 L DATE: TO: /O/ 7/^^ FROM: SENDERS S PHONE SUBJECT: SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Number of Pages (include cover page Speed. Dial^_____ Fax. Phone Nn-rnl-haT- /DC? 10.07/94 13:40 S3i:il 324 2032 L R School Dlst @002 To: Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM Dr. Henry P, Williams, Saperintendent From. Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date- Subject\nOctober 4.1994 Enrollment Comparison 1993 \u0026amp; 1994 (October 1), Attached is a chart comparing 1993 with 1994 October 1 enrollment. Worth noting are the following items\n1. Total enroHmenl for the district decreased but not nearly as much as last year this lime: a) b) The chart indicates a decrease in total enrollment of 363 students. Of that number, we have 236 more M-M transfers out of our district than last year. Therefore, the net decrease in total enrollment is approximately 12~ students. This time last year, the net decrease was 532. The number of black students decreased by 301 while white students decreased by 295. The category of other students increased bj' 221. This time last year, black students had c) d) decreased by 52, white students had decreased by 599, and odter students increased by 33. Change in percent of black students in the district is negligible. The Incentive Schools show an increase in total enrollment of 320. This occurred with one less incentive school. We did add t four^year old program. However, this accounts for only 18 additional students. 2. Changes in enroUment by orgartizationai level varies greatly\na) Junior high schools saw the greatest ORcrease with 21 3. b) High schools decreased by 165. c) Elementary schools increased by 7. Racial balance is mixed depending on the type of school:  s) Area Schools : i) Elementary Schools show 16 outside of the range *. a) Schools which have moved 3% or more back toward the range in one year are Bale, Brady, and rate Park. b) Schools which have moved 3% or more away from the range tn one year are Badges, Mableoale (8%), Wakefield, and Wesfem Hills. it) Junior High Schools show 2 remaining out of range this year {Southwest \u0026amp; Cloaerdale}. Southwest, howev^T, is 2.56% further out of range than last year. iii) .High Schools show only 1 remaining out of range {McClellan}. a) Though still within their range. Fair and //\u0026lt;?/,' increased in percent black by more than 3%. Ranges vary by organizational le\\'el and appear to the right of the attached chart. Unlike junior high and high schools. Elementary Area Schools have a fixed range of 40%-60% black students (Interdistrict Plan, page 3, In. 9).10-07/94 13:40 SOI 324 2032 L R School Dlst @003 ienry P. P'tllieirsS, Superintendent trollment Compariton 1S93 \u0026amp; J994 (October 3) 4. C: b) Parkview decreased in percent black by 4.38%. b) Magnet Schools (original six), with a range of 50%-55%* black students, are all inside of the range. As of this date, all students on the ivaitir^ list of each magnet since 1991 haue been contacted and offered auailoble seats according to grade level and racial balance. Those contacted inere mostly White. We continue to move through the remaining lists which date beyond three years ago. ,. The chance that these students will take seats is reduced because of the time they These students will be in the upper grades of their have spent in their current schools. respective schools now and may not iwant to change schools. c) Magnet Programs: i) Dunbai^ has a range of 40%-60% and remains outside of the range from last year. Ths school moved 357% more out of range this year to 66.20%. ii) Other magnet programs, except the original six, King,^ and Dunbar, are reflected under area schdols and must comply with the appropriate area school range. d) Interdistrict Schools have a range^ of40%-60%\n0 Washington (64-48%) and Romine (72.45%') remain outside of the range. ii) King has moved inside of the range this year. e) Incentive Schools remain racially identifiable. However, Rockefeller has decreased in percent black by 5% over last year bringing it to 63.51 %- An important relationship to notice from the chart is that of capacity to raaal Balance (percent black), in many schools, we cannot have both\na) For example, McClellan H^h School is outside of its racial balance range but has 302 seats leh before reaching capacity-. Because racial balance is a priority of the Plan over capacity, only- non-black students can be assigned there now. One-hundred twenty (120) additional nori- black students must be assigned to bring the school into range. If that were accomplisheo, one additional black student could be assigned for each additional non-black student until capacity was reached. Until those additional non-black students are found, the capacity of the school cannot be reached. similar problem. While some are within their ranges, they are b) A number of schools have a--------------------------- near the top of the range but not at capacity. If addidonal black students requested these schools, we could assign up to the maximum edge of the range. If only black students are assigned however, those schools would never reach capacity either. Some examples of this are King 'interdistrict Magnet. Parkview High School Magnet, and Forest Heights Junior High School. Superintendents Council  Interdistrict Plan, page 3. In. 31. 2 S LRSD Plan, page 140, In 23. King must comply with Iftienhstrici School ranges. Intcrdistrict Plan, page 2, In. 10.10-07 '94 13:41 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst 0004 OctOtoiK 1. 1SS3 i i I LKte Rock School Onaiet Enrvllmafit Comparison Octot*/1 1S5X Drff^9ftc* 199^ Cents! HS^ r-eeHS HeUHS 1 g M:CatenHS\" PalnwwWS* ! i I ! I 1 S 1 ! 1 .!_ I 2 -  - I B * 5   I \u0026lt; ! i 9- I \u0026gt; 12281 S16| 33\n18791 6S35%i lOMi i\u0026gt;46i ' 49i 163?! 63S3%{-ia8! -70! I6l-242i -1.82% . I Q. 1891! -254 S96I 314i Bl 916! 64.92% 586 ! 362 ! 28! 976 | 60,04% 66S| 213! 71 8S6| 7517% 7[ gl71 6O.8TM35I 669 ! 325 ! 36! 10311 64 89** 631! 2791 -1 684 i 2C3| IPi aS7! 76.25% 83\n-36! Bi 55 4631 3151 loi 76Si 58.76%^ 4351 3281 37i 18 -10! 3| 11 389* 4.85* 1.06% 9^ -37 'Magne: \"Sot^Tet^l\n35391 1S22I WoIUsmOII ClovmialeJH Sunbar-ZW- 7 L ^^SHoightsJH |i A4aM13le JH UannJJr Pufebtr Hiights 800' 54.3S%{ .2b! 13! 27i 1S| -4.38% 86' 5447! u^7%it MB, 1884\n133\n5Zg2l 65.49%\n-Wl-ISei 63I-1S6! 0.52% 3076! 15071 76j '4^r66.0?^|' 3OT4i 13B| 1021 4482! 57-47*4 -t2i-l5l| 251-177! 5661 13O| 4391 2511 5 n 575! 195I 18 701' 80.74% 701! 6282% 521 468 1191 1.45% 7| 647 | 80.53%! -^Si -11'1 21 -941 -O.a% 7881 7257%! 5 227! 121 707 | 66.20%\n29j~-24| ll 6i 3.57% 678! 210\n 4531 197 i 494! 341 2': 197i IS] 915! 74.10%I 6611 229' 27| TSO! 72.44%S^ 4[ 654 ! 6937% 16! 851! 58.05% 417| 161! 91T| 72.0e%|r' -17! 19! Oi 21 Oi -8! -0.53% 1291! -260 1199! -3C2 ioob! -200 SSS5| -1053 53351 -853 863! -221 8121 -105 8581 -78 \" Magnel Program Inoenlnre - iwwdBlnc! 49.11% 7317% AreaHSRaigs 21 -2(7i 7| 535 ! 7128%\n-36! -SSP3! -69! 2C2% 456 ! 3S5t 23! ' 645 53.96%g -38\n25! 7! -6! -4 06% 9071 10 614! -29 r 4341 251 524' 141\n5! 790 i 54.94% 14! 679 ! 77.17% 431! 334! 4871 1IS| 18! s! 7T\\ 55.90%! -3| -I7i 11 -19! 0.96% 6101 79.84%|i -37i -oei 4| -63' 266% 8501 745i -5 26 Sul\u0026gt;-T\u0026lt;itl\n 4163! 18161 IDO\n6079 | 68.48% Woment|! 3S69i 1475T 84! 522SI 70.18% 4006! 1733| 118! 5862\n6aJ4%|j-lS7| -78i 13!-217: 41.14% 35501 1372| 95! 5017! 70.71 Ssfs 3coke^ itsdf Canrsf\" CtJaf CiO'^rdeJe Codd rair Park tdtasiPari: trsnUrT ^.itiKd! C^larKf CeyerSpPnes SXf JefJsrss.i 132j 571 0, r 2251 6^ 10! T~ 265! 76I 1 32H 2SS| 5! 9! 189! eS4% 3C3! 7426% 3431 7726% 53.95% 1331 2141 2451 44\n871 771 Qi 177! ' 75.14% li -119i-1(K! 1i:.2l1i Bje% n -13| 0! -12\n5.30% 8! 309! 65.29%\n-11 i 19! -2) 61 -5.00% ! 263| 1221 121 397! S25% 305 l 243, 25\n4! 326 ! 75f5S -20i 11 21 -171 -2.11% 573'i ~53.23%i! -161 -2Q| 14! -22i -0.72% |l' 3251 2551 ! 356! 1471 7! 595 ! 54.62% 2541 137! 171 406 ! 622S%| I 304\n189\n1' 2EQ! 75! 97! 6! 5091 .94% 7! 385! 76.76% f' SJB! 2o7| 121 5831 52.55%pi^ -91 15i 5! 111 -3.99% 344\n1511 312i p~200 ! 253i 300! 40! 61 31 5! 51 i! 2721 15, 1811 2081 3\n76\n211 21 1701 121 213! 257 r 357! 189! 3Vi} 1 /A I jl 2S7! 2321 i- 31g! 127! 2921 64.73* i 1S3I 263 : 76.05%! ' 204\nJI ll 215! 12! 1411 195\nRorrvfK- Tsfry iVfiSem Hills Wiissr. WOOCfV{^ Seeds! Sef)091s 737! -127 6391! -529 5541! -524 257] -60 4011 -92 3901 -64 655:' -S3 457! -65 613! -25 6681 -55 492! -lOd 3231 -30 351! -69 51.25% 75.88% Aiea JH Range 4, 5! -7| -207% 4: 2! -Si -1.55% 3031 68.39% g -12! 61 6: S' 5' 61 91 181 el 0.84* 6! 0.04% 8! 4! 74! 571 73\n332! 73.59% I 2381 S4.77s^ 2821 7234% j 4321 45.83*1! 4451 87i%t S42I 432e%'r 2S2| 67.a%| 300 ! 74.33% t -11 -1! 0, 2! 41 13| 2! 19| -3.71% -2! -25! 11 -261 217% .57%r~i! .96% 456 j 43.57% 345! 86.96% 520! 44.81% 1^t 226I 3S3' 411 S3i 1! 4! 981 1.76% 2051 8629% 1 246: 288 ! 7222*1 2231 6\n299 ! 56.66% 4! 7!' 3! 15! 504 ! 4225% 331 Sl.K* 488! 63.73% 509! 5'.47% 235! 2S9i 9! 27! 65! 11 i 21 17! 3i 22\n-1.45% Si 6\n6| 77, -1.06% 39i 434! 540! 33 9 1631 121! 2181 2791 309 ! 227! 340, 124! TJ 2S3I S4.6\u0026gt;Kji -10! 5| 502 ' 43..43%i 151 10! I5i -12! 9! I2i 211* Ol 4, -6\n-225% 5I -81 1| -2! 1.16% 551\n96.08%\n-46! 35i 8, -2I -8.46% II 4341 70.51%! 279! 1 -nni Ct /oe\n7 a: 5: 230! 3.48% 3411 41.33%' 241\n233 ' 20' tlM. 71.73^ 4341 48.7^ 29! -501 7i -14! 8.00% 2501 8' 1541 195: II 4| 411! 67.88% ij'27!' II 51 -151 -2% 4\n01 -231 -2S2% 2721 S5.59%\n|451 -41 1| 42! 2.11% 190! 1971 111 398 | 47.74% I I97i 2071 3| 359! 42! 13i 7 164! 4' 189! 9735% 3401 70.53% 2251 4i 16! 420! 46.90% 229! S825K|I 41 i II 4i 18! 1S% 7i 10! 5! 22, -0.83% 0! -11 40\n0,90% r T L -4- 238! -1S 328| -28 353! -63 432! 10 728' -177 5151 517! 465! 54 298\n-23 3511 374\n8 45 240! 531 7i '2471 73, 3341 755%| 1411 Si 11 1451 9724*1 2431 292! 251  6611 4322% 3l 3371 106! 4i 4471 75.S% 451! 250\nlOi 721! 6255% 353! 891 0! 2641 124| 2341 15 73! 15 ClesRl 403! 6.31% 323 ! 724 241 311 8! 631 -5.06% 234! 2S5i ' 30i 5^l 41.88% -9| 3271' 73'i iSi -  73i Oi 2! -Ill -1.51% Ooae_______ 3i 4| .21 -1.46% 258! '-23 469! -65 4S7| -154 ! '215| 1141 257, 2071 4421 79.86% 332 ! 64.76% 4431 211\n340! 811 6' 21S| 95! 413I 79.(8%( -101 -331 91 -341 657\n84.48% 379% 515! \u0026lt;92! 44 -7B -8! -491 231 -341 153% 835! -149 Tea! 147! 27l S7i 84\n23! 4721 54.45%l! 2501 214! 41 3541 7429% 51 236 ' 6229% 51! 5294% 2541 1481 151 831 871 6! 7! 10! 4271 79.63%ll -131 -6\n61 -151 -024% 492! -65 317! 67.32%j 0! -19\n4i -15! 3.08% 474! 5274% 61 3451 73.62% 8! 2431 60.91% 0! -7! 9\nT 71 21 2! -1.71% Jll 4i 3, 31 -91 -0.57% 71. -1.38* 36! 41.67%\n-121 -21 -II -151-1127% Su8-Toauj' S972 ! 4S45\n251, 14068! 63.7to| 8915\n4772 : 400. 14087\n6329%|! -67! -7311481 19\n-0.48% \u0026gt;4aM\u0026gt;gnall 78721'3968\n218! 12066 : 65J0*A|l 7876 ' 3904! 5431 121Z3I 6437%{ 4! .62I12S! S7I .0.3314 SranO 7oi3\u0026lt;| 16674 1 84S3 i \u0026lt;37125594 1 65.15% 116360 ! 8194! 667 : 252311 64.92%|-294i-2S9'l220!-363i -0.23% 4lAfegneBj| I46t7i^| 376121943! 6S61%\ni50! SS32i 540 i2l622i '66.S3%^167l-3l6!lS2i-32l. 0:1^ 328! -n 517! -43 394! .49 3241 -81 T  15717,-1630 13578,-1455 284431-3212 24454 TSCZ 4000% 80.00% Area Stem. Range M_5JC.S O1hc ol Dcwrgrvgatian IsrSWJr /10/19/1995 14:24 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 01 Office of SwdeNT AssiqNMENT SO! SheXMAN UnE Rock, AR 72202 Tdephoxs SO FT24-2272 Fax SO FT24-2281 FAX COVER SHEET DATE fo-h - TO -0 D /v\\ Fax NiMba^ FROM 3\u0026gt;'7l'0i o SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. /f NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER 3 10/19/1995 14:24 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 03 /08/93 11:31:46 PAGE - Entry  Withdrawal Entry/Withdrawal Coda Description 1 E AR CE DX DO HS XE LR NO NP PO RE FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL IN ARKANSAS CHANGE TO ENTRY RECORD FROM DETENTION FACILITY IN ARKANSAS FROM DETENTION FACILITY OUTSIDE ARKANSAS FROM HOME SCHOOL INITIAL ENROLLMENT THIS YEAR FROM ANOTHER LRSD SCHOOL FROM NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL OUTSIDE ARKANSAS FROM NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL IN ARKANSAS FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL OUTSIDE ARKANSAS RE-ENROXX AFTER EXIT SAME SCHOOL W AO ex DC DF ED EM EP EX EY FL GR XD LT ML MM MO MR NA NE NX or PC PG PS SC SI TI UN VD XH ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST CHANGE TO EXIT RECORD DECEASED ASSIGNED TO A DETENTION FACILITY EXEMPTED BY THE DISTRICT WITHDREW/EMPLOYMENT WITHDREW/EMOTXONAL PROBLEMS EXPELLED BY THE DISTRICT END OF YEAR WITHDREW/FAILING GRADES STUDENT GRADUATED DUPLICATE XD LONG TERM SUSPENSION WITHDREW/ENLISTED IN MILITARY M TO M TRANSFER MOVED TO ANOTHER DISTRICT WITHDREW/MARRIAGE WITHDREW DUE TO NON-ATTENDANCE ON RECORD BUT NOT ENROLLED WXTHDREW/LACK OF INTEREST OFFICIAL TRANSFER WITHIN DISTRICT PEER CONFLICT WITHDREW/PREGNANCY ENROLLED IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL enrolled/post-secondary school WXTHDREW/SERXOUS PERSONAL ILUTESS TRANSFER WITHIN DISTRICT/MOVED WITHDREW/UNIDENTXFIABLE REASON WITHDREW VOLUNTARILY/DISCIPLINE EXIT TO HOME SCHOOL END O F REPORT10/19/1995 14:24 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT LSSIGLM PAGE 02 CORRECTED COPY Linia Rock School District Exit Totals 1994-95 August 22, 1994-June 30, 1995 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS central JA Fair.................... MCCLELLAN PARWEW SUB total JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS CLOVERDALE DUNBAR ~ ^EST HEIGHTS HENDERSON mabelvale\" MANN magnet \" PULASKI HEIGHTS SOUTHWEST ~ SUB TOTAL AD PC Of ED EM EP' Ex EY PU OR lO i 211 1, 2. t 3' 2 21 i\n1 1 2i I MU MM MO MR NA NE Nl OT PC PG P3\n3c SI 1 Tl I UM VO I XH I TOT ^1 1. ..J. 1 1 2 7\n131 2\\ 1: 1 3\nEUEMEWTarY SCHOOLS | badoett BAL BASELINE_________ booker MAQNET BRAOY CARVER MAGNET CHICOT CLOVERDALE tX\u0026gt;DD______________ FAIR PARK_________ FOREST PARK ^anklin FULBRIGHT ^RLANO__________ Gg^R SPRINGS GIBBS Magnet jgFFSRSQN KING mabelvale ~ MCDERMOTT MEAOOWCliff MfrCHELL i r t TT 2! \"17 + I OTTER CWBSK PULASKI HEIGHTS WQHTSELL rockefeller RQMNE^ STEPHENS TERRY__________ WAKEFIELD WASHINGTON WATSON  ^STERN HILLS  !^1AM3'magnet ' ^QN WOODRUFF SUB TOTAL f 11 2, i 81 T r, 11 81 9. 15i ( I I 4. I T 1 ii + 1 I !~r.2 'M'\n' 1'\n8 II -r 7T I I 1 I i J. T 1 T  T + 1 I 1 r 17 t t' 7 1, 1 T 6 ' I I I U...7 v I f T  1 I X X 1 I I -t i I Tr 31 1 20 -Lij T I 2: i L_L 1 I t H 11 2 2\u0026gt; T I T I I I H X I 4 t I + 4i 1i I ORAND TOTAL! 27 8/23/M X r 4. f I 18 28i 4 t + + X X II X T + i 7j 4-1 ~7 1' 8 41 i 1 T X J. 4-4. X t I T I T I + T t X X 1' I 1 1 + 1 1 1 + 1 T 117 73' _86 1^: 17' 379 1. \"3\n431 ........t' 7  54. 129\n2 711 37' IOS? 24 1 4.. (..... 3{ f-Hi 1 .1 8 4 11 17\nI 17' 1 I 408 88 6^ 91 33:  sr^f 32 84 L i 701 I 18^ J 901 J 3S\u0026amp; 1: 1 I 2!^ ^'7 47 2' 1188\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_465","title":"Enrollment","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991/1993"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Enrollment"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/465"],"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\nM-to-M TRANSFERS SENDING TO: RECEIVING FROM: LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL LRSD NLRSD PCSSD TOTAL XXXXX 256 382 638 XXXXX 118 255 373 118 255 373 XXXXX -0-* 256 -0-* XXXXX 382 118 255 1,011 256 382 638 XXXXX -0- 256 -0- 118 XXXXX 382 255 1.011  NLRSD sends to PCSSD 59 students and PCSSD sends to NLRSD 34 students on a volunteer transfer agreement between the two districts. The normal M-to-M funding formula is not used for these students. NOTE: LRSD sends to PCSSD 382 students PCSSD sends to LRSD 255 students Summary: LRSD sends to PCSSD 127 students more than PCSSD sends to LRSD LRSD sends out a total of 638 students PCSSD sends out a total of 255 students Summary: LRSD sends out 383 more students than PCSSD does. LRSD sends out a total of 638 students LRSD receives a total of 373 students Summary: LRSD sends out 265 more students than they receive. PCSSD sends out a total of 255 students PCSSD receives a total of 382 students Summary: PCSSD receives 127 students than they send out.Note: Romine is 73% filled with 130 available seats. Woodruff is 69% filled with 99 available seats. There are 5 elementary schools with 100% or more capacity: Forest Park McDermott Otter Creek Terry Wilson 102% 104% 101% 104% 100% over 6 over 19 over 5 over 20 There are 8 elementary schools with 80% or below maximum capacity: Cloverdale Garland Geyer Springs Ish Rightsell Romine Stephens Woodruff 80% 78% 77% 75% 80% 73% 73% 69% 100 available seats 81 available seats 74 available seats 65 available seats 71 available seats 130 available seats 90 available seats 99 available seats Cloverdale, Geyer Springs, and Woodruff underwent new construction and increased capacity. Garland, Ish, Rightsell, and Stephens are incentive schools. Romine, Woodruff, and Stephens have the lowest percent of filled capacity in LRSD. Woodruff and Stephens are located in the same area as the Westside site. Romine is an interdistrict school.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT TO CAPACITY COMPARISON SCHOOLS 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS Badgett 220 73% 237 93% 17 Bale 360 82% 396 91% 36 Baseline 337 77% 390 86% 53 Booker 634 55% 656 97% 22 Brady 420 68% 492 85% 72 Carver 601 54% 613 98% 12 Chicot 531 64% 558 95% 27 Cloverdale 392 78% 492 80% 100 Dodd 303 55% 328 92% 25 Fair Park 320 80% 348 92% 28 Forest Park 402 48% 396 102% 0 Franklin 507 84% 570 89% 63 Fulbright 506 46% 515 98% 9 Garland 279 94% 360 78% 81 Geyer Springs 254 71% 328 77% 74 Gibbs 339 56% 353 96% 14 Ish 200 94% 265 75% 65 Jefferson 484 43% 486 99% 2 Mabelvale Elem 505 53% 515 98% 10 McDermott 511 57% 492 104% 0 Meadowcliff 427 59% 442 97% 15 Mitchell 312 91% 360 87% 48 Otter Creek 356 45% 351 101% 0 Pul. Heights 342 54% 351 97% 9 Rightsell 289 98% 360 80% 71 Rockefeller 403 70% 445 91% 42 Romine 357 84% 487 73% 130 Stephens 245 96% 335 73% 90 Terry 512 47% 492 104% 0 Wakefield 479 69% 492 97% 13 Washington 841 57% 979 86% 138SCHOOLS 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS Watson 467 72% 492 95% 25 Western Hills 323 59% 328 98% 5 Williams 495 55% 517 96% 22 Wilson 394 73% 394 100% 0 Woodruff 225 64% 324 69% 99 SUB TOTAL 14,683 65% 1,417 Cloverdale Jr. 745 71% 857 87% 112 Dunbar 691 61% 751 92% 60 Forest Heights 765 71% 733 104% 0 Henderson 859 83% 959 90% 100 Mabelvale Jr. 665 65% 594 112% 0 Mann 872 56% 935 93% 63 Pul. Heights 761 62% 692 110% 0 Southwest 704 74% 702 100% 0 SUB TOTAL 6,062 68% 335 Central High 1,721 60% 1,891 91% 170 Fair 882 61% 904 98% 22 Hall 1,082 54% 1,216 89% 134 McClellan 980 65% 1,085 90% 105 Parkview 844 53% 991 85% 147 SUB TOTAL 5,309 59% 578 GRAND TOTAL 26,254 64% 2330LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT TO CAPACITY COMPARISON SCHOOLS 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pul. Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington 220 360 337 634 420 601 531 392 303 320 402 507 506 279 254 339 200 484 505 511 427 312 356 342 289 403 357 245 512 479 841 73% 82% 77% 55% 68% 54% 64% 78% 55% 80% 48% 84% 46% 94% 71% 56% 94% 43% 53% 57% 59% 91% 45% 54% 98% 70% 84% 96% 47% 69% 57% 93% 17 396 390 656 492 613 558 492 328 348 396 570 515 360 328 353 265 486 515 492 442 360 351 351 360 445 487 335 492 492 979 91% 86% 97% 85% 98% 95% 80% 92% 92% 102% 89% 98% 78% 77% 96% 75% 99% 98% 104% 97% 87% 101% 97% 80% 91% 73% 73% 104% 97% 86% 36 53 22 72 12 27 100 25 28 0 63 9 81 74 14 65 2 10 0 15 48 0 9 71 42 130 90 0 13 138SCHOOLS 1991-92 Enrollment % BLK CAPACITY % FILLED AVAILABLE SEATS Watson 467 72% 492 95% 25 Western Hills 323 59% 328 98% 5 Williams Wilson Woodruff SUB TOTAL Cloverdale Jr. Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Jr. Mann Pul. Heights Southwest SUB TOTAL Central High Fair Hall McClellan Parkview SUB TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 495 394 225 14,683 745 691 765 859 665 872 761 704 6,062 1,721 882 1,082 980 844 5,509 26,254 55% 73% 64% 6S% 71% 61% 71% 83% 65% 56% 62% 74% 63% 60% 61% 54% 65% 53% 59% 64% 517 394 324 857 751 733 959 594 935 692 702 1,891 904 1,216 1,085 991 96% 100% 69% 87% 92% 104% 90% 112% 93% 110% 100% 91% 98% 89% 90% 85% 22 0 99 1,417 112 60 0 100 0 63 0 0 335 170 22 134 105 147 578 2,330Saturday, October 12, 1991...Dei enrollment - Oct. 1,1991 Sr.high Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Total White Black Other % Black 640 1,086 336 487 330 377 542 595 658 455 45 13 19 12 25 2,152 3,243 114 61 61 54 66 53 59 Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total 209 263 208 135 235 365 291 176 531 420 541 711 429 491 468 521 1,882 4,112 5 8 16 13 1 16 2 7 68 71 61 71 83 65 56 62 74 68 Elementary Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights : Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodnjff Total Grand Total 59 60 74 275 128 271 187 84 134 60 206 71 264 15 74 141 9 270 234 206 174 27 191 151 6 116 55 9 253 141 356 126 130 214 105 77 161 295 258 347 286 325 341 304 166 257 191 428 231 262 180 190 188 209 266 291 252 285 160 185 282 282 301 235 243 329 480 338 190 273 289 145 0 5 5 12 6 5 3 4 3 3 5 8 11 2 0 8 3 5 5 14 1 0 5 6  1 5 1 1 16 . 9 5 3 3 8 1 3 Includes 4-year-olds 4,851 9,374 166 9,04516,916 357 73 82 77 55 68 54 64 78 55 80 48 84 46 94 71 56 94 43 53 57 59 91 45 54 98 70 84 96 47 69 57 72 59 55 73 64 65 64 \u0026lt; 1 (LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1991 TO: Board of Directors October 8, 1991 Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools iA SUBJECT: October 1 Enrollment - 1991-92 School Year Please find attached the October 1 enrollment statistics for the 1991-92 school year. cc: Senior Management Team LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT COMPARISON 1990-91/1991-92 WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK SENIOR HIGH: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) % 2201 2152 (49) (2.2%) 3174 3243 69 2.1% 90 114 24 26.7% 5465 5509 44 .8% 58 59 JUNIOR HIGH: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) % 1878 1882 4 .2% 4025 . 4112 87 2.2% 81 68 (13) (16.1%) 5984 6062 78 1.3% 67 68 ELEMENTARY: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) % 4740 4851 111 2.3% 9435 9374 (61) (.7%) 161 166 5 3.1% 14,336 14,391 55 .4% 66 65 SPECIAL SCHOOLS: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) 49 40 (9) 22 24 2 0 0 0 71 64 (7) 31 38 DISTRICT TOTAL: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) % 8868 8925 57 .6% 16,656 16,753 97 .6% 332 348 16 4.8% 25,856 26,026 170 .7% 64 64 KINDERGARTEN: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE!DECREASE) % 682 694 12 1.8% 1200 1231 31 2.6% 22 18 (4) (18.2%) 1904 1943 39 2.1% 63 63WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL XBLACK FOUR YEAR OLD: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE{DECREASE) % 76 120 44 57.9% 146 163 17 11.6% 6 9 3 50% 228 292 64 28.1% 64 56 DISTRICT TOTAL WITH FOUR YEAR OLDS: 10/1/90 10/1/91 INCREASE(DECREASE) % 8944 9045 101 1.13% 16,802 16,916 114 .7% 338 357 19 5.6% 26,084 26,318 234 .9% 64 64GRADE WHITE K 694 1 757 2 693 3 656 4 688 5 668 6 657 UNGR 38 TOTAL ELEM, 4851 7 649 8 597 9 626 UNGR 10 TOTAL JR HIGH 1882 10 700 11 731 12 710 UNGR 11 TOTAL SR HIGH 2152 SPEC. SCHOOLS 40 FOUR YEAR OLDS 120 DIST TOTALS 9045 SUMMARY OF OCTOBER 1 ENROLLMENT 1991-92 BLACK OTHER* TOTAL %BLACK 1231 1414 1291 1240 1333 1410 1348 107 9374 1407 1422 1271 12 4112 1241 1056 933 13 3243 24 163 16,916 18 22 32 22 24 22 25 1 166 24 21 23 0 68 44 37 33 0 114 0 9 357 SUMMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN \"OTHER\" CATEGORY: SPANISH 92 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER - 233 ESKIMO/AMERICAN INDIAN OTHER 27 5 1943 2193 2016 1918 2045 2100 2030 146 14,391 2080 2040 1920 22 6062 1985 1824 1676 24 5509 64 292 26,318 63 64 64 65 65 67 66 73 65 68 70 66 55 68 63 58 56 54 59 38 56 64Q: G TTLE TOBER t 1 ROCK ? 1 ENf WOO!.... DI (5 T t..LNENT RE FCT jRT 1 1 C hl IJ Li L / (ri F\\ A L, F\". Whin E. BL.ACI OThlER TOTAL BLACK CENTRAL UNGRADED 10 11 12 0 L. 4: 0  SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 169 640 0 640 OeZLJ 2 7 h 1036 0 21 13 11 tiRf\u0026lt;  5 fl) 1 702 .3 to to 5 6 721 1771 61 hC) 60.20% 100 . !(!0% 61.32% (vm\u0026lt; UNGRADED 11 10 11 18 106 123 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL . 1 13 209 164 148 534 8 542 13 (j 13 24 311 5'-!' 17% 20% 60.07% 54.O1% O iiC\u0026gt; to to (391 60  8 -vz KALL UNGRADED 10 11 c\nUBTOTAL. KIND. TOTAL 0 134 154 188 476 11 487 0 196 204 187 0 to e:\n87 a 595 (? 1 \u0026lt;? IV 0 fc.RF'\\ MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 10 11 12 0 91 126 1 11 0 243 207 190 0 2 B SUBTOTAL 6 KIND TOTAL to 0 6 c (-ARK VIEW UNGRADED 10 11 C} 134 120 1 * IF, IF 0 8 0 A ?ec: SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 44 I.-.. 45 Q 'ST Page - 1 UtoH 380 1082 19 1101 56.04% 49.21% 5 A 8 Fitz 48.11% 54.04% 0 U-toto 341 980 20 1000 0 298 283 1 857 ERF\u0026lt; 60.70y, vC J. 65.80% 0 53 50 00% 02% 19% 84%SCHOOL/GRADE! CLOVER\n?ALE UNG EVADED WHKE BLACK OTHER TOTAL BLACK TOTAL DUNBAR UNGRADED TOTAL '7 8 9 7 8 9 FOREST HEIGHTT5 UNGRADED 7 8 9 TOTAL HENDERSON UNGRADED 7 S p TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED 8 (5 TOTAL MANN UNGRADED 8 9 TOTAL PULASKI HEIGH UNGRADED C TOTAL 0 77 63 69 209 0 179 1EI9 163 531 0 1 1 3 0 257 253 235 7A5 ERF! 69.65% 7 A, 7W, 6736% 71 .Ec3% 109 106 A3 263 6 68 59 75 208 0 26 50 59 135 0 65 93 235 1A3 100 122 36: cr A 86 93 108 291 1 t: 1. 5 A 55 111 A20 7 181 183 170 Al 0 256 216 239 711 0 1A 9 15)2 128 I- 9 1A9 189 153 A91 1 '70 161 132 ^^68 Pane 5 0 8 6 7 16 0 p 6 13 0 1 0 0 1 A 6 1 h 0 0 0 P 269 263 159 691 13 255 EA9 2A8 765 0 28A 271 30A 859 0 227 217 221 665 296 895 Lt) 1 872 25. h E5A 2A2 761 57.25% 58.9A% 69.81% 60.78/. 53.85% 70.98% 73.A9% 68.55% 70.72% ERF'-\n90.1A% 79. ) 78,62% ERR 65.6A% 70.05% ^'.7 _ 92% 6 A . 51 % 50.3A% 6A. 07/, 56.31% 55.56% 66.Al% 63.39% 5A.55% 61.50%SCHOOL/GRADEK SOUTHWEST UNGf3\nABEIj UH ITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL. KBL.ACK TOTAL 13ADG3ETT UNGF^ADED SUBTOTAL. KIND. 4YR OLD TOTAL. bale\nUNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL BASELINE UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 7 8 1 cr. 3 4 1 2 3 A 1. 5 0 63 61 176 C 169 177 521 0 4 \u0026lt;'.) 3 (\u0026gt; 236 236 230 704 ERF^ 71.6111 76.0911 74.01% 1 13 4 4 10 !:3 49 4 6 3 9 19 21 32 33 19 136 16 9 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3 Cj (5 0 4 82 23 25 42 4.1 28 185 20 15 220 75.00% 40.91% 82.61 % 04. OCy/, 7^,. 19% GO.49% 67.86% 73. 1V, 80.00% 60.00% 76.18% 4 6 6 9 9 13 5'2 8 60 14 9 12 11 6 11 63 11 7i^ 36 AO. 38 47 44 39 249 46 295 39 34 43 31 33 212 46 25f3 Page - 3 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 c 4 1 9 43 46 47 53 56 52 306 54 360 54 44 44 39 43 58 337 55.56% 33.72% 86.96% 30.05% 38,68% 78.57% 75.00% 81.37% 85.19% 31.94% 72.22% 77.27% 78.18% 70.45% 84.62% 74.42% 75.99% 79.31% 76.56%SCHO: /GRADE E- E\" I- OTHE fil.. I'-, BOOKER UNGRADED SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 48 36 39 43 48 48 844 31 875 51 51 49 53 58 3OE5 39 347 1 8 3 0 s 3 11 1 IE 94 89 91 95 97 563 71 634 54.86% 57.30% 53.135% 54.74% 54.64% 53.61% 5)4- . / 1 54.93% 54.73% BRADY UNGRADED 1 c: SUBTOTAL. KIND. TOTAL 1 83 IE 14 15 15 19 99 89 188 4 43 43 35 39 50 48 30 886 CAF^VEFl\nUNGRADED 1 E9 c. 3 4 s-\n' J-7 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 41 47 44 44 844 87 871 38 46 48 52 55 53 S9E 33 3E5 CHICOT UNGRADED IE 1 3 q- 84 SO 9\ns b SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL IS 159 S3 10- 54 41 44 39 44 891 50 341 ce 0 0 e 0 1 t\nCl 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 E 3 0 3 6 lb 57 49 68 61 361 59 4S0 69 S5 90 99 100 98 541 60 60 J. 19 90 30 65 64 71 64 453 78 531 BO.00% 65.15% 75.44% 71.43% 70.91% 6). SSV) 70.91'/. 50.85% 68.10% 55.07% 54.18% 53.33% 58.53% 55.00% 54.08/. 53.97% 55.00% 54.03% 63.16% 63.33% 67.50% 63.08% 68.75% 54.93*/. 68.75'/. 64,84% 64.10% 64.88%SCHOOL/GF^ADE CLOVF\\DAl-.E UNGF'JADED WHITE BL... A Ok. OTHER TOTAL. kblack 1. 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 11 13 11 12 lA 11 72 1? SA 37 37 A3 A3 A A 52 AS 30A DODD UNGF^ADED I s 3 A A lA 23 1 b SUBTOTAL 16 lA 2S) 109 MD, 13A 3 30 17 21 26 29 26 152 lA 166 FAI c PAT^K UNGRADED 1 A 1 0 1 1 0 1 A 0 i|. 0 0 1. 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 AV 50 58 6 A 332 60 392 7 A A Al. 36 A2 A3 50 263 AO 303 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 11 9 10 10 6 6 51 9 60 3A 35 3A 3A SASS 206 51 1 1 0 0 0 0 A 6 AA A5 AA AO Al 260 60 320 FOREST PAF?F\u0026lt;: Ur4GF^ADED 1 A b SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL AO 30 2A 32 25 19 170 36 206 32! 16 22 A1 31. 25 1.67 2A 191 1 I J. 1 0 Cj 73 A7 SEAS 3A2 60 A02 P.age 75.51*/. 7A . 00*/. '/8.18*/. 76.79\u0026gt;i 75.861\n81.2511 77.1.11\n80.0011 AE.8611 63.1811 Al .A611 58.33% 61.90% 67.AA% 52. ool\n57.79% 35.00% CT. A. 79^ 73.91% 79.55% 75.561\n77.27% 55.00% 85,37% 79.2311 35. C'tJll 30.311\nA3.8A% 3A.0A% A6.81% 55.A1% 55.3611 55.56% AS . 831\nA I'J . 0011 A 7.5 111school/grade F4A\niNFT....IN UNGRADFID UH I T c E3l....ACi\n: 01 MLR TOTAL BLACK 1 \n3 A 1 10 3 7 7 '7 9 65 63 56 AS -- C) ) 0 0 SUBTOTAL KIND. AYF7 OLD TOTAL A15 6 59 3A9 AS 31 428 0 s 3 A 8 1 (? 75 66 63 A 9 6A 6 A 391 56 60 507 vO.00% 86.67% 95.45% 88.89% 85.71% 35.94% 98.19% 89.26% S5 . '71 % 51.67% SA.42% FULBRIGHT UHGF?ABED 1 B 3 A 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 3 AO 37 AO 3S 33 A5 230 3A 26A 3 A Al SASA AO S8 S06 35 331 o 1 3 1 1 10 1 11 s 81 65 66 7A AA6 60 506 6S.50% A5.337. . 6\ni\n36.921\n51.527. 51.95% 37.847. . 19% Al.67% A5.65% G\nAF-\u0026lt;L.AND UNGF^ADED I B 4 ij SUBTOTAL FUND. AYR OLD TOTAL 0 2 4 Cj B 1 0 9 1 5 1 5 IS 37 30 35 30 37 43 224 S7 11 262 0 (5 0 0 0 C! 0 0 0 B IS 39 34 35 32  38 A3 233 28 IS S79 100. ooi\n94.87i\n83. ciA4 100,001\n93.751\n97.371\n100. ooi\n96. lAi\n96, A31\n61.11% 93.911\nGEYEf^ SPFHNQS UN3RABEB SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 S 3 A c: 6 19 9 h IS 10 63 IS 7 A 19 16 33 153 S7 130 0 0 0 ij 0 C\n0 0 0 (5 A AS 31 25 23 43 36 215 39 .254 60. A3\u0026gt;i 70.97% Z'b. CjCjy, 57.1 AX 76.7A 83.571\n71.161\n69.631\n70.871'. F'age-?SCHOOL/OFC A DE GIBF5S UNGRADED UH ITE I'j .C OTHER HAL XBLAC SUBTOTAL. KIND. TOTAL... 20 20 16 19 26 24 125 16 141 E8 25 26  41 25 168 28 190 0 I 2 3 1 0 7 :i 8 48 4 4 43 48 613 49 300 39 339 58.33% 52,87% 58.14% 54.17% 60.29% 51.02% 56.00% 56.41% 56.05% ISH UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 1 C' b 0 0 1 C) 40 2 6 19 SUBTOTAL. KIND. 4YR OLD TOTAL 1 A 9 c\nJ 31 17 163 13 12 188 0 0 J, 0 0 C) 0 1 1 1 3 6 40 29 19 85 32 17 168 15 17 200 83.33% 100,00% 89.66% 100.00% 100.00% 96.88% 100.00% 97.02% 86.67% 70.59% 94.00% JFEF-lEF\u0026lt;SaN UNGF^ADED 1 c. 3 4 6 SUBTOTAL. KIND. TOTAL 2 41 38 37 43 38 35 234 36 270 58 33 58 32 31 29 185 24 209 0 1 3 1 .0 Cs 0 0 MABEL ALE\n. UNGF^ADED S 40 34 31 34 46 , 33 0 1 0 A 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 37 23 205 2=' 234 34 47 0 \u0026lt;) 1 3 /- Hiiae 6 70 74 66 69 64 454 bCj s 80 70 70 71 71 44-5 60 505 66.67% 40.00% 44.59% 42.42% 42.67% 44.93% 45.31% 43.63% 40,. 00% 43., 18% 6 c\n.. 50% 54.29% 47.14% A7.89% 66.20% 5-3.26% 43.33% 52.67%CCHOCL/GRADE MCDERMOT-'- UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL V,BLACK 1 .r.r 0 G31 3 A 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL E7 37 19 17G 3A 306 SB AO A9 .... 50 366 E5 391 ij 3 3 3 A 0 3 13 1 1A 73 71 ERR 63.50% 53,53% 53.33% MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 c. A i-. SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL EG EA El EE E3 16 lAl A3 Al A2 36 SASE 335 17^ E5E 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 !.) 1 MITCHELL LJNGf-\u0026lt;ADED 1 0 C. 3 A iZL\" 5 SUBTOTAL KILD, AYR OLD TOTAL 3 3 1 1 lA 6 9 A A Al 3S AA 30 37 3A3 39 13 SS5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 \"'TEF^ Cf=\nEEK UNGRADED s 3 A :3A E6 33 16 El iic\n6 33 J SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL J 70 21 191 SA lAE 13 1 6C\n0 0 1 1 (? 2 A GO 31 73 A51 60 511 71 65 63 66 A7 367 60 AS7 7 A6 A6 Al A 6 31 3S 357 35 30 313 5 r-\n AB 30 A8 ii:' iz.\" 316 AO 356 51 .E: /i 5A.33% 69,AA% B. 9S% Al.67% 56.95% i:,(y. 56 A 63.03% \u0026lt;). 67 a SA. cri:-!,- 51. . 06% 70.91% 61,31% A5.00% 59.0E% 100.00% 95.65% 89.13% 93.6S% 95.65% 96.77% 97.37% 9A.55% 83.36% 9i.35a 50.77% 33.00% AS.75% , 17% A3.6A% AA 9A% A5,00% P a  c-3 ~SCHOOL/ grade: RULASIC!: HE:[GHTG ungraded WHITE BL.\n:h 1 HER TOT AL ZLLACK SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL KEGHTSELL UNGF\u0026lt;ADED SUBTOTAL KIND. 4Yf^ OLD TOTAL 1 3 3 4 b 1 P c 4 b ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 E:: 4 b SUBTOTAL KIND. 4YF? OLD TOTAL ROMINE UNGRADED 1 2 3 ii. b SUBTOTAL KIND. 4YR OLD TOTAL 34 S4 23 16 20 1 1 123 1.51 37 18 26 33 E9 26 169 16 185 i 1 1 \u0026lt;\n! b (I) b 73 43 50 50 50 3'7 303 39 342 50.687, i^l ..86% 52.OOL 6 8 H O ^~i % 53.OOL 70,27% 55.78% 41.03% 54.09% 0 0 0 0 o (\u0026gt; 0 .1 5 b 23 12 9 6 by 21 28 116 p 9 5 8 KL 4 38 10 48 36 42 37 43 35 241 11 SS2 46 31 305 40 32 219 31 10 41 5 Ci 39 39 9, 301 '=.5.C3e? !? 1 Ci 0 C! 1 0 Ci 1 e 1 0 1 C) 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 !i C! 1 1 0 1. 48 36 43 3'7 43 35 248 31 16 289 69 45 415 46 44 41 290 60 403 12 crcr 44 47 40 40 238 50 19 357 100.00% 100.00% 97.67% 100.00% 100.00% 100'. 00% 99.59% 96.77% 68.75% 9'/ . 58% 66.67% 68.89% 77.78% 86.96% 79.55% 78.05% 75.52% 60.38% 51.67% 69.98% 82.00% 90.91% 83.64% 82.9S% C7. j e'\". 5Oi E\nb. 46'\u0026lt; 86.OOL i7.37L 84.31%SCHOOL/GRADE CTEPHENS UNGRADED WHITE 0 BLACK 6 OTHER TOTAL y.B.ACK SUBTOTAL KIND. 4YR OLD TOTAL 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 4 P 34 CQ 41 203 24 8 35 Os . 0! Oi \u0026lt;5 Q 1 1 0) !':i 1 6 41 oc. 5 3 41 37 08 25 12 45 100  00/ 97.14% 100.00% 100 00?\n100.007, 94.59% 9?. 6'0% 96.1SO% . fby/, 95.92% TERRY UNGRADED 1 4 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 35 36 40 34 32 40 17 36 253 31 36 33 36 45 40 221 2 43 3 1 o 1 4 15 1 16 70 74 72 78 84 453 59 512 44.27*1 48. OO/i 44.59\u0026gt;\n50. QQV\u0026gt; 57.69W 47.62\" 48.77% 37.29% 47.46?i WAKfZFIELD ungf\naceb 1  03 4 0: 17 24 26 b SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 16 21 126 15 141 0 56 36 40 46 53 5 ) 2t37 42 329 0) 1  2 0 1 o 8 1 c? 0 74 62 68 68 70 79 421 479 Q. 00?\n'7 cr .68?\n5S.06% 58.82% 67.65% 75.71% 70.89% 68.17% 72.41% 63.68% WAiJHINBTCN UNGRADED 1  3 4 b SUBTOTAL KIND 4'Tf\nOLD total. J\nr- 47 40 41 293 47 16 356 1 1 00 63 60 3 ^0)9 r-: 1 0 4 aoi 3 0 O' 0 1 4 152 130 110 117 98 94 705 99 37 841 25.007 65.79% 56.92% 57.7% 51.23% 59.13% 56.38% 58.01% 1 ,5?i: 54.050 57.07?\nSCHOOL/GRADE WATSON UNGFxADED II Tt ... !-l!.\nOTAi... j. 23 10 19 SO 17 86 i-i. : I-'\" '\"1 30 SLIDTOAl... KIND. TOTAL. 1 1 cr 11 1S6 58 56 893 45 338 0 1 1 0 Q 1 70 64 50 69 83 411 56 467 i:,7.14% 88.81'1 60,00% 73.33% 75.36% 6'/ . 4'/'/. 71.89% 80.36% 72.38% westh\nk:n hills UNGRADED 1 3 C\n4 iz\u0026gt; SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 19 17 18 '15 80 25 114 16 130 S2 34 S7 33 3S 29 167 23 190 \u0026lt;) O' 3 Cl 0 3 0 3 41 41 45 51 52 884 39 383 53.66% 58.54% 60.00% 64.71% 61.54% 53.70% 58.80% 58.97% 58.88% WILLIAMS IJNGFFiADED 1 3 4 c: 6 E5UI5TDTAL KIND. TOTAL 30 89 38 41 32 189 C-.J 814 36 33 4.1 51 41 848 31 873 2 1 0 2 1 0 6 c. S NILSON IJNSF\\ADED 1 c. 3 4 6 6l 67 67 93 73 437 58 495 =: 6.45^\n53.73% 56.78% 54,67% 54.84% 56.16'% 55.38% 3.4S\u0026gt;i SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 4 13 86 18 11 9 13 88 17 105 IS 34 43 46 38 4 1 8813 1 0 0 0 0 f) 0 1 0 1 ' 47 63 43 51 336 58 394 70.59'/ 8.34W 53.73'Z 78.lez 77.0SZ 88.64/i 74.511^ 73.51rt 70.69Z 73.. 1 OZ F'acjf? I 1LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1991 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 18, 1991 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent Educational Programs and Staff Development atty Kohler, Director, Division of Exceptional Children Special Education Enrollment Attached, please find the special education enrollment, by school, classification, race and gender. If further information is needed, please feel free to contact me. PK:lhb AttachmentSCHOOL Central High J. A. Fair High Hall High McClellan High Parkview Magnet Cloverdale Jr. High Dunbar Magnet Forest Heights Jr. Henderson Jr. High //STUDENTS 57 79 73 77 14 55 42 54 67 GRADE 10th 11th 12th 10th 11th 12th 10th 11th 12th 10th 11th 12th 10th 11th 12th 7 th Sth 9th 7th Sth 9 th 7th Sth 9th 7th Sth 9 th BM 10 12 10 16 S 13 Y1 7 12 14 , 8 3 2 2 15 12 S 6 7 5 13 7 11 10 IS 17 WM 2 3 0 9 5 7 3 4 5 3 4 1 1 0 0 5 2 2 2 3 5 1 3 2 2 3 1 BF 5 S 5 1 5 1 6 6 9 9 9 10 2 1 1 2 1 4 5 2 5 2 6 1 S 1 6 WF 2 0 0 3 3 2 1 5 4 1 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0SCHOOL Mabelvale Jr. High Mann Magnet Pulaski Heights Jr. Southwest Jr. High //STUDENTS 82 23 64 73 GRADE 7th 8th 9th 7 th 8th 9th 7th 8th 9th 7th 8th 9th BM 14 19 14 7 2 16 9 14 20 8 10 WM 5 1 5 2 1 3 3 3 1 5 7 6 BF 8 5 2 0 1 0 4 5 6 7 3 2 WF 3 3 3 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 3 1I SCHOOL BADGETT BALE BASELINE BOOKER BRADY CARVER //STUDENTS 18 37 16 24 17 20 GRADE 1st 2ncl 3rd 4th Sth 6th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sth 6th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sth 6th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sth 6th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sth Sth 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Sth 6th BM 5 3 1 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 WM 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 BF 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 WF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1SCI IDOL Chicot Elementary Cloverdale Elementary Dodd Elementary Fair Park Elemenyary Forest Park Elem. Franklin Elementary //STUDENTS 51 27 24 20 16 45 GRADE K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th BM 1 0 1 3 0 3 5 0 1 3 0 4 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 8 1 2 0 3 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 3 2 9 3 WM 1 4 2 1 3 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 3. 1 1 1 BF 1 1 1 2 1 5 6 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 4 1 WF 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2saiooL GARLAND FULBRIGHT GEYER SPRINGS GIBBS ISH JEFFERSON //STUDENTS 23 28 11 28 14 26 GRADE K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th BM 1 1 1 1 3 7 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 WM 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BF 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 WF 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1SCHOOL MABELVALE ELEMENTARY MCDERMOTT MEADOWCLIFF MITCHELL OTTER CREEK PULASKI HGTS. ELEM //STUDIOTS 38 25 23 31 11 32 GRADE K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th Sth 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th Sth 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th Sth 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th Sth 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th Sth 6 th BM 4 1 1 3 4 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 4 4 3 2 3 2 2 2 1 5 3 1 4 WM 3 2 4 1 5 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 1 BF 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 WF 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 Of ]saiooL Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elem. Romine Elementary Stephens Elementary Terry Elementary Wakefield Elementary ^STUDENTS 12 23 29 16 23 15 GRADE K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th BM 0 1 1 3 2 0 1 1 5 0 4 3 0 1 0 2 6 1 4 5 4 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 4 2 1 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 WM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 BF 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 WF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0SO 1001, WASHINGTON WATSON WESTERN HILLS WILLIAMS MAGNET WILSON WOODRUFF //STUDIOTS 43 15 21 48 13 GRAIJE K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5 th 6 th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6th K 1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5 th 6 th BM 1 5 2 6 2 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 4 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 8 11 1 1 1 1 WM BE WE 2 1 1 4 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2H I I I I I I i Wedne-S73'ay\n''ffugxrTt 2199171 .p'^mocraT:- LRSD registration figures -1990 and 1991 Sr.high Central Fair Hall McClellan Park view Total Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total Elementary Badgett Bala Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot ! Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Washington Total Grand Total 90 Bl '91 Bl 616 . 728 398 495 428 365 410 426 417 367 2.302 2,348 '90 Wh 453 316 413 306 284 1,772 '91 Wh increase/'90 total '91 total '91 not Wh 517 291 388 262 296 1.754 decrease +64 -25 -25 -44 +12 -18 regis.' 1.088 717 923 744 663 4.135 regis,' regis. 1.271 710 833 690 679 434 254 335 417 189 4,183 1,629 I C? (i 387 321 379 502 248 410 312 335 395 341 411 509 351 422 387 341 2,894 3,157 164 190 183 170 170 287 213 110 1.487 139 223 164 95 210 310 279 118 1.538 -25 h33 -19 -75 -t-40 ^23 +66 +8 +51 558 517 581 690 419 709 528 451 4.453 539 571 586 616 562 744 666 465 257 207 228 202 182 158 123 234 C 4,749 1,591 133 208 204 285 234 242 237 180 132 183 161 310 190 197 83 150 98 143 220 245 172 169 112 152 156 164 273 166 249 247 237 166 247 208 104 387 115 211 191 298 206 306 248 234 110 171 139 337 141 196 132 174 141 141 208 220 171 240 114 155 198 204 241 184 212 226 263 158 258 219 131 377 51 59 76 217 109 233 138 74 1005 4 168 73 210 7 40 112 0 187 177 178 146 25 167 74 5 55 40 9 199 138 121 110 209 88 48 300 7,044 7,290 3,997 -------- 12,240 12,775 7,256 'Total registered includes students of other 55 56 66 213 114 243 152 75 107 48 182 67 240 11 61 135 7 243 206 192 157 24 178 134 5 85 28 6 236 102 84 118 198 77 62 294 4.261 7.553 rac +4 -3 -10 -4 +5 + 10 + 14 +1 +7 -6 +14 -6 +30 +4 +21 +23 +7 +56 +29 +14 + 11 -1 + 11 +60 NC +30 -12 -3 +37 -36 -37 +8 -11 -11 + 14 -6. +264 +297 184 274 283 509 347 480 375 255 234 237 334 397 402 216 123 267 98 333 400 423 319 . 194 279 231 161 222 316 178 453 388 360 278 461 298 156 687 '11.161 19.740 170 272 263 518 329 555 403 310 219 226 326 412 390 210 193 315 148 388 419 423 329 265 296 294 204 294 271 172 462 337 347 277 462 296 195 103 67 101 97 48 108 37 139 118 72 104 81 104 166 75 54 19 52 118 122 123 121 58 66 49 96 130 ' 100 57 65 186 146 42 46 92 28 144  t e s S I \"1.' I: 1\nli f  I 1 I .*TCV SC4U.UION t. 11,713 3.231 20.645 6.501 .J'Pulaski Arkansas Democrat   WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1991\ns J 3 LRSD gaining 297 white students for fail, records show District official says 1 ) Busing costs for state ILRSD registration figures - 1990 and 1991 r Sr.high soar to $3.46 million I Central BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Dwnocrat Start Wrtar . The states cost of busing Pulaski County area students for desegregation-related programs more than doubled between 1987-88 and 1990-91, a committee of legislators learned Tuesday to their cha- ferin. In four years, the cost of transporting students who attend magnet schools dr participate in the majority-to-minor- ity interdistrict student trans- ifer program rose from $1.57 pillion in 1987-88 to $3.46 million. according to figures given -to the legislators Tuesday by the state Department of Education. There are no caps on the number of students who participate in the programs or on the state's expense. The money is in addition to the states $129.75 million financial settlement with the transportation costs paid by the state totaled S544 in North Little Rock. S921 in Little Rock and $1,179.81 in the Pulaski County Special School District The average transportation cost last year for 2.996 magnet and 705 transfer students in the three districts was $881 per student The average cost of transporting non-magnet and nontransfer students in the three districts was $407 in 1989-90. The average transportation cost statewide that year was $222. The states desegregation money for the three districts is taken from general revenues and lessens the amount available for most other state operations. Dr. Burton Elliott, director of the state Department of Education, told legislators that a McClellan Parkview Total Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Hertderson I Mabelvale 90 81 616 398 495 428 365 91 Bl 728 410 426 417 367 90 Wh 453 316 413 306 284 2.302 2.348 1,772 91 Wh 517 291 388 262 296 1.754 Wh increase/\"90 total 9110131 91001 decrease regss.* *64 -25 -25 *12 18 1.088 717 923 744 663 4,135 reais. 1.271 710 833 690 679 434 254 335 417 189 1,183 1.629 nj part-time employee will be hired, in addition to the de\nthree school districts in the vv, IPulaski County school desegre- partments existing transporta- Igation lawsuit .......................... . --1- k--'Sen. Stanley Russ of Con- tion director, to more closely fisures a good sign i way. a member of the Joint In- \u0026gt;tdfim Oversight Subcommittee j on Educational Reform, complained about the escalating costs and the states inability I to control or cap them, since a iTe'deral court directed Arkansas to pay the actual transpor- ' tation costs for students.  Im just frustrated. Russ I ) said. \"The federal court has  wrapped its fingers around our I throat and is choking us to ' 1 death. ' T\u0026amp; 1990-91 per student monitor the transportation expenses. Those expenses include more than $400,000 - 23 percent of the Little Rock districts transportation budget - for taxi services to transport some students to magnet or other schools. Sharon Streett. an attorney for the state Department of Education, said the state could take the issue to federal court to get relief from the growing costs. Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest Total Elementary Badgett Bale Baseiina Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Frankfin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowc^ff Mitchel Otter Creek Putasid Heights Rightsei Rockeleler Romina Stecnens Terry Wakefietd Watson Western Mils Wil\u0026amp;ams Wilson Woodruff Washington Total Grand Total 387 321 379 502 248 410 312 335 395 341 411 509 351 422 387 341 164 190 183 170 170 287 213 110 2,894 3,15? 1.487 139 223 164 95 210 310 279 118 1,538 25 33 19 75 *40 *23 *66 *8 51 558 517 581 690 419 709 528 451 4.4S3 539 571 586 616 562 744 666 465 257 207 228 202 182 158 123 234 4,749 1.591 BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat Staff Writer The number of white students registered in the Little Rock School District this year is up by 297 from registration figures for 1990. according to district records. James Jennings, associate superintendent for desegregation, called the numbers, gen- erally used for making staffing and transportation plans, a 133 208 204 285 234 242 237 180 132 183 161 310 190 197 83 150 98 143 220 245 172 169 112 152 156 164 273 166 249 247 237 166 247 208 104 387 115 211 191 298 206 306 248 234 110 171 139 337 141 196 132 174 141 141 208 220 171 240 114 155 198 204 241 184 212 226 263 158 258 219 131 377 51 59 76 217 109 233 138 74 1005 168 73 210 7 40 112 0 187 177 178 146 25 167 74 5 55 40 9 199 138 121 110 209 88 48 300 7.044 7.290 3.997 12.240 12.775 7.256 55 56 66 213 114 243 152 75 107 48 182 67 240 11 61 135 7 243 206 192 157 24 178 134 5 85 26 6 236 102 84 118 198 77 62 294 4.261 7353 -3 10 5 *10 *14 +1 -6 *14 -6 *30 *21 *23 Total regtstered Includes students of other races 56 29 *14 *11 -1  11 60 NC 30 12 -3 37 36 37 *8 11 11 14 6 264 297 184 274 283 509 347 480 375 255 234 237 334 397 402 216 123 267 98 333 400 423 319 194 279 231 161 222 316 178 453 388 360 278 461 298 156 687 11,161 19.740 170 272 263 518 329 555 403 310 219 226 326 412 390 210 193 315 148 388 419 423 329 265 296 294 204 294 271 172 462 337 347 277 462 296 195 103 67 101 97 48 108 37 139 118 72 104 61 104 166 75 54 19 52 118 122 123 121 58 66 49 96 130 100 57 65 186 146 42 46 92 28 144 STSVS SCALLONZ 11,713 3.231 20.645 6.501 good sign. School board member Skip Rutherford, who has made a hobby of analyzing school enrollment figures, was delighted. saying white flight from the citys public schools has been halted. The numbers include only those students who registered during the formal registration period, which was July 29 through Aug. 2. compared to formal registration in 1990. which was Aug. 9-10. A total of 20.645 students registered this year. The district is expecting an additional 6.501 students to register by the time school is under way. Jennings did not have a racial breakdown of students who have not registered. Classes begin Monday. Black students made up 61.8 percent of the registrants\nwhites made up 36.5 percent of the total. Data shows the increase in white students occurred at the junior high schools, which had 51 more white registrants this year than last, and at the elementary schools, which re- ported an increase of 264 white pupils. The senior high\nschools reported a net loss of' 18 whites. 'I White enrollment increased at 29 schools, decreased at 19\nschools and was unchanged-at one. Pulaski Heights Elementary reported an increase of 60 white pupils, bringing the total' to 134. and Jefferson Elementary was up 56 white pupils to 243. Central'High School gained 64 white students but McCleT Ian lost 44. Fair and Hall high schools each lost 25. y\nPulaski Heights Junior High has 66 new white students, to a preliminary total of tS19 whites. Henderson Junior High lost 75 whites, leaving the school with 690 whites. ,, . Is white flight continuing?. I think the answer is no/\nRutherford said in a recent interview. \"The combination,of giving parents schools .of choice and attendance-zotie schools is working. The school district in late 1988 developed a student assignment plan in which stu-. dents could choose between attending their assigned atten-: dance zone school, or a magnet school that might be outside their attendance zone but offers a special academic program to attract black and white children to a hard-to- Ail desegregate school. schools must meet racial ratio requirements set by the fed- eral court.  See FIGURES. Page 7B) Figures  Continued from Pulaski Page '-I i' The desegregation plan, ap h proved by the 8th U.S. Circuity 4 Court of Appeals in December ? 1990, also established predom-^ j inantly black incentive ele-- i' mentary schools that provide^ - r K double per-student financing P and programs to improve- ! achievement levels of black children. ) 7 Those incentive schools- I showed some progress toward* registering white pupils this^ year. Rockefeller Elementary, f which once had an almost en I tirely black enrollment, has in : creased its white enrollment 3 1 1 to 85 pupils, up 30 from 1990. \" Despite the loss of 18 white^ students in the senior high i schools, Rutherford said he  was encouraged by trends. He i pointed out that 690 white stu- H dents graduated in 1990, while : 199Os ninth-grade class, which. H  1 7 V I ^1* rtxkVzxZ-xl 1 o'  will enter high school this'fall',: was a much smaller class of 571, a difference of 119. The^ { district appears to have -at-\ntracted 101 new white high\nschool students. I \u0026gt;  j. (I I I I U i  ) ' j I I 1 r I LRSD enrollment figures - 7th day com^jFigon Sr.high Central Fair Hall i McClellan Park view Total 90 Bl 862 493 642 642 439 3,078 91 __Bl_ 972 500 528 633 461 3,094 90 Wh 606 365 490 386 361 2,228 91 90 total 91 total Wh enrollment enrollment 687 338 487 323 397 2,232 1,468 878 1,132 '1,028 800 5,306 \u0026gt; Democrat I Friday, 9-6-91 Jr. .high Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson i Mabelvale ! I Mann i Pulaski Heights Southwest i Total 493 402 526 642 395 514 414 497 524 415 512 661 427 485 461 493 I 3,913 3,378 234 232 234 238 220 367 270 162 1,957 Elementary Badgett Bale I Baseline  Booker '! Brady i Carver !  i Chicot ,  i : i Coca lovercaie f . 1 Fair Park Forest Park Franklin , \u0026lt; I Puioright u i I I J \\ j f 1 I Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek 163 292 93 336 328 307 364 281 191 272 202 322 293 214 141 186 156 288 239 344 281 319 342 311 153 242 190 411 ! Pulaski Heights\nI Rightsell I Rockefeller -  I Romine I I t I Stephens Terry Wakefield Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Washington Total Grand Total White student 1,659 638 1,015 956 858 5,326 % black 59 60 52 66 54 58 I u I I 209 274 213 127 233 357 294 203 1,920 727 634 760 880 615 881 714 659 5,870 733 689 725 788 660 852 755 698 5,898 71 60 71 84 65 57 61 71 67 f s\n'r. 57 . 72 276 276 122 269 .184 100 133 65 . 182 66 '266 59 64 82 275 139 274 187 90 136 6i 208 79 225 , 364 369 612 450 576 548 381 324 337 384 383 559 239 193 333 144 449 551 533 431 220 344 315 202 263 364 201 : 517 491 501 336 502 420 184 760 14,020 73 82 74 56 67 54 65 78 53 80 48 34 46 94 70 56 94 43 52 56 58 90 44 54  98 70 85 95 47 69 72 60 56 71 65 57 65 15,338 9,249 25,196 25,587 64 category includes students of other races stevescallion/ wiunu,Otmxru 532 257 178 189 140 . 190 216 282 326 275 192 166 201 197 196 314 188 289 321 333 209 276 301 120 443 205 264 277 242 '284 157 183 267 277 305 228 238 324 334 195 272 275 148 463 25 57 147 4 233 269 207 156 28 178 114 5 72 50 13 228 170 168 127 226 119 64 317 9,157 9,266 4,862 16,148 13,338 9,047 15 75 147 12 276 239 220 173 30 197 159 5 118 55 11 266 148 127 130 216 111 81 352 5,097 215 352 321 619 420 593 529 401 289 303 398 492 506 272 253 336 202 481 503 497 420 314 354 342 272 395 360 239 504 472 461 325 488 386 229 820 14,363 5'V I S\nI .j\n...Friday, September 6, 1991 FE / White enrollment in LR schools keeps climbing Bulk at elementary level By Cary Bradburn Gazette Staff White enrollment continues to be higher this year in the Little Rock School District. However, there were 48 fewer white students at the senior and junior highs. Numbers provided by the district Thursday show that 144 more white students were enrolled in all grades this year for the seventh day , of school compared with last year. , Black enrollment is up by 190 students from last years seventh day and enrollment of students classified as other increased by 57. Total enrollment rose from 25,196 to 25,587 students. Last week, third day enrollment figures had white attendance higher by 215, but the increase has slowed when measured against last year. The seventh day numbers have black enrollment at 63.9 percent of have black enrollments of more total enrollment. White enrollment than 90 percent. is 34.7 percent and other  Spanish, Asian and Native American students  1.4 percent. As in the third-day report, the bulk of the increase in white enrollment is in the elementary schools. The number of white students at that level climbed by 192 from 4,726 to 4,918 while black attendance went from 9,157 to 9,266. In the junior high schools, white enrollment decreased by 26 students from 1,873 to 1,847. It was down by 22 students in senior high, from 2,160 to 2,138. Junior high black enrollment increased by 65 students compared with the white decline. Senior high black enrollment is up by 16 students. Attendance of others increased by 26. Among the districts 36 elementary schools,' five are majority white. Those are Forest Park, Fulbright, Jefferson, Otter Creek and Terry. Rightsell, Stephens, Garland, Ish and Mitchell continue to I S i IDemocrat. ---------- Friday, September 6, 1991 LRSD enrollment up ..... ............. Lioa I n*w 391 on 7th class day 0/CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat Staff Writer L.'-Little Rock School District ehToIlment was up by 391 students to 25,587 on Wednesday, the seventh day of school, in comparison to the seventh day of classes last year. The racial composition is 63.9 percent black - virtually the same as the racial composition of 64 percent black and 36'percent white in the district last year. 'D'The new numbers include increases of 144 white students, 190 black students and 57 students of other races. The district showed an increase of 190 white students in the elementary grades, but it lost 22 white students in the high schools and 26 white students at the junior highs. Superintendent Ruth Steele said Thursday some teacher reassignments will have to be made as the result of changes in school enrollments. For example, Steele said, three teachers are needed at Geyer Springs Elementary School, where enrollment jumped from 198 last year to 253. She said Bale Elementary would need fewer teachers. Enrollment dropped there from 364 to 352. In the Pulaski County Special School District on Thursday, the eighth day of class, the enrollment was 21,080, count-i ing 49 students assigned to the' districts alternative school -j or 21,031 if those students arent included. The overall: racial makeup of the district' was 73 percent white and 27j percent black. , The county districts enroll-' I ment is down 249 students in' comparison to the eighth day of classes last year, iOFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 DATA SHEET LRSD PCSSD NLRSD TOTAL Enrollment Black 16,634 5,755 4,279 26,668 Non-black 9,151 16,005 4,915 30,071 Total Enrollment 25,785 21,760 9,194 56,739 Black 65% 26% 47% 47% Number of Schools Elementary 36 23 19 78 Secondary 14 13 7 34 Total 50 36 26 112 Employees Certified Teachers 3,300 (2,000) 3,000 (1,346) (681) (4,027) Annual Budget (million) +104 +74 30 +208 Square Miles of Districts city limits 729 30 Millage Rate 43.9 35.9 36.3 Magnet Schools\nLocated within the LRSD\n6 elementary magnet schools 2 junior high magnet schools 2 senior high magnet schools Incentive Schools\nLocated within the LRSD 6 elementary schoolsOPTIONAL ENROLLMENT REQUEST FORM SECONDARY (Grades 7-12) School Year 1992-1993 Student ID. #t Date Reed.: Reed. by:. Directions: L-----------------------------------  Please read all information before completing this form.  The Student Assignment Office will be responsible for all optional enrollment assignments.  All assignments are subject to desegregation and capacity requirements. If demand exceeds supply, a lottery will be used to fill vacancies.  Students who are not selected will have their names placed on a prioritized waiting list (Please print or type) Student's Legal Name: Street Address: City Zip Code Raee Sex Date of Birth: Month Day Year Home Phone Work Phone Current Sehool Assignment Grade 1992-93 Make up to three (3) choices from the options listed below. Rank your choices in numerical order (1st, 2nd, 3rd). You are not required to use all of your choices. (High school students may make up to three school choices or make three selections within the Parkview Arts program. Students may also make a combination of choices. Example: First choice-Central, Second Choice-Parkview Arts Dance, third choice-Parkview Science.) Magnet Schools (Grades 7-9) -----Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented -----Mann Ans Magnet Check the box if you have a preference for orchestra ___Mann Science Magnet ___Henderson Health Science (Grades 10-12) ___ Central High International Studies ___ Parkview Science Magnet ___ Parkview Arts Band ___ Parkview Arts Dance ___ Parkview Arts Speech/Drama ___ Parkview Arts Orchestra ___ Parkview Arts Visual Arts ___ Parkview Arts Vocal Music ___ McClellan Business/Communications I understand that if I wish to withdraw this application for any reason, I may do so prior to assignment of my child. I agree that if my request is approved, my child must remain in the program for a minimum of of one (1) school semester. Parent Signature Date Little Rock School District, 501 Sherman, Little Rock, AR 72202 (501)324-2272 copy - scudenc Aasignmenc Offica yllow copy - MUC pinK copy - PaeonCSCHOOL TEL: Jul 21.92 FOUR-YEAR-OLD ASSIGNMENTS 1992-93 BLACK 16:53 No.002 P.Ol OTHER TOTAL Bale Badgett Fraiiklin Garland Cloverdale Mitchell Rockefeller Geyor Springs Rightsell Romine Stephens Washington Wilson Woodruff Ish Watson 9 9 27 9 9 9 25 9 11 9 9 18 9 9 9 9 9 7 27 2 9 8 29 9 0 9 1 18 9 9 ,1 9 18 16 54 11 18 17 54 10 11 18 10 36 18 18 10 18 7/21/92School Enrollment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area gadget Elem Bale Elem Baseline Elem Booker Elem Brady Elem Carver Elem Chicot Elem Cloverdale Dodd Elem Fair Park Elem Forest Park Franklin Elem Fulbright Elem Garland Elem Geyer Springs Gibbs Elem Ish Elem Jefferson Elem King Elem Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Elem Otter Creek Put Heights 202 321 339 621 396 598 535 366 304 243 444 411 530 256 282 336 187 483 500 509 440 264 353 379 76 77 77 56 69 55 65 80 60 79 45 86 42 91 63 57 97 42 56 54 66 88 41 52 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  X\nX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1992-93 Incentive Magnet Inter- dist Magnet Inter- dist Magnet Prog 4-Year- Okte Prog X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Annexed X X X X X X X X CommentsSchool Enrollment % BIk Elem Jr. High High Area Incentive Magnet Inter- dist Magnet inter- dist Magnet Prog 4-Year- Oids Prog Annexed Comments Rightsell Elem Rockefeller Romine Elem Stephens Elem Terry Elem Wakefield Elem Washington Watson Elem Western Hills Williams Elem Wilson Elem Woodruff Etern Cloverdale Jr, ?\nDunbar Jr. Forest Heights Henderson Jr. Mabelvale Jr. Mann Jr. Pulaski Heights Southwest Jr. Central High Fair High Hall High McClellan High Parkview High High Sch Kind 249 3615 361 209 541 SOO 822 451 335 502 355 234 775 705 787 914 667 849 774 695 1,950 886 976 966 854 122 96 X X X 55\n695 77 97 44 69 59 74 62 65 75 63 74 58 70 75 66 59 68 75 68 63 57 66 57 89 X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5X5: X\n5:5 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XNote: 1. Baker Elementary is an interdistrict school in the Pulaski County Special School District. For the 1992-93 school year, the extended care theme has drawn 63 LRSD students on M- to-M transfers. 2. Crystal Hill Elementary is an interdistrict magnet school in the Pulaski County Special School District. For the 1992-93 school year, it has drawn 278 LRSD students on M-to-M transfers. 3. Rockefeller is an incentive school with an early childhood magnet program serving children beginning at 6-weeks old. 4. Henderson Jr., Central High, and McClellan High are area schools with magnet programs. 5. All high schools house one to two kindergarten classes. The enrollment figures reflect high school enrollment. 6. The King Elementary Interdistrict School to open 1993-94 will probably be an interdistrict magnet school, as will the Stephens Elementary Interdistrict School opening in 1994-95.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 TO: FROM: February 6, 1992 Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services SUBJECT: Pupil/Teacher Ratios The North Central Accreditation Standards state the following concerning the ratio of pupils to teachers: 24.02 Pupli/Professional Staff Ratio. The ratio of pupils to teachers and other professional staff members shall not exceed 20 to 1. In computing the ratio, the school may include the instructional responsibilities of all professional staff assigned to the building plus the time devoted to instruction by other professional personnel. The attachment to this memo provides the pupil/teacher ratio for each elementary school in the Little Rock School District. NCA provisions listed above are used to compute pupil/teacher The ratios. The staffing information is taken directly from the NCA orts developed at the beginning of the school year. The i-iowing certificated positions are included in the staffing counts: - Prekindergarten teachers - Kindergarten teachers - Grade level teachers - Special subject area teachers - Building principal - Assistant principal - Guidance counselor - Media specialist/librarianLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY PUPIL/TEACHER RATIOS School 1-31-92 Enrollment Staffing Count P/T Ratio Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady- Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 222 361 332 630 413 606 518 388 309 327 410 497 534 275 258 349 198 483 509 511 432 321 363 357 296 401 362 237 526 474 840 470 334 499 396 231 19 29 24 45 30 43 37 25 23 25 24 37 2 27 20 31 23 31 35 32 26 25 22 22 27 30 27 26 29 31 50 31 21 34 27 17 11.68 12.44 13.83 14.00 13.77 14.09 14.00 15.52 13.43 13.08 17.08 13.43 16.69 10.19 12.90 11.26 8.61 15.58 14.54 15.97 16.61 12.84 16.50 16.22 10.96 13.36 13.40 9.11 18.13 15.29 16.80 15.16 15.90 14.68 14.67 13.5910/16/92 13:07 QaOl 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/006 A ir Pl Little Rock School District News Release LRSD Non-black Enrollment Increases, Overall Enrollment Stability Continues October 16,1992 For more information, contact Dianne G. Woodruff Non-black enrollment in the Little Rock School District continues to climb, with an increase of 84 students over 1991 figures, according to the annual October 1 enrollment report released today by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd. \"Not only have we gained non-black students to the District this year, but these figures reflect a steady trend we're evidencing when you look at the enrollment data during the past four years,\" Bernd said. \" And if you look at several years' enrollment data longitudinally, you see that the non-black enrollment is increasing within a given grade level of students as they move through our schools,\" Bernd said. Total enrollment for the District as of October 1, when the Arkansas Department of Education requires all districts to make official enrollment reports, is 26,212, compared to 26,318 for the same date last year. The percent of black enrollment for both years was 64 percent The number of black students in the District dropped by 190, from 16,916 to 16,726, while the number of white students increased by 37 from 9,045 to 9,082. At the same time, the number of students classified as \"other\" increased by 47 from 357 to 404. This includes students who are Spanish, Asian/Pacific Islander, Eskimo or American Indian. -more- 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 . \u0026lt;5011374.336110/16/92 17:04 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @002/004 Page 2 LRSD Release Enrollment Data \"I believe this is evidence that our efforts with the other districts in Pulaski County to offer assignment options are successful. In the Little Rock District, the overall number of students is down because there are 1,101 students from Little Rock now attending schools in the North Little Rock and County districts under majority to minority transfers. At the same time, those two districts are sending us a total of 422 majority to minority (M-to-M) students,\" said Bernd. \"We can see that the majority to minority transfer options are helping all our districts achieve more even racial balances. We fully expect these numbers to be further improved when we open two new schools in the next two years,\" Bemd added. The LRSD will open the King Elementary Interdistrict Magnet School in August 1993 and a new Stephens Interdistrict Magnet School in August 1994. Pulaski County opened Crystal Hill Elementary Magnet School this year and will open another interdistrict school in the next couple of years, also. \"I expect to see more movement among our three districts as vigorous recruitment continues. Clearly, students' needs are being served when we are able to offer a solid basic skills foundation enhanced with a variety of special themes,\" Bemd said. Altogether, the number of magnet transfers. tty to im transfers and legal transfers through two state acts represents influx of 1,953 voluntary isfers into the Little Rock School District The Little Rock School District receives 143 students from North Little Rock and 279 students from Pulaski County Special School District under M-to-M transfer requests. There are 228 Little Rock students attending the North Little Rock School District and 821 Little Rock students going to schools in e Pulaski County Special School District on majority to minority transfers. -more-L  yckooi Bist W Page 3 LRSD Release Enrollment Data Also, there are a tow of 1,481 sh^ from the North Little Rock and Pulaski County districts attending the six original magnet schools in the Little Rock District This includes 558 student from North Little Ri id 923 from aski County. Additionally, there are about 50 students in the Little Rock district via legal transfers provided by state Act 609 or state Act 624, both of which allow students to request transfers to other districts. The number of students in the District's four-year-old classes has continued to grow as the number of schools offering the programs has increased over the past five years, Bernd said. At the same time, the racial make-up of those classes is shifting, also. The white and \"other\" student enrollment program has risen from 17 percent in 1988 to 45 percent this year. The four-year-old program is now offered in 16 schools. That has grown from three schools in 1988, five in the 1989, seven in 1990,11 in 1991 and 16 in 1992. Enrollment data for the past five years is: SENIOR HIGH 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 WHITE 2,823 2,461 2,201 2,152 2,131 BLACK OTHER TOTAL 3,398 3,264 3,174 3,243 3,378 75 77 90 114 123 6,296 5,802 5,465 5,509 5,632 % BLACK 54 56 58 59 60 JUNIOR HIGH 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 2,076 1,951 1,878 1,882 1,948 3,912 3,937 4,025 4,112 4,138 80 90 81 68 80 6,068 5,978 5,984 6,062 6,166 64 66 67 68 67 -more-Page 4 LRSD Release Enrollment Data ELEMENTARY 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 4,678 4,579 4,740 4,851 4,819 9,374 9,489 9,435 9,374 8,994 127 127 161 166 190 14,179 14,195 14,336 14,391 14,003 66 67 66 65 64 SPECIAL SCHOOLS 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 55 39 49 40 43 35 27 22 24 28 0 1 0 0 0 90 67 71 64 71 39 40 31 38 39 DISTRICT TOTAL (including kindergarten, excluding four-year-old programs) 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 9,577 9,030 8,868 8,925 8,941 16,684 16,717 16,656 16,753 16,538 282 295 332 348 393 26,543 26,042 25,856 26,026 25,872 63 64 64 64 64 KINDERGARTEN 10/3/88 10/2/89 I 10/1/90 I 10/1/91 I 10/1/92 581 629 682 694 715 1,204 1,264 1,200 1,231 1,188 18 16 22 18 27 1,803 1,909 1,904 1,943 1,930 67 66 63 63 61 FOUR-YEAR-OLD 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 16 49 76 120 141 78 127 146 188 0 5 6 9 11 94 181 228 292 340 83 70 64 56 55 DISTRICT TOTAL (with kindergarten and four-year-olds) 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 9,577 9,030 8,944 9,045 9,082 16,684 16,717 16,802 16,916 16,726 282 295 338 357 404 26,543 26,042 26,084 26,318 26,212 63 64 64 64 64 -more-10/16/92 13:10 Ol 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @006/006 Page 5 LRSD Release Enrollment Data The last year we had a drop in non-black enrollment in the District was 1988,\" Bernd noted. \"It's my understanding that the so caUed 'control choice' assignment plan which many patrons found to be very unsatisfactory was in place at that time. But if you begin with the 1989 school year, when we were able to implement the assignment plan now in place, stability has prevailed and our ability to attract and hold students in the white and 'other' categories has been quite evident,\" Bernd said. I believe it is helpful to look at some of these data for the longitudinal results, Bernd said. For example, the kindergarten class of 1988 was 67 percent black but also, enrollment for at class now in the fourth grade, is 64 percent black. If you look at figures for the kinderganen class of 1989, which was 66 percent black, data shows that the black enrollment among those students, now in grade three, is 62 percent black.\" These numbers point to long-term stability and the effect that a stable student assignment plan will have for our schools over a period of time,\" Bernd said -30-10/16/92 13:07 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 21002/006 ? Little Rock School District News Release LRSD Non-black Enrollment Increases, Overall Enrollment Stability Continues October 16,1992 For more information, contact Dianne G. Woodruff Non-black enrollment in the Little Rock School District continues to climb, with an increase of 84 students over 1991 figures, according to the annual October 1 enrollment report released today by Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd. \"Not only have we gained non-black students to the District this year, but these figures reflect a steady trend we're evidencing when you look at the enrollment data during the past four years,\" Bernd said. \"And if you look at several years' enrollment data longitudinally, you see that the non-black enrollment is increasing within a given grade level of students as they move through our schools,\" Bernd said. Total enrollment for the District as of October 1, when the Arkansas Department of Education requires all districts to make official enrollment reports, is 26,212, compared to 26,318 for the same date last year. The percent of black enrollment for both years was 64 percent The number of black students in the District dropped by 190, from 16,916 to 16,726, while the number of white students increased by 37 from 9,045 to 9,082. At the same time, the number of students classified as \"other\" increased by 47 from 357 to 404. This includes students who are Spanish, Asian/Pacific Islander, Eskimo or American Indian. -more-10/16/92 17:04 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002/004 Page 2 LRSD Release Enrollment Data \"I believe this is evidence that our efforts with the other districts in Pulaski County to offer assignment options are successful. In the Little Rock District, the overall number of students is down because there are 1,101 students from Little Rock now attending schools in the North Little Rock and County districts under majority to minority transfers. At the same time, those two districts are sending us a total of 422 majority to minority (M-to-M) students,\" said Berni \"We can see that the majority to minority transfer options are helping all our districts achieve more even racial balances. We fully expect these numbers to be further improved when we open two new schools in the next two years,\" Bemd added. The LRSD will open the King Elementary Interdistrict Magnet School in August 1993 and a new Stephens Interdistrict Magnet School in August 1994. Pulaski County opened Crystal HUI Elementary Magnet School this year and wiU open another interdistrict school in the next couple of years, also. II' 'I expect to see more movement among our three districts as vigorous recruitment continues. Clearly, students' needs are being served when we are able to offer a solid basic skills foundation enhanced with a variety of special themes,\" Bemd said. Altogether, the number of magnet transfers. j^transfers and legal transfers through two state acts represents influx of 1,953 voluntary isfers into the Little Rock School District The Little Rock School District receives 143 students from North Little Rock and 279 students from Pulaski County Special School District under M-to-M transfer requests. There are 228 Little Rock students attending the North Little Rock School District and 821 Little Rock students going to schools in the Pulaski County Special School District on majority to minority transfers. -more-10/16/92 17:05 '0501 324 2032 L R School DiSt ODM 1^003/004 Page 3 LRSD Release Enrollment Data Also, there are a toi of 1,481 stud\u0026lt; from the North Little Rock and. Pulaski County districts attending the six original magnet schools in the Little Rock District. This indues 558 student from North Little Rj id 923 from Laski County. Additionally, there are about 50 students in the Little Rock district via legal transfers provided by state Act 609 or state Act 624, both of which allow students to request transfers to other districts. The number of students in the District's four-year-old classes has continued to grow as the number of schools offering the programs has increased over the past five years. Bernd said. At the same time, the racial make-up of those classes is shifting, also. The white and \"other\" student enrollment program has risen from 17 percent in 1988 to 45 percent this year. The four-year-old program is now offered in 16 schools. That has grown from three schools in 1988, five in the 1989, seven in 1990,11 in 1991 and 16 in 1992. Enrollment data for the past five years is: SENIOR HIGH 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 WHITE 2,823 2,461 2,201 2,152 2,131 BLACK OTHER TOTAL 3,398 3,264 3,174 3,243 3,378 75 77 90 114 123 6,296 5,802 5,465 5,509 5,632 % BLACK 54 56 58 59 60 JUNIOR HIGH 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 2,076 1,951 1,878 1,882 1,948 3,912 3,937 4,025 4,112 4,138 80 90 81 68 80 6,068 5,978 5,984 6,062 6,166 64 66 67 68 67 -more-XU/XU/a X / . u o kJ u U X 4UO4i\nA ounuux y xb t UUlU 14AJ UU^/ UU4 Page 4 LRSD Release Enrollment Data ELEMENTARY 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 4,678 4,579 4,740 4,851 4,819 9,374 9,489 9,435 9,374 8,994 127 127 161 166 190 14,179 14,195 14,336 14,391 14,003 66 67 66 65 64 SPECIAL SCHOOLS 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 55 39 49 40 43 35 27 22 24 28 0 1 0 0 0 90 67 71 64 71 39 40 31 38 39 DISTRICT TOTAL (including kindergarten, excluding four-year-old programs) 10/3/88 9,577 16,684  -------- 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 9,030 8,868 8,925 8,941 16,717 16,656 16,753 16,538 282 295 332 348 393 26,543 26,042 25,856 26,026 25,872 63 64 64 64 64 KINDERGARTEN 10/3/88\n10/2/89 I 10/1/90 I 10/1/91 I 10/1/92 581 629 682 694 715 1,204 1,264 1,200 1,231 1,188 18 16 22 18 27 1,803 1,909 1,904 1,943 1,930 67 66 63 63 61 FOUR-YEAR-OLD 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 16 49 76 120 141 78 127 146 188 0 5 6 9 11 94 181 228 292 340 83 70 64 56 55 DISTRICT TOTAL (with nnder^rten and four-year-olds) 10/3/88 10/2/89 10/1/90 10/1/91 10/1/92 9,577 9,030 8,944 9,045 9,082 16,684 16,717 16,802 16,916 16,726 282 295 338 357 404 26,543 26,042 26,084 26,318 26,212 63 64 64 64 64 -more-10/16/92 13:10 SaOl 324 2032 L R School Disc - ODM @006,'006 Page 5 LRSD Release Enrollment Data \"'Hie last year we had a drop in non-black enrollment in the District was 1988,\" Bemd noted. \"It's my understanding that the so caUed 'control choice' assignment plan which many ft patrons found to be very unsatisfactory was in place at that time. But if you begin with the 1989 school year, when we were able to implement the assignment plan now in place, stability has prevailed and our ability to attract and hold students in the white and other categories has been quite evident,\" Bemd said. I believe it is helpful to look at some of these data for the longitudinal results, also,' II Bemd said. For example, e kinderganen class of 1988 was 67 percent black but enrollment for that class now in the fourth grade, is 64 percent black. If you look at figures for the kinderganen class of 1989. which was 66 percent black, data shows that the black enrollment among ose students, now in grade three, is 62 percent black.' If These numbers point to long-term stability and the effect that a stable student assignment plan wiU have for our schools over a period of time,\" Bemd said -30-09/11/92 09:57 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001/003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE# SUBJECT '?o//c/ 7 Special Instructions Number of Pages (include cover page) Fax Phone Number Speed dial FOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE USE ONLY Transmitted By Date Time 09/11/92 09 : 58 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM l2]002/0q3_ LRSD ENROLLMENT SEVENTH DAY 1992-93 SCHOOL BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL XBLACK ELEMENTARY Badgett Bal Baseline Booker Bi'ady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Fox'est Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romina Stephens Torry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 157 250 259 344 262 324 336 281 177 186 196 355 223 229 168 189 181 204 269 261 289 239 144 189 240 256 274 198 234 337 475 324 186 271 255 147 48 56 89 260 lib 259 178 74 117 55 240 54 292 16 116 13 2 5 275 222 219 150 26 203 172 9 117 70 8 287 142 326 116 137 219 94 03 0 9 4 11 11 6 10 3 0 2 5 8 9 7 0 12 0 6 3 15 2 2 6 11 1 7 10 0 17 1 7 1 4 9 2 6 205 315 332 615 389 589 524 358 294 243 441 417 524 252 284 333 186 485 494 495 441 267 353 372 250 380 354 206 538 480 808 441 327 499 351 236 7 7 7 9 7 8 54 67 5 5 64 78 60 78 44 85 43 91 59 57 97 42 54 53 66 90 41 5 i 96 67 77 96 43 69 5 9 7 3 5 7 54 7 3 62 TOTAL 8909 4962 207 3 6-, 078 63 DISTRICT TOTAL 16,287 0967 379 25,623 6409/11/92 09:59 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst c-o ODM i U , @003/003 xo:c.x NO.Uuo r LRSD ENROLLMENT SEVENTH DAY - 1992-93 BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL iaL 1LL2_H1^ Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 1154 515 530 654 506 730 281 403 375 365 35 10 19 15 17 1927 806 952 994 008 60 64 56 6 6 57 TOTAL 3359 2112 96 5567 60 JONTOR HIGH Clovordale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest 521 434 532 650 439 498 456 489 154 28 2 203 176 232 333 322 176 8 9 14 15 2 19 4 5 683 725 7 54 841 67 3 850 782 670 7 6 60 71 7 7 65 59 58 7 3 TOTAL 4019 1083 76 5978 67SEP 1 1  S 2 P R I 10:05 P - O 1 THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS administrative offices 700 POPLAR STREET Fax Number: (501) 771-8069 FAX COVER SHEET Date: I'lh Ja Transmitting To: o An FAX Number: Attention: Number of Pages, Including Cover Sheet: From: /So ((f Comments: -fi I oiO Oc\u0026gt;- ( P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501/771-8000t. t N 0 SECONDARY ENROLLMENT BY GRADES SCHOOL:Recapitulation for all Schools DATEiAugust 31 - September 9, 1992 fl. 0 0 11 IL N (Ji. ll I fl. liJ Vi Grade Level NLRHS - West Campus NLRHS - East Campus Lakewood Middle School Ridgeroad Middle School Rose City Middle School Baring Cross Alternative Education Center________ Total: Year 1992 1991 1990 31 Mon 1080 1051 1004 1 Tue 1130 1058 1025 2 Wed 1150 1111 1078 3 Thu 1158 1112 1142 4 Fri 1165 1113 1147 Mon 8 Tue 1174 1191 1113 9 Wed 1185 1220 1145 Thu Fri 1992 1991 1990 1193 1136 1181 1254 12 05 1278 1274 1238 1303 1296 1270 1326 1304 1285 1337 1312 1303 1368 1322 1307 1385 1992 1991 1990 1992 1991 1990 1992 1991 1990 1992 1991 1990 1992 1991 1992 1991 1990 497 526 509 521 547 522 527 552 535 534 556 548 ^6 560 553 539 566 559 539 570 559 516 346 371 54 4 452 443 559 467 Tsl 570 467 TeT 569 476 551 477 459 513 477 163 343 290 337 364 375 386 371 367 404 378 386 365 382 386 375 385 3^ 386 385 38^ 367 24 30 28 25 29 32 29 35 26 29 34 26 29 33 26 29 33 26 30 33 17 9 3670 3388 3430 merged with ~ schools merged with schools merged with schools merged with schools merged with schools merged with schools 3838 3677 3686 3907 3764 3808 3962 3820 3879 3982 3849 3935 3987 3952 3958 3970 3990 3952 IS.E P  1 1^2 P R I 10:0 6. P . 0 3 RECAPITULATION FOR ALL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS DATE September 9, 1992 NAME OF SCHOOL YEAR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY AMBOY BELWOOD BOONE PARK CENTRAL CRESTWOOD GLENVIEW INDIAN HILLS LAKEWOOD LYNCH DRIVE MEADOW PARK NO.HEIGHTS PARK HILL PIKE VIEW REDWOOD 19^ i TWT 1990 1992 xnz 1990 1992 19 96 1992 1991 Tm\" 1992 1991 1957 1991 1996 1992 1991 1990 1557 1991 1990 1992 1991 1990 T957 '19^1 1990 1992 7757 1990' 1992 1991 7557 1992 1991 7557 1992 1991 7557 251 T2T 411 777 757 166 456 5oT 157 460 390 127 240 238 22T 260 230 277 TTT 425 437 777 775 242 7^ 757 256 772 775 291 400 ITT TTJ 207 775 772 415 414 T25 226 231 775 39\u0026lt; 777 412 170 777 167 457 517 ~477 468 399 -177 240 238 277 277 235 277 444' 425 435 277 2^ 242 277- 256 256 277 25T 291 401 177 442 209 257 277 417 415 T27 227 235 1T7S E p  1 1^2 F R I 1 0 : o \"? p . ei -q- BOSE CITY SEVENTH ST. BARING CROSS ALTERNATIVE KINDERGARTEN ELEMENTARY TOTAL 1992 Ttir 1990 TOI TOT 1990 1992 \"TOT 1990 1992 TOT TTO 1992 1991 TOI 1992 1991 TOI TTO 1991 1990 251 TO ITT TO \"TO Toi 12 TT 12 20 ... 252 TO ITT lel TO\" l6l 12 TT 12 20 685 682 ~TO 4324 4343 TTO TOI 5025 TOT 695 TO 4338 4356 ITO TOI 5046 TOI, 09/1.1'92 09: 57 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 001/003 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE # SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Pt^es (include cover page) Fax Phone Number Speed dial FOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE USE ONLY Transmitted By Date Time 09/1,1/92 09:58 501 324 2032 1. R School Dlst ODM @002/003_ LRSD ENROLLMENT SEVENTH DAY 1992-93 SCHOOL BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL %BLACK ELEMENTARY Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Bi'ady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 157 250 259 344 262 324 33 6 281 177 106 196 355 223 229 168 189 181 204 269 261 289 239 144 189 240 256 274 198 234 337 47 5 324 166 271 255 147 48 56 6 9 260 116 259 178 74 117 5 5 240 54 292 16 116 132 5 275 222 219 150 26 203 172 9 117 70 8 287 142 326 116 137 219 94 83 0 9 4 11 11 6 10 3 0 2 5 8 9 7 0 12 0 6 3 15 2 '2 6 11 1 7 10 0 17 1 7 1 4 9 2 6 205 315 332 615 389 589 524 358 294 243 441 417 524 252 284 333 186 485 494 495 441 267 3 53 372 260 380 354 206 538 480 808 441 327 499 351 236 7 7 79 7 8 54 67 5 5 64 78 60 78 44 8 5 43 91 59 57 9 7 42 54 53 66 90 41 51 9 6 67 77 96 43 69 5 9 7 3 57 54 7 3 62 TOTAL 8909 4962 207 ]4,078 63 DISTRICT TOTAL 16,ZS7 0967 379 25,623 6409/11/92 09:59 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst cep ODM iU , @003/003 j'J NQ.UUO r. UZ LRSD ENROLLMENT SEVENTH DAY - 1992-93 SCHOOL. sLacK WHITE OTHER Central Fair Hall McClellan Pax'kview 1154 515 530 654 506 738 281 403 325 365 35 10 19 15 n 1927 806 952 994 008 60 64 56 66 57 TOTAL, 3359 2112 96 5567 60 JUNIOR HIGH Cloverdale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights .Southwest 521 434 532 650 439 498 456 469 154 28 2 208 176 232 333 322. 176 8 9 14 15 2 19 4 5 683 725 7 54 841 673 8 50 782 6' 0 7 6 60 71 7 7 65 59 58 7 3 TOTAL t019 1083 76 5978 67X I * % X * X DATE START SENDER SEP-11 9:46 501 324 2032 TRANSACTION REPORT RX TINE PAGES TYPE P.Ol SEP-11-92 FRI 9:49 NOTE 2'23\" 3 RECEIVE OK I * I * I X Xer LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: March 25, 1993 Board of Dire^cctt5'\u0026gt;r\nMarie Parker, RB 1 3 1993 oifico of Desegregation McniiOfing sociate Superintendent for Organizational and Learning Equity Dr. Mac Berndt Superintendent Second Quarter Enrollment - 1992-93 School Year Please find attached the second quarter enrollment statistics for the 1992-93 school year. cc: Cabinet COMPARISON OF ACTUAL ENROLLMENT FOR SECOND QUARTER OF 1992-93 AND 1991-92 1992-93 Actual Enrollment as of January 28, 1993, Second Quarter of 1992-93 School Year: White Black Other Total %Black Special chools* Elementary (w/o Kind.)  4129 Junior High Senior High (w/o Kind.) 1905 2044 40 7783 4079 3281 0 175 71 104 84 12,087 6,055 5,429 48 64 67 60 Sub Total 8122 15,183 350 23,655 64  Kindergarten Four-Year-Old 697 143 1,190 186 32 13 1,919 342 62 54 ......GRAND TOTAL .... 8962 X 16^-559 .  - 395 25,916 64 c 44 Private Handicapped Schools Homebound students counted in school where assigned. 1991-92 Actual Enrollment as of January 23, 1992, Second Quarter of 1991-92 School Year: White Black Other Total %Black Special Schools* Elementary (w/o Kind.) Junior High enipr High (w/o Kind.) 45 4130 1843 2077 33 8131 4032 3144 0 161 74 119 78 12,422 5,949 5,340 42 6 5 68 58 Sub Total 8095 15,340 354 23,739 64 Kindergarten Four-Year-Old 695 120 1,247 172 22 10 1,964 302 63 57 GRAND TOTAL 8910 16,759 386 26,055 64 q Private Handicapped School Homebound students counted in school where assigned.GRADE K 1 2 3 4 5 6 UN TOTAL ELEM. 7 8 9 UN TOTAL JR HIGH 10 11 12 UN TOTAL SR HIGH TOTAL K-12 SPEC. SCHOOLS FOUR YR OLD DI ST TOTALS SUMMARY OF SECOND QUARTER ENROLLMENT 1992-93 WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL %BLACK 697 710 727 680 640 658 670 , ..44 4826 684 617 583 21 1905 693 648 694 9 2044 8775 44 143 8962 1190 1307 1299 1204 1212 1291 1342 128 8973 1418 1368 1232 61 4079 1317 1014 919 31 3 281 16,333 40 186 16,559 *SUMMARY OF STUDENTS LISTED IN SPANISH -133 ASIAN/PACIFIC ISLANDER -219 32 25 32 35 25 35 23 0 207 22 29 20 0 71 31 35 37 1 104 382 0 .13 39 5 1919 2042 2058 1919 1877 1984 2035 172 14,006 2124 2014 1835 82 6055 2041 1697 . 1650 41 5429 25,490 84 342 26,916 OTHER\" CATEGORY: ESKIMO/AMER. IND. OTHER 20 23 62 64 63 63 65 65 66 74 64 67 68 67 74 67 65 60 56  76 60 64 48 54 64L I' I r L E I' (0 C E G C HIJ iJ L. r\u0026gt; IG1IL\nT SEflOMD QUARTER EMROLLrlEW I REPOFM JANUARY as, 1993 SCHOOL/GRADE WHITE BLACK OTHER TOTAL !^BLAOK CENTRAL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 265 244 221  730 0 730 0 453 370 273 1096 49 1145 0 15 20 14 49 0 49 0 733 634 508 187'5 49 1924 ERR 61.80*/. 58.36'/. 53.74*4 58.45'/. 100.00*/. ,9.51*/. FAIR UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL   7 103 94 96 -5-300 ..... - 1 301 ' 15 206 170 150 541 .. 19 560 0 0 0 0 . _\n.0 0  o S2 309 264 246 B41 20 B61 68.18*/. 66.67*/. 64.39*/. 60.98*/. 64.33*/. 95.00/. 65.04*/. HALL UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 113 123 155 391 11 40)2 O 218 157 179 9 563 O 6 7 12 25 0 C 337 287 346 970 20 990 ERR 64.69*/. 54.70*/. 51.73*/. 57.11*/. 45.00!4 56.87*/. MCCLELLAN UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL KI ND. TOTAL 2 94 79 111 286 1 287 16 263 168 166 613 18 631 1 4 3 b 14 0 14 19 361 2G3 913' 19 84.21*/. 72.85*/. 67.20'/. 58,661i 67.14\u0026gt;\u0026lt; 94.74!/ 67.70'/. PARKVIEW UNGRADED 10 11 12 SUBTOTAL, KI ND. TOTAL. 0 118 106 11.1 337 2 339 0 1 77 149 151 47'7 15 4 92 0 ii 16 0 16 O 301 262 267 630 17 847 0.00*/ 58G0!4 56.677 56.557 57.477 y\n. 247 58.097 ISi.T 'lOOL / GRADE CLOVERDALE UNGRADED WHITE OTHER TOTAL TOTAL DUNBAR UNGRADED TOTAL 7 8 9 1 8 9 FOREST HEIGHTS UNGRADED 1 8 -9 TOTAL HENDERSON UNGRADED 1 a 9 TOTAL MABELVALE UNGRADED 1 8 9 TOTAL MANN UNGRADED 3 9 TOT AL. PULASKI HEIGHTS i)HGK'Ai\u0026gt;E.D 8 o TOTAL. 68 57 183  88 92 96 276 6 64 70 70 3 210 3 82 45 60 190 c. 79 74 65 223 129 123 333 I li, 74 207 178 184 574 132 144 129 405 7 194 184 . 155- 540 17 225 233 175 650 12 146 143 127 428 145 180 500 137 :i 66 138 .UH 3 4 3 10 3 6 2 11 0 3 7 4-.. 14 0 2 2 6 iO 0 2 0 0 2 o 1 0 ij 9 ^64 250 244 767 223 242 227 692 13 261 261 229  764 20 309 280 241 850 17 227 217 192 653 310 266 S^S 8 269 262 232 771 78.I it\n71.20% 75 i 7''+. W4/i 59.19% 59.50% 56.8 3 / 58.53% 53.85% 74.33% 70.5o% 67.69% 70.6S% 85.00% 72,82% 83.21% 72.6J % 76.47% 70.59% 64.32% 65.90% 66.15% 65.54% 56. 53 5Q 3 t'3 ITSCHOOL/GRADE fiOUTI 1WE8T UNGRADED WH 1 I tS BLACK OTHER \"I OTAi... . BL ALA TOTAL BADGETT UNGRADED 7 8 9 C) 56 49 60 165 15 02 144 536 6 0 1 2 4 b SUBTOTAL KI ND, FOUR YR OLD - TOTAL -   1 1 '  '2 10 3 != 4 7 32 8 -47- 7 20 13 18 16 30 28 132 12 9  -isa'.\n' 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0   1 15 c.61 J 230 204 710 8 22 23 21 22 34 165 19 17 201 - i CjCi. OCT/. 7'7 39% 76.07% 70.59% 75.49% 87.50% 90.91% 56 02% 85.71% IrL. 73% 88.24% 80.00% 80.00% 63.16% 52.94% 76.12% BALE UNGRADED 7 1 2 3 4 c\nb SUBTOTAL KI ND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 3 8 8 9 45 10 9 64 26 25 28 28 41 37 190 34 9 233 0 1 2 1 11 3 0 14 12 32 32 32 38 51 49 246 47 18 311 41.67% 81.25% 78.13% 87.50% 73.68% 80.39% 75.51% 77.24% 72.34% 50.00% 74.92% BASELINE UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 tr 10 14 10 6 9 4 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL Oi:\n12 64 47 42 34 43 30 32 228 45 273 1 1 0 0 4 0 4 58 44 'IS 41 36 284 57 341 81.03% 73.68% 77.27% 89.58% 73.17% 88.89% 80.28% 78.95% 80 06% ISUI iOOL/GRADE BOOKER UNGRADED WHITE Bl-AC ( ! U'l AL. A BLi-'iLL. 1 3 A 6 SUBTOTAL K.TND. TOTAL 3a 35 38 A A 37 39 825  \"e.7 252 A 6 AS AS 50 50 53 295 Al 336 0 1 0 . 0 a 6 0 6 78 8A 86 97 87 9A 5ac3 68 S9A BRADY UNGRADED 1 a 3 4 6 58.97% 57.1 A/) 55.81% 57.477. 5(6.38% 56.08% 60.89'/) 5 6  5 / % SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 1 25 17 16 10 . 167 12 97 ... 26 123 c* 33 AA A3 38 /36 - A6 839' 30 869 0 1 1 a 0 a  7 3 10 6 59 68 61 Aa 53 60 3A3 59 A02 S3.33% 55.93% 70.97% 70.A9% 76.19% 67.98% 76.67% 69.68% 50.85% 66.98% CARVER UNGRADED 1 a 3 4 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 31 3A Al A3 A3 A5 837 a? S6A AO 51 A 9 A9 5A 895 33 338 CHICOT UNGRADED 1 81 30 -3 + c\naa ao d-Xj 65 58 A a Al 38 A7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Ji 0 SUBTOTAL KI ND. TOTAL 1A9 3 1 i r'- 71 85 90 9a 9'7 60 598 j.G GA 88 t\u0026gt;o ya ASA 78 56.3A*/\n60.00% 5 A. AA% 53.a6% 55.67% 53.61% 55.A5% 55.00% 55 . A17\u0026lt; 50.00% 75.58% 65.91% a3.aAa 6 A. 06% 63.33% i?G% bb.08% '/1. bb.78% I*StO-IOuL/GRADE CLOVERDALE UNGRADED WHI f E iLACK a ruiLK TO t-K 1  3 4 6 10 11 9 3 11 6 39 J. SUBTOTAL KI ND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL  17 a 36 43 41 48 35 36 9 80 1 1 0 50 47 46 47 DODD UNGRADED 1  3 - ..,.4 - SUBTOTAL KIND. 4  14 17 11,.. 14 35 117 1 138 7 El 31 3 ... .E5L-. 36  IS\n155 19 174 FAIR PARK UNGRADED 1  3 4 10 7 7 9 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 43 9 5E 3E 8 6 30 30 4 170 FOREST PARK UNGRADED 1 E 36 43 35 9 6 SUBTOTAL KI ND. IO l AI. 4 07 33 4 13 81 43 31 3'/ C) 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1  (j 1 1 1 1 4 1 43 890 53 18 361 1 1 43 45 40 L'L. 36 50 47 7 40 31 43 35 34 35 39 30 16 36 5 51 G 376 -I- OP 30 7e?,. 00*/. 7834*/. 78.6% 91.49% 78.85*/\n87.50'/. 81.03'% 67'. 9*/. 50.00*% 77.56% 63.64*/ 48,84*/. 68.89*/. 57.50*/. .44*/. 7S.. 00'/. 85.53*/. 56.99*/. 47.50*/. 55.77*/. 74.4% 80. ooy. 7h,.i^7'h 85.7iy. 7b. 9/. 80.00/. 78.70/. 69.44/. 77.38*/. 46.48*/. 35.89% 86.53*4 4.1 . .18% 58.44% 56 - ( 4 .37%g(.\n:houl/(jRADf: FRANKLIN UNGRADED WHITE BLACK OTWt?.H TOTAL.. /.BLACK 1 2 3 0 6 aUDTOTAL- L\u0026lt; I ND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 4 1 4 23 10 65 45 48 43 O 23 51 47 283 40 .27 350 1 0 0 2 0 3 8 10 74 50 51 47 2) 53 31 1 45 ..J 3 409 100.00% 8'/. 84/\n90.00'/ 94.12'/. 91.49'/. 96.15/ 88.68'/. 91.00'/. 88.89*/\n50.94'/. 85.57% FULBRIGHT UNGRADED cr 1 2 3 .. . - ....T 4 - 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 33 '+3  - 50 42 ' 42\"  270 305 2 30 28 40 -28 38 38''  204 24 228 0 1 2 2 2 i 1 9 0 9 64 73 97 80 81 81 483 59 542 28.57/. -76.80/. 38.36*/. 41.24*/. 35.00*/. 46.91'/. 46.91'/. 42.24'/. 40.68'/. . 42.07'/. GARLAND UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 1 O 0 1 0 o 0 2 3 2 -J 11 37 27 29 32 26 32 194 9 228 GEYER SPRINGS UNGRADED 1 c 3 4 0 17 20 15 28 26 26 20 16 6 SLIbTOTAL. I ND 16 82 17 1 23 TOiiF\n70 I AL. CiLD too 0 1 0 1 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 12 38 27 31 32 28 34 202 30 11 243 T5 '76 Ti 25 T7 ^lO 10 91.67'/. 97.37% 100.00'/. 93.55'/. 100.00'/. 92.86'/\n94.12/. 96.04'/ S3.33'/. 81.82'/. 93.83*/\ni 00.00X 62.22/ 56 GO 6'4 65 41'/ 00% OOyL I ii. iT'.tjfSEHui IL../SRADE G I BBS UHljRADET.) wuri E EL.Ai.\nl OTHER TOTAL \u0026gt;\nriLALr:. SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL ISH UNGRADED 1 2 3 9 1 2 3 9 6 ' SUBTOTAL' -'  KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL JEFFERSON UNGRADED 1 2 3 9 6 subtotal KIND. TOTAL MABELVALE UMeRABEIJ 1 2 3 9 SUBTOTAL lO'ND.. TOT Al.. 17 19 19 20 IS c. 128   13 23 87 88 39 168 88 190 1 0 1 i P S 8 10 93 95 93 90 9 9 898 37 335 5 Ei. 1 9-7', 57.787 53.99*/ 56). 25z, 57.197, 55.717 56.387\n56.72*/, 0 0 0 8 O . . 0 -- 0 0 3 9 3S 93 36 37 90 92 238 90 278 3 38 39 88 29 TO 169 215 29 89 16 22-.. 89 '137-\"'- 23 8 168 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 - 0 0 0 o CT 13 88 86 16 28 29 139 23 11 173 100.007, 100.007. 100,007. 92.317. 100.007. 100 iOoy. 100.007. 98.567. 100.007. 72.737. 97.117. 9 89 30 65 30 ES 37 188 19 807 39 95 90 851 39 285 I' ! 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 6 0 6 (.) 1 i 1 0 0 3 0 3 8 60 79 79 68 69 79 938 i=,a ^91 10 75 79 73 69 993 503 50  OC 90.00*/. 90.59*/, 97.30*/. 99.187. ^,0 . Ub /, 96.897, 93.58% 38. aoy.  98. 167, 70 ti6. (MV, 52.707. 61.697 53.137. 56 57 T4'/\nT6.6 Cj 56 ..8 C Hu 0 L / ti L (A i) L MCDERMaTT UNGRADED WIU ft. iU. ACK o r I 11:::,!-\nl u I AL /^LLAlJ-.. 1 3 it er 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 0 32 29 36 32 30 35 194  30 224 0 43 42 36 38 48 47 254 29 283 0 0 3 3 2 it ii) 1 O 75 '74 75 72 aa 84 462 60 EI\u0026lt;R 57.33% 56.76% 48.00% 52.78*% 58.54% 55.95% 54.98% 4 8.33*% 54.21 % MEADOWCLIFF UNGRADED 1 2 3 4 25 28 26 15 6  SUBTOTAL'\" KIND. TOTAL. --22 16 132  \" IS 150 5o 46 42 46 41 * 26Cr 42 302 0 1 0 0 - \u0026lt;1 0  '2 o 2 75 75 68 61 64 51 394  60 454 66.67*/. 61 .33*/, 61.76*/, 75.41*/, 64.06*/, 68,63/, 65,99*/, 70.00*/, 66.52/, MITCHELL UNGRADED 1 1 2 3 it a 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL. it 0 21 2 ss 10 29 32 29 36 22 201 23 9 233 0 ci 1 0 1 0 0 4 1 OTTER CI'iEFK UNGRADED j. 2 3 k- 6 SWBTCU AL KI ND. TOTAL 37 34 31 27 26 177 23 200 24 25 14 20 6^2 24 129 15 144 2 0 2 1 0 f'i 11 32 46 34 35 40 22 226 25 i rs\n266 48 62 50 52 49 3i 1. A O 90.91 % 76.32% 93.48% 94.12% 82.86*/, 90.00*% 100.00% 88.94 /. 92.00/, 60.00% 87.59% 50.00% 4032% 2800% 38.46% it it. 90% 48,. Oo\n.^ 41 48% 3'/.. 50% i\n1 03%SCHOOL/GRADE r'ULASKI HEIGHTS U N G R Ai D E11 WHITl LLALK. tJi l lliH Tui AL SIJBTOTAI. KIND. TOTAL RIGHTSELL UNGRADED 1 S 3 4 6 6 33 5 5 15 SS 146  '31 177 4 31 3 30 36 34 178 6 04 (3 1 1 1 0 3 8 1 s 3 4 6 ' SUBTOTAL  ' KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 1 0 0 0 - 0- 0 1' 6 9 33 34 9 38 . -\"34 38 S06''  9 37 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 ROCKEFELLER UNGRADED 1 S 4 6 4 13 10 a 3 cr 50 66 49 56 CiS. 5)6 39 60 389 34 34 39 39 48.00% 4'6.9'/*/) 46.94% 69..S3% 60 71 /. 54.10% 43.33% 52.44% 97.06% 100.00% 100.00% 97.44% 3^^ . -100.00*/. 38 08 4 eA-7 100.00*/. 99.04*/. 91 ..67% 60.00*/. 95.95*/. SUBIOTAL KIND. FOUR- YR OLD TOTAL 63 7 4 114 39 5 34 33 31 199 9 6 54 1  0 0 O 1 3 9 6e 54 37 4S 36 36 6'7 5'7 37'7 59.68*/. 7S.SS*/. kf/. 5'7*/. 80.95*/. 91.67*/. 86.11 % 74.53*7. 50.88% 49.06% 67.37% ROMINE UNGRADED 1 E IE di IS 43 38 0 O 1 14 StJEn'QTftL K1 ND. r4:'!liR i t Ii Al. ft OLD 10 10 1 o H-0 L-O 8 SS9 1 1 1 45 4 6 51 37 39 98'7 SS.'/i 78.ia 84-. 44% 91 . BGT. 78 - 4 '3 z. 71 79 c?L) ' 1 1JSOHUOL/GRADE STEPHENS UNGRADED wni 1 g\nbl... ACK 011 lt.R I DIAL ZBLACh\n. 1 E 3 4 SUBTOTAL KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL ij 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 3 7 6 as 32 19 14 33 157 20 g 1Q5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (J 0 0 6 27 9 32 20 14 33 161 0 11 192 100.00% 92.59% 96.55% 100.00% 95.00% 100,00% 100.00% 9'7.52% 100.00% 72.73% 96.35% TERRY UNGRADED 1  3 4-- 5 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 38 38 40 42 ... 35 ' 36 229 45 74 5 31 31 . . .36^.,. 39 03 32 235 3 4 ........1  4 3 19  1 66 74 75 79 78 79 451 79 530 37.88/. 41.89% 41.33% 45,57% 50.00% 51.90% 45.01% 40.51% 44.34% WAKEFlELD UNGRADED 1 S 3 4 A SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL Cl 7 9  1 20 26 4 147 17 164 0 47 46 45 57 56 53 304 43 347  (1 1 O 0 1 2 0 4 0 4 0 75 75 hi. 7Q 84 77 0.00% 62.67% 61.33% 68.18% 73.08% 66.67% 68.83% 66.81% 71.67% 67.38% WASHINGTON UNGRADED  h SUBTOTAL K I ND. FOUR YR Ol..D TOT Ai.  49 47 42 38 48 36 62 34 18 31\u0026lt;! 3 77 89 63 5)6 hh 57, 4 1 !j 4 8 17 4.7 5 0 1 3  0 i 9 4 C j i b ! i..' la? I3c\u0026gt; i 07 94 i i 93 68 5 86 Gi0 60 .. 0C}\u0026gt;4 60.63% 64.03% 58.88% 59.57% 56.90% S0?% 60.21% 55.81 % 4 b 57^\u0026lt;S(^i 'lOUI..  iil 'T-iDt. WATSON UNGRADED Wl J1 i L BLACK  ! r'LU 1 U I fU. 1 c 3 SUBTOAL KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 19 14 14 16 19 18 94   17 56 \"I 118 60 898 39 10 347 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 66 58 58 79 63 393 60 17 470 '/4 L 67y 78.79% 75.86% 6'7.31 % 75.95% SO. 95*/. 75.83*4 65.00% 58.88% 73.83*/. WESTERN HILLS UNGRADED 1 3 4- 5 ' 6  SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 81 SO 15 80 .. 81 IV'\" 116 15 131 89 30 33 30. _ 30 189 85 814 0 0 1 iTO- . .. 8  0 3 0 3 50 50 49 50 53 308 40 348 58. ooy. 60. ooy. 67.35*/. 60. ooy. 56.60*/. 66.07*/. 61.36*/. 68.50*/. 61 .49*/. WILLIAMS UNGRADED 1 3 4 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. TOTAL 30 86 88 30 31 40 185 87 818 36 37 36 41 38 51 839 31 870 3 8 1 0 8 1 9 0 9 69 65 65 71 71 95 433 58 491 58.17*/. 56.98% 55.38*/. 5'7.75*/. 53.58% 55.43*/. 55.80% 5^+. ^'^'A WILSON UNGRADED 1 8 3 4 4 T3 11 17 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. four yr old | (TTAi. 68 16 / 05 80 35 89 34 3'9 38 4 8 837 84 9 570 . O 0 0 0 1 Q 1 9 C'l j 84 48 40 51 47 48 48 300 40 1 ii 83.33*/. 78.98*/, 78.50y. bb. b7V\u0026gt; 88.98*4 90.4 84 37.507. 79 . OO-i 60.QOA ,iiH i 'SCI lUUi, /iSRADi. WOODRUFF Ui'JGRADED Wr  i I Er. Lent b\nI..11 I U I i ii 1 3 4 14 9 9 10 13 as 13 16 i (J 1 43 21 23 26 6?..'. 1 c J/, iq- 6 SUBTOTAL KIND. FOUR YR OLD TOTAL 62  11 7 SO 18 109 88 1 1 1 '+ 1 1 6 26 170 'iO 17 232 C'-}. Or'.'I 61.04'% 61.11% 69 62 59% 70.00 6 .94% .93% EASTER SEALS UNGRADED TOTAL le 1 s 9 9 0 45.86% 42.86% ELIS. MITCHELL .... - ungraded TOTAL  .s.'y..  S7 . . .. 17%: 17 ... 0 . , 0 44 44 38.64% 38.64% E. MITCHELL(DAY) UNGRADED TOTAL 14 14 0 0 19 19 73.68% 73.68% iArkansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1992 , 1 tRSO enrollment (7th day) Sr.high\nCentral Fair Hall McClellan Parkview Total Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar I 1992-93 ' Black Non-blk%Blk Total - 1,154 515 530 654 506 773 291 422 340 382 60 1,927 3,359 2,208 521 434 Forest Heights 532 Henderson Mabelvale Mann 650 439 498 Pulaski Heights 456 Southwest Total Elementary Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady ' Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Gatland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek 489 162 291 222 191 234 352 326 181 4,019 1,959 157 250 259 344 262 324 336 281 177 186 196 355 223 229 168 189 181 204 269 261 289 239 144 Pulaski Heights 189 Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodnjff Total 240 256 274 198 234 337 475 324 186 271 255 147 48 65 73 271 127 265 188 77 117 57 245 62 301 23 116 144 5 281 225 234 152 28 209 183  10 124 80 8 304 143 333 117 141 228 96 89 8,909 5,169 Grand Total 16,287 9,336 64 56 66 57 806 952 994 888 60 5,567\n76 60 71 n 65 59 58 73 683 725 754 841 673 850 782 670 67 5,978 77 79 78 54 67 55 64 78 60 78 44 85 43 91 59 57 97 42 54 53 66 90 41 51 96 67 77 96 43 69 59 73 57 54 73 62 205 315 332 615 389 589 524 358 294 243 441 417 524 252 284 333 186 485 494 495 441 267 353 372 250 380 354 206 538 480 808 441 327 499 351 236 63 14,078 64 25,623 J ENROLLMENT FIGURES The . Little Rock School District's enrollment on Wednesday, the seventh day of school, was up 36 students as compared with last years seventh- day enrollment of 25,587, The racial . .roomposition of the district  64 per-  \"cent black and 36 percent white is ! virtually unchanged. Elementary en- j 2 rollment was down 285 students, ju- i * nior high school enrollment was up  Z by 80 students and senior high en-  Z-rollment was up by 241 students, j ZMore than 300 district elementary '  pupils are attending the new Crystal  Hill Elementary School in the Pulaski Qounty District, which accounts for the drop in the elementary enrollment i yeaK w\nthis t\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_440","title":"Equity monitoring","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":["1991/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","School integration","School management and organization","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Equity monitoring"],"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/440"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation February 27,1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Program Managers and Principals receiveD FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson. . Director . T THROUGH: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent Office of Desegregation Monitoring J  - 5 199/ RE: Changes in Equity Monitoring and PBD As a result of the Court approved Desegregation Plan Hiatus, obligations listed below have been discontinued while undergoing review and modification:  Program Budget Document  Equity Monitoring by PRE Please contact Dr. Ed Jackson, PRE, if you have questions. c: ODMLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION MEMORANDUM OCT 1 Date: September 30, 1996 Office oi ^^segregelion Monitoring To: Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent ------ Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Clay Finley, LRSD Attorney Mr. John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Magnet Review Committee CTA From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Subject: Second Semester 1995-96 Educational Equity Monitoring Summary Please find enclosed the Second Semester Educational Equity Monitoring Summary Report from our spring 1996 educational equity monitoring. The enclosed report represents a summary of school monitoring visits that occurred January through March, 1996. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board Members Superintendents Cabinet LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation Office of MEMORANDUM Date: March 18, 1996 1996 Desegregation Moniionng To: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Mr. John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Superintendents Cabinet From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Subject: First Semester 1995-96 Educational Equity Monitoring Summary Report Please find enclosed the First Semester Educational Equity Monitoring Summary Report from our fall 1995 educational equity monitoring. The enclosed report represents a summary of school monitoring visits that occurred September through December 1995. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board Members with attachmentDate: October 6, 1995 MEMORANDUM From: To: Subject: Melissa Ann LRSD Second Semester Report on Educational Equity Monitoring In order to deal with the semi-annual equity reports, I have devised a system for review of the documents. I plan to personally review each report, tab any areas of note, alert the other associates to any areas that need closer scrutiny, and prepare a brief written summary of the noted areas for attachment to the inside cover. I think this system will help me ensure that nothing falls through the cracks, and it will spare my co-workers from some of the generally mundane, repetitive information that fills each report. Both the notes and the summary sheets are designed to facilitate subsequent use of the documents. While this report has plenty of data regarding racial balance from A to Z, it contains nothing remarkable. Nor did I find any revelations that would prompt the need for immediate inquiry or action. The report did contain a few instances of problems at individual schools. These have been marked and noted. I did leave a note for Margie. When she returns, she may want to review the G/T section which lists a large number of deficiencies in classrooms and some in materials and levels of staffing. Attached you will find the list of areas I noted. This will be filed with the report in our library.LRSD Educational Equity Monitoring Report Second Semester 1994-95 Areas of Note: pp. 6-7 One race classes pg. 15 Alternative school short of textbooks pg. 24 Henderson lacked any written guidelines pertaining to school honors and awards pp. 54-62 A variety of concerns regrading facilities for G/T and some concerns regarding staffing levels or other service-related areas PP- 77-78 Some problems noted as Pulaksi Heights El. with lax supervision and discipline on the playground pg. 79 Two students at Romine recommended for expulsion were returned to the school (this apparently after the much touted \"zero tolerance\" policy announced by the superintendent) pg. 83 Hazardous conditions on the Fulbright playground pg. 85 Safety concerns regrading door locks at Wakefield pg. 101 Facilities concerns regarding some special education classes in the incentive schools pp. 108-110 some facilities concerns at incentive schools (most are same concerns we noted in our last report)CA RECEIVED SEP 2 9 1995 OHice of Desegregatiofi Muiiiioniig LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 MEMORANDUM Date: September 28, 1995 To: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Mr. John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Superintendents Cabinet From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Subject: Second Semester Educational Equity Monitoring Summary Report 1994-95 LF- W h'broir. Please find enclosed the Second Semester Educational Equity Monitoring Summary Report from our Spring 1995 educational equity monitoring. The enclosed report represents a summary of the monitoring reports that were compiled during the Spring 1995 semester. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board Members/with attachmentDate: September 29, 1995 To: Melissa From: Ann Subject: LRSD Equity Monitoring Report We just received the attached LRSD Report. Please be in charge of reviewing it for items we need to note. Enlist any help you need from your colleagues and divide the report any way you feel is appropriate, just let me know the notables in writing by October 10. recommendations for any follow up that we need to pursue. Thanks very much. Include teamDate: June 9, 1995 MEMORANDUM From: To: Subject: Melissi Ann First Semester Equity Monitoring Report from LRSD I have reviewed the LRSD first semester monitoring report prepared by Planning, Research and Evaluation. Throughout the report, I flagged some items that piqued my interest. In addition to the items marked, some sections of the report had a bearing on ongoing monitoring projects. When these topical issues showed up, I copied the appropriate report sections and shared them with the interested parties. I gave Margie some sections on the alternative school and GT\nBob received a comment on Abacus. While I flagged the items that were individually interesting, other areas of note were not flagged because it was only after I read the entire report that I could see some school trends. Mabelvale (still under Lionels thumb) had several negative mentions. Forest Heights also seemed to turn up regularly with negative comments, and surprisingly Woodruff had quite a few slaps. I know Pat H. must be beside herself since several demerits referred to sloppy record keeping. Im sure that next year her teachers will receive a 100 page memo on the proper procedures. One area that consistently came up as a problem was the locking of exterior and classroom doors. Many of the monitoring teams reported lapses in these areas. The incentive school section of the report is dead last. I thought this positioning might be to obscure the bad news, but the report contained no really bad news. To read the teams findings you would think that the incentive schools lacked any serious problems. A final area of concern, that we should mention to Horace, is the secondary extracurricular activities. Many of the schools reported racially disproportionate participation in a variety of teams and clubs.RECEn'SD JUN 7 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Planning, Research, and Evaluation MEMORANDUM TO: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Ms Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Mr. John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Superintendents Cabinet From: ir. Robert Glowers, Director Subject: First Semester Educational Equity Monitoring Summary Report 1994-95 Date: June 5, 1995 Please find enclosed the First Semester Educational Equity Monitoring Summary Report from our Fall 1994 educational equity monitoring. The enclosed report represents a summary of the monitoring reports that were compiled during the Fall 1994 semester. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board Members/with attachment eem 4.docLittle Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation 1^  an\n, MEMORANDUM NOV 51994 TO\nMs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Mr. Sterling Ingram, Assistant to the Deputy OflicO cf Desagrssiiion Moriiiofing From: Ms. Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Ms. Sadie Mitchell, Acting Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Ms Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Mr. John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney Robert Glowers, Director Subject\nSecond Semester Summary Report 1993-94 Date\nOctober 31, 1994 Please find enclosed the Second Semester Summary Report from our Spring 1994 educational equity monitoring. The enclosed report represents a summary of the monitoring reports that were compiled during the spring 1994 semester. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Enclosure cc\nDr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent ecm s94.doc II tLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Little Rock, Arkansas September 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 5.0 6.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 Page Equitable Placement by Race/Gender in School Programs 1 Curriculum School/District Initiated Honors and Awards Committees Extracurricular Activities Student Achievement/Assessment Special Education Gifted and Talented Education Staff Development Parental Involvement Student Discipline 10 Building Leadership/Management 11 2.0 3.0 4.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 2 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 Key: I O SP Interview Observe School ProfileLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING 1991-92 SCHOOL GRADE LEVEL(s) DATE PRINCIPAL NUMBER OF CLASSES VISITED MONITOR(S) Observers are required to provide evidence for each criterion. Please print observations and evidence in sufficient detail to indicate positive practices and areas in need of improvement. Observers should review the School Profile prior to completing this form. CRITERIA CIRCLE ONE 1.0 Eguitable Placement by Race/Gender in School Programs The school ensures equal access and fair treatment in all programs resulting in optimum conditions for student learning. SP 1.1 The composition of the school staff ensures that students have access to, and contact with, a varied staff of certified and non-certified personnel. EVIDENCE: YES NO SP 1.2 School enrollment reflects the racial/ethnic composition prescribed by the court order. EVIDENCE: YES NO SP 1.3 Class/course enrollments generally reflect the racial/ethnic composition of the school. EVIDENCE: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring Page 2 SP 1.4 Participation in extended educational programs (i.e. Governor's School, Academic Enrichment for the Gifted in the Summer (AEGIS), Boys'/Girls' Summer Laureate, Odyssey of the Mind, and nauu Olympiad) generally reflects the racial/ethnic composition of the school. State, and Math 0 1.5 SP 1.6 2.0 O/I YES NO EVIDENCE: As you walk through the building, do you see any one-race classes. If yes, indicate specific subject, (math, science, language, etc.) room number, approximate number of students. one-race classes. Rm#___Number of students Rm#___Number of students Rm#___Number of students Rm#___Number of students YES NO and Race Race Race Race Time Time Time Time Subject___ Subject___ Subject___ Subject___ 2 3 4 Where one-race classes exist, strategies to prevent eliminate one-race classes are evident. EVIDENCE: Curriculum The school provides a curriculum that is reflective of cultural differences. Local and/or state-developed course content guides enhance multicultural content in all curriculum areas. 2.1 In classrooms observed, the teachers have adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum EVIDENCE: YES YES NO NO 2 3 4Educational Equity Monitoring Page 3 O/I 2.2 Current and complete student records are maintained in the classroom and school office to monitor the progress in achievement of the individual learner, (i.e. grade books, reading folders, math folders, PRCs, interim reports, report cards, student educational plans and ASDPs) EVIDENCE: YES NO 2 3 4 0 2.3 All students are actively involved in classroom instruction. EVIDENCE: YES NO 2 3 4 O 2.4 Classroom seating patterns promote interaction among students of varying racial/ethnic backgrounds EVIDENCE: YES NO 2 3 4 2.5 There is evidence that the multicultural curriculum is being implemented. O 2.5.1 Bulletin boards, publications, and productions throughout the school (including the media center) reflect the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body and/or multiculturalism. EVIDENCE: YES NO 2 3 4 O 2.5.2 Bulletin boards, publications, and productions in the classroom reflect the racial/ethnic and gender differences of the student body and/or multiculturalism. EVIDENCE: YES NO 2 3 4Educational Equity Monitoring Page 4 o 2.5.3 Display of student work reflects teaching strategies. EVIDENCE: varying YES NO 2 3 4 3.0 SP SP SP O/I 2.5.4 Teachers have and use multicultural curriculum guides. EVIDENCE: School/District Initiated Honors The school ensures that YES NO 2 3 4 and Awards , . --- o student is denied access to being selected for honors and awards through establishment of non biased and equitable policies and procedures. 3.1 3.2 3.3 A variety of awards and honors is provided in areas such as scholarship, citizenship, sports community service, choral and instrumental attendance, clubs, and organizations. EVIDENCE: Procedures are evident to sports school and music, YES NO assure that students are apprised of requirements governing honors and awards. EVIDENCE: Procedures are evident to , - - assure that students are apprised of information regarding opportunities in educational programs (i.e AEGIS Odyssey of the Mind, Governor's Ichool ' ' various YES YES NO NO State, etc.) Girls'/Boys' EVIDENCE:Educational Equity Monitoring Page 5 SP The offerings and procedures regarding ho '.ors and awards are evaluated regularly for equity and to determine if new awards are necessary to meet student needs. EVIDENCE: YES NO SP 3.5 The attention, visibility and publicity given athletic and non-athletic honors and awards are comparable (secondary only). EVIDENCE: YES NO The distribution of honors and awards is generally reflective of the school population. EVIDENCE: YES NO 3.4 I 4 3.6 3 4.0 Committees The school staff ensures that appointments to all school based committees are made in a non-biased and equitable manner which results in committees that have knowledge of educational programs for a varied student population. SP/I 4.1 The composition of each school based committee generally reflects the staff/parent population. EVIDENCE: YES NO 5.0 Extracurricular Activities The school's extracurricular program helps to develop important academic/non-academic skills, abilities and interests. SP 5.1 Participation in extracurricular activities generally reflects the school population. EVIDENCE: YES NO 2 3Educational Equity Monitoring Page 6 6.0 student Achievement/Assessment The school staff implements non-discriminatory procedures for administration, analysis, and use of standardized tests. SP 6.1 When test results are examined, achievement of white students remains stable or increases as black student achievement improves. EVIDENCE: YES NO 4 SP 6.2 Goals and strategies are developed and implemented to decrease the achievement differences between black and white students on the following measures of student achievement. ...Norm referenced test ...Arkansas Minimum Performance Test ...grade distribution EVIDENCE: YES NO 4 SP 6.3 Graduation/retention rates reflect the school population. EVIDENCE: YES NO 4 7.0 Special Education The school ensures that student placement and services provided in the special education program are non- discriminatory. SP/I 7.1 Strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to special education are evident. EVIDENCE: YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring Page 7 O/I 7.2 In special education classrooms observed, the teachers have adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. EVIDENCE: YES NO 2 3 4 O 7.3 Special education facilities are comparable to those of the campus in general. EVIDENCE: YES NO O 7.4 Special education classrooms are integrated into the total school environment. EVIDENCE: YES NO O/I 7.5 Facilities for special education are designed to meet the needs of the students served. EVIDENCE: YES NO 8.0 Gifted and Talented Education The school ensures that student placement and services provided in the Gifted/Talented program discriminatory. are non- SP/I 8.1 Strategies to eliminate disproportionate student assignment to gifted and talented are evident. EVIDENCE: YES NO O/I 8.2 In gifted and talented classrooms observed, the teachers have adequate materials and equipment to deliver the curriculum. EVIDENCE: YES NO 2 3 4Educational Equity Monitoring Page 8 o 8.3 Gifted and talented facilities those of the campus in general. EVIDENCE: are comparable to YES NO O 8.4 Gifted and talented classrooms are integrated into the total school environment. EVIDENCE: YES NO O/I 8.5 Facilities for gifted and talented are designed to meet the needs of the students served. EVIDENCE: YES NO 9.0 Staff Development The staff development plan for the school demonstrates commitment to educational equity. SP/I 9.1 Staff development activities related to educational equity have been provided and are ongoing. EVIDENCE: YES NO 4 SP/I 9.2 Staff development activities related to equitable staffing practices have been provided. EVIDENCE: YES NO 4 SP/I 9.3 Staff development activities in teaching strategies for multi-cultural curriculum delivery have been provided. EVID 'ICE: YES NO 4Educational Equity Monitoring Page 9 SP/I 9.4 Staff development activities related to effective strategies to enhance the achievement of a diverse student population have been provided. EVIDENCE: YES NO 4 10.0 Parental Involvement The school provides equitable opportunities for parental involvement in the district/school activities. SP/I 10.1 All identifiable groups of parents are actively involved in school functions. EVIDENCE: YES NO 4 O 10.2 The school utilizes a variety of methods (memo, letter, phone, home visits) to encourage parental involvement in school and in home supported educational activities. EVIDENCE: I 10.3 Contact is made regularly with the home to communicate positive/negative (as appropriate) information related to student behavior and/or student achievement. EVIDENCE: SP 10.4 In matters of school desegregation, school patrons and parents are given an opportunity to actively participate in developing the local school plan. EVIDENCE: YES NO 4 YES NO 2 3 4 YES NOEducational Equity Monitoring Page 10 11.0 student Discipline The school ensures that student disciplinary policies and practices are non-discriminatory. I SP 11.1 Information, including the school's expectation for student conduct, in the form of handbooks and/or public presentations regarding student disciplinary policies and procedures is distributed to all students and parents. EVIDENCE: YES NO 11.2 Suspension and expulsion rates are generally representative of the student population. EVIDENCE: YES NO 11.3 Classroom instruction proceeds in an orderly manner. EVIDENCE: YES NO 11.4 How visible are the following persons in directing/ Indicate one of the controlling students? following for each person(s). A. B. C. Very active/visible Somewhat active/somewhat visible Not active/not visible Principal: Teachers: Security (if applicable): EVIDENCE: O 0 2 2 3 3 4 4 2 3 4Educational Equity Monitoring Page 11 SP/I 11.5 Strategies to eliminate disproportionate discipline sanctions among identifiable student groups are evident. EVIDENCE: YES NO 12.0 Building Leadership/Manaqement In the desegregated setting the principal must demonstrate a strong commitment to educational equity. SP The school has a clear, concise, well-written statement of specific improvement goals. EVIDENCE: YES NO The campus and building are clean and free of debris and graffiti. EVIDENCE: YES NO 12.3 Hallways are orderly. EVIDENCE: YES NO 12.4 The school office has friendly and helpful personnel. EVIDENCE: YES NO 12.5 There is evidence that curriculum monitoring occurs. EVIDENCE: YES NO 12,1 O 0 O I 12.2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 3 4Educational Equity Monitoring Page 12 SP 12.6 Strategies to increase the number of minority students enrolled in upper level courses/class groups are evident. EVIDENCE: YES NO O/I There is evidence that the guidance p\"~gr2r. provides equitable services to all students program YES NO (i.e., group). counselor's schedule/daily logindividual/ EVIDENCE: 12.7 3 4 I 12.8 Information from former students is effectively used to improve guidance and other educational services. EVIDENCE: YES NO 4 I/O/SP 12.9 District and school security guidelines are being followed. EVIDENCE: YES NO 2 3 4 ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS RELATIVE TO THE MONITORING VISIT:\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":712,"next_page":713,"prev_page":711,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":8532,"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}}]}}