{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_731","title":"Salary schedules","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":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Educational statistics","School employees"],"dcterms_title":["Salary schedules"],"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/731"],"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\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 24, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend your approval of the following salaries for the 1990-91 school year for the senior administrators listed below: 1989-90 Salary 1990-91 Sal ary Difference % Amount Associate Superintendent $56,500 Estelle Matthis $59,890 +6% $3,390 Associate Superintendent James Jennings 58,500 59,890 +2.4% 1,390 Manager, Support Services Chip Jones 49,600 52,576 +6% 2,976 Asst. Superintendent Margaret Gremillion 50,000 53,000 +6% 3,000 Controller Mark Milhollen 50,539 53,000 +4.9% 2,461 Total $13,217SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON OCTOBER 24, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Sec'a 3 t? TO\nFROM: SUBJECT: October 24, 1991 Board of Directors OCT 2 3 1991 Office of Dssegregsiicn f ioiing Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools PERSONNEL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS Act 10 funds resulted in average salary increases of 13.37 percent for certified administrators and 14 percent for teachers, contrast, eight senior administrators received 4 percent. In Until such time as we complete a salary study to address and solve the many inequities I have already mentioned, I recommend that duty stipends manner: be provided to senior administrators in the following Estelle Matthis James Jennings Jim Ivey Angela Sewall Margaret Gremillion Larry Robertson Arma Hart Mark Milhollen $ 3,500 3,500 3,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500. I also recommend that educational stipends paid to other administrators be applicable to these employees' salary. These recommendations are effective for the 1991-92 school year. f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 RECEIVED Office of Desegregation Monitoring J UN 'i 5 1993 June 24, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATOR PAY Now that the Board and virtually all other employee groups have agreed on contracts for the 1993-94 school year, it is necessary for the Board to make administrators. decisions concerning the District's In my opinion, the District must address the issue of recruiting and retaining talented managers. To that end, I suggesting that compensation for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources and School Support be set at $68,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. I am also suggesting that compensation for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator be set at $61,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. Further, I am advocating a 1.5% base salary increase for all 12- month administrators except those listed above. In addition, I suggest that all 12-month administrators be placed on a 250 day contract with paid vacation days credited according to years of experience as an administrator in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District at the time of the merger in 1987 as follows\ndays\n15+ years, 25 days. 0-7 years, 15 days\n8-14 years, 20 For all administrators whose contracts are less than 12-months, I suggest a 3% base salary increase. Finally, accumulate contract. am advocating that administrators be sick leave up allowed to If a contract is reduced. to the length of the individual's the accumulated sick leave cannot be greater than the length of the current contract. I It is my recommendation, following\ntherefore. that the Board adopt the A $68,000 annual salary for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources Support for FY 1993-94\nand Schoolr A $61,000 annual salary for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator. 1.5 base salary increase for administrators for FY 1993-94\nall 12-month A A 250 day contract for all 12-month administrators with paid vacation days based on experience in LRSD and PCSSD of 15 days for 0-7 years of service\n20 days for 8-14 years of service\nand 25 days for 15 or more years of service\nA 3% base salary increase for all administrators on a less than 12-month contract\nand The ability for administrators to accumulate sick leave up to the length of the individual's contract.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS June 24, 1993 Board of Directors 72201 C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools ADMINISTRATOR PAY Now that the Board and virtually all other employee groups have agreed on contracts for the 1993-94 school year, it is necessary for the Board to make administrators. decisions concerning the District's In my opinion, the District must address the issue of recruiting and retaining talented managers. To that end, I suggesting that compensation for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources and School Support be set at $68,000 for the 1993-94 fiscal year. I am also suggesting that compensation for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator be set at $61,000 for the -1993-94 fiscal year. Further, I am advocating a 1.5% base salary increase for all 12- month administrators except those listed above. In addition, I suggest that all 12-month administrators be placed on a 250 day contract with paid vacation days credited according to years of experience as an administrator in the Little Rock School District and Pulaski County Special School District at the time of the merger in 1987 as follows: days\n15+ years, 25 days. 0-7 years, 15 days\n8-14 years, 20 For all administrators whose contracts are less than 12-months, I suggest a 3 base salary increase. Finally, accumulate contract. am sick advocating that administrators be leave up to the length of the allowed to individual's If a contract is reduced, the accumulated sick leave cannot be greater than the length of the current contract. I It is my recommendation, following: therefore. that the Board adopt the A $68,000 annual salary for the positions of Associate Superintendent and Manager of Resources Support for FY 1993-94\nand School A $61,000 annual salary for the positions of Assistant Superintendent, Controller, Student Hearing Officer, and Desegregation Facilitator. 1.5 base salary increase for all administrators for FY 1993-94\n12-month A A 250 day contract for all 12-month administrators with paid vacation days based on experience in LRSD and PCSSD of 15 days for 0-7 years of service\n20 days for 8-14 years of service\nand 25 days for 15 or more years of service\nA 3% base salary increase for all administrators on a less than 12-month contract\nand The ability for administrators to accumulate sick leave up to the length of the individual's contract.LRSD 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Base Salary Number of Certified Positions Actual Average Salary Actual Average Step Increase Actual Average Salary Raise Average Total Increase (D-hE) Revised ^rage Salary (C+F) Impact on Budget (BxF) Total Cost to District (BxG) 16,000-21,000 21,001-26,000 26,001-31,000 31,001-36,000 36,001-41,000 41,001-56,000 56,001-61,000 61,001-76,000 76,001-81,000 81,001-86,000 TOTAL (J) 1993-94 Average Salary (A) The base salary will be used only for identifying employees within a certain salary range. (B) The number of positions column identifies the number of positions within that base salary range. (C) The actual average salary is an average salary for all the positions identified in column (B). (D) Actual average step increase is the averaged dollar amount received per position identified in column (B). (E) Actual average salary raise is the averaged dollar amount received for the \"across the board\" percentage raise per position identified in column (B). (F) Average total increase is the step increase plus the salary raise. This is the amount the district will pay \"over and above\" last year. (G) Revised (or adjusted) average salary is the average salary identified in column (C) plus the step increase, plus the salary raise. (H) The impact on the budget is the number of positions identified in column (B) times the average total increase, column (F). This is the additional amount the district will be paying during 1993-94 over what they paid in 1992-93 for the positions identified in column (B). (I) Total cost to district is the amount the district will pay for salaries of those positions identified in column (B) during 1993-94. (J) 1993-94 average salary is determined by dividing the total cost to district, column (I), by the number of positions, column (B),Exhibit 1-C Revised LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) BASE SALARY (1993-94 Schedule) (JI o 20,000-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001-55,000 55,001-60,000 60,001-65,000 65,001-70,000 (B) NUMBER OF CERTIFIED POSITIONS 301.50 433.30 470.90 411.50 216.00 20.00 (C) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY 1992-93 21,320.10 .26,148.75 30,702.44 35,010.48 39,430.38 44,607.72 (D) ACTUAL AVERAGE STEP INCREASE 804.37 805.44 806.53 809.77 824.31 947.95 (E) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY RAISE 671.10 837.56 947.47 1,085.23 1,387.76 1,382.95 (F) AVERAGE TOTAL INCREASE (D^E) 1,475.47 1,643.00 1,754.00 1,895.00 2,212.07 2,330.90 (G) REVISED AVERAGE SALARY (C*F) 22,795.57 27,791.75 32.456.44 36,905.48 41,642.45 46,938.62 (H) IMPACT ON BUDGET (B*F) 444,854.21 711,911.90 825,958.60 779,792.50 477,807.12 46,618.00 (I) TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT (B*G) 6,872,864.36 12,042,165.28 15,283,737.60 15,186,605.02 8,994,769.20 938,772.40 TOTAL 1993-94 AVG SAL 1,853.20 32,008.91 3,286,942.33 59,318,913.85 Note: The base salary ranges in (A) are determined using the 1993-94 salary schedule\ntherefore, average salaries for the personnel shown in (C) for 1992-93 may fall below the ranges defined in (A) for 1993-94.^6^ Exhibit 1-C Revised LITTU: ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES UI o (A) BASE SALARY (1993-94 Schedule) 20,000-25,000 25,001-30,000 30,001-35,000 35,001-40,000 40,001-45,000 45,001-50,000 50,001-55,000 55,001-60,000 60,001-65,000 65,001-70,000 (B) NUMBER OF CERTIFIED POSITIONS 301.50 433.30 470.90 411.50 216.00 20.00 (C) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY 1992-93 21,320,10 .26,148.75 30,702.44 35,010.48 39,430.38 44,607.72 (D) ACTUAL AVERAGE STEP INCREASE 804.37 805.44 806.53 809.77 824.31 947.95 (E) ACTUAL AVERAGE SALARY RAISE 671.10 837.56 947.47 1,085.23 1,387.76 1,382.95 (F) AVERAGE TOTAL INCREASE (DtE) 1,475.47 1,643.00 1,754.00 1,895.00 2,212.07 2,330.90 (G) REVISED AVERAGE SALARY (C^F) 22,795.57 27,791.75 32,456.44 36,905.48 41,642.45 46,938.62 (H) IMPACT ON BUDGET (B-F) 444,854.21 711,911.90 825,958.60 779,792.50 477,807.12 46,618.00 (\u0026lt;) TOTAL COST TO DISTRICT (B-G) 6,872,864.36 12,042,165.28 15,283,737.60 15,186,605.02 8,994,769.20 938,772.40 TOTAL 1993-94 AVG SAL 1,853.20 32,008.91 3,286,942.33 59,318,913.85 Note: The base salary ranges in (A) are determined using the 1993-94 salary schedule\ntherefore, average salaries for the personnel shown in (C) for 1992-93 may fall below the ranges defined in (A) tor 1993-94.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 30, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: .Board of Directors FROM: SUBJECT: stelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent Associate Superintendent Pay Rate Effective August 3, 1993, Dr. Henry Williams directed me to administratively assign Sterling Ingram to assume temporary responsibilities for the Desegregation offices. He is performing the responsibilities left vacant by the resignation of Marie Parker. By means of this memorandum. Sterling Ingram should be paid in accordance with Superintendent for Desegregation. the position of Associate Dr. Williams has approved the increased rate of pay for Sterling Ingram. /bjf cc: Mark MilhollenLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 May 25, 1994 TO: FROM: Bob Morgan, Office of Desegregation Monitoring ark Milhollen, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: Information Request Per your telephone request concerning a special sorting of data included in the Districts salary object codes, I submit the attached schedule which includes changes filed in the May 18, 1994, Court submission (under the categories designated by you). Please contact me if additional information is needed. MDM:ca AttachmentLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Object Actual 1992/93 Budget 1993/94 Budget 1994/95 INSTRUCTION iio 117 120 124 _______130 140 Total Instruction I 349,686,191,29 | I $166,548.53 I $7,987,966.23 | $52,365.03 I $195,978.02 I $1,076.76 I $54,683,609.33 | $191,735.00 I $7,468J 71.67 I $0.00 ! I $53,090,125.36 | $0.00 $62,343,516.00 $52,736,456.32 $163,614.11 $3,199,755.04 _________$0.00 _________$0.00 _________$0.00 $61,099,825.47 -3,5% INSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 110 115 117 120 124 130 135 140 145 Total Inst Admin I I $3,201,426.21 I $5,386.52 I $157,451.13 I $2,383,373.10 | $17,122.71 I $1,167,653.99 ' $175,747.31 $7,108,161.47 $3,157,753.52 | I $114,150.31 I $2,317,952.67 | I $1,226,321.00 I I $185,264.20 I $0.00 1 $7,001,446.70 I $3,455,670.47 $128,183.00 $2,471,351.29 $60,000.00 $1,400,000.00 $200,000.00 $7,715,204.76 SUPPORT SERVICES 0110 0117 0120 0121 _______0140 Total Sup Sen/ $11,967.73 $2,650.00 $5,297,373.66 $1,167,691.67 I $234,152.52 j $6,713,840.53 I $0.00 $5,176,657.28 | $1,136,945.28 I $231,580.25 i $6,545 J 82.31 I $0.00 $5,576,194.79 $1,089,626.75 $200,000.00 $6,365,821.54 ^gRSQTQTAL I- $71,912,127.91 I $7S,mi45.ST | $75.S80.85T.77~j9 1/4 MOS. -95-96 000001 1 20262 000002 21316 000003 22369 000004 000005 000006 23443 24537 25652 2 21072 22126 23180 24254 25348 26462 3 21883 22937 23990 25064 26158 27273 4 22693 23747 24801 25875 26969 28083 5 23504 24558 25611 26685 27779 28894 6 24314 25368 26422 27496 28590 29704 7 25125 26179 27232 28306 29400 39515 8 25935 26989 28043 29117 30211 31325 9 26746 27799 28853 29927 31021 32136 10 27556 26610 29664 30737 31832 32946 11 28367 29420 30474 31548 32642 33757 12 29177 30231 31285 32358 33453 34567 13 29388 31041 32095 33169 34263 35377 14 30798 31852 32905 33979 35074 36188 15 31609 32662 33716 34790 35884 36998 16 32419 33473 34526 35600 36694 37809 17 35337 36411 37505 38619 18 37221 38315 39430 19 39126 40240 20 41051 7 '010*744 IS*? WALKER LAW FIRM 'S33 P02 AUS OS 'S? John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Lw ] 723 BaO.WWAY Little Rock. Akkans.is 12206 Telephone (.501) 374-375$ FAX (501) 374-4I8\nJOHN W. %\u0026gt;LiLK ILILPH WASHINGTON ^URK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. f Fax August S, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts, Superintendent of Schools Mr Richard Hurley Little Rock School District 810 W. xMarkham Little Rock, Arkansas Re: Little Rock School Dititrict Gentlemen\nUnder the Arkansas Freedom of Information xAct, would you please provide me the salary histoiy of Roy Wade, Cleo Collier, Jerome Farmer and James Moseby, and anuy other writings that reflect their pay. Please provide this information to me by Tuesday, August 13, 1997. Thank you for your attention to this matter. 1 ^mcerely. W. Walker rww\nlp cc. Ms. Ann Brown FRIDAY. ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK MfRSCHEL H. pmOAT, e-.a. ROBERT V. LICmT, P-A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W . MOOR 6 BYNQN M. eiBEMAN. JR-. P A. JOE 0. BCkU. PA. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAME3 BWTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERV. P.A. H.T. LAR2ELJC. OSCAR E. OAVlS. JR , P A. JAMES C. CLAR*. 4P-. P A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN OCWtY WATSON, P.A. FAUL B. BENHAM III. F A. larry W. BURKS.P.A. A. WYCKLIFP N13BET. JR.. F.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MER^OITh P. CATLETT, F A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P A. 9M\u0026lt;PHCRO rubsell HI. P.A DONALD H- BACON. P A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. Paulson ii. p.a. BARRY e. COPLIN, P A. RICHARD D. TAVLOR. P-A. JOSEPH B. HORST. JR.. P.A. (LIZABETH J. ROBBEN. F.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, F.A. ROBERT 8. SHAPER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIPPIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P-A. Michael 5- moore. OlANt $. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A ?AATNERSHI\u0026lt;\u0026gt; OF INOIVlOUAUS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW KEVIN A, CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. waOOELL, JR.. P A. CLYOE 'TAO* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN 4 Mill, R.A. 2000 first commercial building 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 T6LSPH0NE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 August 24, 1994 /I ? 2B 'sg/i SUPrsoFFICt SCO J. i,ANCA8TCR. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P A. M. OAYLE CORLEY. P.A ROBERT B, REACH. JR.. P.A J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C baker, JR.. P A. H. CHARLES axnnwENO, jR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. tucker, f.A. JOHN CLATTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WAGE, P.a. PRICE C, CAROnER J. MICHAEL PlCAENB TONIA P. JONCS DAVID D. WILSON H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNtn JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAP CARLA 0. SPAINHOUn JOHN C. PENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX PRAM C. HICKMAN OliTTY J, OCMORV SqWNNib WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P A  .s. Clark WII I I. .M . TERRY wHtiAM L. Catton, jr.. p RtTEA' *\u0026lt;A. (SOU 370.1606 ^fce/veo Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re\nLRSD V. PCSSD Dear Dr. williams\nI have noted that the board intends to consider a proposal to use any revenues in excess, of those budgeted to provide stipends to senior teachers and support personnel who did not receive a step increase. I am concerned about the proposal for several reasons which I will discuss below. Jerry Malone will be present at the board meeting tomorrow night to discuss the proposal with you and the board. My first concern is for the integrity of the bargaining process. After long and sometimes difficult negotiations, the board has approved and the Class Room Teachers Association has ratified an agreement between the parties. I know of no precedent for an effort to reopen or change the agreement at this point. I am also concerned that the use of excess revenues to pay stipends would not be favored by the district court. The court has expressed its concern that the district continues to fund recurring expenses with non-recurring revenues. The district must also make plans to replace the diminishing settlement funds and should have a contingency plan to repay the settlement loan. It would be difficult to justify to the court the payment of stipends in the face of our long term budget problems. 20d too ** NOIlWiS 30IAd3S ailWISOVJ ** 19517 Sgl 60 SS ! Z0 0  80 17661Jerry Malone will be prepared to discuss these and other concerns about the stipend proposal, like to discuss the matter further. Please call me if you would Yours truly, er Heller CJH/k J lOd too ** NOIiViS 30IAd3S 3HWIS0VJ ** Z9Gt C2l GO 55:10 oc-ao-teGiJohn W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received ^U6 2 0 1997 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. office Or DESEGREGMlOfl MONIIOWIW via Facsimile 371-0100 August 18, 1997 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find the salary histories of four black employees of the Little Rock School District. Please look at this matter and you will see how the District finds money whenever it wants. I further believe that the District rewards those who seek to regress the legitimate intervention of the Joshua Intervenors. The stipend policy gives Mr. Millhollen, Dr. Hurley and Mr. Gadberry huge opportunity to manipulate pay of employees and it also shows how the budget itself can be manipulated. I believe that a budget hearing is in order and request that you advise the Court of same. \" ' '  matter if you seek our input. We can shed more light on this Clearly budget manipulation affects the District's ability to met its desegregation plan obligations. Please let me hear from you. Walker JWW:js Enclosure Cleophis Collier salary history Hired revised Grade - step 8/24/87 1-2 asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-3 11-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 tchr-2-7 tchr-2-8 tchr-4-9 admcer-2-7 admcer-2-8 Cleophis Collier Months-days 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 9.25months-192 10.5months-210 10.5months-210 Salary Stipends(total) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 16,234.00 17,702.00 18,555.00 19,200.00 21,075.00 24,311.00 25,180.00 26,739.00 29,872.00 36,222.00 37,288.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,510.00 5,510.00 5,642.00 5,642.00 5,839.00 5,388.00 6,019.00 6,206.00 6,206.00 1,840.00 1,840.00 Page 1 4 .Hired Grade - step 8/27/74 1-0 revised revised revised 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-1 1-2 1-3 11-4 III-5 IV-5 IV-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-11 IV-12 IV-13 IV-14 IV-14 IV-16 IV-17 IV-18 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 admcer-2-15 Jerome Farmer salary history Jerome Fanner Months-days Salary 10months 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ 7,250.00 $ Stipends(total) $ 8,240.00 $ $ 8,692.00 $ $ 10,790.00 $ $ 11,571.00 $ $ 13,988.00 $ $ 15,766.00 $ $ 17,282.00 $ $ 19,861.00 $ $ 19,999.00 $ $ 21,603.00 $ $ 22,515.00 $ $ 23,453.00 $ $ 26,178.00 $ $ 27,488.00 $ $ 28,799.00 $ $ 31,248.00 $ $ 35,671.00 $ $ 37,960.00 $ $ 38,763.00 $ $ 39,054.00 $ $ 39,126.00 $ $ 44,752.00 $ 300.00 380.00 589.00 801.00 857.00 1,656.00 1,722.00 2,207.00 2,548.00 3,954.00 4,838.00 5,031.00 5,034.00 5,915.00 6,673.00 6,100.00 6,100.00 5,891.00 5,891.00 5,985.00 5,985.00 6,966.00 272.00 Page 1Hired Grade - step 8/21/73 1-0 revised revised asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-sr hi 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 11-7 11-8 11-9 11-10 IV-12 IV-13 35-2-7 36-2-8 36-2-9 36-2-10 36-2-11 36-2-12 admcer-2-13 admcer-2-14 admcer-2-15 admcer-2-16 admcer-3-17 Jimmy Mosby salary history Jimmy Mosby Months-days 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 10months-180 Salary $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 10.5months-210 $ 6,700.00 $ 7,468.00 $ 8,480.00 $ 8,938.00 $ 9,806.00 $ 10,471.00 $ 12,213.00 $ 13,809.00 $ 15,155.00 $ 17,561.00 19,827.00 $ 22,158.00 $ 23,079.00 $ 22,937.00 $ 29,072.00 $ 30,648.00 $ 31,500.00 $ 34,322.00 $ 38,999.00 $ 40,132.00 $ 42,371.00 $ 43,405.00 $ 44,718.00 $ 48,584.00 $ Stipsnds(total) 335.00 635.00 360.00 369.00 394.00 410.00 466.00 592.00 108.00 124.00 375.00 1,637.00 286.00 340.00 340.00 1,254.00 2,370.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 362.00 Page 1Hired 8/14/67 I-2 revised revised 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 Roy Wade salary history Roy Wade Grade - step Months-days Salary 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-5 1-7 1-8 11-9 11-10 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 ill-12 111-12 111-12 1111-14 IIII-14 1111-14 tch-5-15 tch-5-15 tch-5-17 tch-5-18 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 10months 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,958.00 6,716.00 6,901.00 7,210.00 7,210.00 8,280.00 8,982.00 admcer-3-20 11 mo-210 $10,346.00 $11,672.00 $12,234.00 $13,584.00 $15,442.00 $16,464.00 $18,677.00 $21,300.00 $22,108.00 $23,268.00 $23,643.00 $24,026.00 $27,645.00 $29,028.00 $30,340.00 $32,883.00 $37,496.00 $37,633.00 $38,763.00 $39,054.00 $39,126.00 $40,088.00 $40,088.00 $52,430.00 Page 1 Stipends(total) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,485.00 1,658.00 1,500.00 2,050.00 1,840.00 2,214.00 2,014.00 2,094.00 2,950.00 2,717.00 2,475.00 2,908.00 5,559.00 5,427.00 5,652.00 5,652.00 6,345.00 7,001.00 6,567.00 7,388.00 7,978.00 7,977.00 8,277.00 7,847.00 8,685.00 9,435.00 1,862.00oZZ John W. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 received MJG 2 0 1997 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. OFFICE OF desegregation MONilORlNQ Via Facsimile 324-2146 August 18, 1997 Dr. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Don: This request is being made pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. Would you please provide to me the following information by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday afternoon. a printout of all stipends paid to employees in the District for the past five years\n1. 2 . a copy of the District's stipend policy\nany written interpretations of the stipend policy made by any administrator or by the Board within the last five 3 . years\nand the salary history of all junior and senior high principals for the last five years. 4. Please explain how an uncertified administrator can be given a salary of $54,000 pursuant to your salary scale. Is this being done so as to reward Mr. Roy Wade for \"standing up\" to the class counsel for the Joshua Intervenors. I am also curious to know why Ms. Gayle Bradford is the highest paid senior high school principal in the District. advised that she has the least experience as a senior high administrator or principal of any high school principal now occupying that position. ?  ' - - I am and Ms. Again, it seems as if the Hall faculty Bradford's favorites who do not favor the desegregation plan are rewarded for their adversity to it. if I am wrong. Please correct me. Please let me hear from you.I. Sincerely, \u0026gt;3ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Ms. Ann Brown 5013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 992 P32/08 AUG IS 97 17:55 John vv. Walker, e.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telerhont (501) 374-3758 PAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR, Ms. Ann Brown Via Facsimile - August 18, 1997 371-0100 Desegregation Monitoring 201 Last Markham, Suite 5io Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find the employees of the Little Rock i this matter and Salary histories of four black , School District. T.u ... Will see how the District whenever it wants. '-ricr Please look at finds money I further believe that the to thJ The stipend policy gives Mr Mi 11 hnn of the Joshua Intervenors. Gadberry huge opXtu^i^v Millhollen, Dr. Hurley and Mr. also shows how the budget itself^can^b J^P}oy6es and it xtseir can be mamnniat-o/t itself can be manipulated. I believe that you advise the Court%f^same ^^We^c^ order and request that matter if you seek on? m ^^^ht on this affects thrniSric?\" aSuiv Obligations. ability to met its desegregation plan Please let me hear from you.  Walker JWW:js Enclosure5013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 992 P03/O8 AUS 18 97 17:56 Cleophis Collier salary history Hired revised Grade - step 8/24/87 1-2 asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 I-3 II-3 11-4 11-5 11-6 tchr-2-7 tchr-2-8 tchr-4-9 adnncer-2-7 admcer-2-8 Cleophis Collier MonthsKJays Salary Stlpendsftotal) 9.25monlhs-192 $ 16.234.00 $ Salary 9.25months-192 $ 17,702.00 $ 9.2Snionths-192 $ 18.555.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 19,200.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 21,075.00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 24,311,00 $ 9.25months-192 $ 25,180.00 S 9.26rnonths-192 $ 26,739.00 S 9.25months-192 $ 29.872,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 36,222,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 37,288.00 $ 5,510.00 5,510.00 5.642.00 5,642.00 5,839.00 5.388.00 6,019.00 6,206.00 6,206.00 1,840.00 1,840.00 Page 1 45013744187 WALKER LAW FIRM 59. PO4/0S AUG IS 97 17 b Hired Grade - 8/27/74 1-0 step revised revised revised 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 I-1 1-2 1-3 11-4 III-5 IV-6 !V-7 IV-8 IV-9 IV-11 IV-12 IV-13 IV-14 IV-14 IV-16 IV-17 IV-18 1992-93 Tchr-5- i-19 1993-94 Tchr-5-19 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 Tchr-5-19 Tchr-5-19 admcer-2-15 Jerome Farmer salary history Jerome Farmer Months-days Salary Stipendsftotal) 7,250.00 S lOmonths Wmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths Wmonths Wmonths Wmonths Wmonths lOmonths 9.25months Wmonths Wmonths lOmonths Wmonths Wmonths 9.25 mo-192 9.2S mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 $ $ $ 8,240.00 $ 8,692.00 S S 10,790.00 $ $ 11,571.00 $ $ 13.988.00 $ $ 15,766.00 $ $ 17,282.00 S $ 19,861.00 $ $ 19,999.00 $ $ 21,603.00 S $ 22,515.00 $ S 23.453.00 $ $ 26,178.00 S $ 27,488.00 $ S 28,799.00 S $ 31,248.00 $ $ 35,671,00 S S 37,960,00 S $ 38,763,00 $ S 39,054.00 $ $ 39,126,00 S S 44,752.00 $ 300.00 380.00 589.00 801.00 857.00 1,656.00 1,722.00 2,207.00 2,548.00 3,954.00 4,838.00 5,031.00 5,034.00 5,915,00 6,673.00 6,100.00 6,100.00 5,891.00 5,891.00 5,985.00 5,985.00 6,966.00 272.00 Page 1513137441S'? WALKER LAW FIRM 992 R05'0S AUG 13 '9' Hired Grade - 8/21/73 1-0 step revised revised asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 asst-jrhi 1988-89 asst-jrhi 1989-90 asst-jr hl asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi asst-jr hi 1990-91 1991-92 I-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 11-7 11-8 11-9 11-10 IV-12 IV-13 35-2-7 36-2-8 36-2-9 36-2-10 36-2-11 36-2-12 1992-93 admcer-2-13 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 asst-srhi 1996-97 admc9r-2-14 admcer-2-15 admcer-2-18 admcer-3-17 Jimmy Mosby salary history Jimmy Mosby Months-days 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25month5 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months 9.25months IOmonths-180 Salary Stlpends(total} 6,700.00 $ $ $ S s s 7,468.00 $ 8,480.00 $ 8,938.00 $ 9,806.00 $ S 10,471.00 $ S 12,213.00 $ $ 13,809.00 S $ 15,155.00 S $ 17,561.00 S 19,827.00 $ $ 22,158.00 $ $ 23,079.00 $ $ 22,937.00 S 335.00 635.00 360.00 369.00 394,00 410.00 466.00 592.00 108.00 10.5months-210 $ 29,072.00 $ 10.5month8-210 $ 30,648.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 31,500.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 34,322.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 38,999.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 40,132.00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 42,371,00 $ 10.5mon(hs-210 $ 43,406,00 $ 10.5months-210 $ 44,718,00 5 10.5months-210 $ 48,584.00 $ 124.00 375.00 1,637.00 286.00 340.00 340.00 1,254.00 2,370.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 340.00 362.00 Page 15013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM qq- F06 '08 AUG IS  17: 5 Hired revised revised Roy Wade salary history Roy Wade Grade - step Months-day: 8/14/67 I-2 'S 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74 1974-75 1975-76 1976-77 1977-78 1978-79 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-5 1-7 1-8 11-9 11-10 II-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 11-11 111-12 III-12 111-12 IIII-14 1111-14 1111-14 tch-5-15 tch-5-15 tch-5-17 tch-5-18 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 tch-5-19 admcer-3-\nlOmonths lOmonths 10months lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths Wmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths lOmonths 9.25 mo-192 9,25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9,25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 9.25 mo-192 20 11 mo-210 Salary $tipends(total) $ 5,958.00 $ $ 6,716.00 $ $ 6,901.00 $ $ 7,210.00 $ $ 7,210.00 S $ 8,280.00 S $ 8,982.00 $ $10,346,00 $ $11,672,00 $ $12,234.00 $ $13,584.00 S $15,442.00 $ $16,464.00 $ $18,677.00 $ $21,300.00 $ $22,108.00 $ $23,268.00 S $23,643.00 $ $24,026.00 .5 $27,645.00 $ $29,028,00 $ $30,340.00 $ $32,883.00 $ $37,496.00 $ $37,633.00 $ $38,763.00 $ $39,054.00 $ $39,126.00 $ $40,088.00 $ $40,088.00 $ $52,430.00 $ 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,300.00 1,485.00 1,658.00 1,500.00 2,050.00 1,840.00 2,214.00 2,014.00 2,094.00 2,950.00 2,717.00 2,475.00 2,908.00 5,559.00 5,427.00 5,652.00 5,652.00 6,345.00 7,001.00 6,567.00 7,388.00 7,978.00 7,977.00 8,277.00 7,847.00 8,685.00 9,435.00 1,862.00 Pago 15013744137 WALKER LAW FIRM 932 PO7.-0S AUG 18 97 17 w. walker R.ALPH Washington UaRK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR .JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadw'ay Little Rock. .Arkansas 7'''C'6 Telephone (501) 374.3758 F.AX (501) 374.4187 Via Facsimile - August 18, 1997 324-2146 Dr. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Don\no In?oation^Jctf' pursuant to the information by 5\n00 Would you please Arkansas Freedom P.m. on Thursday following District fc^ employees past five years\nin the 2 . a copy of the District's stipend policy\n J , Written interpretation^^ i \" '\" made by any administrator or by the Board within thZlast years\nand of the stipend policy five 4. principals fcrX^aS\"!iw* years. senior high 1 am also . . ,------- curious to know why M\nsenior high school administrator ? least eSperi:^:: . Gayle Bradford is the principal in the District. occuDvinrf Th +-^ Principal of any high school position. Again, it seems as as a senior high principal now I am Bradford's favorites who do not rave plan are rewarded for their adversity to^T^ If I am wrong. if the Hall faculty not f^yor the desegregation *\"* Please correct me, Please let me hear from you.501374418? WALKER LAW FIRM y82 POS OS AUG IS 8? JWW\njs cc: Ms. Ann Brown Sincerely, /? SahTi W. Walkfir-\n.John w. Walker At,Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates 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 11, 1997 Mr. John Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear John: In organizing papers on my desk this morning, I discovered that I had neglected to respond to a fax you sent me on August 18, 1997. My failure to answer was wholly unintentional, and I apologize for my oversight. Your fax expressed concerns about the equity of stipends the LRSD has paid to certain of its employees. Attached were four pages listing the salary histories of four black males, who are employees of the LRSD. Also attached was a copy of your August 18, 1997 letter to Don Roberts, in which you asked for certain information about LRSD salaries and stipends. In your letter to me, you suggested that a budget hearing would be appropriate as a means for monitoring the LRSD. Monitoring the LRSD is not presently an option available to this office, nor has it been since the Court granted the districts motion for a moratorium on monitoring. However, as you requested, I will keep Judge Wright informed of your concerns. Sincerely yours, (^23^ Ann S. Brown'DK-15-97 MON 10:39 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 F.Ol S John w. Walker, p.a. Attornty At L.w 1723 Broadway Littls Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON X-URK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. VO December 12, 1997 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LR-C-32-S56 LRSD V PCSSD Dear Judge Wright\nEnclosed please find the job postings by the Little Rock School District for four positions: Associate Superintendents for Desegregation, Support Services and Instruction and Director of Planning, Research and Development, I am writing to request that you allow the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to review and study the impact of the salary structure set forth in the postings, i.e. $70-90,000.00 plus car allowance and benefits with one position being open ended defined as negotiable. We have, previously had extensive budget hearings, no budget that allows payment of $100,000.00 or more including benefits to any group of employees. I believe that allowing the District to make these changes without court approval will have a tendency to have an adverse impact upon the ability of the District to meet, not only its desegregation obligations, but its other obligations as well. The effect will be magnified because the concept of equal pay will mean that scores of administrators There is may be able to make legitimate cla Thi level. s for upward pay adjustments, will include principals and other persons at the Director o  o Dr. Leslie Carnine, the new superintendent, may not be aware of the budget concerns of the Court or the history of pay to administrators in the District.  The Court is reminded that there has been no showing of a dearth of qualified applicants for administrative positions and thus, that huge payment is required to attract necessary staff. The salaries are grossly out of line for this district in comparison to other districts in the State except the possibility of the Pulaski County Special school District where we have raised similar concerns regarding pay inflation for administrators, many of who.m are unnecessary. Dr. Carmine's principal advisor appears to be Mr. BradyDEC-15-97 MON 10:39 SUSAN K WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 Page. 2 - Letter to Juge Wright December 12, 1997 Gadberry who has expressed chagrin at being paid less money than Dr. Richard Hurley, the Personnel Director. 'Y' ou will recall that Dr. Henry Williams brought Dr. Hurley aboard and paid him far more than anybody else without adherence to the salary schedule in existence. That put him ahead of his supervisor, Mr,. Gadberry. By allowing advertisement at these ranges of pay, a number of people like Mr. Gadberry will be able to make claims for pay adjustments. This, in turn, will generate, I believe, more contention from the teachers and the grossly unpaid services workers, most of whom are black. Because of the broad implications and the possible far reaching effect of the pay initiatives, I respectfully request that you allow ODM to review this matter and to make a prompt report to the Court before the February 1, 1998 deadline. WWaayy II remind the Court that such increases also will necessarily result in substantial budget adjustments for ODM staff, if the concept of comparability to administrative positions in the LRSD is carried forward and if the Court ends jurisdiction any time soon. For those monitors will be entitled to Associate Superintendent level pay as well. This is not a anttii--Drr.. CGaarmniinnee lleetttteerr.. I expect that the teachers organization will express grave reservations regarding the source of additional revenues having been told that the District is on the verge of being broke in the recent negotiations. Thank you for your attention to this request. JVW\nj s CC ! Dr. Leslie Carnine Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brov/n DEC-15-97 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISITUCT 810 WESTMARKHAM STREET ' LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST December 9, 1997 .n?? The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION: Associate Superintendent for Instruction QUALIFICATIONS\n1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience, in an urban setting, as a principal and/or administrator with instructional program implementation responsibilities. 5. Evidence of successfill experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW, REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Staff as may be designated by the Superintendent JOB GOAL: To assist the Superintendent in the task of providing leadership, support, and direction in the area of instruction by providing building principals with a vehicle to more effectively utilize the division of instruction to improve teaching and learning.DEC-15-97 MON 10:40 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQLTRY TO\nDr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE. BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTHRXTEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or emplojment practices.DEC-15-97 HON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 05 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST V  f December 9. 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION: Associate Superintendent for Desegregation QUALICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (S) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience as an administrator in a multi-cultural setting or urban setting. 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality and equity in student learning and school organization. 6. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 7. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision-making and communication. 8. Demonstrated knowledge of how to apply the concept of high expectations to school organizational patterns. 9, Extensive experience in organizing staff development programs with a focus on Effective Schools research. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO\nSuperintendent of SchoolsDEC-15-97 MON 10:41 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 APPLICATION DEADLINE: February 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable NOTE: All interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for the position. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer, Equity concerns may be addressed to the Superintendent of Schools. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.DEC-15-97 MON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 07 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLEROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST- December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now 1997-98 school year: accepting applications for the following position for the ... POSITION: Director - Planning, Research and Evaluation QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Experience in research, testing, and program evaluation, 5. Evidence of successfol experience in developing and implementing monitoring and evaluation of educational programs. 6. A commitment to parent and staff involvement in decision making. 7. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 8. Ability to administer programs and supervise professional staff. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Planning and Evaluation Specialists and assigned clerical and secretarial support personnel assigned to the department.1 DEC-1'5-97 NON 10:42 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 08 APPLICATION DEADLINE\nFebruary 1, 1998 - stalling date negotiable SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock Schoo! District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: All interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for this position. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Professional Personnel. NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDU.AL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.DEC-15-97 MON 10:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 09 PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 December 9, 1997 PLEASE POST  accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION\nAssociate Superintendent for Support Services QU.ALIFICATIONS\n1. 2. 3. Minimum of a Masters Degree. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. In-depth knowledge and experience with financial, budgeting, computer, and data processing systems and applications are essential. Evidence, through positive past accomplishments, js required to demonstrate the high level of analytical, problem- solving, and decision'tnaking skillsneeded for this position. 5. A strong commitment to quality desegregated public education must be shown along with a full understanding of the relationships required between student, staff, and administration to be a highly motivated, successful school district.  parent, 6. Demonstrated ability to effectively communicate, both orally and in writing is essential. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE Qualifications in the initial screening interview. REPORTS TO\nSuperintendent of SchoolsDEC-15-97 MON 10:43 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 10 5. Serves as chief financial and support services advisory to Superintendent and liaison with all professional staff, students, and the financial and support services serves as community on matters relating to SALARY AND TERMS\n$70,000 - $90,000 - commensurate with experience, plus berxefits package. month position, plus car allowance. a twelve (12) EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Board s policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE\n.February 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable be considered for this position. SEND VTUTTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO. Dr. Richard E, Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: ^IVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A \\^RY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS, THEREruKt l AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARTT v ktc am that an interview will be CONDUCTED ^^^SSARILY MEAN THEREFORE, BECAUSE The Little Rock School District is addressed ,o ,he Associate SuperinSm *\" It is the policy of the Little Rock School District practices. I'  .. , .-------------------f'Ot to discriminate on the basis of aae sex, racr* disability in its educational programs, activities or employment  f' 'keyOffice 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 January 15, 1998 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear John\nJudge Wright has asked me to acknowledge that she has received your letter dated December 12, 1997. In that correspondence, which was copied to me. Les Camine, and Chris Heller, you raised concerns about recent LRSD job postings for four associate superintendent positions that listed a salary' structure of 570-90,000 plus benefits. You requested that ODM be allowed to review the potential effect of the salaries and report to the Court before February 1, 1998. Judge Wright and 1 have discussed your request. However, as you are aware, the LRSD is presently under a moratorium that has suspended ODMs monitoring of the district. Therefore, I will not be able to investigate and report on the matter of the salaries posted for the associate superintendents. Because you are troubled by the high salaries that have been proposed. 1 trust that you, Les, and Chris will discuss the matter in the spirit of openness and cooperation that we all seek in our working relationships with one another. Sincerely yours, in S. Brown cc: Susan Webber Wright Les Camine Chris Heller ROACH ELL LAW FIRM Attorneys at Law 504 Lyon Building 40 I West Capitol Avenue Little Rock. Arkansas 7220 1 Richard W. Roachell Travis N Creed. Jr. Janelle S . Evyan telephone (50 I ) 375-5550 FACSIMILE (50 I ) 375-6 I 86 Honorable Susan We] United States Di :ct Judge\nr Wright 600 West itol Avenue Linle (ck, Arkansas 72201 Re: January 19, 1998 RECSSViO JAN 2 1 1SS3 OFFICE OF OESEGREGATIOH MONITORING Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special SchooiDistrict, etal. United States District Court No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Judge Wright\nOn behalf of the Knight, et al. Intervenors, I have been authorized to write to you concerning Mr. Walkers letter dated December 12, 1997. The Knight, et al. Intervenors are wholly in agreement with Mr. Walkers arguments that posted job openings by the Little Rock School District for the four positions cited are grossly out of line for this district and that the consequences, both long term and short term, of filling such positions at such salaries and benefits would impair the Districts desegregation obligations in ways that should be studied carefully by ODM. Sincerely yours, ROACHELL LAW FIRM Richard W. Roachell RWR:ajm cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Timothy Gauger Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Sam Jones Mr. John Walker Mr. Stephen Jones AC.P Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT JUL 2 1 1998 July 17, 1998 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATiONMONITOfiING Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re\nRevised Desegregation and Education Plan Section 2/3 2.2.3 Dear Ms. Brown: We have extended the current administrative pay system by two new levels. Levels 7 and 8 have been added to the current structure for the purpose of placing the newly appointed assistant superintendents and associate superintendents. As has been previously noted, the changes and promotions will not require additional funds for district leadership positions. We have and will continue to look for opportunities to consolidate administrative and staff positions. Please understand that the rationale will be to look for opportunities that will increase services to children and teachers rather than compromise a service function. We further have indicated to the individuals promoted and to the Board of Directors that we believe the total salary plan should be independently reviewed for adequacy and equity. We anticipate contracting for that service and are optimistic that a report and recommendations will be forthcoming during November 1998. Further, we believe that by the conclusion of the 1998-99 academic year that we will have accomplished the goal v/hich was established by the revised desegregation and education plan. Respectfully. cesliffi V. Camine Superintendent of Schools Attachment: Administrative Salary Plan \u0026amp; Placements cc: Board of Directors Mr. Chris Heller 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 received From the desk of. . .  Leslie V. Carnine JUL 2 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LEVEL 8 - ASSOCIATES Vic Anderson* Junious Babbs Bonnie Lesley Sadie Mitchell 14 12 20 8 LEVEL 7 - ASSISTANTS OR EQUIVALENTS Frances Cawthon Marian Lacey Kathy Lease* 10 17 16 Doctorate degreesreceived JUL 2 1 1998 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING ADMC12 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ,1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 17622 18838 20054 21270 22486 23702 24918 26133 27349 28565 29781 30997 32213 33429 34645 35861 37077 38293 39509 40724 34010 35226 36442 37658 38874 40090 41306 42522 43738 44954 46170 47386 48601 49817 51033 52249 53465 54681 55897 57113 35949 37165 38381 39597 40813 42028 43244 44460 45676 46892 48108 49324 50540 51756 52972 54188 55404 56619 57835 59051 38064 39279 40495 41711 42927 44143 45359 46575 47791 49007 50223 51439 52655 53870 55086 56302 57518 58734 59950 61166 41059 42275 43491 44707 45923 47139 48355 49571 50787 52003 53218 54434 55650 56866 58082 59298 60514 61730 62946 64162 45465 46681 47897 49113 50328 51544 52760 53976 55192 56408 57624 58840 60056 61272 62488 63704 64919 66135 67351 68567 53888 55104 56320 57536 58752 59968 61184 62400 63615 64831 66047 67263 68479 69695 70911 72127 73343 74559 75775 76991. 63897 65113 66329 67545 68761 69977 71193 72409 73625 74?41 76057 77272 78488 79704 80920 82136 83352 84568 85784 87000Office 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 August 7, 1998 Dr. Les Carnine Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Les: Thanks for your recent letter informing me about some of the changes youve made in the LRSDs administrative pay levels. The letter arrived July 21, which was just after Id left for a two-week trip to tend to ill family members. Im presently processing the mail that accumulated while I was out of state, so please forgive my delay in responding to you. It may be helpful for you to know that the Court has a history of intense concern about how the LRSD constructs and manages its budgets, because of the relationship between finances, district operations, and desegregation goals. For example, the Court has been concerned about such past district practices as: funding long-term commitments (such as salaries) with one-time or short-term monies, failure to clearly align each annual budget with the districts educational and desegregation commitments\nbasing new budgets on the previous budget instead of actual expenditures (known as budgeting on budget\")\ntop-down rather than bottom-up budgeting (top-down budgeting sets numbers at the summary level and then forces the detail figures to fit those totals)\nfailure to link planning and evaluation activities to drive budget decisions\nand failure to use written business cases (or a similar process) as a decision-making tool to define and support all manner of decisions, including salary increases, adding or deleting positions and programs, and so on. Im not sure I understand how the information in your letter and its attachments fits into the districts approach to fulfilling its Plan commitment (2.2.3) to establish a uniform salary schedule for all positions within the district, provide compensation in accordance with qualifications, and minimize complaints of favoritism. I note that you chose to set the salaries of top administrators before establishing the uniform salary schedule for all positions in the district, which sounds like the carts before the horse and also could be construed as a form of favoritism. I also note that youve chosen to establish the salaries of top administrators before concluding contract and salary negotiations with the union, a timing decision that could bolster the unions leverage position..August 7, 1998 Page Two I'm not questioning your right to make decisions about salaries or timing. Rather Im concerned about the districts overall financial management practices. I would be remiss if 1 didnt emphasize that the Court has paid considerable attention to budget management over the years and has frequently admonished the LRSD about the need for a budget planning and management system that will enable the district to make careful financial decisions, effectively manage its multimillion dollar business, and reach its desegregation goals. I would be happy to discuss with you any aspect of the districts budgeting history, including the role of the Budget Specialist the Court appointed for the district in 1993. .Although ni be closely monitoring the districts budget development and management process and will need further information later on, right now Id appreciate a copy of your administrative organizational chart that includes the names of each individual administrator. Id also like the job description for each position so I understand who is responsible for what. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, I ' I -Ann S. Brown ///AC.9 1/4 MOS. (192) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 'teachers 2000-01 4.25% 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 '3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 '24,118\" 25\n372' 26^26 29,207 30,533 2 25^83 2\u0026amp;.iZl 21.5^} 28'869 \"30,17f 31,498 3 '26,047 27,302 28.556 29^834 '31,136 32,463 9J/2 MOS. (1^) _ _1 '24,746 26,033 2^ 3 26,726 28,013 27y:^0^ 28310 _^9^99 28,631 29,621 29,968 30^^ 31,329 32,318 30,611 31,947' 33^308 10 MOS. (207) 1 _ 26,002 2 27,042 27,354 28^9 28706 30,085 3'1,489 '32,919 29. 2ii21 32\n529' 33,959 3_ 28,082 30,787 _4 27.012 28766 20.020 30,799 32j01 33,428 _4___ 27,716 29,002 30,289 31,60i 32,937 34,298 4 29,12'2 30^475 3\u0026lt;827  32,'165 33,205 33,569 '3\u0026lt;999 34,609 36,039 jb'lM MOS. (212)_______ _ 1 _ 26,630 28,015 29^00 30,811 _5 _ 21.Qn 29,23\u0026lt; 30',405 31,763 33,066 34,392 J_ 28,705' 29,992 ?L279 32,591 33,927 35,288 5 30,163 31,515' 32,867 34,245 35,649 37,079 6 __ 2^42 30J9'6 3'1,450 32j2Q 34,031 35,357 7 29,906' 31,160 33,693 34,995 36,322 8 30.871 32.125 33.379 3'4658 35.960 37.286 9 31,836 33.090 34,344 36,925 38,251 10 32,800 '34,055' 35,309 36,587 37^889' 39,216 11_ 33,765 35,019 i7,^2 '38,854 40,181 12 34,730 35,984 37,238 '38,516 13 35,695 36,94^ 38,20^ 39,481 39^819 40784' 41,145 42,110 14 ^659 39,168' 40,446 41748 43,075 15 37,624 38,878 40.132 41.411 42.713 44.039 16 38,589 39,843 41,097 42\n375 '43,678 45,004 17 43,340 18 44.305 '44,642 45,607 45,969 46,934 19 46.5^ 1 47,898 20 48,863 6 29,69^' 30,982 32,269 ' 33,580 ' 34,917 ' 36,278 ' 1 30,685 31,972 33,259 34,570 '35,907 37,268 8 31,675 32,962 34,249 35,560 36,896 38,257 9 32.665 33.952 35.238 36.550 37.886 39.247 10 33,655 34,941 36,228 37,540 38,876 40,237 11 34,645 35,931 12 35,634 36,921 37,218 38,M8 38,530 39,866 Ti,227 39,519 40,856 13 36,624 37,911 39,198 40,509 41,846 42,217 43,207 14 37,614 38,901 40,188 41,499 42,835 44,196 15 38,604 39,891 41,177 42,489 43,825 45,186 16 39,594 40,881 42,167 43,479 44,815 46,176 17 18 19 20 43,157 44,469 45,805 47,166 45,459 46,795 '48,156 47,785 49,146 50,136 6 31,203 32,555 33,907 35,285 36,689 38,119 7___ 32,243 33,595 34,947 36'325 37,12Q 39,159 8 33,283 34,635 35,987 37'365 38,769 40,199 9 34,323 35,675 37,027 38,405 39,809 41,240 10 35,363 11 36,403 12 37,443 38.795 36,715' 37,755 39,107 40,147 _13__ 38,483 39,835 14 39,523 40,875 39,445 40,849 42,280 40^485 41,526 42,566 41,188 42,228 41,890 43,320 42,930 44\u0026gt;60 43,970 45,400 43,606 45,010 46,440 15 40,563 41,916 43,268 44,646 '46,050 47,480 16 41,604 42,956 44,308 45,686 r 47,090  4X520 17 18 19 20 45,348 46,726 48,130 49?56Q 47,766 49J70 50600 50,210 51,640 52,681 20 19 18 17 16 42,608 43,993 15 41,543 42,928 14 40,478 41,863 43748 44,659 13 39.413 40798 '42,182 12 38,348 39J32 41 jl7 11 3X667 _ 40^52 42,901 44,366 10 36,217 37,602 38,987 40,398 41,836 9 35,152 36,537 i 37,922 r 39,333 I '40,771 _8___ ^,08^7 35\n472 36,856 38,268 39.706 1 33,022' 34,406 6 31.956 33.341 5 3O^89 'Z2.27Q 4 __ '29,826 3l',211 3 2 27,696 29\nOM\" '36?465' '31,876' 28,761 30746 3i?530 32'942 32.595 33.661 '34,726 35.791 44,313 45^378 46,443 47,855 49,293 50,757 46,789 48,227 49,692 48.920 45724 42,529 '43^594 ____________ 45.252_ ^6,097 47,162 50,358 51,423 51,823 52,888 37,203 '38,641 36.137 L35:2.72 36,510 34.007 ' 4X967 r 45,431 53.953 33,315 \" 34,380 3X7~14~ 34,779 Ct: ' 5' 32.249 6 35.445 37.575 '35^844' 36^910137,975 I 39,040~| 40,105 | 41,170 42,236 '43,301 Teachers at the top of the schedule who do not receive step increases are paid an additional $1,500. 46,496 47.562 '48,627101/2 MOS. (217__21_. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TEACHERS 2000-01 4.25% 1 2 3 4 5 6 1_ 2\u0026lt;258 28,676 30,093 ^1.8^ 33,610 34,509 2 '28,349 29J66' 32^628 34,100 35,599 3 \"29,439 30'856 '32,274 _33,7f9 35,i'9l' 4 30,529 31,947 5 3\u0026lt;626 33,037 6 33\n364  34,455 .^1809 36,281 36,690 37,780 10 3/4 MOS. (222) 35,899 37,371 38,870 32.710 34J27 35,545 36,990 38,462 39,961 7 33,800 35,218 3X635 38,080 39,552 41,051 8 34,891 36.308 'i7J2\u0026amp; 39,170 40,642 42,141 9 35.981 37,398 38^816 40,261 41,733 43,232 10 3X071 3X489 3X906 41,351 42,823 44,322 11 38,162 39,579 40,997 42,441 43,913 45,412 12 39,252 40'669 43,532 45,004 46,503 1^ 40,342 41,760' 43,177 44,622 46,094 47,593 14 41,433 42?850' 45,712 '47,184 48,683 15 42,523 43,940 45,358 46,803 48,275 49,774 16 42.613 46.448 47.893 49.365 50,864 17 18 19 20 47,539 4X983 50,455 51,954 50,074 51,546 53,045 52,636 54,135 55,225 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 27,886 29,337 32,265 33776 2_ 29,00J 30^52 3L992 33,380 34^886 35.304_ 36j1?2  Yi Mos.l^f 1 2 3 4 L_ 28.515 29,997' 3\u0026lt;480 '32,991 5 34?531 6 36,099 _ 2___ 29,655 32'621 34,132 35,672 1 2 3 4 5' 6' 3 30. UL 3r^'^ 33:0JJ 34,496 36,001 37,535 4 31,233 32,683 34,133 35,61\u0026lt; 37,117 ___ 32,348 33,798 35,248 36,726 38,232 M,651_ 39,766 6 33,464 34,914 36364 37,842 39,348 40,882 7 34,579 36,029 37,479 38,957 40,463 41,997 8 35,695 37,145 38,595 40,073 41,579 43,112 9 36,810 38,260 39,710 41 j 88 42,694 44,228 10 37,926 39,376 40,826 42,304 43,810 45,343 11 39.041 40.491 4 \u0026lt;941 12 40,156 41,607 43,057 43,419 44,535 44,925 46,459 46,041 47,574 13 41,272 42,722 44,172 45,650 47,156 48,690 14 42,387 43,837 45,288 46,766 48,271 49,805 15 43,503' 44,953 46,403 47,881 49,387 50,921 16 44,618 46,068 47,518 48,996 50,502 52,036 17 18 19 20 48,634 50,112 51,618 53,152 51,227 52,733 54,267 53,849 55,382 56,498 30,796 3X278 33,761 25,272 36,812 12 MOS. (247) _1 3T0'27 32640 34,254 2 32^268 33,881\" '35^4'95' 3 33'509 35 J 22 36,736 35,898 '37,139 38,380 __4 __ ?l:036 33,4'19 \"34,902 36413 \"37,953 39,521 5 33,077 34,560 3'6,042 37.554 39.093 1O\n662 6 34,217 35,700 37,183 38,694 40,234 41,802 7 35,358 36,841 38^324 39,835 41,375 42,943' 8 36.499 37,981 '39,464 40,975 42,515 44,083 9 37,639 39,122 40,605 42,116 43,656 45,224 JO__ 38,780 40,262 41,745 4X257 44,796 46,365 11__ 39,920 42,886 12 41,061 42,544 44,026 44,397 45,538 45,937 47,505 47,077 48,646 13 '42,201 43,684 45,167 46,678 '48,218 49,786 14 43,342 44,825 46,308 47,819 49,359 50,927 15 44,483 45,965 47,448 48,959 50,499 52,068 16 45,623 47,106 48,589' 50,100' 51,640 53,208 17 18 19 20 4 5 34,750 35,'991 36,363 37,977 39,621 37,604 6 38,846 39^18 40,459 37,'573 \"38815 ' 40,056 4\u0026lt;297 39,280 '40,521  41,762 43,003 40,862 42,538 44,2'4'4 42,103 A2,77Q 45,485 7 38,473 \"40,087 41,700 43,344 45,020 46,726 8 39,714 JL328 42,941 44,586 46,261 47,987 9 40,955 42?569 44,182 10 42,19'6 43,810 45,423 11 43,438 45,051' 46,664 12 13 44,679 45,920 45,827 47,068^ 48,309 47,502 49,209 48,743 60,450 49,984 51,691' 46,292 47,905 49550 51,225 52,932 47,533 49,146 50,791 52,466 54,173 14 47,1'61 4X774 50,388 52,032 53,707 55,414 15 48,402 _50,qi5 5\u0026lt;629' 52,272 54,948 56,655 16 49,643 51,256 52,870 54,514 56,190 57,896 Teachers al Ihe lop of Ihe schedule who do nol receive step increases are paid an additional $1,500. 49,729 51,241 52,780 54,349 52,381 53^921 55,489 55,062 56,630 57J7Q 17 18 19 20 54,111 55,755 57,431 59,137 56,996 58,672 60,378 59,913 61,610 62,860appendix B SUPPLEMENTARY PAY SCHEDULE 2000-01 ( ATHLETICS amount I Senior High: Head Football Coach Asst. Head Football Coach Asst. Football Coach Off-Season Football Coach Asst. Off-Season Football Coach Head Basketball Coach Asst. Head Basketball Coach Head Track Coach Asst. Head Track Coach Asst. Track Coach Cross Country Coach Volleyball Coach Softball and Baseball Coach Gynmastics Coach Golf Coach (Boys or Girls) Tennis Coach (Boys or Girls Sponsor - Cheerleader, Drill Team, Pep Club Asst. Gymnastics Coach Asst. Volleyball Coach Soccer Coach Pre-Season Football Middle School: Head Football Coach Asst. Head Football Coach Head Basketball Coach Asst. Basketball Coach Head Track Coach Asst. Track Coach Volleyball Coach Gymnastics Coach Golf Coach (Boys or Girls) Tennis Coach (Boys or Girls) Sponsor - Cheerleader, Drill Team, Dance Team, Pep Club Asst. Gymnastics Coach Asst. Volleyball Coach Soccer Coach Pre-Season Football MUSIC Senior High\nBand Director Asst. Band Director Middle School: Band Director Orchestra Director 3,740 2,031 1,710 1,282 962 3,740 1,390 1,817 1,496 1,390 535 1,390 1,817 1,603 460 460 1.817 612 1,176 1,390 per diem pay 1,390 641 1,390 641 1,390 641 1,176 1,226 460 460 962 612 481 1,176 per diem pay 2,672 1,870 1,870 1,069appendix B SUPPLEMENTARY PAY SCHEDULE 2000-01 ( JOURNALISM Senior High Middle School (Yearbook) Middle School (Newspaper) 1,977 1,069 535 1 DRAMA Senior High: Play Director (one play) Play Director (two plays) OTHER Senior High \u0026amp; Middle School: Department Coordinator Extra Duty - Before and After School Extra Duty - During School Hours ELEMENTARY Volunteer lunch and/or playground (30 minutes) The stipend will increase the same percentage as the base salary increases each year. 908 1,817 908 2,084 2,084 1,335I PROFESSIONAL COMPENSATION 2000 - 2001 Article 9, Section L, of the PN Agreement states that Teachers requested (by principal or Central Office administrator) to provide professional services on a day not specified in Article Vn as a workday shall be compensated for the time spent in performmg those services according to the following schedule\nHours per Calendar Day 2 to 6 hours more than six hours Compensation .25 percent of base salary ($60.30) .50 percent of base salary ($120.60) are This provision does not apply to teachers who paid a stipend for extra duty, to services performed outside the minimum schedule hours of work on a workday specified in Article VII, nor to the State Department requirements for job performance. SUBSTITUTE PERIOD PAY Article 31, Section D slates, When elementary teachers are required to cover an entoe class other than their own, they shall be paid one-twentieth (1/20) of one percent (.0005) of the annual base salary for a 914 month teacher for the major portion of each hour, rounded to the nearest A hour, that they are required to substitute. For second^ teachers the contract states, Secondary teachers who serve as substitutes shall be pmd one-twentieth (1/20) of one percent (.0005) of the annual base salary for a 9% month teacher for the major portion of each hour, rounded to the nearest 'A hour, that they^^e required to substitute. For the 2000 - 2001 school year ($24,118 x .0005 - $12.06) SiJ d L n ij n 5 o p s 'I O n s D s 8 1M MOS. (192) f 11 2 3 4 5 6 1_ 20.546 2''.873 20:200\" 30.^3 31,931 2 \"26,38 4' 29771'1 3'l,dB4 32,442 33,335 33,646 3 J7,567 267094 307221 31,574 32,962 34.356 9 112 MOS. (197) 1 j 1 I 2 ' 3..... 2 I 23,599 I 3 4 29,91)1 ' 311,4115 31,3'19 31,873 27,761 26,285 zn'.iza ' 29,6'46 5 3^63J 33,287 6  r 31,204 ''34',7Z7  ' i(\u0026gt; MOS. (K(7): 1 2 3  I 4 ! 5  6 I i 1 2 4 _ 28.688 5 29,609 '30,630 26.915 36'933 31,'242 32j95_ '3'3.973_ 35.37'7 32,283 3i:9S7 33.284' 33,616 34:637 7 31,651 34,305 35,656' I 8 4 '34'994 ' 36,615 37,036' 36,396 \"5 37,419  38,446' 6 7 'Little Roa\u0026lt; schooi wsiRicr .....teachers'2002 03 27875/.' 9 327672 7 33,593 33.999  35,020 35.320 : 367347 '36,679 i \"37.700 10 'i'l 3\u0026lt;71+  35735 36,041  37,062 37.368'J 38,389 M,721 12 36,758 38:d83 \"39.4'10 .....vv I 39,'742 4O,'763' 'aa.ce?  39',d7B'['40,099' '41,120............ '39:461 40,462 41:5'63'1 42,524 ^  I  31.008 32.3E6 33,610 35,251 29j^33^ 30,380 30,694 7 31:742 32,056 33,444 '34',8S8 \"36:299 33,103 34,491 I 31,427\n32,476 32.789 347161 35.539 35,906 36,953' 3t346 _ 36.394 33.837 35.199 38.001 39.441 8 33,523 34,684 36,246 37,634 39,048 40,489 9 10 34,570 35,616 35,932 37,204 36,682 40:086 41,536 36.980 38,341 39,720 '41.144 42,584 11 36,665 38,027 39,369 40,777 42,191 43,632 I fzzTzzjrs\" 13 J 15 3'^777 .\"3'8,798 j 39,818 ' 39,104 ' 4'0,125 ' 41.146 ^2,141 14 39.104 ' 40,125 40,431 , 4j.452 41.'7M'''42,8b5 43:162. 44,183 43,545 44'566' '45,567' '427473 43,826 '45,204 4'6,608 __16 _ 40.839 42,167 43\",494' 44,847 17 44,515 46,225 '47,246 .^29. 48,650 18 46,868'r46,889 49,671 19  20 49,268\" 12 37.713 39.075 13 38,'76d\" 40,122 46:437 41,4'84 41,826 I \"42,872 oho*. Zit'dfic 14 39,808 41,170 '2'5'i22 '43,020 1'5 40.855 4272'17 '43:579 16 4'3,2'65 44.627 17' T 18  19 20 43:2'39i 44:286\" 45,334 44,879  46,774 '44,967 '46:016 46,382\" 4\"7,429 477822 48,869 '45,674 47.063 46,477 46.017 4'87i io\" \"49.524  60,905\" 50,572 52,012 23,620 30,0111 3t,4il2 32,910 34,426 I 35,940 I 2!),1?0 30,801 32,0:12 3.-4,41iO 34,976 30.490 20.720 31,151 32,562 34,041 ' 35,527 37.040 :i1MOS (212) i 1 l'i 23,3111 2 3' 2 : 33,7'76'_3ti'.o 2J,87T' 3O:438 34,904 3 32,212 4 5 6 3^16 35.258 _3'2^8l)y 33.369' 31,2'1)9 '347863' , 35,821 3'6:385' 36:808'! 37,372'' 37,935 4 30,82'1 32,252 33,063 35,142 36,627 38,141 5 31:922 33,353 34,784 36,242 37,728 39:'242' 6 33,023 34,454 35,685 37,343 38,629 40,343 8 34,123 1 36,224 35,554 ^,655 36,085 38,444 39,930 41,443 36,066 39,545 41,031 I 42,544 9 36,325 37,756 39,187 40,645 42,131 43,646 10 37,426 38.857 40,268 41,746 43,232 44,746 i 11 36,526 39,957 41,386 42,647 44,333 45,847 12 39,627 41,058 42,489 43.948 46,434 46,947 13 40,728 42,159 43,590 45,048 ' 46,534 48,048\" 41.829\" 43:200 44.691 46.149 ' 47.635 49:149 15 16 42,929 44.030 44,360 \"4577'91' 4'7:250\" 48,736 50,249 46,692' 47\n93' '48,350 1 4'9:45'1 '5i',3M 52,451 18 19 20 '60:552\" ?,2:O36 'W:552 53,139 H652  66,763 4 ij Mi '33,0'31 \"s' 6 '32:393 ,\"33,620 '34,168 34^97 _35JM '35.900' 37,118 a'z.sl^' 39.^2 a'Bjsid \"40.190 35,266 '34,'947 36,413 a i' 9 36,075 37.'262 10 -f i 11 J:L5L 36.245 39.372 J7.641 30:006 38,668 40,134' 3^,767 41,317 46,894' 42,022 40,500 4i:627 387330 i' 39,457' _3^796 ^0,9M 41,2612 42:388  42,75'5 I \"43,882 12 4O,'M4' 42,050 13 41,712 J3:177 14  16 42.444 43,572 43,140 4'4,276\nISIM 44.699 45,826 46,954 I'ucliei ( al the lop t the schedule who do no! receive step fncisaies ere paid an additional 61,500. '43:516 1 44,643 \"427630 43,963 '44.304 '457^ \"16 45.094 17 18 19 20 \"45,009 48,531\" '46,136 45,770 46,897 47,856 48,786' 48:681 4'9:269' 46,659 47,26'4' 48:391 '50,336' 40.913\" 51,463 48,025 49,152 4'9:518 ' 50,646 51.040 62.690 5'1:7'73\n' \"53.2'95 i 54,422 ' 53,7\"18' 54,845 r55,972' 52,168 \"57.1'60'Ari\u0026lt;ansas Democrat '(Gazette  TUESDAY. MARCH 21, 1995  Teachers want raise\ncut in works LR would lop 2 days from its school year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL  Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock School District teachers want a 5 percent raise next year. But the district, contending its cupboard is bare, is proposing a shorter work year and an accompanying pay cut. District administrators and the Classroom Teachers Association exchanged proposals late last week in preparation for the first negotiating session on the 199.596 teachers contract. The session is set for March 28. The district's proposal re- llects financial problem,s that were subjects at several school board meetings in Februaiy and March. The district is trying to balance next year's budget by making $9.1 million in cuts and adjustments. The district's initial contract proposal includes no provisions for across-the-board raises for teachers. The proposal also calls ftni contract changes that would\nReduce the school year by two days, with teachers working 190 days and students attending class 176 days. Employee salaries would be cut accordingly, about 1 percent. For example, the $20,225 paid beginning teachers this year would fall t6 $20,014 next year.  Remove the automatic salary increase most teachers get for an additional year of experi- efice. This year, those incremental raises were about $800 per year for each teacher who hadnt reached the top of the salary schedule. i Freeze the district's cost for fringe benefits for teachers. If insurance premiums increase, the teachers would have to absorb the cost.  Reinstate the practice of assigning teachers to supervise liinch and playground duly, which would allow the district to eliminate supervisory aide positions. Teachers now have a 30- minule duty-free lunch each day.  Halve the extra pay for junior and senior high teachers who teach six classes each day instead of the standard five. Teachers are paid the equivalent of 20 percent of their salary for teaching a sixth period. That supplement would be reduced to 10 percent. The CTA proposal calls for a S percent across-the-board raise for teachers in addition to the traditional increment. Teachers ineligible for the increment because they have reached the top of the salary schedule should get a bonus equal to 5 percent of their salaries, the CTA says. Trimming the school year vyould require the state Department of Education's approval.Ajkansa^emocrat (  WEDNESDAY, JULY 16, 1997 LR schools, LRSD teachers get pay haggling out of the way BY CYNTHIA HOWELL T- ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE . _ vi auiger LeuDetter, the new Little Rock School District President of the union, said the teachers will start work next negotiations were hard but month with salary increases rang- district officials were more open ing from 3.6 percent to 5.3 percent usual about the financial con- ff a tentative agreement reached dition of the system. dopted by the school I believe we have the best set- fpophiner Pvnon'oni-a board and the Classroom Teachers Bement possible given the dis- ^aCniTlg CXpenence. Association. . tricts financial situation  T .Arlhot- ------------------------------- The salary agreement holds the promise of more money for teach- ere if the school district wins a $5 5 million lawsuit against the state over the funding of health insurance and teacher retirement That ca.se IS pending before the Sth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St Louis. Interim Superintendent Don ssgs eggss bbsb , .  tuiuouauj' early in a low-key and amicable fashion. Typically, teacher salary negotiations continue until school ' starts in August, raising fears about teacher strikes. _ Thats the case in the neighboring Pulaski County Special \u0026amp;nd North Little Rock districts, plagued by contract disputes and labor relations problems. To get this done on July 15 fits in with our effort to show the community that we are doing things differently, Roberts told the board. This means we can focus See LRSD- Page 5B  Continued from Page 1B on getting school started and getting people to buy into the fact that we all must work together as a team. The districts 18,000 teachers perCCnt start work Aug. 13. Students start increaSC in thc BaSC scnooi Aug. 20. I , Grainger Ledbetter, Salary, Whlch will gO from $20,760 to $21,020 more open tricts financial situation, Ledbetter said. A few other contract provisions remain to be settled between the districts and unions negotiating teams. Once those issues are resolved, the complete tentative agreement will be presented to the School Board and to the union membership for final approval. trict employee salaries. That pro- Ihe salary agreement calls for vision is capped at a $5.5 million a 1.25 percent increase in the base crt ' salary, which will go from $20,760 by the suit, to $21,020 for a teacher with a bachelors degree and no teaching A final provision of the salaiy agreement makes a bonus of ^70 available for up to one-third of the districts teachers if they take nine crease, or $840, for their added SS/ yearofexperience. -we think this will provide The district s most experienced teachers with the skills and moti- experience. Also, most current teachers will get an average 2.7 percent inteachers , who have reached the top of the salaiy schedule, are ineligible for the experience increment. In lieu of the increment those teachers will get a stipend of The salary agreement calls for a 1.25 percent for a teacher with a bachelors degree and no $980 for their added year of work, up from $810 the previous year. The top salary will be $43,566 for teachers who work 9!!i months and have at least 21 years of experience and a masters degree plus 30 more credit hours. Teachers could get another raise of as much as 3 percent if the court award  the amount sought II vation to use computers, Roberts said, adding that the training may be provided by either staff members knowledgeable about computers or computer operators in private businesses. Roberta said money for the computer training will likely come from whats left of a $20 million loan from the state to the district for desegregation. About $5 million of the loan has not yet been spent. Roberts said he envisioned using some of that money this year to buy computer equipment. In another break from tradition, the tentative salary agreement was negotiated before the School Board voted on a budget for the 1997-98 school year. It doesnt have to happen this way eveiy year, Roberts said. But it is a way to say that employee relations are important and that they shouldnt come at the end of everything else. The board may vote on a 1997- 98 budget at a meeting Tuesday. That budget is expected to include the raises, as well as funding for some expected enrollment in- creases and anticipated changes in the district alternative eduoa.- tion program for junior high stu-, dents.  as The superintendent praised Uip- School Board for efforts to stabi-. lize the school district and work, together. The salary agreement- typified those efforts, he said,  did tile recent orderly hiring of a new superintendent  Leslie Cai\n- nine  who will replace Roberta by the end on the year. ,. j\n,Arkansas Democrat ^(5azcltfe. O FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1997  i LR schools hope to offer everyone 1.25% pay raises BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOT RAT-GAZETir All Little Rock School District employees can expect raises this year if the School Board approves recommendations administrators made Thursday. Board members first heard the salary proposal during a meeting announcing the expansion of a drug-abuse prevention program. Superintendent Don Roberts and Mark Milhollen, the district's manager of financial services, pre- ' sented a draft 1997-98 budget that includes a 1.25 percent increase in every employee groups base salary, plus the traditional raise employees get for another year of experience. The proposed increases are similar to the proposal made earlier this month for the districts 1.800 teachers. District administrators are reSee RAISES, Page 8B X -I- Raises  Continued from Page IB fining the proposed budget, which the School Board took no action on Thursday. .. The budget draft shows that the district finished the 1996-97 school year with a $2.1 million balance in federal and local funds. Much of that will be spent this year to off- get anticipated expenses of $162 million. Revenues are projected at $160 million. This is the first year since 1989 tliat the district will be without special desegregation funding from the state. The district got its last payment of $683,125 this past year, Milhollen said. The state payments have been as high as $8 million annually as the result of a financial settlement between the district and the state.  I But the school district can stilt draw from a $20 million loan from the state and will continue to get special state funding to support magnet schools and interdistrict student transfers. In other School Board business, organizers of a year-old program to reward Little Rock high school students who choose not to use illegal drugs announced plans to exThe budget draft shows that the district finished the 1996-97 school year with a $2.1 million balance in federal and local funds. pand the program to include junior high students. John Ostner, a member of the Downtown Little Rock Rotary Club, told the School Board that 22 percent of eligible public and private high school students participated in tire voluntary prevention program last winter. The number far exceeded his expectations, Ostner said, and he called the program a resounding success. The Rotarj Club organized the program  Teens Resisting Unhealthy Choices Everyday, or TRUCE  last year, basing it on a similar program in Texas. Students are asked to prove they are drug-free by undergoing a urinalysis, and get a TRUCE card that entitles them to discounts and hiring preferences at more than two dozen busirresses. Of tire 6,116 students enrolled iir Little Rocks five public high schools. Mount St. Mary Academy and Pulaski Academy last year, 1,319 participated in tire program. Participation in the private schools was greater, with 45 percent of tire 875 enrolled at St. Marys and Pulaski Academy taking part, compared to 921  or 17.6 percent  of the public schools 5,241 students. Tlris school year. Baptist Health has joined with tire Rotary Club to sponsor tire program. Also Thursday. Roberts told tlie boaid hes close to completing negotiations with IBM and National Computer Systems to update the districts administrative computer system, quadr upling its capacity. He said the improvements should serve the district for tire ne.xt four to five years. The hardware improvements will cost about $2M,000. The $133,000 cost of software improvements will be waived and the three-year service contract dis- coiurted by 35 percent, Roberts said. The negotiations, once completed, will end an ongoitrg dispute be tween the district and computer system providers that dates back to 1991, he said. IArkansas Democrat (j^azette^  THURSDAY, AUGUSTU Teachers OK pact for raises of 3.6% to 5.3% The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association voted Wednesday to accept a contract providing salary increases from 3.6 percent to 5.3 percent The contract was approved unanimously, association President Grainger L^better said. He declined to speculate on how many teachers showed up to vote at Hall High School, but he said turnout was light The contract now faces a LiWe Rock School Board vote, e.xpected tonight There are no real surprises here, Ledbetter said. This ,is something eveiybody has known about for some time.\n* Union and school district ofiB- cials reached a tentative agreement July 15. If approved by the school board, the contract will raise the base teacher salary from $20,760 tb $21,020. Most, teachers will receive an average a? percent increase.'*^ I*\u0026gt;.2B  WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1998  Alkans^ Democrat LR teachers seek 10 percent pay increase next year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-OAZETTE The teams would like to reach crease of 2.3 to 33 percent Teach- settlement before_the last ^y of en at tte top of tte sala^^^^^ assigned to the junior and senior district policy. is barred from a class for the sec- Repeated or habitual noncom- ond time, according to the propos- pliance with established building al, the child shall not be returned.   .. . ------j_ A teacher who refuses to accept Repeated or habitual noncom- highs. . . The association has proposed --------------C\"'7C\"u new contract language that would Procedures by the buildi^ ad- a settlement betore me lasi a*y ui cia at uix f am. ivnnri refhers^!ocrau|n 1?^^^^ ^a^lnlTcS^^thels^^^ sp^cificauFtoate each school .ffiMSS.SS.'l... aKSffJSSMJ  SKSS.'tiK.S'S SSSluEK -----------------r,,il.,i,n. Intial teachere. e^urelh^^^iwl'administSora officer, the proposed contract Ues, according to the CTA propos- ence increment would get a $!0 principal as the person with the primary responsibility for enforcing discipline in their schools. ----------------- Some orincipals give teachers view team of representatives from ciai pay given lu vuaviito cuiu lu 1 11,  nnt lA il-A aa,tv,1Haa HiaTTA anncQls- teachers who do extra duty such the message that they are not to tion proposal. ministration should be reviewed such a student will not be threat- by the Discipline Management ened with reprisals, tte proposal Committee and, if unresolved, said. Additionally, a student who shall be reviewed by a joint re- has been suspended but is ^peal- \" 1 ing the suspension and IS still at- the committee,the CTA, an assis- tending school should not be al- tant superintendent, the principal lowed to participate in regular and the districts student hearing school-spo^ored eve^ or activi- tors.  Dut, just as important to teachers as the salary proposals are ^TepraS^s%Taete^^^^ tioto thTc?eato of a P^efKafSnSet stuck S|a^assocj_a_tion have pl^^^^^ '\"^ntssuesrelatedtodiscipllne, management con....................... bf a new contract and will contin- -ue to try to meet once or twice a rne associauou ^'''Cgigmentary school for dis- would have the authority to re-  week for the next few weeks to cent across-the-board ra runtive pupils and the assignment view a principals discipline en- jeach a settlement, said Brady teachers, coupledl^th a gffl ex- to forcement if a teacher believes Gadberry, the director of labor re- penence * J g^npLnee every school Currently, virtually the principals action is inconsis- g?tooT^ The torameni^anfounte to ai im all 7ampus se^ty officers are tent with building procedures or first stages of negotiations. Ihtial teasers, lusuauasco v j-aisc would increase a The language provides a means ------------------------j for an appeal beyond the school ing table this year, is site-toed The association seeks a 7 per- Ss-sS rupttye pupils and the assis^ent \"owj_pracipals^dism^^^^ ^at ^w teachers to bar disrup- proposed contract naust be^ - tive students from class, some- proved by the Little Rock School : times permanently. Once a child Board and the association.Arkiuisas Democrat| WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1998 School chief sets ay for top aides: 831 to $87,000 5 LR districts new associate superintendent for instruction at the top ol salary schedule BYCYNflllA IIDWr.LL ARKANSAS OI-MfK'KAI GAZhl II, IJltle Hock School District Ku pcrintendent Leslie Carnine ha.s set 1998-99 salarie.s ranging from $64,831 to $87,000 for his seven new top assistanls. But salaries for all district administrators and other nonleaching employees may be subject to change soon. Carnine said this week lie wants a consultant to review district salaiy schedules for equity and adequacy. Carnine wa.s hired as superin- Icndent last summer and assumed Mill ian l.,in:cy, I'ornier piin-vipiil at Miinii Ails anil Svienves Magnet .liinior High, will be assistant snperintendent I'or secondary education at a salaiy of $73,343. Katherine Lease, a former Little Rock district employee who most recently worked as director ofsec-ondaiy education in Fayetteville s public schools, will oversee the district's (mice of Planning, Research and Evaluation at a salaiy or$72,127. (aiiiiiie said he tried to limit administiatois pay raises to 10 the duties in October. Selecting associate and assistant superinlen-pciccnt. 'I'liat cap was exceeded. though, in cases where the adniin-istratois will work more days per dciiLs in M...a..r.c..h..,.. ..h..e began ruling yeaCr.a rnine, who IS paidi $ti1i1n5,otXoKn) na year, said that although the assistant and associate superinlen-positions that had been vacant for a year or two because of resignations and retireinenls. At the lime - --------- J . of llie appointnienls, which took deiiLs salaries are \u0026gt;\u0026gt;'8 effect July 1, Carnine said the .i.s ti .a.l.i..v..e.. .s..a..l.a...r.i..e.s ove-ranll ssbhmoudldd bhee salaries were not final. lleessss Uthniss yyeeaarr.. TIhhaaltss bBeeccaauussee aass Carnine has added two new lev- many as 11 admniistrative imsi-ehs to the districl'.s adininistralive lion.s are being ssaablairryv sscchheedduullee ttoo aaccccoommmmooddaattee ers are being moved into cainims the new associate and assistant su- I norinfprulPIlb\n. level positions. . The number of positions in the districl'.s planning, icseaKli and evaiiialion oirice, the stall uevel-opineiit onke. the Instructional Resource Center and the districts student assignment office are being reduced, Carnine said. On the other hand, stalf positions will be incre.ased for alterna-perintendents. Previously, the schedules highest adininislrative salaiy was $68,567. The highest salary now possible for an assistant superintendent is $76,991 and the highest possible for an associate superintendent is $87,000. An ciniiloyee's lernUned noUn7y by Um assigned tivror' \"'^'^\".'..XeroVas-job but also by years of experience ............... \"mnbei and educational background. Bonnie Lesley, Uie districts new associate sutieriiitendent for instruction, will be paid the top pals, salary of $87,000. Now the Little Rock districts curriculum leader, Lesley is a fonner associate superproarauis, and the number of as- sislaiil. piiiiei_p_al1s.. iJn.. eleinentaiy schools will rise, ^hunine said, Not all schools have assistant pruici- i'lie call for an independent review of district salaiy schedules T eslev is a former associate super- was prompted by the distiic s fnlendent and chief of staff of pub- newly i -ised desegregation and Victor Anderson, a longtime junior high and high school principal and former assistant superintendent for secondary education in Lillie Rock, will be paid $79,704 as associate supcrintendcnl for operalions. Sadie Mitchell, also a former liewi,y I iovv. -- education plan, Carnine said, and by his own discomfort with what he Ihinlcs are i.neipiitics in pay. The desegregation inaii, approved by a federal judge in April, obligates the district to establish a uniform salaiy schei.'ule for all positions that will coiiii.'ciisalc cin-also a loriiiei ployees based on their qiialifica-princ. pa. a... most recently lions and iniininize coiiip,anils of worked as an assistant superinlen- m|. deni for eleinentaiy education is Caininc has sK ,,icinn or the districts desegrega- meiils can be coinpieieu uy principal who denl elementaiy liuw aaovc.ukv ------------ school services at a salaiy ol vision of the districts desegrega-lion obligations. Three people were selected by Carnine and approved by the School Board for assistant super-has asked .lim Mal-veiiiber. , , , The affected salaiy schedules are for administrative and support intendent positions. Frances Cawtlion, fonner principal alJefferson Eleiiientary, wi 1 be assistant superintendent for el-pineiilnrj' ediicalinii at a salary of cinlion. personnel, rather thanteachers. UClOUllllVll  . - ----- - Carnine said. Tlie leacliers salary schedule is subject to collective hurgaining each year with Uie Lit- Ue flock Classroom Teachers Asso- \\ Arkansas Democrat 7^ OjjazcHc  FRI DAY, APRIL 23, 1999 ILR board extends contract for school chief with raise BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARK.ASSAS DEMOCRAtC.VETTE The Little Rock School Board voted 5-1 Thursday to increase Superintendent Les Gamine's compensation package by 10 percent years. A majority of teachers got across-the-board raises of 8.5 peri cent over two years, plus step increases for e.xperience of about 5.4 percent. Board member Katherine and e.\\lend the duration of his con- Mitchell cast the dissenting votes on tract by one year to give him a the contract e.xtension and on the three-year pact benefits. Board member Judy Maj The board approved the contract ness left the meeting before the changes during a meeting in which a counselor from JA Fair Higli votes were taken. Mitchell said after the meeting School appealed to board members that she objected both to aspects of for help in resolving faculty dissen- Gamine's job performance and to sion regarding the school's former the informal process the board used principal. William Broadnacc. Five percent of the approved in- in evaluating the superintendent  Earlier this month, board mein- crease will go to Gamine's annual bers discussed Gamine's job perforsalary, raising it from SI 15.000 to mance in an e.xecutive session S120.750. The remaining 5 percent closed to the public. Mitchell said S5.750. will be contributed annually the evaluation was done in Gar- to his retirement fund. The raise is nine's absence and that Berkley retroactive to Sept 1.1998. then presented a summary of the The salary increase marks the boards discussion to the supenn- first raise in base pay for the dis- tendenL Mitchell said her remarks   about Gamine's job performance tricts chief e.xecutive since 1993.  when Dr. Henry Williams was hired were not included  and therefore not valued  in Berkley's verbal re: as superintendent t Board President Larry Berkley P^ Gamine.     She said the omission was espe- said after Thursday's meeting that a majority of the seven-member board was pleased with the direction Gamine is taking the district's educational program and with the districts progress in complying with its dese^egation plan. Gamine has been a district employee since September 1997. Board members said the increase in his compensation was intended to be somewhat similar to the percentage increases paid district teachers over the past two cially disturbing because she was the only black board member participating in the evaluation. Board member Mike Daugherty, who is. also black, was absent2B  FHIDAY, OCIOUEU 15. 1999  Pay schedule for secretaries is approved by LR board . BY ARIEL RJ-KANK ARKANSAS 1)1 MO( RAI (iA/l I II The Little Itock School Board approved a new saliiry sclicdiile . for secretaries and administrative staff at a special meeting , Thursday niglit. , Board members and school . district employees concerned pbout disparities in pay within the district called the move ii step in the right direction, but . said that it was nol a solution. . Richard Hurley, the districts director of human resources, told . Ilie board the district mostly followed the recommendation!\nof a . salary consultant who had been  hired to evaluate the secretarial and administrative jobs and recommend a salary scale. Thc district also surveyed 10 other school districts to determine liow they decided secretarial salaries. Hurley said. The most lively part of thc discussion focused on the fact that middle and elementary school secretaries are to be placed on a lower salary grade than secretaries for high school principals. Secretary Vickie Armstead told the board she and her fellow clerical employees support the new salaiy scale but not the ranking system that deterniined it. The schedule will give secre- Ufies on the superintendents\n.staff about $4,(MX) more per year - than entry-level grade school sec-\nrctarics, who earn about $14,(XX) a -year. Much work needs to be done *lo solve the ineejuities, 2 'Board member she said. Board Michael 'Uaugherty said the rankings by iwhich tile new pay scale was de- ^termined create a caste system. \u0026lt; But Hurley and Superinten- ,dent Les Camine said they hope -to put salaries for all secretaries fon thc new scale within the next .three years. They would have ^likcd to do so immediately, but *thc money isnt there, they said.  Were not creating fa hicrar- chyl. It already exists, Hurley tsald. *. The board also postponed un- Itil its next meeting two issues on *the agenda  a retmest by the ^districts speech palliologists to\n*be removed from the bargaining Cunit of the Classroom Teachers ^Association, and tlie seleciion of | \\a fiscal agent to assist in generat- nng at least $50 million through a nhliagc increase means. and other4B  FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1998  Aikansas Democrai ^(Bazcttc Board apprehensive about cost of teacher raises, new school  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL . . . . ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE .: .in a 4'A-hour meeting devoted - both to academic and financial is-  sues. Little Rock School Board  members voiced concerns Thursday  about the long-term cost of a proposed 4.5 percent employee pay , raise and the possible $105 million nice of a new school -\" The board took no action on any ' issues. Most  including the pro-\nposed 1998-99 teacher contract proposed school attendance zones and a curriculum for the eight new mid- - die' schools  are set for a board - voi? Jfev. 19. The new Stephens Elementary , School, projected to cost about $3 / -  -million more than the $7.2 million .  the district has set aside for it will - -likely be the subject of a special -' -School Board meeting next week. A majority of the board members indicated Thursday that they were inclined to approve the proposed teacher contract But they also acknowledged that changes in district finances will be necessary in the ne.xt few years to avoid a $356,000 deficit by 2001-2002. District administrators described the long-range financial projections as a worse-case scenario that included no Binding increases for enrollment growth, legislative funding changes, increases and modifications in federal funding, or significant increases in local tax revenues. The proposed contract ratified by the Classroom Teachers Association last week, calls across4he- board raises of 4.5 percent or 525 percent for teachers this year if the district gets reimbursed for shortfalls in state-funded teacher retirement and health insurance costs. Most other district employees will get identical percentage raises, also contingent on the state funding. The proposed teacher contract also includes provisions to increase contributions to employee health insurance costs and to raise stipends for e.xtra duty, such as coaching or club sponsorships. The district e.xpects to get as much as $20 million in state reimbursements for 1996-99 and about $8 million annually each year thereafter. The total cost of increased teacher benefits this year is about $9.3 million, and the district owes teachers $3.4 million for raises that went unpaid in 1997-98. Board member Judy Magness said it appeared the district cant afford the raises in the long term, especially if the district is also to pay for installing and using more computers in schools, training for sitebased decision-making and repairing school building. Magness questioned who authorized district negotiators to offer teachers the 4.5 percent raise. She said she thought the cap in the contract talks was to be 4.25 percent She asked for changes in the process used to get board input in future negotiadons. Besides the promised 4.5 percent teachers and other employees are already getting incremental raises that they traditionally get for their addition^ year of e.'cperience. For teachers, the increment is about 3 percent Superintendent Les Carnine said the board approved the incremental increase in September as part of the 1998-99 budget The district deferred some $2 million in anticipated e.'cpenses in that budget to be able to pay the e.xperience increment The move was intended to help employees offset insurance premium increases that took effect OctL Board President Larry Berkley said he wanted the district to pay the highest salaries in the state but also wanted to be sure it can remain solvent The board also got its first look at plans for the construction of a new Stephens Elementary School in central Little Rock at 18th and Maple streets. The district has owned most of the land for the school but has bought four adjacent properties, which prompted board members to ask why they were not asked to approve the purchases. They asked for a breakdown of the specific costs of the school to better determine what costs they could trim before the plans for the school are completed. Stephens is intended to be a state-of-the-art school for the 21st century. Associate Superintendent Sadie Mitchell said. The school will feature one computer for every five students, as well as a focus on economic education and communityi .4s currently designed, the split- level 75.000-square-foot school for about 650 pupils in pre-kinder- garten through fifth grade will be laid out like a city. The bookstore might be a simulated bank, the main hai might be a mall and the cafeteria could be divided into four different kinds of restaurants. Mitchell said. It would cost about $90 a square foot to build.r THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 2000  District, teachers sign tentative pact for coming 3 years LR School Board, union members may OK contract with 7.25% and 5% raises next week BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRATCAZETTE Most Little Rock School District teachers can expect total pay increases of 7.25 percent this year and more than 5 percent in each of the next two years, according to a tentative contract signed Wednesday by district and teacher leaders. The three-year agreement must be ratified by the Little Rock School Board and the membership of the Classroom Teachers Association to become final. That is expected to happen next week. 'The teachers association has scheduled a membership meeting at 5 p.m. Tuesday, the day before most teachers start work for the 2000-01 school year. The meeting to act on the contract proposal will be at the Arkansas Education Association building, 1500 W. 4th SL As of late Wednesday, the School Board had not scheduled a time to consider the newly inked I agreement but has a special meeting set for 5:30. p.m. Tuesday on a different matter Brady Gadberry, special assis- ,tant to the superintendent and the ence will be $50,363, compared jj.i-- with $48,372 last year. The contract proposal estab- districts chief negotiator, said the three-year proposal is significant because it will contribute to loi^- term stability and enable the district and community to concentrate on attaining release from federal court monitoring of the districts desegregation efforts. The districts 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan establishes procedures for court release by next June. Wednesdays agreement is actually the second three-year pact between the district and the teachers union, Gadberry said. But the first agreement, in 1989-90, was concluded after teachers went for al- niost an entire school year without a contract. As a result the first year of tlie three-year contract was retroactive. According to terms of the agreement, all teachers will get a 4.25 percent pay increase this year and a minimum increase of 2.875 percent in each of the next two years, which amounts to a 10 percent raise over three years. The annual raises are coupled with the average 3.03 percent experience increment traditionally paid eligible teachers for their additional year of work. *  ' As a result, a majority of teachers should see a 7.25 percent increase this year and well over 5 , percent in the next two years. ' Teachers who have the most experience in the district and have reached the top of the salary schedule are ineligible for the 3.03 percent increment. But they do get a $1,500 stipend. Tlie salary for a beginning teacher with a bachelors degree will go from $23,135 in 1999-2000. to $24,118 this year. The top salary for a teacher with 20 years of experi- lishes a minimum salary increase for the second and third years.but also establishes a procedure'to increase percentages as nonrestrict- ed revenues to the district increase. Gadberry said there was a strong probability that pay increases will exceed the minimum. The contract language takes into account the possibility of teacher raises enacted by state lawmakers when the Arkansas General Assembly convenes in January. Gov. Mike Huckabee and others have See TEACHERS, Page 5B, m!Zi' .. i ^^Ir? ^^4^3 V^1 5. I f- 1',. f.-rS Teachers  Continued from Page IB indicated that raising teacher salaries will be a priority during the legislative session. The Little Rock contract proposal includes adjustments in the salary schedule, beginning with the 2001-02 school year, as a way to raise beginning salaries and entice new teachers to the district. According to the proposal, salaries paid first-time teachers this year will be eliminated for 2001-02. This years salaries for all second-year teachers will become the first-year salaries in 2001-02 and a new second-year salary level has been developed. Players in the contract negotiations, which began in earnest last June, were reluctant Wednesday to reveal the terms of the proposal until after it could be presented to the teachers. K Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/STEVE KEESEE Signing in Heather Passmore stands beside her children, Emily, 4, Eric, 6, and Andrew, 8, at Little Rock's Carver Magnet Elementary School during registration Wednesday. Registration for all Little Rock School District schools will go onjrom 10 a.m.-7 p.m.today. The two older children will be first- and third-graders. Classes start Tuesday at Mabelvale, Woodruff and Stephens. Other Little flock schools start classes Aug. 21. that she felt very positive about the proposal and deferred other comments until after next weeks membership meeting. Gadberry released the proposed terms to the Aikansas The teams used Francis X. Quinn, a labor relations specialist from Oklahoma, on both Tuesday and Wednesday to complete the negotiations. Quinn has been employed by the district and the association at different times in the past as an arbitrator or fact finder in employee and contract disputes. He was in the Little Rock School District this week for matters not related to the contract negotiations when he was called on to help, Gadberry said. Other changes in the contract for this year include the creation of a sick bank that will enable employees to donate unused sick days to be used by other critically ill employees. teaUer bIcheS d?^e^' benwcrat-M,butonly^er^e and no^experience in 20014)2 will. XSaVon Ac^ be $25,803. A second-year teacher with the same degree will earn $26300. A third year teacher will earn $26,796. In the final year of the contract, the beginning salary will be $26,835, the second-year salary will be $^351, and the third-year teacher with a bachelors degree will be paid $27,687. The top salary in the district that year will be $53,777. Players in the contract negotiations, which began in earnest last June, were reluctant Wednesday to reveal the terms of the proposal until after it could be presented to the teachers. Clementine Kelley, president of the teachers association, said only  information. The states Freedom of Information Act states that all records maintained in public offices or by public employees within the scope of their employment are presumed to be public records. And according to the law, any citizen of the state may inspect and copy public records. Gadberry said his reluctance to release the information was in deference to the union. The negotiating teams met most of Tuesday and for a few hours Wednesday to find acceptable language on the restructuring of the salary schedule beginning with 2001-2002.  WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 2000  Teacher raises ^ttled in time school year BY JULIA SILVERMAN ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE the most senior teachers in the Tjfile Rock School District will be more than $50,000 this year, the first classroom teachers in the state to reach that level, under the terms of a three-year agreement ratified unanimously Tuesday night by the members of the Classroom 'Teachers Association. '\"'Tuesdays action caps several months of negotiation between the teachers and the city school board, which has yet to formally ratily the agreement but is expected to do so soon. And it came only one day before almost all of the districts teachers went back to work for the 2000-2001 school year. TTie agreement represents a carefully balanced compromise, said leaders of the negotiation efforts. TTie school boards primary objective was to raise first-year teacher salaries to attract more people to the profession and to the district, while the teachers association wanted to make sure that its members, many of whom have years of experience, would get their long-wished-for substantial  SeeTEWI iHERS, Page 3B ' Teachers  Continued from Page 1B pay raises. I feel very good about this, said Clementine Kelley, the president of the teachers association, af- past salary increases, will cortie' ter the meeting, which drew about from the districts general operat- 150 teachers. ing fund, which consists of both School board representatives state and local money. Under the have said the agreement will leave terms of the agreement during the administrators free to focus on oth- second and third years of the con-, er concerns, such as attaining re- tract the teachers will receive, a' lease from federal court monitor- percent raise equal to the average ing of the districts desegregation percentage increase of the general efforts. operating funds they have received Under the terms of the agree- over the last five years. ment, all teachers will receive pay raises of 425 percent this year, and state Legislature intends to raise . at least 2.875 percent in each of the teacher salaries, which would next two years. make the general operating fund Also, each year most teachers al- larger, and which in turn might ready receive a 3,03 percent annual push teacher raises past the 2.875 increase for experience. Teachers percent mark, with more than 20 years of expert- ence receive a $1,500 stipend. That means first-year teachers will make $24,118 this year, up from $23,135 last year, and the more senior teachers will make $50,363, up from $48272. By the end of the next three years, the districts first-year teachers will be making $26,8^. A teacher with 20 years experience, a masters degree and 30 additional credit-hours will make $53,777, ac-' cording to the contract '  For the second and third years, teachers are guaranteed a raise of at least 2.875 percent according to the contract , Money for that raise, as it has for'- There are indications that the FRIDAY, AUGUST 11, 2000  LR School Board \" gives final approval to salary increases: Teachers, other district workers to get raises BY CYNTHIA HOWELL u ARKANSAS DtMCK RAT-CAZETI E Little Hock School Board members, by ratifying a prcpGuvd teacher contract Thursday, final- sent salary settlements with.ail other employee groups by Aug. '24. - ____ , On other financial matters, the ircrint u? authorized the issuancd of bonds to Prudential Securities on the districts construction bonds and the one that offered tlie in- fiod. ?ece workers who do not participate in negotia- tions or in Sie k and confer salary Ulks. -'\" The board adopted the contract y?\"issues will tak\ne and pay raises at a wide-ranging The bondf wm^be^ w it also authorized DortiSth^^vp^?,a^^^ pleted over about the next, five the sale of $46 million in construction bonds and considered regulations that will give parents a say on whether their children can be exempted from semester exams. portion of the revenues raised by.a 5-mill tax increase approved by voters in May. . Don Stewart, the districts chief financial officer, told the bo^rd that the district ended this past school year with about $7.6 million m its operating fund. That amount School district administrators ^d leaders of the Classroom Teachers Association reached a tentative agreement on the threA- x , .----------------- year teacher contract last week jna^et-school fund balances are Association members endorsed it Tuesday'so board approval the final step. . _________________ The contract provides a 4 25 8enda for the Aug. 24 regulaT percent raise across the board for includ- this year and at least a 2.875 per- ** revised regulations that will cent increase in each of the next 9Uire parents of students-in two years  more if revenue in- **'*'''\"** creases in the district warrant. grows to $9 million if federal and included. Part of Thursday's board meetwas . . -------------- . mg concentrated on reviewing the monthly business meeting, including revised regulations that will grades nine through 12 to give permission for their children to be exempted from one or more of their semester exams. Some parents Eligible teachers will also get an average 3.03 percent increase -T-T' each year for every added vear of ?iid teachers had complained duTr work experience, so most teachers =~Png will actually see their annual who met grade and atten- salaries increase by 7.25 percent *- *- this year and more than 5 percent in the next two years. The districts T \"j most experienced teachers who the college-bound, have reached thc top of the salary , With the new regulations, \". Stif? schedule are not eligible for the who have a parents penfiis- expericnce increment but will get and meet the grade, attem a top-out stipend of $1,500. dance and behavior requirements The districts chief negotiator 9^ he exempted. During the yean Brady Gadberry said the salaries e schools will honor a parents including the new starting salaries ''lst for a change on the testing of $24,118 this year and $ffi 803  the request is sent to the next year for a bachelors degree , Principal in writing at leastclO and no experience, are competi-  . before the first day of semes* live within the state but not as  er , high as starting salaries in the , Even though students :mayi'be Northwest Arkansas districts. S exempted from a test, they have ' 'Gadbeny said he hopes to pre- option of taking to raise tieif ing the past year about exempting cf 1An A M,* ..A 1 _ _ V It -------- ...HUM OVVV4V dance requirements because the adults said that the lack of testing was detrimental to the studehU regulations,'IStif? ter tests. thA nntinn nPtalrinr* it tA grades. In that case, taking thatest I will not result in a lower semester grade for the course, according to ' the regulations. FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 2004  LR teachers raises are official School Board OKs 2.875% for 2003-04,10% for next year BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board made teacher pay raises of 2.875 percent this year and 10 percent next year official Thursday night by ratifying a two-year contract settlement that was negotiated earlier this month by district representatives and the Classroom Teachers Association. This years raise will be retroactive to last July 1 and will be paid to the districts approximately 3,000 teachers in their April 1 paycheck. Also Thursday, the board approved a similar retroactive 2.875 percent raise for all other employee groups. The nonteaching employees iso will get the same increase in insurance benefits for this year that teachers are getting. As of April 1, the districts contribution to monthly insurance premiums will go from $187 to $253. Our teacher salaries now have us being very competitive with surrounding school districts, said Beverly Williams, the districts director of human resources and chief negotiator. While we have districts in outlying parts of the state that still pay higher, I believe we have an attractive salary that will cause us to win the best teachers in the area and maintain those we already have. Williams said district administrators will return to the board later this year with recommendations for 2004-05 raises for nonteaching employees. School Board President Tony Rose, whose wife is a district elementary school teacher, described the two-year contract as a great victory scored for teachers and the district. This was a mutually agreed upon contract. It wasnt done so much through negotiations as it was through collaboration, he said. Board member Baker Kurrus called the raise substantial and significant. It gives our people incentive to stay in the classroom and gives people who are beginning to get some experience the chance to have a career that is fulfilling and doesnt involve the sacrifices that teachers have had to make to stay in the classroom, he said. Thats my greatest hope  that we continue to reward the people who have the greatest impact on our students. Board member Larry Berkley said he was particularly pleased with a contract provision that provides teachers with an incentive of $1,300 next year if they use no sick leave. The district and the teachers association have been at odds all year and continue to be in arbitration over a provision in the new teacher evaluation system that rates teachers based on their work attendance. But the disagreements over the teacher evaluation system were completely absent from Thursdays meeting. We are so very pleased at the extension of kindness and understanding and professionalism that the district extended to us by offering what we think is the most significant raise that Little Rock teachers have ever had ... and I thank you very much, Katherine Wright Knight, president of the association, told the board. Kurrus said he hopes the two organizations can build on the  good relationship as a way to bet- 1 ter serve the city. Weve always pulled on the same rope in this business, but frequently we pulled in opposite directions, he said. Now ... we are all on the same end of the rope, pulling in the same direction, and , its amazing how much more we r can do. ! SATURDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2004  ! LR teachers to get I credit for experience ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board voted Thursday in favor of giving teachers in the Little Rock School District full credit on the district's salary schedule for previous teaching experience in schools, as well\nas colleges or universities. Teachers have, in the past, been I given credit for time spent teaching in other kindergarten through 12th-grade classrooms and for time spent teaching in colleges or universities if they held teaching licenses while working on those I campuses. Now, on the basis of a memo ' of understanding between the 5 School Board and the Little Rock | Classroom Teachers Association, j teachers will earn credit for teach- j ing in colleges and universities accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools, National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education or accrediting agencies of comparable rank as long as their higher-education e.xperience was in their major teaching fields. ' Beverly Williams, the districts ' director ofhuman resources, said ! the change would apply to new I hires and teachers working in the i district in the 2004-2005 school , year but it is not retroactive to pre- I vious teaching years. I2B  THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 1,2005  LR School Board ratifies 2005-06 teacher contract Agreement gives 0.5% pay raise BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board on Wednesday ratified the 2005- 06 teacher contract, but not without some board members objecting to complaints made by teacher leaders about the 0.5 percent across-the-board pay raise in the agreement. The board's 6-1 vote, which makes the contract final, followed on the heels of a similarly positive vote by the Classroom Teachers Association on 'Tuesday. But Katherine Wright Knight, the president of the Classroom Teachers Association, said shortly after the union vote that the half-percent salary increase is an embarrassment. Board member Tony Rose, who participated in the negotiations as part of the district's team, on Wednesday accused the teachers association of waging a campaign of disinformation at a time when the School Board had directed district administrators to offer teachers all that the district can afford. I want to make sure it is noted that the day of antagonistic methods of negotiating a labor contract in this district have to end, Rose read from notes before voting for the agreement. Rose warned that the districts recognition of the association as the sole bargaining agent for teachers could be in jeopardy. I will carefully weigh the actions and words of the CTA over the next few months, and I hope I wont be compelled by those actions and words to move myself into a position of opposition to a union that I previously supported, he said. Rose questioned why teacher leaders publicly named longevity pay for veteran teachers and an experimental incentive plan at Meadowcliff Elementary as significant issues to the association but did not raise those issues as such at the bargaining table. If damage control by the CTA representatives has to include distorting the truth of the negotiations, I dont see the collaborative efforts, Rose said. It inclines me to support opening the negotiations process to the public and press so that we dont have those kinds of misunderstandings. The reaction of board members to the news account of her comments surprised Knight. I honestly think it was a misinterpretation of what I said, Knight said later Wednesday about the reaction. I said what was true. It was not intended to offend anyone. It was intended to communicate what my people believe. Board member Baker Kurrus cast the sole negative vote to the contract. He said he objected to the provision that calls for the salary negotiations to be reopened in midyear only if the Lake View school funding case  now pending in the Arkansas Supreme Court  results in an increase in unrestricted state funding to the 25,000-student district. If we are going to have a contract, lets have a contract, he said. If diesel costs go to four bucks or the cost of electricity doubles, we are not going to reopen negotiations. If we are going to go to a situation where we are going to open things back up,\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_709","title":"ServiceMaster Management Services","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":["1991/1998"],"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--Economic aspects","School facilities","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["ServiceMaster Management Services"],"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/709"],"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\nServiceMaster Management Services, an Illinois company hired to supervise Little Rock School District's maintenance and custodial staff.\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL DEFENDANTS LORENE JOSHUA ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM ENTERING INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT WITHOUT FOLLOWING BIDDING PROCEDURES, REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND WITHOUT PRIOR INVOLVEMENT OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS The Joshua Intsr/eoors respectfijlly move the court to enjoin the Little Rock School District from entering into a management service contract regarding managerial services for custodial and maintenance services. For cause, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully show the court that 1. The Little Rock School District has not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors\n2. The proposed management contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact 3. The proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program, research and evaluation instrument for the next five years\n4. The proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon ftnandai resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its desegregation obligations\nand 1 5. length and was designed to provide special favor to someone, a John Doe, in toe school district The Joshua ir^ervenors request an opportunity to engage in discovery and to have this matter set for hearing shortly thereafter. The matter will be presented to the Little Rock School Board this evening, August 31, 1995, for action. Timo is therefore of the essence. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that this court reserve the right to review, and cancel, if necessary, any contract which is entered into between the Little Rock School District and any management service contractor, unless said contract is let tor bids after the discussion process has been followed which involves the Joshua intervenors. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, PA 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 (501)374-3758 in W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 2:5ATg OP SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy cf the foregoing pii forwarded to ail counsel of record, by il.S. Mail, post^ prepaid, on this August, 1995. was y of 3 I -\u0026gt;i iiefji Assemnlv 193 3 ACl 01 100'5 ft 1 1995 Ottice oi Desesf^ataxi Moniiorina \\V A 1 t 3 KI 1 ) b a 3 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19- 20 t 23 24 -w act to B'cqOIRE THE SOUCITIX OF BIOS I?-a* COMOITY TO BE SCKOOt DIBTB^CT HAScM.ESTlHATEO PUKCE.XSE PEtCE ? .CHASSD 3Y A r.ruS'S.\" 3- n iNACTED 3Y THf : assz-sly Q7 i.T : s  43 F aRK.i2\u0026lt;S/iS : ION 1. Definition. Board of Directors (A) \"Purchasing Off of any school dist icC or a la' 13i\" shall near. .'.a lly designated age of the school district with authority to contract or behalf of the school district. . (3) \"Commodities\" shall laean aake purcha.ses all supplies\", goods, MCerial, equip- , meet, machinery, facilities, personal property, and services, other than and pr^ssional se^ces school district. , purchased for or on behalf of the (0) Purchase Price\" shall nean Che full sale or bid price 0 --ponuBod-iy,  , without any allowance for trade-in. 'Purchase\" shall mean and include not only the outright purcnase of a conmodicy whe the but also the acquisition of commodities under rental-purchas or lease-purchase agreements or any other type of agreements rental payments on the purchase price thereot. by a. () 'Open Market Purchases\" shall mean ,os purchases or c\njdi ties /y purchasing SECTION 2. official in which competitiv All purclunses - bidding is not required qS commodities by any school district. 26 27 23-  :o' except those spccifiea lly exempted by Section 3, shall be made as folic' I I (A) In each instance In which Che estiaaeed pu- ^.-ba8e price shall erj^- cvo-chgus.ind-dollars ($2,000) thif commodity shall be procured : \u0026lt;rnHcitiirr- bids'. orowided c.bat the purc.bas 'J rus/ and rs u the by r.egcz a irtg a co.icracc. zejecz * Z-*-e T 1 rJ I 'T J pp I 6\n: (}  1 I !2 13 14 15 a. t Pv t.Jf.V  i I 16 .n\nj7 i Ivbx. cl-.nr ' n ch- into i r vs L r T vitho-dt solicit and unavoidable cxi be aoproyedj by ths att.nrhcd o the IT*.,-- i  l purcha.^e df jsuc.h t. (2) toi 1'. a 1? iii t, C: dcJiar# ($2,000). P CSC* xoeh \u0026gt;.1^ the pur n s-tt tc rbv hereinafter listed co-raaoditics  bid.s: r.ency. S C (A) Comnioditics i Provided, ' ths superintende r.stancss of r.o S'. h crser u rsscer. '.cy purchase s\n. c, unless a statenen: in writ chose order deocribinr. he et seniy ncce rodity without cosnrtifivc biddinf. s available onlv fro.-a the fedcial Rover : sh in\" t by 182 r 12 ^23 sc: pt\" r-S 24 :b*' 1.0$. (c).Siuciirc: state sgaoc\n. (D) Usetd. 071 S-Ssl' a4 1   II . isorvices,-the rates ' for wiiich or a\"federal regulatory agency ar.d :::acnineii.  subj co r h -Tlie Doa'rd'of Directors'of each school district shall pre ibe--che'\"nieclioc of soliciting bids by regulation and aay adept other 4' .riles.and rcgula \u0026gt;26' .1. ons governins the procurenent of corrxodities. SEC^XzSSy^AJyl olaf i?n%\norr 'che^pcevisi6hs\\_ofTthis'Act shall be a .if I .29 * :i^-sjceanor '.S' ' '' -1 - ' . .w * SECTION 6, 1 - 30 Uiercfiy'Trepcalcd . ' k. V*  3 J 32 33 3r a- 11 laws and parts of'laws in conflict with this Act art .a n   tirfS- : n * /s/ Oobbtj Tullis f -V-' 3 3jAPPR0VED VS rG.Or.V-AEaRNNO'iaR -2- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS . NO. LR-C-82^^0g|V'^^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS SEP 8 1995 MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSDS RESPONSE TO JOSHUA INTERVENORS MOTION TO ENJOIN THE LRSD FROM ENTERING INTO A SERVICE CONTRACT WITHOUT FOLLOWING BIDDING PROCEDURES. REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION AND WITHOUT PRIOR INVOLVEMENT OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS (\"LRSD\" The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District or \"District\") , for its Response to Joshua Intezrvenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests for Information and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states: The LRSD denies the allegations made by the Joshua Intervenors in their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests 1. for Inf ozmiation and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors. 2 . The LRSD does hereby assert that this Court hold the Joshua Intex-zenors to strict proof of each and evezry allegation made by them in their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD regarding the \u0026lt;lara\\pcud/en)oi n.res -1-proposed entry into a management service contract regarding custodial and maintenance services. 3 . As of this response, the LRSD has not yet entered into any contract with any entity to provide managerial services for custodial and maintenance services. However, the board of directors of the District, on Thursday, August 31, 1995, did vote to authorize the administration of the District to negotiate terms and conditions of such a contract and to enter into the contract upon the completion of those negotiations. 4 . The Joshua Intervenors have stated no basis to permit discovery and the request to review a contract negotiated and entered into in the day-to-day operation of the District is unprecedented and without support in the law of this case or other controlling authority. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District respectfully requests that this Court deny the Joshua Intervenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD From Entering Into a Service Contract and award the District all of the legal and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry L. Malone {Bar No. I. D. 85096) dianavpcssd/enjoin.res -2-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing LRSD's Response to Joshua Intervenors Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from Entering Into a Service Contract Without Following Bidding Procedures, Requests for Information and Without Prior Involvement of the Joshua Intervenors has been served by U. S. '7^ Mail, postage prepaid, on September J_, 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 Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Jiana\\ocss\u0026lt;l/en)oin.ra -3-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 September 22, 1995 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Fred L. Smith, Manager, Support Services THROUGH: Henry P. Williams, Superintendent SUBJECT: Proposed Agreement with ServiceMaster the District and the proposed agreement between comments, please call Attached is . . ServiceMaster. Should you have any questions or me at 324-2009.management services agreement , 199 5 , by and Liule Rock school Dlsrrict. (me -School ) WITNESSETH: RECITALS\noperates various departments A. which provide services in support of the that the B. i. is -- vSTa ci Xrnvtament for sodenu, suff and public and that d,= materials, supplies and equipment used by^such^employees m . be well trained and managed to C. D. materials, supplies in the discharge of their responsibilities he of the oroper quality and quanuty\n School that ServiceMaster has extensive faculties and in providmg certam of the i------- materials and supplies needed by such departments\nThe School wishes to certain of its support departments and management services for the School. obtain the management services of ServiceMaster for ServiceMaster desires to provide such NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the terms and conditions set forth below the parties agree as follows: 1. INTRODUCTION TheSchool hereby retains ServiceMaster as e ,,eeXiv^^SSS^ces'2:X\\se^tlon2andtonulma,a^^^^^ .he school agrees to pay The School the for the efficient performance of such managemem the consideration therefor C provided in section 6\nand ServiceMaster accepts as piuviutu ______ rnakp available such employment and responsibilities and equipment, all as set forth herein. bv ServiceMaster. The prograin of 1 -2 Information Provided hvU^der h^^^v^^lnped based on management services which ServiceMas r independent on-site survey and investigation iufor^dou provided by me \u0026amp;hoo and u^^^^ ,nd mmrviews ^b _____ImaaAXactfar 30 inSDCCtlOn 0l DUUUlUg, ^,4 has been developed based on bv ServiceMaster, an inspection DY OCl V IVCivxttJvw*., r administrators, principals and suff of schoo . 2. SERVICES . ServiceMaster agrees to train, manage and direct die Schoorlemp^S^seSarunents of School hlch are idendried tn secuon Agreement Page 1and direction together with 3.2 below (the .-Service Such \u0026lt;mlmn^^ X  and deUiont .of d. Physi^-- the i^ the administrative services related thereto (the \"Management ServiceMaster in the context of ServiceMasters duties of Servce Employees Agreemen. b, descriptions and duties------ , as are set forth in the Exhibits attached hereto and reference. (b) The Management Services shall be provided to those departments for which an Exhibit number appears in the following table\nDepartment Support Services Function Exhibit Custodial Plant Operations and Maintenance Grounds Grounds Equipment A A A B ServiceMaster agrees that it will perform ^1 the etnploymeX^u Service Employees by the school as directed by die Seto bT \"L\" Rnlafed Administrative Services. ^ch relate to the employment records and furnishing to the School the data from regular payroll for the Servicw Employees should the School so desire gxnense provide and maintain all 2.3 10.111101 Material^. Service-Master will, at   ' daUy work and project Management Service related traimng equipment,^ manuals used to train the schedules, indices, standard opetano^ PX- ,tooronetty of ServiceMaster. schedules, indices . such materials sh^ _at^^_t^- at its sole expense, ruQuired for the lawful renderins\nofj^^Mmgeto Service Employees. -------- 2.4 Permits and Licenses: Compliance with Laiv all licenses and permits which are i _ procure Services and are applicable to ServiceMaster agrees to comply with aU statutes the conduct of its services and sales hereunder . , ordinances and regulations which 2.5 Costs operating costs (a) ServiceMaster shall pay all direct The term \"direct To Be .Ahso^^^d bv ServiceMaster. htcuned ,^.n wi^ the athibuuble m the costs as used in the preceding sentence jjgt mciuuc uiuac of e Manageniem Semces^^^^^ foUowirig\nd m below, me lenu contributions (i.e., worker s y. -1-: . -3, benefits -d employment-ml^^^^^ (U) aU taxes compensation, unemployment,\nXr\\ocIu^^^^^^ connec^on wi e provision and fees currently unposed by fede^, suk^or loca^au _ of the Management Services, and (in) tra g costs which are to (b) The followmg costs are not direct p zn wages and. all related, payroll be paid by ServiceMaster as provided m costs or contributions (includm mxLof^tviceEmployeclothing cu^ndy operating costs does not include those provision \u0026lt; items listed in paragraph (b) below costs: (i) salaries, taxes in connection with the provision taxes or ocivius. uniforms or other special ciuuuub all to (.btomnance expenses for equipment owned by *e School provided to Agreement Page 2which is made available to ServiceMaster as provided in Section 5\n(iv) repair and maintenance Section 10\n(v) materials and supplies nf fhp snace orovided to ServiceMaster pursuant to  ... P -  (vi) payroll and employment forms and documents (such as time pursuant to Section 4,2(d)\nand, cards, time sheets, application forms, evaluation forms, etc). 3. PERSONNEL . , ServiceMaster Personnel, (a) ServiceMaster agrees 3.1 to furnish no less than five (5) coordinatmg managemem blSb^ shall be a coordinating manager, who shall be ServiceMaster s wi.h the performance of ServiceMaarers powers daues proper performance One of such persons and duties under ^^bUraddition to me management personnel. ServiceMaster will famish all necess^ (b) In addition to p,jects personnel as required for the supervisory, training and efficient performance of the Management Services. emnlovees of fc) All of the personnel described in paragraphs (a) and (b) will be employees or federal, sure or local sumte in connection wi eir employment. (d) If any ServiceMaster management, supervisory, personnel are not acceptable to training, technical or special projects 'ieJuperintendent of e Schoofor his or her designee, such of such personnel. Upon the receipt by reXSerTsucharrZ(5ervT^^^^^^ will provide w.thin Employees on dre dam of dais to be employees of the School as opposed to 3.2 .School Personnel, (a) All persons who were Agreement shall continue ServiceMaster and all persons employed by School as shall be employees of the School. All such persons a reasonable time a Service Employees after e date of this are subject to discipline, job Agreement shall be employees o uxc ovixuvu polices procedures, stamtes action and discharge by the School pursuant to applicable practices, polices, p and oer laws. (b) ServiceMaster shall not be regarded as a party to or agreements to which the School was or becomes a party any collective bargaining agreement ServiceMaster will, upon request by me school, SsX^eXMas:\nagrees established policies and procedures. cprvice Emnlovees and the School (d) The School shall pay all wages and salanes of the Service Employees anu shall pi all payroll and other taxes, fees, and other =^g!Vc^'^nlovees r.^. or'fmml Stamms relating to the employment of Ifa^loyees injured levied or required by, federal, state or local statutes relating to shaU pay all workers compensation insurance. Any claims . The SchoolWhile working under die dhection and supeivision of ServiceMaster shaU be handled by to . School. (e) The School agrees to furnish to ServiceMaster, upon request, certificates of u^rance evidence of the proper employee insurance coverage lo, the Seri ice Employees and Ser^IcXter agreesm furnish to School certiflcams of insurance as as to furnish to insurance coverage for evidence of proper employee insurance coverage for the employees of ServiceMaster, including, but not limited to. workers compensation insurance. 4. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 4.1 7rUe olthis Section. This Section 4 aUocates the respoi^ibilities of the parties for  and supplies which are requued in t---------- . the furnishing of the materials performance of the Management feXX colinon sePfonh in parugrHph (a) toeof is not connection with the sub-section to dus Section 4 is noc apptable satisfied, the sub-section shall be considered as deleted from to ^..^le only if the Management Services 4.2 Custodial, (a) This Secuon .- ph schools custodial department. to be provided hereunder include services wi reexpendable supplies referred   Ld:srn^d:dtc*\" SeXTSSaSe To to Ssmdi^ Depawhent is toiuded materials tjiis paragraph (b) are owned as of the appi.....w CprviceMaster oursuant to tjus paragrapn to\nand upon .nnination of to Agreement any inventory of and supplies shall be delivered to School. unused materials and supplies snail oe ucuvc... - . _ ?,^^^l^L.^\"TXMaster a Certficate of Tax Exemption upon e taxes, the School shall furnish to ServiceMaster a commencement of the Management Services. School agrees to provide, at its own expense (d) , the expendable supplies, as such may be defmed by agreement 0 sIZmss eiand Uhil, required drcounecdouwidithe ope ot SKViceMasBi ____ ,0) of the Schools Custodial department. towels, deodorants, washroom soap. Such expendable supplies include (but are nlastic container liners, and paint. toilet tissue, paper towels, aeoaorauu, waoxa....- \u0026gt; section 4 ' ' \" ' 4 T, Plant Operations and Maintenance., (a) This ion 4.3 shall be applicable only if the Management Services to be provided hereunder include services with respect to Schools plant operations and maintenance. its own expense, all plant operations and maintenance \" (b) The School shall provide, at its own expense, ai up...---------- supplies, materials, repair parts, oily if the Management Services 4.4 Ground, (a) This section 4.4 shall department. to be provided hereunder mclude services supplies, materials, repair (b) The School shall provide, at its own expense, an grounu^ pp (b) parts, and purchased services. owned by ServiceMaster 5. equipment ServiceMaster AU equipment now ServiceMas^ 5.1 Equipment Provided by Serviceiviaster. \\j\ncervices (including computer and used in connection with the tende^ o e am ServiceMaster shall be hardware and software) shall remam to property of ServiceMaster. Agreement Page 4responsible for the repair, maintenance and replacement of such equipment, at no additional cost to the School. This section 5.2 shall be \u0026gt; \"7 Pniiinment Provided bv the School. Custodial. ( ) applicable'oiif if the Management Services to be providS hereunder include services 5.2 Equipment (b)hoolS\"rSkXta^^^^^ use by ServiceMaster the =quipm owr^by die school and used in the custodial the shall remain the property of e ^erv.^ maintenance of the equipment. cKrndial denartment shall be provided and ^^u^^SVs^'SeMSS ^Threost of such additional or replacement equipment has been mamumed by ServiceMaster, rue e hv \u0026lt;berviceMaster oursuant to this h(bns XTby teshool S'ditional amounts to (e paid m ServiceMaster rdJ^Xio7Xs%reem^^^^^^^^ Equipment purchased hereunder shall e ^0 c^rviceMaster the unamortized book value exceed five years. School is not obligated to pay  not S Sc^S'XTaSte^a^yTay\" by ServiceMaster the equipment owned by purchased by ServiceMaster pursuant rather than to ServiceMaster. . 5 t rniiiriiir? - Bv P' Ooeranota secticnk^S sgS^SSS^ and Maintenance, (a) This the Schools plant operations and maintenance. services with respect to the School s piam operjuvw operations and -rh Qz'hnn! aarees to oemut ServiceMaster to utuize me prcsciu piau*- k- (b) The School agrees to p^t equipment in an operanve, maintenance service equipment. The School a rees mai mainuin such equipment in an operative, of additional or replacement maintenance service equipment. Thiq section 5 4 shall be operable, workable and safe School shall maintain such equipment, at its expose in^^Zquipntent condition. The School shall be respoi^ible, at i^ (including replacement parts). ServiceMaster P paid in fiiU, date of this Agreement, grounds equipment, *p P described in Exhibit B. The equipment so ServiceMaster at the termination of -T-n____i qmniinK to be paid to servicciviaaiti \u0026lt;. of its purchase this Agreement being The only additional amounts to be paid to----- the unamortized book value of said equipment. . - - its useful life, not to exceed tive years. Equipment purchased hereunder stall be amortaed by ru^Xolr value of any equipment School Is not Obligated to pay to J\" equipment not desiied by School School does not desire  ServiceMaster has not paid the complete shall be transferred to berviceiviasLci. Agreement Page 5amount owed on the additional equipment at the time the Agreement is terminated, the School may make any payments pursuant to this sub-section directly to the entity owed, rather than to ServiceMaster. 6. COMPENSATION 6.1 Schools Agreement to Pav Contract Amount. In consideration of the performance by Service.Master of the Management Services and in consideration of the transfer of the materials and supplies by Service.Master to the School in connection with the performance of the Manaaement Services, the School agrees to pay to ServiceMaster, at the times set forth in section 6.3, the Contract Amount as set forth in section 6.2. 6 Contract Amount. Subject to adjustment as provided in subsequent sections of this Section 6 the Contract ^Amount shall be S98.659.00 per mon. If the Management Services commence on a dav other than the first day of a month, or if the Management Services terminate dav other than the last day of a month, the Contract .Amount for the first or the last month on 3. dav other than the last nay or a muiiui. me vuuudvi Amuuuu tvi wx  shall be prorated on the basis of the number of days within such first or last month on which Management Services were provided. It is agreed that of the SI. 183.908 to be paid annually^ to ServiceMaster pursuant to this Agreement, ServiceMaster will meur not less than an average for materials, supplies and equipment to be used in its of S329,347 expense per year for matenals, supplies ana equipment lu uc uocu m performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and title to such material, supplies and equipment will be solely in the name of School. On or before each annual anniversary date of this Aareement, ServiceMaster shall provide invoices. contracts or other written documenution satisfactory to School evidencing that at least an average of 3329,3^1 has been expensed by ServiceMaster toward the purchase of materials, supplies and equipment. 6.3 'payments of the Contract .Mnount. (a) Commencing on October 15, 1995, and on the fifteenth of each month thereafter, the School shall pay to ServiceMaster the Contract Amount. . . , (b) If any payment of the Contract Amount is not paid in full withm fineen days or the due date, the unpaid portion shall bear interest at e highest rate allowed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. Further, School shall pay all costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Service.Master (not to exceed 10% of the amount awarded) in collecting amounts due to ServiceMaster from the School. 6.4 Adjustment of the Contract .Amount: Base Wage Increase. On each anniversary of the commencement of services hereunder, the Contract Amount (excluding custodial and pounds capital equipment, computerization and vehicles) shall be increased by die percenta.ge mcrease that the base, waae rate of the Service EmnloveeTot School have mcreased for the previous _ twelve (12) month period not to exceed 2.5%in any given year. Base wage rate is Qefmed as the rate otcompensauon paid to service employees wmch shall include the annual raise approved or authorized for the Service Employees of School. This amount does not mclude any annual step increase or increment given for an additional year of service with the School. 6.5 Adjustment of the Contract Amount: Change in Services. The Contract A^unt has been established on the basis of the area, job descriptions and specific dunes descnbedm e Exhibits. If the total amount of area or the job descriptions or the dunes to be pertormea by ServiceMaster or the Service Employees is enlarged, reduced or altered m any shall be an increase or decrease, as the case may be, in the Contract Amount. Such adjustment Agreement Page 6 shall be effective with the first payment to be made immediately following such increase, reduction or alteration. In connection therewith, ServiceMaster and School shall negotiate in good faith and mutually agree upon any enlargement, reduction or alteration of the contract, amount. 6.6 ServiceMaster Guarantee. ServiceMaster guarantees that the Schools costs to perform services for the custodial, maintenance and grounds departments as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, including ServiceMaster annual fees, during each year of this agreement, shall not exceed the amount reflected in the applicable portions of the School s 1995-96 fiscal year budget for such period as reflected in Exhibit C. Should any payment to ServiceMaster for services provided cause School to exceed the budget as adjusted for fiscal year 1995-96, ServiceMaster agrees that the School shall not be obligated to make any payment(s) to ServiceMaster which would cause the School to exceed the amount reflected in the applicable Rather, the schools liability to portions of the Schools 1995-96 fiscal year budget. ServiceMaster for any remaining amounts owed pursuant to Section 6 would terminate, except to the extent hereinafter provided. As such, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster the total annual amount reflected in paragraph 6.2. However, should the School realize sufficient savinss in the applicable portions of the Schools budget such that the amounts for the 1995-96 school year is less an or equal to the applicable portions of the adjusted budget for the 1995-96 fiscal year, including the amount owed to ServiceMaster, the School shall pay ServiceMaster any remaining amounts owed under paragraph 6.2. It being the intent of the parties that the School shall not incur costs and expenses, including the amounts paid to ServiceMaster, in the applicable portions of the School s budget relating to maintenance and plant operations which would cause the School to exceed the amount budgeted for that area during the 1995-96 fiscal year. For instance, the Schools 1995-96 budget for custodians, mainrenancs and related matters is $10,779,986.00. The ServiceMaster projection for 1995-96 for these same arsas, including the annual amount in paragraph 6.2, total $10,621,136.00. If those projections are achieved, ServiceMaster would receive the compensation as provided by  ? this Agreement, assuming all other terms and conditions are met. Should the projections not be achieved, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster, to the extent the payment(s) would cause the School to exceed the $10,779,986.00 budgeted amount for the 1995-96 fiscal year as pro-rated for the nine (9) months of the shortened initial year. In subsequent years, the School would not be obligated to pay ServiceMaster, to the extent the payments would cause the School to exceed the baseline amount as adjusted pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. To get the pro-rated baseline and actual amounts for the 1995-96 fiscal year, ServiceMaster and the School shall negotiate and mutually agree in writing within forty (40) calendar days after the October 2, 1995 commencement date. Management fees and amounts to be expended by ServiceMaster on equipment and supplies during the initial year will also need to be pro-rated, as necessary. Likewise, if the operational costs, exclusive of the amounts owed to ServiceMaster, exceed $9,596,086.00 ($10,779,986.00 minus $1,183,908.00), ServiceMaster must refund to the School, dollar for dollar, all such amounts already paid to Service Master which would cause the School to exceed the 1995-96 budgeted amount ($10,779,986.00). However, in no event would ServiceMaster be obligated to refund more than the management fee for the particular year (i.e., $854,561, which will be subject to proration during the initial year.) For example. Agreement Page 7 should the operational costs, exclusive of the amounts owed to ServiceMaster reach SIO.300,000 during the school year and the School has already paid ServiceMaster S640.917 (571,213 x 9), the total in this category so far would be 510,940,917. This exceeds the budgeted amount by 5160,931.00. As such, ServiceMaster would be required to refund 5160,931.00 to the School and not receive any payments remaining (571,213 x 3 = 5213,639), to honor its guarantee to the School. This same guarantee would apply for each year of this agreement, using the schools 1995-96 budgeted amount as the baseline. However, following the 1995-96 fiscal year, the wage and benefit portion of the baseline will increase each year by the base wage rate as defined in paragraph 6.4 plus any annual step increase or increment given for an additional year of service with the School. Likewise, the remaining portion including supplies, purchased services and utilities will increase each year by 1.5%.The amounts not paid from year-to-year, for which the School is not liable, may be determined by the School and ServiceMaster and recorded in a log. Thereafter, should the operational costs for the applicable portions of the Schools budget, including the amounts paid to ServiceMaster for the year in consideration, achieve sufficient savings (after all required services, supplies, equipment and other school needs for the year in question have been met), the School may pay Service.Master a portion of the amounts reflected in the log, but only to the extent such payment(s) (after determining the acnial expenditures for the year in question, including payments to ServiceMaster for the year in question) would not cause the School to exceed the applicable portions of the.baseline. Should such savings never be achieved during the term of this Agreement, the School would have no liability whatsoever to ServiceMaster for the amounts reflected in the log. Should ServiceMaster deem it necessary to request that certain expenditures be removed\nood faith, and mutually or adjusted to arrive at the actual expenditures for a particular year of this Agreement, upon request by ServiceMaster, ServiceMaster and School shall negotiate in g' agree upon any such adjustments. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, including the possibility that ServiceMaster may either receive less than full payment of the amounts reflected in paragraph 6.2 during one or more years of this Agreement or that ServiceMaster may have to refund monies to the School should sufficient savings not be achieved, ServiceMasters obligation to perform management services shall not be reduced, abated or otherwise relieved as such constimtes a portion of the guarantee made by ServiceMaster to the School. No party shall have any liability to the other hereunder by reason of any delay or failure to perform any obligation or covenant including ServiceMaster guarantee if the delay or failure to perform is occasioned by force majeure, meaning any act of God, storm, fire, casualty, work stoppage, strike, lockout, civil disturbance, riot, war, national emergency, act of government, ' act of public enemy, or other cause of similar or dissimilar nature beyond its control. 7.1 7. INDEMNIFICATION . . 7.1 Tn.surance and Indemnification of the School. ServiceMaster agrees to indemnify and hold the School and its School board members, officers and employees harmless from any liabUity imposed against the School by reason of the negligent acts or omissions of ServiceMaster or its employees. ServiceMaster shall, at its sole expense, obtain and keep m force during the term of this Agreement, a policy of comprehensive public liability insurance Agreement Page 8 insuring ServiceMaster and School against any liability arising out of the negligent acts or omissions of ServiceMaster or its agents, representatives or employees. Such insurance shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000.00 for injury to or death of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $20,000,000.00 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence. Such insurance shall further insure ServiceMaster and the School against liability for property damage of at least $20,000,000.00. The limits of said insurance shall not, however, limit the liability of ServiceMaster hereunder. If ServiceMaster shall fail to procure and maintain said insurance School may, but shall not be required to, procure and maintain the same, but at the expense of ServiceMaster. Indemnification of ServiceMaster. 7.2 The School shall indemnify and hold ServiceMaster and its parmers, directors, officers and employees harmless from any liability imposed against ServiceMaster by reason of the negligent acts or omissions of the School or its employees to the extent that the School is covered by insurance and to the extent that such is permitted by applicable law. Such insurance shall be in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 for injury to or death of one person in any one accident or occurrence and in an amount of not less than $3,000,000 for injury to or death of more than one person in any one accident or occurrence. Further, the school does not, by so agreeing, intend to waive any immunity or other defense to which it may be entitled. Therefore, to the extent such an agreement would jeopardize or otherwise interfere with the Schools immunity and other defenses, such indemnity provision becomes null and void. 7.3 Indemnification Regarding Asbestos. The School acknowledges its obligation to identify the presence, if any, of asbestos material on the Schools premises and its responsibility to appoint the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) \"Designated Person.\" ServiceMaster agrees to provide assistance to the School in the form of: (i) support service employee education and training material when ServiceMaster is responsible to train, manage and direct said employees\n(ii) guidance in the form of Standard Operating Procedures for small- scale, short-duration operation and maintenance activities as defined by AHERA\nand (iii) other support as determined by ServiceMaster to aid the School in its AHERA-related activities. School agrees that under no circumstance shall a ServiceMaster employee be or act in the capacity of the \"Designated Person.\" School also acknowledges that ServiceMaster has no obligation hereunder to identify or take corrective action by removing or containing asbestos fibers for other than small-scale, short-duration operations and maintenance activities as defined by AHERA, nor does ServiceMaster have any duty to mitigate the hazards from exposure to asbestos fibers. The School agrees to indemnify and hold ServiceMaster harmless from any liability imposed against ServiceMaster, including costs and reasonable attorneys fees (not to exceed 10% of the amount awarded), by reason of the presence of asbestos material on the Schools premises or for any actions done or failed to be done by ServiceMaster while acting on Schools behalf related to AHERA. (This indemnity agreement is subject to the conditions, restrictions and limitations in paragraph 7.2.) 8. AGREEMENTS CONCERNING EMPLOYEES OF A PARTY 8.1 Agreements. At no time during the term of this Agreement and for a period of one year thereafter will either of the parties call upon any employee of the other party or persons who were employees of the other within the then previous twelve months, to employ, hire or Agreement Page 9 otherwise interfere with the contracmal relationships of such employees, without the prior written approval of the other party\nnor will either party directly or indirectly, for itself or on behalf of or in connection with, any other person, firm, parmership, corporation, association or School, solicit, hire, employ or take away any such employee from the other party. The parties agree that this provision is for the protection of their respective legitimate business interests and is not intended to restrict the employment rights of individuals. 8.2 Remedies for Breach. If either party breaches the above covenant, the offended party shall have e right to apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for an injunction to restrain the offending party from employing such employee and for an order to enforce the terms of this section so breached, and the offending party shall be liable to the offended party for all reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses incurred by it to enforce the covenant. 9. TERM 9.1 Terms. The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of five years commencing on October 2, 1995. 10. SPACE AND OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED BY THE SCHOOL 10.1 Space and Utilities. The School shall provide ServiceMaster with reasonable offices, storage space and facilities on the Schools premises from which ServiceMaster will conduct the Management Services. Such offices and storage space shall be under the operational control of ServiceMaster. The provision of such space shall include all utilities (including water, sewer, electricity and local telephone service). Such space, local facilities and utilities shall be provided without cost to ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster will insure its interest in any property owned by it located on or about the office and storage space provided to ServiceMaster. ServiceMaster shall vacate the office and storage space upon termination of this Agreement. 11. MONTHLY JOINT REVIEW 11-1 Joint Review Committee. The parties shall form a Joint Review Committee consisting of at least two persons from the School and two persons from ServiceMaster. The Joint Review Committee will meet on a monthly basis for the purpose of reviewing ServiceMasters performance with respect to the Management Services and generally to review the results of operations under this Agreement in comparison with the expectations of e parties. 12. TERMINATION FOR NON-PERFORMANCE 12.1 Notice of Non-Performance\nGrace Period: Termination. If one party (the \"Offended Party\") considers the other party (the \"Offending Party\") to have not performed one or more of its obligations hereunder, the Offended Party shall give the Offending Party a written notice which shall specify the nature of the alleged non-performance. The Offending Party shall then have sixty days from the receipt of such notice to remedy the alleged non-performance. If, at the end of such sixty-day period, the Offended Party considers the alleged non performance not to have been cured, the Offended Party may thereupon terminate this Agreement by giving the Offending Party a written notice of termination and, at the expiration of the thirtieth day following the delivery of such notice, the Offended Party shall be relieved from the further performance of its obligations hereunder. The parties understand and agree that the foregoing Agreement Page 1030-day period is to allow for an orderly transition from the Management Services as provided hereunder to an alternative service mechanism. 12.2 Termination by ServiceMaster Based on the Schools Failure to Pav the Net Amount Due. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.1 and 6.3(b), ServiceMaster may terminate this Agreement upon ten days prior written notice if the School fails or refuses to pay ServiceMaster in accordance with e provisions of Sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3(a) or 6.6. 12.3 Relationship to Section 8.2. This Section 12 shall not affect the covenants and remedies for breach thereof which are set forth in Section 8. 13. NOTICES 13.1 Form of Notice and Delivery. Any notice required or permitted under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered by certified or registered mail, wi proper postage prepaid If to ServiceMaster, to\nServiceMaster Management Services L.P. ServiceMaster Education Management Services One ServiceMaster Way Downers Grove, IL 60515 Atm: President If to the School, to\nLittle Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Attn: Superintendent In the event the date of actual receipt of any notice is not recorded, notices shall be deemed to have been received on the third day after post. 14. GENERAL PROVISIONS 14.1 Appropriation of Funds. In the event sufficient funds shall not be appropriated or made available for the funding of operations of e School and School has no funds legally available for the payments due hereunder from other sources, School and ServiceMaster shall review the services provided hereunder and the Contract Amount, in keeping with the then proportionate amount of appropriated funds for the services hereunder, and determine the level of services which can be performed and the method of delivery of such services to School within the level of appropriated funds. In the event ServiceMaster is not able to modify its program to meet the funds appropriated, either party may terminate this Agreement upon giving to the other thirty days prior written notice. 14.2 Severability. If a court holds any part, term or provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the parties shall be construed and enforced as if this Agreement did not contain the particular part, term or provision. Agreement Page 1114.3 Headings. The headings which appear in this Agreement have been inserted for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. They are not intended to, and shall not be deemed to. define, limit or extend the scope or intent of any provision hereof. 14.4 Entire A.greement. This Agreement (including Exhibits A, B, C and D as well as the Schools Business Case dated August 24, 1995, all of which are incorporated herein by reference as if included word-for-word) has been negotiated and prepared by and for the parties equally and shall not be construed as having been drafted by one party. When fully executed, it shall supersede any and all prior and existing. Agreements between the parties, either oral or in writing. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto wi respect to the subject matter hereof. 14.5 Amendments. Other than for amendments as provided in Section 6.4, any amendment or modification of this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by the parties. 14.6 Management Service (\"Exhibit D\\ A proposal detailing ServiceMaster Management Services has been submined. The said proposal becomes a part of this agreement and is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 14.7 Assignments. This Agreement is not assignable by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 14.8 Choice of Law and Jurisdiction. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Arkansas. The parties agree to submit to e jurisdiction of the courts within the State of Arkansas. 14.9 Attorneys Fees. Except as oerwise specifically provided herein, in any action brought in law or in equity based on this Agreement, each party shall be responsible for its own costs and attorneys fees. 14.10 Non-Waiver. No waiver of any default will be construed to be or constitute a waiver of any subsequent defaults. 14.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be a separate document but all of which constitute one and e same instrument. 14.12 Pending Litigation. Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al., No. LR-C-82-866. Service Master does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out of or in any way relating, directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the Schools liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. Agreement Page 12IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year above written. VICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES oited Partnership iceMaster Management Services, Inc., General Parmer ration Management Services,-Genefal Piutun ATTEST tn L. ,an, President Assistant ^Secretary J FLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTEST By: Agreement Page 13 j I -  N -zV.: ' ?*' I -'k-a \u0026gt; I 2539-120 1199-140 FUND 12-2542-120 2542-120 i-'- J 2542-12) 2541-120 2648-120 . i 210+240 ABOVE EUNCPONS i| 400,500,600 OBJECTS 2641.2,4,5 8 FUND 12 SALARIES VO TECH SUBS MAGNET CUST SUBTOTAL MAINT SER AREA ASB SUBTOTAL TOTAL Sal BENEFITS TOTAL LABOR SUPPLIES CUST MAINT MAGNET total SERVICE MAS^ER 38,500.00 2,070.570.00 2,109.070.00 1,330.243.00 59.426.00 1,383.669.00 3.498,739.00 524,611.00 4.023.550.00 109.259.00 480.575.00 15,000.00 604,634.00 300 OBJECf'S 254),2,4,5 EXCEPT 321-323 PORCH SER 603,159.00  y ACTUAL 92/93 ACTUAL 93.'94 actual 94795 BUDGET 95/96 FUND 12 2542-322 2642-321 2542-323 UTILITIES MAG.NET ELECT GAS WATER TOTAL 2.734,075.00 695.425.00 189.150.00 3.618.650.00 SER MASTER 1 J83,90? ')' A granc total 10.034,101.00 88.836,24 234,152.52 335,694.82 2.478.062.48 3,136.895.86 1.167.691.67 240.065.11 70,950.0-' 1.478.706.79 4,615,602.65 772,168.72 5,387,771-37 73,894.57 214,602.38 360,957.42 2.596,523.16 3,245,977.53 1,098.482.35 205.943.88 46.375.69 1,351,401.92 4.597,379.45 686.91272 5,284,292.17 79,809.80 212,697.87 351,306.97 2,536,386,27 3,ie{),200.9l 1,095,302.11 200,742.96 54,635.05 1,350,630.14 4,530,881.06 672,824.34 5.203.705.39 85,149.00 200.000.00 ' 372.934.00 2,661,168.75 3,219.261.75 1.109,338.00 175,750.00 55,115.43 i ,S40.203.43 4,559.455.18 720,591.26 '5,280,046.44 \u0026lt; ( f. ~  . \u0026gt;I ' 230,287.22 5,008.90 235,296,12 222.016.52 0.05 222,016.52 364.98223 17,460.10 382.442.33 198,541.00 15.000. CO 213,641.00 r, r 693,329-20 981,615.29 991,931.86 1,035,999.00 507,373.00 5,232,084.12 ^*,209.77 1 3.82 3.46 J 10-71 9.78C 337.40 598,876.00 2,766,666.00 642,959.98 227,539.97 4.286,030.95 529,201.00 2,443,097.45 482,255.81 230,574.64 3.685,128.90 576,335.00 2.791.665.00 698,200.00 184,100.00 4,250.300.00 10.723,954.93 10.263,208.48 ia\n779.986.44^ ) f OCT 2 6 1995 Office Of Desegregaccn moe: John w. Walker, pa. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Ltitle Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. October 24, 1995 Mr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: I would like to depose the following persons beginning at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon: Dr. Mr. Mr, Ms. Henry Williams Fred Smith Charlie Neal Linda Pondexter Ms. Judy Magness Mr. John Riggs Dr. Katherine Mitchell Each of the depositions should be relatively brief and will be focused upon the Servicemaster contract in anticipation of the Saturday hearing. If you do not agree, please let me know so that I may ask for an order from the Court requiring it. Ve: truly yours, ohn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Dr. Mr. Ms. Henry Williams Jerry Malone Ann BrownFSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 5 1 1995 JAMt^ W. il^cCOfiMACK, CLERK DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS MRS. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On October 28, 1995, the Court conducted a hearing on a motion by the Joshua Intervenors to prevent Little Rock School District from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster. The evidence was not completed, and the hearing on this issue is now scheduled to continue on Friday, December 8, 1995, at 9:00 a.ra. IT IS SO ORDERED this I day of October, 1995. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT3 United States District Judge PHIS DOCUMEMT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 79(al FRCP ON _ 25 5 2 I I i  i 1RECSs\" S NOV 1995 Oice oi DeseyiC'aauon MOiiitCi OlJ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED district COURT eastern district ARKANSAS NOV 2 1995 OEP CURK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Plaintiff, vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. Defendants, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. V'- Intervenors, KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Intervenors. * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * LR-C\n82-866 Tr, MWWKZI W\u0026lt; ORDER With the Courts ruling from the bench during a heai ing on October 28, 1995, ServiceMaster Companys motion for leave to intervene (docket entry # 2547) is hereby granted. DATED this 1st day of November 1995. 'JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCEWITHRULE58 AND/OR79(a) FRCP ON BY 4 2 551 1.430/ 1 995 17:18 FROM JOHN W.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 02 1 X IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT-. CCf^, EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIAZNTXFF VS, NO. LR\u0026lt;-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTER KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS Ths Plaintiff, SETTLEMENT Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") or (\"District\") and the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\"), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, respectfully settle, resolve and compromise any and all issues and disputes between the\"!, pursuant to 11 14.12 of the Little Rock School District Management Services Agreement with ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P., (hereinafter referred to as the \"Agreement\"), on the following terms, conditions and understanding\n1. The District, on the recommendation of the District's superintendent, Dr. Henry Williams, authorized Dr. Williams to negotiate and enter into a contract regarding its custodial and janitorial services with an entity known as \"ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P.\", Delaware limited partnership a (hereinafter referred to as \"ServiceMaster\"). \u0026lt;MceMirruLur -1-2. .F ft It .JOHN .U...U.R.L K E.R __ p.0 3 The terms of the authorization of the Little Rock School Board Minutoe recited in the determined at dated September 1, a meeting of the hoard of director. ' excerpt 1995, as held on Thur.day, Augu.t 31, of the Dietrict 1995. evidence at the hearing referred hereinbelow as Court's Exhibit No. The excerpt was admitted to in Paragraph Nos. 31. 3 . On August 31, 1995, Joehua filed States District Division, Case No. Court, Eastern District LR-C-82-866, entering into a contract to into 9 and 9 a motion in the United Of Arkansas, Western seeking to enjoin the District from provide janitorial and management services to the District. custodial The XtRSS Prow Satering into Joshua's Motion to Enjoin Bidding Procedures \u0026lt; A Service Contract Without Reguests For Following lavolveaient e The Joshua and Without Prior the w motion\" or w Intervenors will be refsrrecl to heroin as pending litigation\". motion are adopted herein by reference The allegations off the for-word. as if set out herein On September 7, 1995, word- Joshua's motion, reference as if The allegations of the District filed its response to set out herein word-for-word. that response are adopted by 4. On or about September 20, brief in support off its contained in the brief herein word-for-word. 1995. Joshua filed a memorandum 5. motion. The allegations and are adopted by reference The primary issues ^rief, among others, *MOBWTTUI,ur arguments aa if set out raised by Joshua in its motion and were that the proposed management services' 2- f I11/.30Z1995 17! 20 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.O. TO 3710100 P. 04 contract had the potential to negatively impact the District's ability to carry out its desegregation obligations and that the District would be in violation of the laws of the State of Arkansas should it enter into the contract In the manner and under the terms proposed. 6 . The LRSO gave ServiceMaster, its agents and representatives notice of the Motion to Enjoin (referred to in the Agreement as the \"pending litigation) prior to the data on which the Agreement was subsequently executed. ServiceMaster and the District acknowledged the pending litigation and the District's right to terminate or modify the Agreement through either settlement of the litigation, order of the Court, or otherwise. The Agreement was executed on September 20, 1995. 7, On October 28, 1995, this Court the Honorable Susan Webber Wright presiding, conducted a hearing on Joshua's motion. The hearing was recessed until December 8, 1995. 8. At the hearing on October 28, 1995, this Court allowed ServiceMaster to intervene in the proceeding. ServiceMaster was represented by attorneys, John Everett of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and Joseph Mowery of Little Rock, Arkansas. 9. At the hearing, Joshua began presenting evidence and testimony toward the two issues referred to hereinabove. Prior to \u0026gt; .recessing the hearing. this Court noted the presence of the superintendent and members of the board of directors of the . District in Court and the advocacy of the lawyers for the District \u0026lt;iHtfci0imsxrr -3- )11Z30Z1995 17!20 EBQM.JQHN .U.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100. P. 05 in defending adherence to the Agreement. The Court further remarked that ita primary interest, notwithstanding the presence of other isauea of importance, concerned the potential for the Agreement to have an adverse impact on the District's ability to meet its desegregation obligations (l.e., its ability to fund and appropriate money for desegregation programs) and whether the laws of the State of Arkansas had been complied with in reaching the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement, This Court remarked that should the Agreement be found in violation of Arkansas state law, and the Court indicated that it probably was, the Court would then have to determine whether to require the District to go back through the selection process. However, this Court went on to note that if the contract does violate Arkansas state law, it is either void or voidable. Specifically, the concerns raised relate to Code  6-31-301, aS. US', which provides that all school districts in the  State of Arkansas are required to purchase commodities as defined therein through soliciting bids where the purchase price shall equal or exceed $5,000, Commodities are defined as all supplies, goods, materials, equipment, machinery, facilities, personal  property and services, other than personal and professional services, purchased for or on behalf of the school district, excluding school buses. A violation of these requirements constitute a Class ^C criminal misdemeanor offense. 10. Paragraph 14.12 of the Agreement providest AMMSMantALR' -4- A11^30/1995 17:21 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 Bach of the parties agree that as pending ILtiaation. of the date of the execution of this Agreement, a motion to enjoin school from entering into this Agreement-with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled \"Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al.\", No. LR-C- 82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereinafter have arising out of or in anyway relating directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this School is under no obligation or duty to Agreement. appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, -T ?.l~ otherwise) of that litigation. order of the Court or 11. In recognition of the serious coneems raised in the pending litigation through Joshua's motion\nthe evidence and testimony presented at the hearing on October 38, 1995\nthe P . 06 concerns expressed by this Court prior to recessing the October 28 hearing\nand, the independent review and assessment of the facts, circumstances and applicable law by the District, its agents. representatives, and counsel, the board of directors of the District, on Tuesday, October 31, 1995, met in a special meeting and passed a motion directing its counsel to negotiate a settlement ' of. the pending litigation with the appropriate parties,  accordance with 5 14.12 of the Agreement. in NOW, THESSF0R2, the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District have decided and agreed to resolve their differences and to request the Court to enter an order on the pending Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from entering into the agreement  on terms which are 9d mutually satisfactory to all parties to the *Mii I' nfii-j nxLiT s- Udi J Mtn AbnidJ 26/ T0 33111/30/1995 17:22 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.A. TO 3710100 P. 07 pending litigation such to prevent any negative impact on the District's desegregation obligations and to avoid any state law violations, to-witi a. The Joshua Intervenors do hereby agree to the entry of an order by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, on their Motion to Enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service agreement which terminates the District's liability under the Agreement to ServiceMaster as well as terminating the District's liability on all matters which were brought or could have been brought in that pending litigation\n'o. The District acknowledges that it had no intent to enter into and would not enter into a contract with ServiceMaster had it known that the terms thereof would violate the terms and conditions of the Court-approved desegregation settlement plans, laws of the State of Arkansas, or both. Joshua contends that the Court- approved desegregation plan requires timely involvement of Joshua, the office of Desegregation Monitoring and the Court in matters which may substantially affect the operations of the Little Rock School District as it relates to the District's ability to fund, implement and ca'Ty out its desegregation programs and activities. To the extent that such is required by the Court-approved desegregation plan, the District reaffirms its commitment to do SO\nand, c. The Joshua Intervenors have raised questions relating to the possibility that the District has failed to follow prescribed processes and procedures, possibly violated the laws of the State of Arkansas by virtue of the Agreement, and possibly placed the District in the position of negatively impacting its ability to carry out Its desegregation obligations. This Court has likewise Agreement raised concerns regarding the legality o the Agreement pursuant to the laws of the state oS Arkansas. Because of these questions and concerns as well as the Distriet's own independent investigation and assessment of the facts, circumstances and applicable law, both Joshua and the District agree that thia Court should enter an Order pursuant to f 14.12 of the Agreement declaring the Agreement to be null and void and terminating the District's liability thereunder in accordance with the release agreed to by ServiceMaster therein. Because fcl|ll.lHl*HTl.llJ.IT -6-11^30X1995 17:23 FROM JOHN W.UfiLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P . 08 On the basia o the foregoing agreement, acknowledgements and recitals* the Joshua Intervenors and the Little Rock School District do hereby respectfully request that this Court enter an Order terminating any and all of the District's liability under, . pursuant to, or otherwise relating to the Agreement with ServiceMaster and. affirming the validity of the release of liability by ServiceMaster, all as contained in t 14.12 of the Agreement, Both Joshua and the District agree and acknowledge that any proposed settlement of this litigation is intended to comply '.with the provisions of 1 14.12 of the Agreement which gives the LRSD the right to terminate or modify its liability thereunder through order of this Court, settlement or otherwise. Therefore, any such settlement is expressly conditioned upon the entry of an order by the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, recognizing the District's right to terminate or modify its liability under the Agreement by order of this Court, settlement or otherwise\nterminating the Agreement with ServiceMaster and the pending litigation\nand, terminating the District's liability under the Agreement by declaring the Contract to ba void or otherwise unenforceable in accordance with 1 14.12 of the Agreement. Should the Court decline to do so, be unable to do _ so, or for whatever reason such cam not be accomplished, it is the ** agreement of the parties hereto that this proposed settlement will .become null and void to the same extent as though it had never existed, to the extent that such is necessary to prevent contractual, equitable or other liability being imposed upon the fi'riiihitimj.ur -7- AM11/30/1995 17:24 FROM JOHN W.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P . 09 1 District by ServiceMaster or any other party or person by virtue of this settlement or any actions of the District, Its agents, representatives, counsel, er assigns. Further, should the Court decline to so terminate the District's liability, be unable to do so, or for whatever reason such can not be accomplished, Joshua would retain its right to proceed with evidence and testimony in support of the motion as though Chis settlement never existed. Neither party (LRSD, Joshua or ServiceMaster) would be permitted to utilize this settlement or any of its recitals as - admissions, concessions or other evidence in the proceedings on Joshua's motion, should the hearing resume. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P,A. Attorneys at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3753 ATTORNEYS FOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS By: John w. Walker Bar I. D. No. . FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK. Attorneys at Law 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, ikrkansas 72201-3493 (SOD 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF . LITTLE ROCK 3CSOGL DISTRICT By: Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 MMcnwruur -8-I * ' 11^30/1995 17:25 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 10 ! CERTIFICATE QF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foreooing Sectlement of Pending Litigation has been eerved by U, 3. Mail. Dostage prepaid, except as otherwise indicated, on November 1995, upon the followings Mr. John C. Everett EVERETT, MARS \u0026amp; STILLS Attorneys at Law 3822 N. Parkview Drive Post Office Box 1646 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703-1S4S Mr. Joseph s. Mowery GIROIR i GREGORY Attorneys et Law 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr, Samuel M, Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS Attorneys at Law 2200 worthan 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 a Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 73301 Mr. Richard W, Roache11 ROACHSLL \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) Federal Monitor, Office of Desegregation . Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone teMKatManuuT -9- MM waij pn AJdQiaj wdBSsza se, ta oaa12/07/1995 10:25 FROM JOHN U.UPLKER P.P. TO 3710100 EASTS  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COD^jgg by EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION i3y\n, e-=. -T P. 02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS V. LR-C-32-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS I-. I SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership MOTION FOR COKTINUANCE INTERVENOR The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request a continuance of the hearing scheduled for December 8, 1995. respectfully show the Court as follows\n1. For cause, they On November 29, 1995, intervenor Servicemaster Management Services filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer to the Joshua Intervenors motion to enjoin the Little Rock School District from entering into a contract with Servicemaster. This motion, amended answer and memorandum brief was not received by undersigned counsel for the Joshua Intervenors until December 4, 1995. Therefore, additional time is needed in order for undersigned counsel to prepare a response to said motion, answer and memorandum brief. 2. In preparation tor the hearing on Friday, December 8, t  1995, undersigned counsel did not anticipate any additional12/07/1995 10:26 FROM JOHN U.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3710100 P. 03 pleadings being filed by either plaintiff, defendant or the other intervenors in this 'case. Intervenor Servicemaster^s filing can be construed as surprise given the pending hearing scheduled for Friday of this week. Further preparation by Joshua is now necessary 3, in view of this filing. In addition, on December 4, 1994, the Joshua Intervenors approved the proposed settlement agreement between the Dxstrict and Joshua which was prepared by the school district. That document effectively resolves the controversy between Joshua and the LRSD. 4. In view of the settlement agreement, which Joshua awaits school district counsel to file with the Court, the case should be dismissed except to the extent that the Court wishes to afford Servicemaster a hearing. Joshua, however, has not filed any action against Servicemaster. 5. A continuance would afford the parties, time to prepare their respective positions more fully in the event that the Court finds for example, that Servicemaster is entitled to proceed in this matter. 6. The LRSD and Servicemaster are not prejudiced by this request for delay. WHERJ^ORJS, the Joshua Intervenors pray that this matter be continued pending the filing of further submissions by the LRSD and, if necessary, if the Court declines, to approve the submission, after full further oppoirtunity for preparation by the Joshua Intervenors.12/07x1993 10:27 FROM JOHN U.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P . 04 Respectfully subiaitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501)Z374-3758 72206 By\nCBRTiyiCATB OF SERyiCB I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoi via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this /- December, 1995. has been sent J\u0026gt; W. Walker day of 12/07/1995 10!24 FROM JOHN W.URLKER P.R. TO 3710100 P. 01 \u0026lt; REASONS G K E E T I N G Q John W. Walker, PX I7B Broadway Littlt tod, M 72206 (501)374.0 fajc (501)3744187 fax transmittal to: fax: fronu date: re: pages: 1-6 ( / / //V , inciuding cover sheet J NOTES: 3-.. i: A riia  f' ei*a.LA,Zi^ RECE DEC 1 J 1995 . ,AS Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION r-. }5y5 I l\n' ...-ex. Cl j.K LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED ANSWER Now on this day of s.. 1995, this matter comes on to be heard upon the motion of the Intervenor, ServiceMaster Management Services, for leave to file an amended answer in this case. After consideration of such motion, the Court doth find that such motion should be, and hereby is, granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 4' Hon. Susan Webber Wnght, United States District Court Judge mis DOCLVE^ .ED ONDCCKET SHEET IN COMPLIA ON 2. .3 r.r BY VOR 79(a) FRCP Ad 2 5 8C ' 1 6^ cm/ EO I DEC 1 ,31995 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION i i 1595 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Py:V .y. ClL^' JC ClE.-.X CEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTERVENOR ORDER The issue before the Court concerns a contract that the vs. I 0 b Superintendent of the Little Rock School District, Dr. Henry Williams, entered into with Servicemaster Management Services, L.P. on September 20, 1995.' The contract (Ex. 359) provides that ServiceMaster will provide management services to the district for a period of five years for $98,659 per month. subject to adjustment. The district sought the advice of counsel before entering into the contract, which was drafted by ServiceMaster, and several contract modifications were made pursuant to the advice of district counsel. On August 31, 1995, the district board of directors held a hearing at which it authorized Dr. Williams to negotiate and enter into the contract on behalf of the district. Board member Pat Gee testified at a hearing before this Court that she asked the board to review the final contract before Dr. Williams signed it. However, the board did not review the final document before Dr. Williams signed it. I 2 5 86 IThe minutes for the August 31, 1995 meeting of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors reflect that the board was aware that the Joshua Intervenors had filed a motion with this Court for a preliminary injunction asking the Court to enjoin LRSD from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster. Joshua alleged the following grounds for issuance of the injunction: (1) that the district had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors\n(2) that the proposed contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact\n(3) that the contract has not been let for bids in accordance with Arkansas law\n(4) that the expenditures required of the district under the contract would inhibit the district in meeting its desegregation obligations\nand (5) on Joshua's belief that the contract was not negotiated at arms' length. Aware of the pending motion for a preliminary injunction, LRSD and ServiceMaster included the following clause 14.12) in their contract: Pending litigation. Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement, a motion to enjoin school from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled \"Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al.\". No. LR-C- 82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereinafter have arising out of or in anyway relating directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. liability hereunder will Further, the be subject to the School's outcome -2-(through either settlement, otherwise) of that litigation. order of the Court or The Court set the matter for a hearing on Saturday, October 28, 1995. ServiceMaster filed a motion to intervene, which the Court granted. During the hearing the Court noted from the bench that Joshua had a difficult burden of proof with respect to establishing that the contract would interfere with the district's ability to carry out its desegregation obligations, as the district maintained that it would spend no more money on the contract than it already spends on maintenance and custodial services. The Court further noted, without deciding, that Joshua might be more likely to succeed on its argument that state law had not been followed because the district had not followed the bidding procedures established by Ark. Code Ann.  6-21-301 et seq.^ The Court recessed the hearing before the Joshua Intervenors had completed their proof. However, Joshua did establish that bidding procedures were not used and that neither the superintendent nor anyone else from the LRSD administration consulted with Joshua prior to entering into the contract. The hearing was continued until December 8, 1995. On October 31, 1995, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors discussed the ServiceMaster contract in absence of their attorneys. The board passed a motion with respect to settlement of 2 ServiceMaster contends that the contract is one for professional services, exempt from the bidding requirements set forth in the statute. -3-the ServiceMaster issue. The minutes for the October 31 meeting (Ex. 378) read as follows: III. ACTION ITEMS ServiceMaster Contract: Ms. Pondexter called for a motion on the ServiceMaster contract. Dr. Daugherty stated that he would prefer to question District attorneys about the contract prior to making a motion, but attorneys for the District were not present. Dr. Daugherty made a motion that the Board ask the attorneys to settle the contract with the appropriate parties. r \" \" ' __\n____1 __ He stated that his motion was based on the pending litigation and the fact that Judge Wright had stated a belief that the contact [sic] violation of Arkansas law. is a possible Ms. Gee seconded the motion. Ms. Magness, opposition to Mr. the Riggs, and Dr. motion. Mitchell spoke in They suggested a more appropriate action would be to allow the District's attorneys to work within the court system to settle the litigation and to then abide by any rulings made by Judge Wright. Ms. Pondexter spoke in favor of the motion and indicated that the District's attorneys were being instructed by the Board to seek a reasonable settlement to save the cost of litigation. instructed to The attorneys are not being motion. \"give away the company store\" by this She stated that an Attorney General's opinion found the contract to be a violation of State law. The attorneys' responsibility is to return to the Board if they are unable to reach a settlement, in which case the litigation would continue. She then called for the vote. The motion passed 4-3 with Ms. Pondexter, Ms. Gee, Ms. Strickland and Dr. Daugherty voting \"yes. II Magness, Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Riggs voting and Ms. \"no.\" At the continuation of the hearing on December 8 counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement\" (Ex. 3 73) , which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua (Ex. 374) with respect to the -4-ServiceMaster contract. ServiceMaster was not a party to this H settlement\" even though it would have a considerable impact upon ServiceMaster's contract with the LRSD. This \"settlement\" was delivered by fax to counsel for Joshua by counsel for the LRSD on or about December 1. Counsel for Joshua, Mr. John Walker, claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the court issue an order enjoining the LRSD from entering into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. Little Rock contends that this document was not intended as an offer to settle, in that it is stamped \"Draft\" (illegible on the court's copy) and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. LRSD has also implied, by questioning of witnesses. that Mr. Jerry Malone, the LRSD attorney who apparently drafted and sent this \"settlement\" document, did not have authority from the board to settle with Joshua. Linda Pondexter, President of the LRSD Board of Directors, testified on December 8 that it was her understanding that on October 31, the Board was authorizing its attorneys to settle with the Joshua Intervenors, not with ServiceMaster. Pat Gee, another board member, testified on December 8 that the motion regarding settlement was intended to get the district out of its contract obligations without liability. This Court declines to rule on whether this \"settlement It constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into -5-it with Joshua. The Court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, public policy prohibits this type of settlement. This \"settlement\" purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and LRSD, would by court order declare the agreement to be non-binding on the part of LRSD and would relieve LRSD of any liability. Indeed, Paragraph 14.12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an If escape clause\" for LRSD should this Court terminate or modify the ServiceMaster agreement. It provides that LRSD shall have no obligation to appeal decisions affecting the contract. Therefore, it implies that LRSD will in good faith abide by the terms of the contract and will not contract with Joshua or anyone else to procure a court order allowing it to escape liability. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. This Court finds that ServiceMaster and LRSD did not intend that this clause would permit Little Rock to escape liability without a ruling by this Court on the merits. Therefore, the Court holds that this purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of December 1995. \"^jnitedstatesdistrictTjudg JUDGE -6- rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN WJTl COMPLIANCE WJ' ON 12/1(1 ULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP aC- ' DEC 1 a 1995 Office of Desegregaiion Motmofing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION U3 L 'if-G .\\ i ' 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. LR-C-82-866 -xf-iS Dy: ClL.' CURK I T X E . 1/ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL ORDER Joshua's motion for continuance of the hearing scheduled for December 8, 1995, was denied in open Court during hearings conducted on December 8, 1995, and should be removed as a pending motion. The clerk is directed to make the proper entry to remove this motion [#2579] from the motions' list. IT IS SO ORDERED this // day of December, 1995. SUSAN vj: 'EBBER WRIGHT United States District Judge mis D\nCf...\\\nPL\nA.NCE VViTi- ON iN DOCKET SHEET IN T.O/CR 79(a) FRCP BY 2 5 8 5IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS DEC 2 2 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. V. LR-C-a3-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL. JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By\nPLAINTIFFS-- DEP CLERK RECEn^ DEFENDANTS DEC 2 7 1995 INTERVENORS Office of Oesegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ANETTOR COMPLETION-OF HEARING The Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") respectfully move for reconsideration of this Court's Order of December Ilf 1995, addressing the issues arising in the course of consideration of the Joshua motion to enjoin the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") from entering into a contract with ServiceMaster Management Services, L. P. (\"ServiceMaster\"). Joshua Intervenors further request that the Court schedule an additional hearing to complete consideration of the Joshua's motion. This motion is based upon the accompanying brief, the record in this case and the following allegations\n1. As the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, reveals (at 2), the Joshua Intervenors alleged multiple grounds in support of their motion. Joshua Intervenors have not completed their presentation in support of their motion. and the Court has not ruled on the substantive grounds which it sets forth. See December 11, 1995, Order at 3, 6. 2. The safeguarding of the system's resources in order to / 1permit the LRSD to satisfy the reguirements of federal law is an important element of the current phase of this case. 3. The current desegregation plan of the LRSD emphasizes voluntary choice of schools. The LRSD's relevant \"business case\" of August 24, 1995, cites a relationship between the maintenance of schools and enrollment (at 2 \"Problem Definition\"\nat 7-8 \"Impact Analysis\"). The business case indicates that the contract would be \"paid for\" by: Position reductions over time through attrition 21 PTE custodians 14 PTE building substitutes Consideration of the implications of these reductions is not complete. 4. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying brief, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that the Court's reliance on grounds of \"public policy\" in the December 11, 1995, Order,(at 6) was in error. 5. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying brief, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully submit that the Court's * * interpretation of the contract (Order at 6) was in error. 6. Based upon our research, there are substantial grounds to doubt that the Order of December 11, 1995, is an appealable Order. 7. The amount of in-court time needed to complete consideration of the motion can be minimized by the taking and use of depositions. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors motions this Court to reconsider its December 11, 1995, Order and to allow the Joshua 2Intervenors to proceed with their presentation to support their motion and for all other relief deemed proper and necessary by the Court. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little (501)/ Rock, AR 74-3758 72206 By\n_____ W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that copy of the sent to all counsel of record via U.S. foregoing was postage prepaid on this day of em, . mail with 95. J, .n W. Walker a 3FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS nF n 2 21935 EASTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. By.-. - PLAINTIFFS.. . CLERK V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. RECEJVEr DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. DEC 2 7 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL. Office of Doseoregation Monnenng INTERVENORS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF  MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND COMPLETION OF HEARING The Plaintiffs, the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), entered into a contract with ServiceMaster Management Services, L.P. (\"ServiceMaster) on September 20, 1995.' The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion to enjoin the contract on the grounds that the contract was in contradiction of the intent of the desegregation plan and it violated state laws of the bidding process. The contract was drafted by ServiceMaster and modifications were made by counsel for the LRSD. Despite the modifications. ServiceMaster signed the contract with the LRSD. A hearing on Joshua's Motion to Enjoin was held on December 10, 1995. ServiceMaster filed a motion to intervene, which was granted. At issue in the hearing was and is paragraph 14.12 of the LRSD  The LRSD board of directors authorized Superintendent Dr. Henry Williams to negotiate and enter a contract on behalf of the The LRSD board did not have an opportunity to review the district. final document before Dr. Williams signed it. / 1Management Services Agreement with ServiceMaster (at 12) which is entitled \"Pending Litigation.\" The Pending Litigation provision reads as follows: Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School [LRSD] from entering into this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Western Arkansas, Division, styled Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et. al.. No. LR-C-82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge al., causes of School from any and all actions, action, damages, claims demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out or directly or of or in any way relating, indirectly from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or School is under no modify this Agreement, obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. Representatives of the LRSD and ServiceMaster signed the contract on September 20, 1995. Thus, a binding contract was created between the parties. It is the position of the Joshua Intervenors that a settlement was reached between the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Pursuant to paragraph 14.12 of the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster, such a settlement would terminate the contract with ServiceMaster without liability to the LRSD. In its December 11, / 1995, Order the Court refused to rule on whether this \"Settlement\" constitutes a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into 2it with Joshua. The Court went on to say that it \"finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, public policy prohibits this type of settlement. Indeed, Paragraph 14,12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an 'escape clause' for LRSD should this Court terminate or modify the ServiceMaster agreement. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party.\" The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held to the contrary. The Eighth Circuit has held that while a termination clause may indicate willingness to engage in cold-hearted economic a competition, it simply does not violate any recognized Arkansas public policy. Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988). Union National Bank and Federal National Mortgage Association (\"FNMA\") entered into contract which contained a unilateral termination clause. The clause read as follows: We may [FNMA] terminate the provisions of this Contract covering the servicing under this Contract of any or all mortgages that we This may be done by following entirely own. the procedure outlined below. 1. Termination without cause. We [FNMA] may terminate by giving the Lender 30 days notice of the termination, and by paying the Lender a termination fee. This termination fee will be specified in our Guides as we may modify them from time to time. Union. 860 F.2d at 849. FNMA sought to terminate the contract and Union argued that to a / 3allow FNMA the right to terminate the agreement without cause was unenforceable as contrary to public policy. The Eighth Circuit analogized this situation to an \"at will\" or \"without cause\" termination right in employment contracts. The right to terminate \"at will\" or \"without cause\" is not against public policy unless the reason alleged for the discharge is so repugnant to the general good as to deserve the label 'against public policy'.\" Union. 860 F.2d at 853 (citing Lucas v. Brown \u0026amp; Root, Inc.. 736 F.2d 1202 (8th Cir. 1984)). Similarly, the contract between LRSD and ServiceMaster contained a pending litigation clause which is the equivalent of a termination clause. The clause requires Servicemaster to release and forever discharge the LRSD from \"any and all actions and damages that may arise from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify the contract.\" It has been held by the Eighth Circuit that this clause does not violate any Arkansas public policy. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is not alone in this holding. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the power to refuse to enforce contracts on the grounds of public policy is therefore limited to occasions where the contract would violate \"some explicit public policy\" that is \"well-defined and dominant, and [which] is to be ascertained 'by reference to the / laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests'.\" St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Duke University. 849 F.2d 133 (4 th Cir. 1988) (citing United 4Paperworkers International Union v. Misco Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 108 S.Ct. 373, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987) citations omitted). The Court went on to state that the usual and most important function of courts of justice is rather to maintain and enforce contracts, than to enable parties thereto escape from their obligations on the pretext of public policy, unless it clearly appears that they contravene public right or the general welfare. St. Paul. 849 F.2d at 135 (citing Smithy Braedon Co. V. Hadid, 825 F.2d 787, 790 (4th Cir. 1987)). Finally, the Court concluded that it was the court's duty to enforce the contract as written unless enforcement was forbidden by an existent state policy. St. Paul. 849 F.2d at 136. In the case at bar, it is the Court's duty to enforce the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster as written since it does not violate any established Arkansas public policy. ServiceMaster entered into the contract with the LRSD with full knowledge of the meaning of paragraph 14.12. As a result. ServiceMaster cannot argue unconscionability. The Eighth Circuit in Union stated that the district court also ruled that, despite a substantial inequality in the bargaining power of the parties, the Contract was not unconscionable. Union. 860 F.2d at 853 (footnote 12) . There does not seem to have been any inequality in the bargaining power between the LRSD and ServiceMaster. Therefore, there are no grounds for an argument of unconscionability. Additionally, ServiceMaster voluntarily agreed to release and discharge the LRSD from \"any and all actions, causes of actions, damages, claims or demands which may arise from orders issued by / 5R the United States District Court which may terminate or modify the agreement. ( Contract, Paragraph 14.12.). The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held that subject to public policy considerations, a party may voluntarily agree to hold another harmless against loss by whatever cause it might be sustained. Weaver-Bailey Con'trs v. Fiske Carter Const.. 9 Ark.App. 192, 657 S.W.2d 209 (1983) . As previously stated. there is no Arkansas public policy which prohibits the inclusion of a unilateral termination clause in a contract between two parties even if the parties are of unequal bargaining power. Therefore, ServiceMaster voluntarily waived its ight to hold the LRSD liable for breach of contract and damages r resulting therefrom. The Court may not rewrite the contract to provide relief to ServiceMaster. Arkansas law states in the absence of violation of some clearly established public policy, the courts will not remake a contract between the parties to devise a basis of relief where none exists under the contract. M.B.M. Co. V. Counce. 268 Ark. 269, 569 S.W.2d 681 (1980). Pursuant to Arkansas law, the Court may not rewrite or modify the contract to grant relief to ServiceMaster when ServiceMaster entered into the contract with full knowledge of the impact of the Pending Litigation clause. In conclusion, ServiceMaster did not assert that the Pending Litigation clause violated public policy nor inclusion of the clause was unconscionable. did it assert that The clause is valid / and does not violate any established Arkansas public policy. Therefore, if is found that a settlement was reached between the 6LRSD and Joshua Intervenors, the pending litigation clause should be effectuated to render the contract between the LRSD and ServiceMaster discharged without liability to LRSD. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 S^ Little I Ri (501) By:__ Jo] \u0026lt;7 iroadway bk, AR 7220 W .\" Walkfer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE a copy of the I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that foregoing was sei] to all counsel of record via U.S. mail postage paid on this day of December, 19^. o n'W. Walker I 7 RECEIV filed JAN 19 1996 **) atassB Ofiice ot Desefltegavon MonAofii'S 'JAN 1 7 1995 JAMES W. JN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT \u0026lt;Q^T EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ^\u0026lt;^CORMACK, ClRK OEP CURK 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 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership INTERVENOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to afford them any opportunity to respond to the submission filed herein on behalf of Servicemaster Management Services dated January 8, 1996. The response raises and addresses several cases which were not raised and discussed in our brief and motion for reconsideration. There is no prejudice to the Little Rock School District or Servicemaster by allowing such a submission. We also note that the LRSD has taken no position regarding wither the position of Servicemaster or Joshua. We further request five days beyond the date of an order granting permission to submit a reply in which to file our response.\u0026gt;1.1 \u0026gt;* ,I Undersigned counsel is authorized to say that counsel for LRSD and Servicemaster have no objection to this request. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501^374-3758 72206 Ji Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE th I do hereby state that a copy of the forego^g was delivered via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this l^h day of January, 1996. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN I 3 1996 JAMES/W. By\nES/M(jC^ORMACK, CLERK ''1 ' DEP CCLLEERRKK PLAINTIFF RECEIVE' DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS JAN 1 9 1996 INTERVENORS Office of Desefiregation f'^\u0026amp;nito.-ifqiNTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Joshua Intervenors, and there being no objections. the time for filing a reply to the Servicemaster submission dated January 8, 1996, is hereby extended to and vs. including January 26, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January 1996. RED ON DOC:\u0026lt;ET SHEET IN I .1 R^/jT JUDGE Odis DOCUMEfiT Ef.'T COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP _gY -L 2 6 0 4 LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 431 P02 JfiN 19 96 12:52 91^ Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 18, 1996 Mr. John Walker, Attornev 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: Once again I find it necessary to respond to one of your letters which tells a half truth supports what you wan. e Board. Ann Brown, andLtheXheL taow wnat actually occurred. You have an uncanny way of distorting the truth. or think, and not Yes, you were present at the meeting, and yes, you wanted to raise questions and issues that st\",'! \"iied by Le Cour,. I rcfuald L actaX!X ' on Md no'pL.T.' belief that your presence at die meen'ngwas to gaUierinforLL P meeting that was designed to answer questions and address litigators. Your concerns and questions as a litigator currently being litigated and studied by the Court. concerns ServiceMaster contract should be addressed --  questions as a litigator regarding the in Court, not in a meeting of emplovees. In response to your contention that I condition with regard to the misrepresented the Board or the Districts fiscal J  amount of money the District has to spend on new custodial equipment and supplies, as well as salary increases, is absolutely not true. What I said, and made very clear, was that if we, equipment for custodial as a District, had to replace all of the wtherrnei ietoh thie^uch as the ServiceMastesr upgegoepstleed atrhea td iof iwngf tthhaatt wwee would indeed have to have increased salaries for custodians \\xra\u0026lt;/ oe T^ ... \u0026gt;*w**w. revenue tVhUrioVuUgXhU \u0026lt;a* UmlUilIldaSgCe increase. By the IT c?aLn oLnliy mTake recommendations in this regard.  milla=g e incr ease ccaammppaaiiggnn. Also. I would like to know when aU of the District custodians became provide me with all records which indicate that your clients. Please custodians to represent their interest As far as I know, that ^oup attomw that ft.., *__ 1_____ Of you were contacted and retained by the attorney that represents the teacher group. IS represented by the Sincerely, \u0026lt;J Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 431 P03 JAN 19 96 12:53 January 18, 1995 Page 2 cc: Chris Heller Ann Brown Linda Pondexter LRSD Board Members f.JOHN W. WALKER. PA 3 Uiija Vxi? ^'x:3 I* JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JAN 1 9 1996 Office cf ^eseg.-egaacn Modiicnng January 17,1996 [DELIVERED BY FAX \u0026amp; U.S. MAIL] Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: I represent a number of custodians. Today, I requested an opportunity to address the group meeting were you were present and to be allowed to ask some questions regarding comments made by you or Service Master representatives. I also reduced my request to writing in a letter to Mr. Fred Smith. You both declined my request. I now wish to state that you made representations to the group to the effect that the district was financially unable to provide custodian equipment and supplies and, therefore, that an outside group was required to do so. You specifically held the school board responsible for the financial condition of the district stating that a mileage was needed in order to provide wage increases for the employees and other needs of the district. I believe you misrepresented the district's financial condition as well as the necessity for Service Masters management services, supplies and equipment. Would you kindly, therefore, make available a tape of the meeting to the school board members so that they may independently appraise your comments as well as those of the Service Master representative. Would you also explain why I could not raise issues on behalf of my clients. Please recall that cleanliness issues are an integral part of the desegregation plan.Page Two January 17,1996 Please let me hear from you by return fax to this letter and my hand-written letter to Mr. Fred Smith. Very truly yours, [Original Signed By Uni John W. Walker signed Counsel] wCc Ld- JWW-.lp cc: Mr. Fred Smith Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Linda Pondexter LRSD Board Members [DICTATED BUT NOT READ]JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 .MN 2 2 1996 Office of Desegregaiicn Monnoring K. January 19, 1996 Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: This letter is a seriatim response to your letter to of January 18, 1996. You indicated that you declined to allow me to speak to the custodians or raise questions regarding the Servicemaster (1) matter. So that it will not be regarded as a \"half truth\", please acknowledge that I neither said or did anything during that meeting other than to raise my hand. Would you also please acknowledge that we did not exchange any words at that meeting and that your beliefs which were written in your letter were not publicized at the meeting. (2) You indicated that the Board's fiscal condition did not allow for the purchase of 1.2 million dollars in equipment, supplies and services. Please acknowledge that you indicated that the District could not afford to meet its custodial needs within its existing budget and that the only way of meeting the custodial needs of the District was by outsourcing. Now, for my position for purposes of discussion, neither you nor Mr. Fred Smith have been in a position to state what the District's actual for financial position is. Moreover, there are means available within the ADE to allow school districts loan funds for equipment purchases and meet other exigencies. What you have done with Servicemaster is simply to accept a loan which, I submit, you will repay many times over with interest and for services rendered. I might further add that if the buildings were in such bad condition, then Mr. Doug Eaton necessarily had some responsibility for that circumstance. The District practice has been to transfer, demote or terminate unsatisfactorily performing administrators. Mr. Eaton has been rewarded, rather than \"punished\", by having had his budget and staff substantially increased while his responsibilities for custodians have been diminished. This is giving him time to use his skills in educational policy making, an area for which he is not trained, certified or experienced.(3) You did indicate that the only way that the custodians could receive pay raises is by a millage increase. As a party representative in the desegregation case, I would like to know how you can make this statement in view of the transfers that you have made of people into higher level positions. The examples that I would like for you to address are those of Ms. Griffin, your personal secretary and Ms. Keathley, Dr. Mayo's personal secretary, though titled otherwise, each of whom received pay raises over a two year period of between 10 and 15 thousand dollars or more. Their raises alone I submit, if directed toward approximately 300 custodians, would have allowed each custodian a raise of $100.00. With the other raises of similarly situated people, it is easy to see that this group of employees could have been easily afforded, within the present budget, a 3 or 4 percent raise without a millage increase. I am sure you could sense the low morale of the custodians and their great sense of distrust which they had of you and Servicemaster. Surely you must know that low morale of this group of employees will necessarily result in lower levels of work performance and will accordingly reflect upon the desegregation plan. Please reflect on this. (4) You indicate that I contend that I represent all district custodians. did, let me hasten to correct that. If I suggested that, which I don't think I I do not. I do represent a number of them with respect to issues which are presently pending. I am withholding legal action against the District because of my December commitment to you which extends through the end of January. I had hoped that there would have been some substantive manifestation of reciprocity during this interval. It appears that I was wrong, but today is January 19, 1996\nwe still still have 12 days to go. Pardon the pun, please.) I still have hope (being from Hope - Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Mr. Chris Heller Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Linda Pondexter LRSD Board MembersALED COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JAW 2 6 tqo-s EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DISTRICT JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By.-------------------- DEP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET. AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET. AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET. AL.  IAN 3 0 1996 INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Office of Desegregation SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership -__ Momoring INTERVENOR JOSHUA INTERVENORS' REPLY BRIEF The Joshua Intervenors filed a Motion and a Brief in Support of Reconsideration and Completion of Hearing regarding settlement between the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") and Joshua Intervenors. ServiceMaster has intervened in the matter as a party of interest since its contract with LRSD is involved. A hearing was held in December of 1995 and the Court issued a subsequent Order on December 11, 1995 in which it refused to rule on the merits of whether a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors existed. Instead the Court ruled that a provision in the contract between ServiceMaster and LRSD was against public policy and could not be enforced. Joshua Intervenors then filed its Motion for Reconsideration. ServiceMaster responded that the provision was not a terminationclause and the Court should examine the intent of the parties as to the provision in question. The provision in question, Section 14.12 entitled Pending Litigation, reads as follows: Each of the parties agree that as of the date of the execution of this Agreement a motion to enjoin School from entering this Agreement with ServiceMaster is now pending in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County School District No. 1, et. al.. No. LR-C-82-866. ServiceMaster does hereby release and forever discharge School from any and all actions, causes of action, damages, claims or demands which ServiceMaster may hereafter have, arising out of or in any way relating, directly or indirectly, from orders issued by the United States District Court which may terminate or modify this Agreement. (emphasis added) School is under no obligation or duty to appeal any decisions of the United States District Court affecting this Agreement. Further, the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation. The Court stated this provision allowed one party to unilaterally escape its obligation without a similar provision to the other and was against public policy. The Court did not address the merits of whether there was a settlement between LRSD and Joshua Intervenors. Joshua Intervenors have requested that the Court reconsider its ruling on the grounds that the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that clauses in contracts that allow termination without cause are not against any established Arkansas public policy. ServiceMaster responded that Joshua Intervenors analogized thei 5S^ case improperly. Review of Joshua Intervenors' Brief in Support of the Motion for Reconsideration will show that Joshua cited the case for the law and not for the facts. The law was simply that a party may unilaterally terminate a contract and it does not go against any established Arkansas public policy. Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847, 853 (Sth Cir. 1988) . The termination without clause did provide for a termination fee to be paid to Union. Union, 860 F.2d at 849. Next, ServiceMaster argued the intent of the parties was to be bound to the contract. The dominant rule IS that the interpretation of a contract is controlled by the intention of the parties, and it is the duty of the courts to ascertain and give effect to the meaning and intent of the parties as expressed in the language used. Les-Bil V. General Waterworks, 256 Ark. 905, 511 S.W.2d 166 (1974). The express language used in the provision made \"the School's liability hereunder will be subject to the outcome (through either settlement, order of the Court or otherwise) of that litigation\" namely the motion in the school case concerning the ServiceMaster contract. When ServiceMaster entered into this Agreement it was fully aware of pending litigation. With full knowledge, ServiceMaster expressly agreed to be bound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. It is clear that ServiceMaster intended to be loound until a settlement or Court order terminated the contract. The Arkansas Court of Appeals has held that parol evidence isnot admissible to show subjective intent of the parties. Thi rule does not allow a party to prove by oral testimony that clear and unambiguous words were subjectively intended to have a meaning not fairly attributable to them. Martin v. Martin, 6 Ark.J^p. 18, 637 S.W.2d 612 (1982) . ServiceMaster cited a case which held that\" [i]t is a well- established principle of law that. in the interpretation or construction of the contract. the construction the parties  themselves have placed on the contract is entitled to great weight. and will generally be adopted by the courts in giving effect to its provisions. This is especially true in cases of ambiguity in the written contract.\" Worthen Bank \u0026amp; Trust Co. v. Adair, 15 Ark.App. 144, 151, 690 S.W.2d 727, 731 (En Banc 1985) . There is no ambiguity in the provision. The intent of the parties is clearly expressed in the provision. Section 14.12. The construction is that settlement or an order from the Court will terminate the contract. The objective manifestation of intent, not subjective manifestation, is what the court examines. The Court ruled that the provision. Section 14.12, was against public policy and refused to rule on the merits of the case. Joshua Intervenors motion that, in light of case law stating a provision which allows termination, even by only one party, is not against any established Arkansas public policy, the Court reconsider its ruling. In addition, Joshua Intervenors request that the Court determine whether LRSD and Joshua Intervenors entered into settlement which serves as grounds for termination of the contract between LRSD and ServiceMaster. In addition. since ServiceMaster was not a party to the litigation when the contract was entered, it is unreasonable to interpret the last sentence of 14.12 to include ServiceMaster as a party involved in any settlement. For the foregoing reasons, the reasons advanced by Servicemaster in oposition to reconsideration should be rejected. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 By:^ in W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was delivered to all counsel of record via U.S. mail on this January, 1996. day of in W. Walker LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Februar)' 22, 1996 TO: Board of Directors FROM\nFred L.^ Smith. Manager of Support Services III. Ily j^^iik^rfis. THROUGH: Henn/ i. Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ServiceMaster Questions The following information is being provided in response to concerns raised by Ms. Gee (list anached) and Ms. Pondexter\n Section 6.6 of the ServiceMaster contract is attached.  Item #2 of Ms. Gees list - ServiceMaster will receive no more than the contract amount. Any additional savings below the SI0.8 million budget amount will remain with the District.  Item #3 of Ms. Gees list - It was agreed that within 40 days no adjustment to the 1995-96 budget would be made since we would only be charged a pro-rated amount for the first year of the contract.  Item #4 of Ms. Gees list - Four (4) payments have been made to ServiceMaster for the months of October, 1995, through January, 1996.  Item #5 of Ms. Gees list - The 571,213 per month is the amount to satisfy the guarantee since ServiceMaster is required to provide actual documentation to support the supplies and equipment cost.  Item #6 of Ms. Gees list - Based on actual expenditures for the past several years, the 1995- 96 budget amount provides a realistic baseline.  Item i7 of Ms. Gees list - Attached is a schedule that shows the $10.8 million. With respect to the energy savings, the effect of the energy savings programs has already been included in the 1995-96 budget. It is true that a mild winter would have a positive impact on guarantee compliance. The converse is also true. A harsh winter would have a negative impact on guarantee compliance. Item #8 of Ms. Gees list - It is probably not possible to list all potential points of concern. However, we do have a detailed budget and Exhibit A is a part of the contract.  Item #9 of Ms. Gees list - The OEM system would oniy enhance, not conflict with, the Distncts system. cc\nDoug Eaton Jerry Compton FLS:caLittle Rock School District 1995-9S Budget Analysis Function Function Descriotion 2539 Other Facilities Acq \u0026amp;Co 2542 Upkeep of Buildings 2541 Service Area Direction 2544 Upkeep of Equipment 2545 Vehicle Maintenance 2548 Asbestos Program Magnet Schools Substitutes Amount $240,213 8,924,431 201,085 12,800 53,200 61,338 1.076,870 200,000 Total $10.779,937LRSD ADMIN. EULDING I Fax:1-bO1-324-2032 Mar 14 96 11:32 P. 02/02 If IriTLE Rock School Distioci' SPECr\\L board meeting March l-l, 1996 For more information. Suellen Vann. 324-2020 Ihe Board of Directors of the Liuie Rock School District (LRSD) will hold a spec?! Board meeting tonight at 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the monthly agenda meeting. The special meeting wail include 'eports on trie old Forest Heights building. ServiceMaster, custodian turnover, substitute office business case, approval of the 1996- 97 proposed budget, student hearings, and a personi.el issue. Both meetings will be held in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. SilO Wc'il Markliam Sirc*\n! Liltle Kock, Vrkan!,i4\u0026gt;i 73301  {,=501)334^-3\u0026amp;0n LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 14, 1996 CONriDENTIAL TO: Board of Directors FROM: Hej Imams, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: ServiceMaster Contract As requested by the Board at the February meeting, ServiceMaster will be responding to concerns raised by custodians at tonights meeting of the Board. District staff responsible for administering the ServiceMaster contract has expressed some concern to me about the administration of this contract. I have attached a copy of a memo from Mr. Eaton and Mr. Smith that details those concerns. I agree that if the ServiceMaster contract is to fail, it should be ServiceMasters fault and not the Districts. This way, we will have the full force of the contract in our favor. cc: Fred Smith Doug Eaton Charlie NealTO\nFROM: throug\nSUB J\nDATE: I am LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 SOUTH BRYANT STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (501) 570-4020 72204 CONFinCNTlAL r. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools iaton, Director, Plant Services \u0026gt;Fred Smith, Manager of Support Services ServiceMaster Contract February 23, 1996 writing to state the position, as one of the Districts contract administrators, that the vocal objections presented by the Board of Directors with regard to the ServiceMaster contract is placing the administration in a most precarious situation with regard to the legal enforcement of this contract. While it is a matter of record that the Board did not vote unanimously for this contract, it is also a matter of record that the Board did approve the entering of this contract, and in doing approved its clauses and stipulations. so. While the Board most certainly reserves the right of insuring that the administration enforces the contract that they have approved, that right must be exercised in a manner which will allow us to do it within the legal parameters of contract administration. Objections to the contract, raised by Little Rock School District employees are, of course, a are, concern to those of us who are trying to administer this Board directed contract. without full investigation being provided to the Board, with regard to concerns raised by employees, the Board must adequately hear all sides of the issue before However, providing further guidance. It is difficult for us to understand what direction that they would like us to proceed. If this contract is to succeed, it must succeed with a cooperative effort between the Little Rock School District and ServiceMaster Corporation. If this contract is to fail, it must fail because of the efforts of ServiceMaster and not the Little Rock School District and if we are put in a precarious situation of not having the support to administer this contract. equally at fault in the failure. then we could be heldPage Two CONFIBCN^'*^ Continued The Board's subtle messages are being interpreted by some of our principals as non support for this contract\nand that if they hold out long enough, it will go away. administer the Boards desires for this contract, For those of us trying to it is putting us in a precarious situation of having to administer a contract and to be as responsive to the school districts needs Sometimes there is a dichotomy in that situation. as possible. Unless full one hundred percent support for trying this contract exists, it is not going to be successful. I would like the opportunity to meet with you and discuss how we can proceed in administering this contract. DCE/apl/smc cc: Charlie Neal, Director, ProcurementGtroir \u0026amp; Gregory PROFESSIONAL ASSOOATiON ATTORNEYS AT UAW SUITC 1800 in CENTER STREET little rock. ARKAN\u0026amp;AS 73201 TVLCPHONC (5On 373-3000 RUfiSCLUViLUe OmCK! Ttuccewc* \u0026lt;\u0026amp;O|} (SOU 373.3A7S ti iowc3T*e- STRcrr KU^SCLLVlLLe. ARKANSAS 72801 rCLCFKONb \u0026lt;9011 887.7080 TELCCOAICR \u0026lt;8011 7 r078 March 15,1996 Mr. Jerry Malone Mr. Jim Clark Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 400 W. Capitol Suite 2000 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: School Board Action Regarding Custodians Schedules Thursday, March 14,1996 Gentlemen: As you may know, last night the Little Rock School Board passed a resolution that plant services employees should return to their old schedules. The motion Jor this action came following comments from several custodians regarding their new work schedules under the School Districts agreement with ServiceMaster. A discussion by the Board focused on a sentence in section 3.2(a) of the Agreement between ServiceMaster and e School which states: ServiceMaster will, upon request by the School, make recommendations in connection with wage and wage related matters, but ServiceMaster shall not make any decisions with respect to wages, hours or other working conditions for Service Employees. In taking this action, the Board has misinterpreted the contract provision with regard to the management of the service employees. When the word hours is used in the reference which is bolded above, it relates to the total hours of the service employees and in no way means the shift or assignments which ServiceMaster gives to the service employees in its duty to manage them. As it states in section 2.1(a): ServiceMaster agrees to train, manage and direct the Schools employees in the support service departments of School which are identified in Section 3.2 below (the Service Employees). conij KHIJ AVaiHH 9e/8T/cn a  :ftMr. Jerry Malone Mr. Jim Clark March 15, 1996 Page 2 As has been reported, School District officials who negotiated the Agreement wdth ServiceMaster are well aware of the fact that the ServiceMaster Guarantee (as provided for in Section 6.6 of the Agreement) was agreed to only in conjunction with the Schools agreement to allow ServiceMaster to control scheduling so as to provide for more efficient operations. The Board in taking this action has caused the School District to be in breach of its obligations under the Agreement. If the scheduling issue is of such importance to the Board and it is interested in amending the Agreement to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, then my client is certainly willing to discuss possible solutions. Otherwise, this letter shall serve as notice of the existing breach pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Agreement Consistent with said Section 12.1, if the breach of the Agreement is not cured to ServiceMasters satisfaction within 60 days, ServiceMaster fully intends to provide notice of termination at said time which would result in it being relieved of its duties under the Agreement 30 days thereafter. Please be advised that if ServiceMaster is forced to follow this course of action, it will also pursue all other remedies available to it under law. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you want to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, Joseph S. Mowe JSMjm cc: Mark Himel, ServiceMaster Management Services John Talley, Esq., ServiceMaster Management Services rno ij KHiH nvi Ava:aj O 9S Cl ge.'ST.co IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL \u0026lt;996 SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership a' FILED U S OI3T\".iCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKA.NSAS MAR 1 1 1996 JAMES By\n\"-'.to .54W. McQQRMACK, ClIRK OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS vs. AM.? 1 Q 'S MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481]\n(2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status [doc.#2483]\n(3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506]\n(4) motion of PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]\n(5) motion of Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]\n(6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]\n(7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") [doc.#2573]\n(8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of 2 6 4 the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing (doc.#2594]\nand (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction. dated October 25, 1995 (doc.#2612]. I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's. motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan (doc.#2481] and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status (doc.#2483]. The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan provisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\"), Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCS\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"hbcula_rwwl_1647","title":"Skits Recorded for Parents Need To Know - A Presentation of SCLC/W.O.M.E.N., 1991","collection_id":"hbcula_rwwl","collection_title":"Digital Collection of Robert W. Wooodruff Library (AUC)","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library"],"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":["This video features a presentation by SCLC/WOMEN including skits recorded for \"Parents Need to Know\". This video highlights scenarios of common concerns regarding teenager-parent relationships."],"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 Americans--Civil rights","African American teenagers","African American youth--Education"],"dcterms_title":["Skits Recorded for Parents Need To Know - A Presentation of SCLC/W.O.M.E.N., 1991"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/rwwl/id/1647"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["All works in this collection either are protected by copyright and/or are the property of the Robert W. Woodruff Library, and/or the copyright holder as appropriate. To order a reproduction or to inquire about permission to publish, please contact the Archives Research Center at: archives@auctr.edu With the web URL or handle identification number."],"dcterms_medium":["videotapes"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_947","title":"''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991-01/1992-03"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History","Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School enrollment","School discipline","School facilities","Student assistance programs","Gifted persons","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["''Status Report,'' North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/947"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"mum_civ-rights_pubs-14","title":"Struggling for Justice: Church Women United, Oxford, Mississippi 1962-1991","collection_id":"mum_civ-rights","collection_title":"Civil Rights Archive","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036"],"dcterms_creator":["Speer, Lisa K."],"dc_date":["1991-01-01"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Publications"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Mississippi","Mississippi--Race relations","Mississippi--Social life and customs","Civil rights movements--Mississippi","United States--Race relations","United States--History"],"dcterms_title":["Struggling for Justice: Church Women United, Oxford, Mississippi 1962-1991"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://egrove.olemiss.edu/civ_pubs/14"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Images in this collection are for personal use only. These items may not be reproduced, re-posted or saved except under fair use, as stipulated by U.S. Copyright Law: reproduction is not to be \"used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.\""],"dcterms_medium":["publications (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1506","title":"\"Students Placed in the Gifted Program,\" Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["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","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock School District","Educational innovations","Education--Standards","Educational statistics","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["\"Students Placed in the Gifted Program,\" Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1506"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["91 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_724","title":"SWAT visits","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":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Little Rock (Ark.). Office of Desegregation Monitoring","School facilities","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["SWAT visits"],"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/724"],"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\nInformal school visits and reports made by the Office of Desegregation and Monitoring\n0 3 Z 0 6  1 9 ? 1 11 rRQM JOHN W.UflLKER P.fl. TO 3'10100 P . 02 MBMORAMDUM to\nMR. JOHN W. WALKER FROM: MR. KIRK HERMAN MRS. JOY CHARLES-SPRINGER re: LRSD V. PC38D - New Construction within the LRSD date: MARCH 5, 1991 On site visits to four elementary schools (Geyer Springs, Cloverdale, Woodruff, and Western Hills) within the Little Rock District revealed substantial construction underway. Over 5.5 million dollars has been budgeted to effectuate changes in the present structures that were visited. Changes range from construction of additional classrooms, new playgrounds, parking lots, and cafeterias. Construction at all sites has been tentatively set for completion by the beginning of the new school year. August, 1991. Mr. Herman visited Woodruff and Western Hills. Cloverdale and Geyer Springs, as follows: I visited Our findings at the locations were CLOVERDALE ELEMENTARY Principal: Sadie Mitchell (black female) Current Student capacity: 400 students 75% black 25% white Current number of classrooms: 15 After construction the school will have 21\" classrooms (3 sections each of K-6) The construction will consist of t 5 tr additional classrooms, a new playground, office, nurse's station and a cafeteria to be shared with Cloverdale Jr. High School. Final student capacity (after construction)\nstudents 492 i I I03Z0B/1991 11:33 FROM JOHN U.UBLKER P . fl. TO 3710100 P. 03 i i ! I I I I PAGE TWO March 5, 1991 The only portable building at Cloverdale Elementary is the music room. High has several Cloverdale Jr. portables, The budget between Cloverdale Elementary and Jr. High is approximately 2 1/2 million dollars. GEYER SPRINGS ELgHSKTARY Principal\nEleanor Cox (black female) Current student capacity\n200 students 76% black 24% white Current number of classrooms\n9 After construction, the school will have 23\" classrooms. The construction will consist of \"14\" new classrooms, a new playground and a new parking lot. Final student capacity\n400 Anticipated capacity next school year\n325 There are currently 8 portable buildings that house the intermediate classes. There is also classroom sharing at Geyer Springs. The budget for Geyer Springs construction has been set at 1 1/2 million dollars. WESTERN HILLS BLEMSNTARY Principal\nMargie Puckett (white female) Current student capacity\n336 students 63.7% black 35.8% white ,5% other The construction will consist of \"10\" classrooms. additional I Iaszeszigai 1 1 ! 39 FROM JOHN U.USLKER P.fl. TO 3T10100 P . 04 PAGE THREE March 5, 1991 There are currently 6 portable buildings that house classes at Western Hills. The budget for Western Sills has been set at 1 million dollars. WOOPSPP? ELEMENTARY Principal\nPat Higginbotham (white female) Current student capacity\nunknown 80% black 20% white The construction will consist of \"10 new classrooms and expansion of the cafeteria. There are no portable buildings that house classes at Woodruff. The budget for Woodruff has been set between $800,000 and 1 million dollars. I I Please let us know if additional information is needed. I ( i I I I i i ! i I03zafi^l'?91 11:37 FROM JOHN U.UHLKER P.A. TO 3710100 p.ai JOHN w. Walker, P.A. Attorney at Law i?a Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas tjsob Telephone (5O1) 374-\ni758 FAX (501) :3744187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON \u0026gt;L\\RK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JK. Abo iximitwd io Practiw io n*nr^ \u0026amp; tb Din.nct uC CUwAib)*. FACSIMILE COVER I-AZAR M. PALNiCK LAW \u0026amp; FINANCE SLTx\nSUITE 1002 129 roURTH AVENiiL PmSBURGH. PA i52.S 1412) 28.?-?220 TO: 2^ CblAA/^ Y'KY. NO. : FROM: hr QlD DATE: RE: U^S) ptfjz. THIS FAX CONSISTS OF IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE. PAGE(S), PLEASE CALL AT THE NUMBER LISTED ABOVE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District January 29, 1992 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for J' CT Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule Please find attached the Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule for the third nine weeks. 810 West Narkham Street * Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-35611 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING THIRD VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 SCHEDULED DATE Wed., 01-22-92 SCHOOL Western Hills Elem. SPECIALISTS Dunbar, Tadlock Thu., 01-23-92 Jefferson Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar Mon., 01-27-92 Washington Maonet Dunbar, Tadlock Tue., 01-28-92 Booker Maqnet Tadlock, Dunbar II II Fair High Hobby, Smith Wed., 01-29-92 Central High Smith, Hobby II II Fulbright Elem, Dunbar, Tadlock Thu., 01-30-92 It It Geyer Springs Elem. Mabelvale Jr. High Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Fri., 01-31-92 Caryer Magnet Tadlock, Dunbar Mon., 02-03-92 Williams Magnet Dunbar, Tadlock Tue.. 02-04-92 Mabelvale Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar Wed., 02-05-92 Badgett Elem. Davis, Brooks It It Mann Magnet Smith, Hobby Thu.. 02-06-92 Bale Elem. Davis, Brooks Fri.. 02-07-92 Woodruff Elem. Dunbar, Tadlock II II Hall High Smith, Hobby Tue.. 02-11-92 Metropolitan Vo-Tech. Smith, Hobby Wed.. 02-12-92 Baseline Elem. Davis, Brooks Thu.. 02-13-92 II II Brady Elem. Gibbs Magnet Davis. Brooks Tadlock, DunbarLRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING THIRD VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 2 SCHEDULED DATE SCHOOL SPECIALISTS Fri., 02-14-92 Chicot Elem. Dunbar, Tadlock Mon., 02-17-92 Cloverdale Elem. Davis, Brooks II If McDermott Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar Tue.. 02-18-92 II fl II II Wed., 02-19-92 II II II If Thu.. 02-20-92 II II II II Mon., 02-24-92 II II II II Tue.. 02-25-92 II II II It Fri.. 02-28-92 II II Tue.. 03-03-92 II II Wed., 03-04-92 II II Cloverdale Jr. High Dodd Elem. Terry Elem. Fair Park Elem. Dunbar Magnet Meadowcliff Elem. Forest Park Elem. McClellan High Watson Elem. Otter Creek Wakefield Elem. Pulaski Heights Jr. High Parkview Magnet Pulaski Heights. Elem Wilson Elem. Romine Elem. Southwest Jr. High Franklin Elem. Henderson Jr. High Forest Heights Jr. High Garland Elem. Hobby, Smith Davis. Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Smith, Hobby Tadloc}'., Dunbar Davis, Brooks Hobby, Smith Dunbar, Tadlock Brooks, Davis Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Smith, Hobby Brooks, Davis Hobby, Smith Smith, Hobby Brooks. DavisLRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING THIRD VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 3 SCHEDULED DATE Thu., 03-05-92 SCHOOL Ish Elem. SPECIALISTS Brooks, Davis Mon., 03-23-92 Mitchell Elem. Brooks, Davis Tue., 03-24-92 Riqhtsell Elem. Brooks, Davis Wed., 03-25-92 Rockefeller Elem, Brooks, Davis Thu., 03-26-92 Stephens Elem. Brooks, DavisLittle Rock School District TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: April 1, 1992 Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring RECEIVED APR 7 1992 01iic3 of Desegregation Won'itorina James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Educational Equity Monitoring Schedule - Fourth Visit Please find enclosed the District's schedule for the fourth monitoring visits to all schools. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361LRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 2 SCHEDULED DATE Mon., 05-04-92 II tl Tue., 05-05-92 II II II II Wed., 05-06-92 II II II II Thu., 05-07-92 II II It II Fri., 05-08-92 Mon., 05-11-92 It II Tue., 05-12-92 II II It tl Wed., 05-13-92 II It tt II Thu., 05-14-92 II II II II SCHOOL Bale Elem. Fulbricfht Elem. Baseline Elem. Gever Sorinas Elem. Metrooolitan Vo-Tech. Bradv Elem. Cloverdale Jr. Hiqh Williams Maanet Cloverdale Elem. Mabelvale Elem. Pulaski Heiqhts Jr. Hiqh Mann Maqnet Dodd Elem. Woodruff Elem. Fair Park Elem. Gibbs Maqnet Southwest Jr. Hiqh Chicot Elem. Forest Park Elem. Henderson Jr. Hiqh Forest Heiqhts Jr. Hiqh McDermott Elem. otter Creek SPECIALISTS Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Smith, Hobbv Davis, Brooks Hobbv, Smith Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Hobbv, Smith Smith, Hobbv Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Tadlock, Dunbar Smith, Hobbv Dunbar, Tadlock Davis, Brooks Hobbv, Smith Smith, Hobbv Tadlock, Dunbar Brooks, DavisSCHEDULED DATE Mon., 04-06-92 Tue., 04-07-92 II 11 If 11 Wed., 04-08-92 II II tl II Thu., 04-09-92 II II II II Tue., 04-28-92 II tl Wed., 04-29-92 II 11 tl II Thu., 04-30-92 II II II It Fri.. 05-01-92 tl II It II LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 SCHOOL Franklin Elem. Carver Magnet Fair High Garland Elem. Central High Ish Elem. Western Hills Elem. Jefferson Elem. Mabelvale Jr. High Mitchell Elem. Hall High Rightsell Elem. Parkview Magnet Rockefeller Elem. Washington Magnet Booker Magnet McClellan High Stephens Elem. Badgett Elem. Dunbar Magnet Wilson Elem. SPECIALISTS Brooks, Davis Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Smith, Hobby Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Smith, Hobby Brooks, Davis Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Hobby, Smith Brooks, Davis Davis, Brooks Smith, Hobby Dunbar, TadlockLRSD PRE DEPT. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY MONITORING FOURTH VISIT SCHEDULE 1991-92 PAGE 3 SCHEDULED DATE Mon., 05-18-92 If H Tue., 05-19-92 It fl Wed., 05-20-92 SCHOOL Pulaski Heights. Elem Terrv Elem. Meadowcliff Elem. Romine Elem. Watson Elem. SPECIALISTS Brooks, Davis Dunbar, Tadlock Tadlock, Dunbar Davis, Brooks Dunbar, Tadlock Thu., 05-21-92 Wakefield Elem. Tadlock, Dunbar\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_1505","title":"\"Syracuse City School District Strategic Plan\"","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999"],"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":["Education","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School management and organization","School improvement programs","School integration"],"dcterms_title":["\"Syracuse City School District Strategic 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/1505"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["73 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_748","title":"Test data","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":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Test data"],"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/748"],"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\nState Benchmark Exams 1998-99 through 2000-01 Mathematics and Literacy Grades 4 and 8J. ^'i 'Aiiaf i r^iiiv.^ri~i\u0026amp;\u0026lt;tA'^*'ftito 4 /i Grade 4 Mathematics !. (-i- 4 r Pefcent fiwfident and Advanced In 1998-99 In 1999-00 In 2000-01 ' (. State 34% 41% * 48% i' *  'r\u0026lt; K\u0026gt; 4 . s S: LRSD PCSSD NLR 22% 30% 30% w ??% 43% 'W w '  '- tS 'if' J?' } s^i w* ? '-5 jtA ) 1 a as\u0026gt;ni 'U \u0026lt; 4 s Wj Ml V \u0026gt;*  5^'J' f* Grade 4 Mathematics \u0026gt; X  4-w  Percent PfOficiefit and Advanced -i. .f in 1998-99\n-In 1999-00: in 2000-01:  State Black LRSD White Black White 9% 14% 1. 18% Ho 44% 49% 57% k. 8% 15% 16% rW s. JS^ V 53% 61%  3 A  I * '  \u0026lt;\"J. ij i i i ! 1 4. Grade 4 Mathematics Highest Perforttiihg 3^\nMost Impfoved \" ' iX / , t i I 1. ? Jefferson 64% Baseline +23 Forest Park 57% Bale +19 Fulbright 53% Williams 52% Terry Gibbs, Carver 48% 46% ***   ' 44% 'i'. McDermott 44%  Fair Park +18  Franklin +14  Fulbright +11 Tejry +10 Badgett +9 Booker ,4 :fr' 1 * ' ^1 T \"1^! .1  't \u0026lt; 4 I Grade 4 Mathematics Below Basic f/- -'S.'.i .\u0026lt;.4UI^ 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 f I''*' \u0026gt; { 59% 55% 51% A*- Z''. v\n4 y-^ '\"A' .f 5 ,  ?5- 'tiLf e e r Grade 4 Mathematics Below Basic Xi* fi ,5 Lowest Percent .--'-'A. --. '''.''f :x A,  I  ' i Most Improved !r\u0026lt; ::  \u0026lt; [ f' Jefferson  Fulbright  Gibbs  Williams  Terry 14% 26% 29% 30% 33% .1  Bale  Fair Park  Baseline  Cloverdale Jefferson 36 28 22 21 17 6 3 i. .iiZ Ci if-X 'kJ } Grade 4 Literacy Percent Proficient aiid Advanced 't'y'.' -.t- - In 1998-99 - In 1999-00\n- In 2000-01: State 44% 47% 43% LRSD PCSSD NLR 32% 42% 35% ??% 34% ??% ??% 41% I.. m^2.4,. rlix.\n: * 79: ' i 4 ] 1 4 irt. jlb*..' Grade 4 Literacy r\u0026lt;r\".rrr JPefcefit Prc^ci^ntiajid Adviced ?/' i. V 'fr\u0026lt; . \u0026lt;' .i -In 1998-99: -In 1999-00: In 2000-01 State Black White 21% 51% 26% 21% a. 53% 51%   LRSD Black White 20% 30% V 23% 5- 62% 66% .'A ' 63%  x- -ia * S  .-4  -A- ? ^5 8 sA.'    -I.. in. \u0026gt; f .t' A 1 Grade 4 Literacy Ai 'S\u0026gt; r^J Highest i s\u0026lt; fl ''!t\n^iji' ^1 .4 Mfti r' \u0026lt;* .\u0026lt;- ? .+,i' ' i '\u0026gt; fij rA\u0026gt;\ni***' V'  Jefferson 95%  Fulbright 74% Forest Park 71%  Williams 52% Jefferson +24 Fair Park +14 Wakefield +11 e': V '-'.\\ *n': Terry 49% McDermott 47% Booker Baseline Bale + 9 + 4 *  ? \u0026lt; a' /  r?'. y'\u0026gt; (jibhs Vv' .k 1^1. 45%^ T, /A *7 Rockefeller 45% 'W I  [ Y\nX\nJ 'A' sJi 'i?- vS/Vt\nr- i k-'.yz'- nsgH1 . J Grade 4 Literacy BelbW Basic V.L. 4\n.A?f V'.'' .V 1 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 t I r. I-  . 41% 28% 32% 10 V 4, 'Ji s ' 3' -^4Grade 4 Literacy Below Basic .V'' .4 J'' 1 A Lowest Percent Jefferson Fulbright Forest Park McDermott Gibbs\nS.\\ Williaths Rockefeller L'\"- 0% 7% 9% 12^ i' 13% 14% f Most Improved Wakefield Wilson Jefferson Cloverdale Mabel vale '* 'h iH' v7 Booker 3 17 15 14 13 9 'tr?' i 8 11 r \u0026gt;ry' 3^ Ma a J i t Grade 8 Mathematics A  Percent Proficient and Advanced .t. ^z - In f^99-00: - In 2000-01: ,i State 21% LRSD PCSSD NLR 9% 17% ??% 14% ??% 15% f A- f, I 'n .f' 12 Jl*t 1 ) i I Grade 8 Mathematics \u0026gt;5^ Percent Proficient and Advanced State Black White i' LRSD Black White 1111999-00 In 2000-01\ny/' V: H' \"j c n, 3% 4% -4r* X h' k'l 19% 27% 2% 4% jiy 28% 45% ti 'J: {'\"i h . '.4*I 1 Grade 8 Mathematics ft- V li! LV'' \u0026lt;* Highest Performing J: Most Improved / J !*\u0026lt;\u0026gt; Pulaski Heights 32% Pulaski Heights 4-22  . Mirt,'.\n:.i \" *.'*7  ' '1. ' 'AiPF' ' Mann Dunbhr 29% 23% Mann Dunbar +12 + 9 \u0026lt; .y A, -'i-u I' t ' 14 'i. ,',  i-- 2:'AX\ng'.1 i 1 J Grade 8 Mathematics BelbWBasic  1999-2000 2000-2001 58% 55% tl '* t r? J r 'i\nr Lf- V'. u'-.-i. jf'W ?' i 15 : j-^ -j .j' Grade 8 Mathematics 1 Below Basic '1  'rr'-e 1- Lowest Percent Most Improved Mann 31%  Pulaski Heights -11 V. Pulaski Heights 42% Cloverdale 6 A \u0026lt;w ^j3\ni\nf t-- VI .1 .t ^55'^ 4 f j.' ' 16 '5^\nI 0 'i I Grade 8 Literacy Percent Proficient and Advanced State LRSD PCSSD NLR 5? 1999-2000 2000-2001 ??% 37% 15% 31% ??% 26% ??% 26%  V- C'r f k T. J'. 7, itet\n-V. i'T- I ft.' I, i'A r' i- V''^'5 t- A 7 \u0026gt; ' - 8^ 4 .. I j ! Grade 8 Literacy I- a Percent Proficient and Advanced \u0026gt; j. *7? -In 1999-00: -In 2000-01: State Black White 9% 16% 29% 44% LRSD Black White 4: 1. 8% 18% 32% 61% J:. 18 vlU.. r f. Grade 8 Literacy Highest Perfouning Most Improved Forest Heights 48% Pulaski Heights 45%  Forest Heights +31  Pulaski Heights+26 M' Mann \u0026lt;Sr' 7 -A- 44% t,- Dunbar Mabelvale V -f- +23 +21 X # \u0026gt; 'at.Grade 8 Literacy B^ldWBasic  / .  'J 5l( iS 'r.  1999-2000  2000-2001 5? 46% 33% I 'O* ViL f - ! 'Mr'' i.i- *f' I 1 20 0 i . -  \u0026lt; :I J I Grade 8 Literacy Helbw Basic r Lowest Percent Most Improved  Mann 17%  Forest Heights 25%  Pulaski Heights 27%  Mabelvale  Dunbar -26 -24 Mabelyale L)unbar r- V .'.hi 4 HdhdersPh 1 % 31% 32% ' J.'.'.*- ' Forest Heights -18 Hhhdersori -11 t-\n'5' .r.-v -* .1. \u0026gt;\u0026lt;e \u0026gt;' '.x f 21. \u0026lt; l^,Jli^'U. J 4i i.- tp j W Grade 4 Mathematics 'A*\n' 1* 'V' Highlights 'f**' ?}.? \u0026gt;\u0026gt; rc* 'r\u0026gt;- ii i-i '. J I- Percelit Proficient/Advanced did not 'm'- .*\n- \u0026gt;J fl. - . '{: vJviA^\nX'r decline\n8 points above baseline year. Percent Below Basic went down 4 points in one year and 8 points in two years. 18 schools improved. 1 7 i' S' \u0026gt; 't'  ' t.tf ^'. ' v-^\nh A- 22 \u0026gt;1'4 1 1 j Grade 4 Literacy Hishlights if. ....-, iSj.\nEVenjthoUgh'doy^^  Bistiict is still S^pdirits ahead of baseline year, compared to state s decline of one point since baseline year. percent performing Below Basic down 9 points since baseline year, compared to 6 5 for state !.-r-h .\u0026lt;V' XV .!\u0026gt;, 'f H-j. i.'-^l f. ,11 '\u0026lt;fc :*! 8 schools impfoyed\n3, stayed the s^ihe  'st \"i-.'r/ Jefferson scored 95%! ! i / iW' '3 M f  r 323, v1 Grade 8 Mathematics 4 Xtju \u0026gt;' '-Is !^,i X\n'm' B XsS-ii-''\" Sdoresw^^eilt up 8 points^ cOii^ sWs the state 7 of the 8 middle schodls improved t ek rtf- District out-performed NLR and PCSSD. ' 7 * Percent Below Basic went down 3 points 9 compared to 0 ppiutS for the State r!'.vV 2 \"I, u t * -'U, ? \u0026gt; V a\u0026gt; J 24 7 ^4^ A aJ Grade 8 Literacy Highlights \u0026lt;: I J A District improved 16 points^ comp^ed to ? 13 for the state. This area most improved of four tests All 8 middle schools improved. Percent at Below Basic declined 13  W-V- .f.' points, as compared to 9 for M ERSDdht pdrfoffled^ 4 V. PCSSD t' \"I j .1:\n1 '1 vi-25  t' .'fkir Grade 4 Mathematics .'/.^7CVr' ff Plans for Improvement Si Si :k V. ^4 Classfoom and homeWrk practice Sets S .k' '^i-Uk? aligned with Benchmark items have already been developed and distributed to schools it' .* for use in grades 3-5 rM *t .\u0026gt; WM tl V. Parent packets have Been developed arid I-'/v disseminated to each elementary school to ,f' x provide information and include activities forparehts to hefothieir children. t^, \u0026gt;* fp- * !# s,*' 26 W' 't r I L i iv^ K?3^ -^os  r'^5 ) i Grade 4 Mathematics Continued V j- L*\u0026gt;4 A \u0026lt; e t 3' -Lead teachers will facilitate after-school study groups to deepen teacher understanding of curriculum and to plan -f'- collaboratively A Mathematics staff will work collaboratively with principals to deyeloj) pl^S fbf - 4 itnproved .achievement\n, including plans for Content training for teachers. t SWiO'V ) -.4 Grade 4 Mathematics G ontinued iw fr-f 5\" ' '1^'' ^4^ - End-of-^module ctiteHon-referenced tests win be given after each mathematics modotile to keep track of student achievement on on-going basis. \u0026gt;- :r'AV.  yfi'' f^: \u0026lt; V- Students in grade 4 m 2001-Q2 will 'h^ RS'-y  .4 '\u0026gt; .'4- experienced the new curriculum for two yearS\"iirst timesb we should see gaitis 28. 25^:ni. Grade 4 Literacy J plans for ImproYement \u0026lt;*? 9.9^!^. Identify present 3^^ grade students who perforttied below grade level on the DRA(at the end of last 1 'v'ii' year) Identify present 4* grade students who are below grade level in reading (based upon combination of ALT score, classroom performance, and teacher V- i .1 '. .-.J  -i input) l\u0026gt;j' f i... :^- \u0026gt;\u0026lt; rain all grade^eaehers on adriimistfhddn oftheDRA .e - .t\" /\u0026gt; Ji  ' :i s.\"t -b i\n..Jt *\u0026gt; 5V.^\u0026lt;\u0026lt;Sfe V t  ' ih ^\n.W\n-i .1 .** 1 ! i\ni*. t Grade Four Literacy Plans for Lnrprover^ iAAM\u0026lt;Ua^adMUU*J\u0026lt;at2t r Administer the DRA40 all identified 3S1\u0026amp; 4*^\ngrade Students z--, ci- *y\u0026gt;' \u0026amp; Using those results, teachers write SAIPs on all students below grade level on the newly administered DRA. SAIPs would include providing instruction in guided reading, comprehension and writing - .y -y t Provide fiaining on guided reading, / bompreheh^idhahdCOtih^^^ grade teachers, beginning with teachers who have not ? k, had Effective Literacy 30 O I tV. J Grade F our Literacy Bitf irrthitii^ *1 \\4'' i-^ rc\u0026lt;i\u0026lt; FlausTfbrdmprovement 'Wt 't Pfoviae^training Monitor for Implementation 1. Develop Literacy Checklist 2. Continue classroom visitations and teacher demonstrations 3 aiS '?\u0026gt;/\u0026lt; c A\n.v ** .b t \u0026gt;*:'V mI dohtihhe dh-site ihdivii^uaii^ed grade level staff f development \" ' XJi V *K Provide all 3*^**, 4*, and 5^ grade teachers with six\nthemes of reading and writing prompts with iruhrics tailored to our reading program and correlated to the State Benchmark Exam \u0026gt;- f i y -- K* ? i*- Ji .!H. i KiX ,r f^* i * j_A-----?y . \u0026gt; - --- - -\u0026lt;---I Grade Si^atliematics 5'' Plans for^mprovemenh:, ^4f \"/S-vf. }\u0026gt; \u0026gt; # C\u0026gt; 'i-''i\u0026amp;V a! VT\u0026amp; 2. Developed and disMbuted for grades 6-8 '.V\u0026gt; classroom and homework practice sets aligned with Benchmark items. j- S Assigned two lead teachers to middle schools to provide support. OK  K ?' v' i. aV- I K' a Developed pacing guides for grades 6-8 to ensure\n?cp^er^ge- ofcriticalcontent r-tl \u0026lt; , Jt.' ..V' -All rH,' 32, i ,i.s' 1 1 Grade 8 Matnematics Gontinued - i J:  \\ End-Of-module diiterion-teferehced tests will be given after each module to keep ftack of student achievement on on-goihg y basis i \u0026gt; \u0026gt;- t-\n' VK Students taking the Benchmark in 2002 mil have had three years of Connected Mathemeities orie year in J). 4 a 2001) I F * \u0026gt; 1 IJ t jbgj \u0026lt;d* . y 33 fti-. i .1' i :jiiw 3'^ i * i*lJ. r* '' '^l-- .aaJMh ' -\" v'jyv*' *5^ iiirifaniitfcifatkr j^tos^foij^pro^ Af' -%\u0026gt;}. I-\n:*\"- \u0026gt;v. 'V ' Oi \u0026lt;*,'4!^: iOfeS Develop stratfegi\u0026lt;^lati\u0026amp;fbf  \u0026lt; I each school. Develop strategic plans for improvement for \u0026gt;-. ,f=' vA  'V W' ' fc - - iy- identified teachers Conduct quarterly check-point sessions at  , ' ' '\"i each school. Provide teacherded workshops on /hi Practices 99 Vx Best 34 K* -tr  t Iy b ( Grade 8 \"Literacy J Gontinued A,: i^ \u0026lt; '1 il^ 'Sv v T'acilitate interschool and intraschool collaboration and fearii teacliihg. e ' ' M '*i*?*i. *\n .A J: jk\u0026gt; ^\n'W''K Implement comprehension strategies in Mosaic of Thought Continue training in Mosaic of Thought Strategies throughsummer2002 \"nt'\nf 'i\" Jt' *  A  \" 'i rA i' ^T* i:. II?' :iSt S' f ti\" 51 I 14\n% i-t 'ft iai: I* ^1 s ) ' / \u0026gt;*?5 u* if iSSiS' 4^ \u0026gt;'?f o* Wi '!*' sj*3 '' -xc 'HJ''RKOESVEI JtL 2 * innt (i (ifHCfcC ^54 Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge' June 27, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One National Plaza 124 W. Capitol, Ste. 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: As per your telephone request of June 24, I am enclosing the following:  five years of SATO data, by school and race, and . two years of DRA data by school and race. We have not yet received the results of the State Benchmarks. Yours truly. Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg Enclosures cc: Dr. Kenneth James Junious Babbs Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032Developmental Reading Assessment The LRSD began the administration of the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) in fall 1999 (pre-test). The school year's post-test was administered in late spring 2000. Both tests were administered again in 2000-01. ORA scores are reported below as the percent of students by grade who scored at or above the \"readiness\" level. \"Readiness\" is defined as the necessary knowledge and skills for success at the next grade level. One-Year Changes Table 1 displays the schools' kindergarten scores by grade level so that the one-year change can be visible. Tables 2 and 3 display the grade 1 and grade 2 scores, respectively. received JUL 2 - omcfof DESESnON mowing 1School LRSD Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson .King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 1 Percent Readiness, Kindergarten Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 72.2 21.6 58.5 51.1 81.0 76.9 80.5 56.1 56.4 86.5 68.3 55.8 64.3 94.5 85.1 89.2 89.5 63.6 61.0 94.8 77.4 90.6 90.4 82.5 92.1 75.8 66.7 40.8 91.9 46.8 81.2 56.4 75.0 89.1 66.7 69.2 Spring 2001 80.7 50.0 59.0 94.0 89.6 93.4 90.4 70.9 82.5 80.0 75.6 82.9 58.6 94.0 87.7 93.4 83.9 80.5 73.3 94.3 77.1 92.3 90.6 84.9 80.5 76.2 86.4 66.1 86.7 61.1 84.1 73.7 73.0 89.7 80.0 46.2 Change 8.5 28.4 0.5 42.9 8.6 16.5 9.9 14.8 26.1 -6.5 7.3 27.1 -5.7 -0.5 2.6 4.2 -5.6 16.9 12.3 -0.5 -0.3 1.7 0.2 2.4 -11.6 0.4 19.7 25.3 -5.2 14.3 2.9 17.3 -2.0 0.6 13.3 -23.0 2School LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson King AAabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 2 Percent Readiness, Grade 1 Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 53.6 5.9 66.7 29.6 69.3 34.9 76.1 26.8 28.4 58.3 62.5 69.8 57.6 61.0 46.8 65.9 69.1 56.6 50.8 80.4 70.0 25.0 67.7 50.0 35.7 76.3 59.6 23.5 47.1 22.0 35.5 24.7 81.4 84.1 82.9 84.2 Spring 2001 63.8 26.5 66.6 70.8 87.4 53.5 91.8 51.2 33.9 73.5 72.7 80.0 58.9 66.6 38.6 71.4 73.9 66.6 60.5 87.9 66.6 25.0 69.6 61.7 41.7 65.2 76.5 51.0 59.8 66.6 41.1 66.6 55.6 97.1 53.8 61.5 Change 10.2 20.6 -0.1 41.2 18.1 18.6 15.7 24.4 5.5 15.2 10.2 10.2 1.3 5.6 -8.2 5.5 4.8 10.0 9.7 7.5 -3.4 0 1.9 11.7 6.0 -11.1 16.9 27.5 12.7 44.6 5.6 41.9 25.8 13.0 -29.1 -22.7 3School LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson __________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Table 3 Percent Readiness, Grade 2 Spring 2000 and Spring 2001 Spring 2000 67.5 11.8 72.1 47.1 79.8 70.8 81.8 38.6 57.9 51.7 62.9 89.6 81.2 79.3 72.5 80.5 71.1 80.8 43.4 67.1 57.9 48.6 87.2 45.2 94.7 71.4 68.8 31.3 81.2 40.0 63.3 54.4 89.5 89.7 60.4 78.3 Spring 2001 75.4 42.9 81.4 60.5 81.4 79.6 93.1 52.1 45.1 82.8 67.7 85.7 83.6 88.7 66.0 82.9 85.0 85.6 63.0 89.6 75.0 50.0 90.5 74.5 70.5 84.2 81.6 61.4 67.1 54.4 81.4 51.2 91.7 92.6 61.4 86.5 Change 7.9 31.1 9.3 13.4 1.6 8.8 11.3 13.5 -12.8 31.1 4.8 -3.9 2.4 9.4 -6.5 2.4 13.9 4.8 19.6 22.5 17.1 1.4 3.3 29.3 -24.2 12.8 12.8 30.1 -14.1 14.4 18.1 -3.2 2.2 2.9 1.0 8.2 4Performance Levels Table 4 below displays a comparison for the District and by school of the spring 2000 and spring 2001 kindergarten scoresthe percent of students who scored at or above the readiness level. Tables 5 and 6 provide the results for first grade and second grades, respectively. The schools shaded black are those schools with 80 percent or more students scoring at or above the \"readiness\" level. Sray-shaded schools are those with 50-79 percent of the students scoring at the \"readiness\" level. The schools in white boxes are those schools with fewer than half (0-49 percent) of the students scoring at the \"readiness\" level. 5Table 4 Percent Readiness, Kindergarten, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average McDermott Fulbright Rightsell Terry Mitchell Otter Creek Jefferson Gibbs Williams Dodd Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Washington Booker Carver Meadowcliff Brady______ Rockefeller Western Hills Woodruff Fair Park Wilson______ Romine Franklin King Mabelvale Bale Cloverdale Watson Chicot Forest Park Baseline Wakefield Garland Badgett 1999-2000 72.2 94.8 94.5 92.1 91.9 90.6 90.4 89.5 89.2 89.1 86.5 85.1 82.5 81.2 81.0 80.5 77.4 76.9 75.8 75.0 69.2 68.3 66.7 66.7 64.3 63.6 61.0 58.5 56.4 56.4 56.1 55.8 51.1 46.8 40.8 21.6 School LRSD Average McDermott Baseline Fulbright Gibbs Brady Mitchell Otter Creek Carver Williams Booker Geyer Springs Terry Romine Pulaski Heights Washington Jefferson Forest Park Cloverdale King Rightsell Dodd Wilson Meadowcliff Rockefeller Fair Park Watson Mabelvale Western Hills Chicot Stephens Wakefield Bale Franklin Badgett Woodruff 2000-01 80.7 94.3 94.0 94.0 93.4 93.4 92.3 90.6 90.4 89.7 89.6 87.7 86.7 86.4 84.9 84.1 83.9 82.9 82.5 80.5 80.5 80.0 80.0 77.1 76.2 75.6 73.7 73.3 73.0 70.9 66.1 61.1 59.0 58.6 50.0 46.2 6Table 5 Percent Readiness, Grade 1, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average 1999-2000 School 53.6 LRSD Average 2000-01 64.0 Woodruff Williams Wilson Western Hills McDermott E 1 1 Rockefeller Carver Meadowcliff Forest Park Booker Jefferson Otter Creek Bale Gibbs Fair Park Fulbright Romine Dodd Franklin King Mabelvale Pulaski Heights Terry Geyer Springs Rightsell_____ Washington Brady Baseline Cloverdale Chicot Mitchell Watson Garland Wakefield Badgett 76.3 76.1 70.0 69.8 69.3 69.1 67.7 66.7 65.9 62.5 61.0 59.6 58.3 57.6 56.6 50.8 50.0 47.1 46.8 35.7 35.5 34.9 29.6 28.4 26.8 25.0 24.7 23.5 22.0 05.9 Williams Carver McDermott Booker Forest Park Romine Jefferson Dodd Fair Park Gibbs Baseline Otter Creek Watson Wakefield Fulbright Kins_________ Meadowcliff Bale Rockefeller Pulaski Heights Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Franklin Western Hills Wilson Brady Chicot Stephens Rightsell_____ Washington Geyer Springs Cloverdale Badgett______ Mitchell RTwl 76.5 73.9 73.5 72.7 71.4 70.8 69.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 65.2 61.7 61.5 60.5 59.8 58.9 55.6 53.8 53.5 51.0 51.0 41.7 41.1 38.6 33.9 26.5 25.0 7Table 6 Percent Readiness, Grade 2, 2000 and 2001 All Students School LRSD Average Rightsell Williams Forest Park Western Hills Otter Creek Carver Franklin Terry King Gibbs Booker_______ Fulbright_____ Woodruff Geyer Springs Bale_________ Rockefeller Jefferson Brady________ Romine McDermott Washington Fair Park Wilson Cloverdale Meadowcliff Watson Dodd Mitchell Baseline Pulaski Heights Mabelvale Wakefield Chicot Garland Badgett 1999-2000 67.5 94.7 89.7 89.6 89.5 87.2 81.8 81.2 81.2 80.8 80.5 79.8 79.3 78.3 72.5 72.1 71.4 71.1 70.8 68.8 67.1 63.3 62.9 60.4 57.9 57.9 54.4 51.7 48.6 47.1 45.2 43.4 40.0 38.6 31.3 11.8 School LRSD Average Carver Williams Western Hills Otter Creek McDermott Fulbright Woodruff Forest Park King Jefferson Rockefeller Franklin Gibbs Dodd Romine Washington Booker Bale Brady Meadowcliff Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Fair Park Terry Geyer Springs Mabelvale Wilson Stephens Baseline Wakefield Chicot Watson Mitchell Cloverdale Badgett 2000-01 75.4 93.1 92.6 91.7 90.5 89.6 88.7 86.5 85.7 85.6 85.0 84.2 83.6 82.9 82.8 81.6 81.4 81.4 81.4 79.6 75.0 74.5 70.5 67.7 67.1 66.0 63.0 61.4 61.4 60.5 54.4 52.1 51.2 50.0 45.1 42.9 8Achievement Gap The achievement gap between African American and other students is always an issue of concern in the Little Rock School District. A major emphasis in the PreK-3 Literacy Plan is the significant narrowing and eventual elimination of that gap. Tables 7, 8, and 9 provide DRA data, by school, reflecting the achievement of African American and other students for comparison purposes and a calculation of the gaps. The gap is being addressed at this level not only through the literacy and mathematics program initiatives in the primary grades, but also by the addition of as many pre-kindergarten sections as has been possible. As of spring 2001 there were 953 four-year-olds enrolled in pre-kindergarten classes and another 358 in HIPPY and infant/toddler programs for a total of 1312. 9School Table 7 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at Readiness\" Level, Kindergarten, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Black 99-00 69.3 16.1 56.8 48.6 85.4 84.6 74.4 59.2 54.2 88.2 67.7 30.4 65.6 89.5 90.0 90.5 80.0 59.6 61.5 94.7 82.6 89.7 91.2 72.7 91.7 67.4 78.9 40.4 92.7 53.3 81.8 57.1 76.2 92.3 71.4 68.6 Black 00-01 77.0 52.6 61.3 92.5 92.3 92.3 83.8 70.6 82.2 76.5 72.7 53.8 59.3 81.3 87.5 66.7 75.5 78.1 86.4 77.8 92.3 87.1 79.3 80.0 73.7 85.4 65.5 87.5 77.1 64.4 75.0 73.2 73.1 86.7 79.4 48.6 Non-Black 99-00 84.7 100.0 80.0 100.0 79.4 72.7 91.7 60.0 83.3 85.0 77.8 91.3 60.0 97.2 80.0 87.5 97.2 70.0 75.0 97.3 62.5 100.0 94.6 94.4 100.0 90.9 73.3 0.0 96.2 33.3 83.3 0.0 77.8 88.5 33.3 75.0 Non-Black 00-01 88.8 0.0 50.0 100.0 85.7 100.0 97.2 71.4 83.3 88.2 85.7 100.0 100.0 98.0 100.0 96.9 86.5 66.7 100.0 72.7 0.0 95.5 91.7 100.0 80.0 87.5 100.0 100.0 94.7 44.4 95.7 33.3 72.7 92.9 80.0 25.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Gap 99-00 15.4 83.9 23.2 51.4 6.0* 11.9* 17.3 0.8 29.1 3.2* 10.1 60.9 5.6* 7.7 10.0* 3.0* 17.2 10.4 13.5 2.6 20.1* 10.3 3.4 21.7 8.3 23.5 5.6* 40.4* 3.5 20.0* 1.5 57.1* 1.6 3.8* 38.1* 6.4 Gap 00-01 11.8 52.6* 11.3* 7.5 6.6* 7.7 13.4 0.8 1.1 11.7 13.0 46.2 40.7 16.7 12.5 30.2 11.0 11.4* 13.6 5.1* 92.3* 8.4 12.4 20.0 6.3 2.1 34.5 12.5 17.6 20.0* 20.7 39.9* 0.4* 6.2 0.6 23.6* 10School Table 8 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at \"Readiness\" Level, Grade 1, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff * Block 99-00 48.3 7.4 81.5 30.2 61.4 34.2 64.7 28.0 28.3 60.0 57.7 53.3 57.1 60.9 47.1 50.0 55.0 52.5 51.1 85.7 70.0 28.1 46.7 31.8 38.5 62.9 64.7 24.1 31.0 24.5 24.4 27.3 78.1 81.3 87.5 84.4 Block 00-01 57.4 22.6 65.2 68.3 88.5 48.4 83.3 59.3 30.9 72.2 64.7 65.0 59.4 58.3 51.7 54.5 56.8 65.5 87.5 65.5 25.7 87.8 45.5 42.9 62.5 80.0 53.2 36.6 36.1 59.5 36.8 27.7 46.4 97.1 55.1 65.7 Non-Block 99-00 71.2 0.0 58.8 20.0 84.6 52.9 90.3 26.9 33.3 62.5 100.0 82.9 100.0 68.8 46.2 85.0 84.4 64.4 66.7 76.9 77.8 0.0 88.2 68.0 0.0 95.8 50.0 25.0 73.5 14.3 55.2 0.0 90.9 89.7 75.0 83.3 Non-Black 00-01 77.3 100.0 69.2 85.7 85.7 66.7 100.0 36.0 57.1 73.3 100.0 92.0 66.7 74.4 92.6 91.7 76.1 50.0 87.9 69.2 0.0 89.3 75.0 90.0 71.4 73.3 33.3 66.7 75.9 38.5 50.0 0.0 87.5 97.0 33.3 25.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Gap 99-00 22.9 7.4* 22.7* 10.2* 23.2 18.7 25.6 1.1* 5.0 2.5 42.3 29.6 42.9 7.9 0.9* 35.0 29.4 11.9 15.6 8.8* 7.8 28.1* 41.5 36.2 38.5* 32.9 11.7* 0.9 42.5 10.2* 30.8 27.3* 12.8 8.4 12.5* 1.1* Gop 00-01 19.9 77.4 4.0 17.4 2.8* 18.3 16.7 23.3* 26.2 1.1 35.3 27.0 7.3 16.1 40.9 37.2 19.3 15.5* 0.4 3.7 25.7* 1.5 29.5 47.1 8.9 6.7* 19.9* 30.1 39.8 21.0* 13.2 27.7* 41.1 0.1* 21.8* 40.7* 11School Table 9 Percent of Black and Non-Black Students at \"Readiness\" Level, Srade 2, 1999-2000 and 2000-01 LRSD Average Badgett______ Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Seyer Springs Sibbs Jefferson King Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell_____ Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Black 99-00 63.8 9.7 71.4 46.2 81.0 72.5 78.3 42.9 62.7 52.9 54.5 83.3 83.1 75.0 69.7 71.4 58.6 78.6 32.4 62.8 55.2 50.0 87.5 30.0 97.3 65.8 65.6 39.3 83.3 40.5 61.7 53.2 92.6 87.1 58.1 82.9 Black 00-01 69.8 44.4 84.4 60.5 70.9 76.3 91.1 55.3 46.7 73.7 62.5 62.5 83.3 83.3 63.9 75.0 78.3 78.4 60.0 89.5 80.0 42.9 91.7 65.0 69.8 72.7 83.3 58.5 59.4 46.9 74.3 59.2 91.4 91.4 60.0 84.8 Non-Black 99-00 81.6 50.0 83.3 57.1 79.5 100.0 94.7 31.6 25.0 71.4 90.0 96.3 0.0 93.0 85.7 90.0 78.7 93.9 68.8 86.4 57.1 66.7 90.0 65.0 0.0 93.8 80.0 80.0 77.5 50.0 73.1 80.0 100.0 94.3 80.0 77.8 Non-Black 00-01 86.8 0.0 72.7 60.0 95.2 90.9 95.2 46.2 20.0 100.0 100.0 97.0 100.0 93.1 72.7 94.1 89.2 95.6 83.3 89.7 50.0 0.0 89.7 81.5 0.0 100.0 75.0 100.0 72.2 100.0 88.6 0.0 92.3 93.9 75.0 100.0 Denotes schools where Blacks perform higher than Non-Blacks. Sap 99-00 17.8 40.3 11.9 10.9 1.5* 27.5 16.4 11.3* 37.7 18.5 35.5 13.0 83.1* 18.0 16.0 18.6 20.1 15.3 36.4 23.6 1.9 16.7 2.5 35.0 97.3* 28.0 25.6 40.7 5.8* 9.5 11.4 26.8 7.4 7.2 21.9 5.1* Sap 00-01 17.0 44.4* 11.7* 0.5* 24.3 14.6 4.1 9.1* 26.7* 26.3 37.5 34.5 16.7 9.8 8.8 19.1 10.9 17.2 23.3 0.2 30.0* 42.9* 2.0* 16.5 69.8* 27.3 8.3* 41.5 12.8 53.1 14.3 59.2* 0.9 2.5 15.0 15.2 12 fJOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS 7\u0026lt; 7^ j John w. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 Via Facsimile - 371-0100 August 15, 2001 OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone: (501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenryd^wbell.net Ms. Ann S. Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED AUG 1 7 ZOOI Dear Ms. Marshall: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Please find enclosed Stanford Nine results for reading and language. This is information that we have not been previously provided by the Little Rock School District. It is not within any of the volumes of documents submitted by the school district to either the court or the parties. Several witnesses indicated that these data have been available and are being used by the District at the same time the new superintendent. Dr. James and Dr. Bonnie are proposing to discontinue much of the testing. The Board has approved eliminating much of the testing. The enclosed testing information reveal the reasons for abandonment of tests by the District. While the school district may not have eliminated the Stanford 9, it appears headed in that direction. Mr. Heller is complaining that we have sought too much information from the District and are obstructing school opening. Please see my letter to him today. As the monitor approved by the court. I am writing to request that you obtain all of the test data on all of the subjects test for each school. I am also requesting that you provide a report to the parties assessing the LRSDs progress with respect to remediation of achievement disparities between African American and non African American children during the past four years. Thank you for your immediate attention to this request. incerely, John W. Walker JWW\njs Enclosure 4. 0 fifed /i'6rary - f.rcj '^etl I 9 O n 9 ACHiEl^EMBHT TEST SEJUES, NINTH EDITION n G^BLADE: 07 Item Analysis Summary FOR LITTLE ROCK ? o TEST TYPE: MULTIPLE CHOICfi TEST DATE: 09/00 District Code: 036001 Page 14 T H L D SUBTEST CLUSTER OBJECTIVE Rems Item Number Aslan/ Padfie Is. t ! J t u c J I 3 0 H J T 0 PROCESS CLUSTER SUMMARY FOR Thinking Skills 42 Iteew Mean p^value Above Averege Avere^ Belew Aver^^a 71 43 52 5 49 8 39 55 SUBTEST SUMMARY FOR Reading Comprehension Ta-tal N-Count: ASIANZPACIFIC IS.= NATIVE AHERXCAN: DISTRICT* 21 BLACK= 1046 1 WHITES 401 1511 54 Items Hean p'velua HISPANICS OTHERS 21 15 74 52 STANFORD tEVEL/FORM: Irtetwediale i/T 1995 NORMS: Fall National response: analysis PERCENT CORRECT Hispanic 54 lo 43 46 56 Scores based on oomiative data copyrieht O 1996 by Harooust Brace A CcTi^any. AB rescrveiL Natfv* Anwvtcan 40 0 0 5 37 While 73 44 44 12 75 Otker 69 20 47 33 63 District 56 18 41 41 59 NKnal 63 66 Copy 01 PtocmjNo. HII2-J92IU-15-OJM3-1Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 August 20, 2001 Mr. John W. Walker 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear John: Thank you for your letter of August 15, 2001, to which you attached certain Little Rock School District standardized test results. The data you included were for the SAT-9 taken by 7'* graders in September 2000 and for the ACTAAP benchmark exams for 8\" graders, administered in April 2000. We are in the process of gathering various test data from the districts. However, due to the ongoing hearings on the LRSDs bid for unitary status and Judge Wrights associated directives, at this time I dont anticipate that ODM will issue a report on LRSD achievement indicators. ! very much appreciate your keeping us informed. Sincerely yours, Ann S. MarshallT Date: August 21, 2001 To: From: Re: Melissa Inventory of LRSD Test Data Attached is an accumulation, from various sources, of LRSD test data. 1 need you to list out exactly what were got here by test, subject area, date administered, and grade level. Next, indicate any holes in the information, that is, what tests, dates, or grade levels are missing. It may be helpful to refer to Genes chart (distributed at staff meeting several weeks ago) of the various tests each district gives and the time of their administration. After youve finished the LRSD, do the same for the PCSSD and NLRSD. I dont think we have much recent test data on hand from either of the other districts. Once youve determined what we don t have, write a draft of a letter to each district that will enable us to update our files. The attached copies are mine, so please return them when youre through. See how fast you can get this done. Thanks much.Name of Report Standardized Testing Annual Rpt Standardized Testing Annual Rpt AMPT Results 5 year Comparison MAT-6 National Percentile Scores Comparative Data AMPT Results 5-Year Comparison Comparison of Passing Rates on the MPT AMPT Test Results SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Cun e Equivalent Scores SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Cune Equivalent Scores AMPT Third Administration SAT Percentile Rank/Normal Curve Equivalent Scores Comparative Data SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Curve Equivalent Scores SAT 8 Nat'l Percentile Rank/ Normal Curve Equivalent Scores AMPT SAT 8 Annual Report Analyses SAT 8 Percentile Rank and Normal Curve Equivalent SAT Percentile Rank/Normal Curve Equivalent Scores/Comparative Data SAT 8 Percentile Rank and Normal Curve Equivalent LRSD Testing Reports on File at ODM March 5,1996 Year(s) 1986-87 1987-88 1987-91 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 1988-92 1989-92 1989-93 1992 1992 1992 1992-93 1993 1993 1993-94 1994-95 Fall, 1995 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 1995 Summarized By school Bv school District summary District summan' By school District summary District summary \u0026amp; by school By school District summary^ By school By school By school District summary By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summan By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summary By school \u0026amp; district summary Grades 1-6 1-6 3,6,8 1-11 3,6,8 3,6,8 3, 6,8 1-11 1-11 8 1-11 1-11 1-11 6,8 1-11 1-11 1-11 1-11 Race BAV B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W B/W Gender F/M F/M F/M F/M F/M Areas Reported Subject areas Subject areas # pass. # fail, by subject area Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas # pass\n# fail Basic Battery/ Complete Battery Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Subject areas Basic Battery, Complete BatteryTest Subject Date Administered The following are the recent LRSD test results that are in our files. DRA Literacy Spring 2000, Spring 2001 SAT 9 Reading 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Math 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Language arts 1996-97-2000-01 SATO Science 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Social studies 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Basic battery 1996-97-2000-01 SAT 9 Complete battery 1996-97-2000-01 ACTAAP Math 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Literacy 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Math 1998-99-1999000 ACTAAP Literacy 1998-99-1999000 Grade Levels K 1st 2n 5\\ 7\\ IO' 5th, 1 Qth 5'\\ 7\\ IO* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 5*, 7*, 10* 4th 4* 8* 8* The following, which are duplicates of those in our files, were sent by John Walker. SAT-9 Reading September 2000 7* SAT-9 Language arts September 2000 7* ACTAAP Literacy April 2000 8*IMw Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge August 23, 2001 Ms. Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Melissa\nI am attaching, as per your request, copies of the grade 4 Benchmark scores for 1998- 99 and 1999-2000. We do not have as yet the 2000-01 reports. I am also attaching a copy of the grade 8 scores for the pilot year in 1999-2000. Again, we do not have the 2000-01 results as yet. As I told you on the telephone, we have not had time as yet to put all the ALT scores on tables. I have the all-student reports done, but I still lack the disaggregations. That task is next on my list. As soon as I get them done, I will provide the full set to you. I sent you earlier our preliminary report on the Developmental Reading Assessment. I now have tables constructed of all the Observation Survey data, each of the five subtests, including disaggregations, plus the mean scores for each sub-test on the DRA, again disaggregated, so I am sending those pages along as well. Wonderful stuff! Let me know if you have questions. Yours truly, Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Attachment cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W. Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 T  5AT - /^C'TA A? TO A 6At^ 1|. Srt /icrnpre (JiCf\u0026gt;i\u0026lt;/ii\u0026lt;naiiK^ i\u0026lt; 1/ I ( I J(A'^ nii.\\ h i:\u0026gt;i/ia- Ci^'^ ^2A^-~___ xuyra\u0026gt;\u0026lt;g__ ^yDcl ^Ido______ loo______ __'~l )(oo 7^0 _bfdlin____^Qii ) _____200' 0 I___ h 5 n f! u II H H U :i. i IJ ~7 2. 1 1^ /a 2..,. 1 s.^1 /o )  ^.7lo GraudLf- It II 4^Individual Approach to a World of'Knowledge ?SII1 August 23, 2001 Ms, Melissa Guildin Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Melissa: I am attaching, as per your request, copies of the grade 4 Benchmark scores for 1998- 99 and 1999-2000. We do not have as yet the 2000-01 reports. I am also attaching a copy of the grade 8 scores for the pilot year in 1999-2000. Again, we do not have the 2000-01 results as yet. As I told you on the telephone, we have not had time as yet to put all the ALT scores on tables. I have the all-student reports done, but I still lack the disaggregations. That task is next on my list. As soon as I get them done, I will provide the full set to you. I sent you earlier our preliminary report on the Developmental Reading Assessment. I now have tables constructed of all the Observation Survey data, each of the five subtests, including disaggregations, plus the mean scores for each sub-test on the DRA, again disaggregated, so I am sending those pages along as well. Wonderful stuff!  Let me know if you have questions. Yours truly, 4 Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed. D. Associate Superintendent for Instruction Attachment cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 y / /-I AUG 2 V ZOGi Table 1 Letter IdentificationKindergarten-Black Students Maximum Score = 54 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATiOMrlO^lTDF School Fall 1999 Spring Growth 2000 Fail 2000 Spring Growth 2001 Codes LRSD Badgett_______ Bale Baseline_______ Booker________ Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd_________ Fair Park_____ Forest Park Franklin______ Fulbright_____ Geyer Springs Gibbs_________ Jefferson______ King__________ Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell______ Rockefeller Romine_______ Stephens (Grid) Terry_________ Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 27.59 20.56 26.56 16.78 37.31 29.17 26.37 21.43 20.88 31.19 29.03 31.22 I 21.06 38.81 29.45 40.25 25.75 29.73 23.03 28.72 28.45 39.92 29.82 26.38 39.44 25.44 37.47 29.81 34.09 I 25.81 23.51 21.96 20.25 38.32 22.90 30.57 48,48 45,33 50.67 38.28 51.92 50.33 50.84 48.50 48.83 51.25 47.21 50.17 50.03 53.44 49.33 54.00 46.80 49.93 49.50 51.94 49.23 45.48 51.58 48.38 50.69 48.09 50.90 48.57 51.54 45.81 41.87 45.25 43.80 51.24 49.12 46.83 Only students with a fall and spnng score arc included in this report. 20.89 24.77 24.11 21.50 14.61 21.16 24.47 27.07 27.95 20.06 18.18 18.95 28.97 14.63 19.88 13.75 21.05 20.20 26.47 23.22 20.78 5.56 21.76 22.00 11.25 22.65 13.43 18.76 17.45 20.00 18.36 23.29 23.55 12.92 26.22 16.26 27.43 12.38 30.85 29.03 32.37 28.08 28.67 21.26 21.35 26.13 34.09 25.82 23.10 30.38 29.06 37.15 21.68 32.43 29.68 28.27 24.23 26.17 31.58 24.15 29.70 25.74 30.03 20.04 30.70 24.84 32.20 23.25 34.52 38.19 21.07 25.64 49.38 46.62 49.59 46.89 51.24 49.48 52.08 45.85 48.35 51.31 53.82 49.73 49.48 50.92 50.90 53.76 48.32 48.80 46.96 51.60 45.48 49.41 50.77 50.37 50.45 49.89 51.50 48.06 50.63 47.13 47.88 49.00 45.57 52.11 50.07 49.39 21.95 34.24 18.74 17.86 18.87 21.40 23.41 24,59 27.00 25.18 19.73 23.91 26.38 20.54 21.84 16.61 26.64 16.37 17.28 23.33 21.25 23.24 19.19 26.22 20.75 24.15 21.47 28.02 19.93 22.29 15.68 25.75 11.05 13.92 29.00 23.75 FR SP SP FR SFA, SP RR M YC, SFA, SP M YC,FRRR,SP FR SFA, SP.CSR RR, CSR SP FR, SFA, SP I, FR, RR, SP FR, RR. SP RR, .M RR SP FR EYE, SP TA FR. SFA, SP I, FR, SP RR, TA I, FR.SP I, SP YC, SFA, SP I, FR, EYRSP YC, TA FR, SP NC, DI, ,M, SP FR CSR SP SP RR M FR RRSP FRSFA.EYE,SP Codes: DI=Direct Instrucuon\nEYE=Extended Year Education\nFR=75% or higher eligible for free/reduced lunch\nl=lncennve School\nM=Magnet School\nNC=Newconier Center\nRR=Reading Recovery\nSFA=Success for All\nTA=Title I Targeted Assistance\nSP=Title 1 Schoolwide Project 98/ / - ZX5(9 ffirrt h It, Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge August 28, 2001 V*  4 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann\n1 promised to send to you our ALT data as soon as I could get the disaggregated scores onto tables. I completed the grades 2-8 reading and language usage reports this past week-end, so they are attached. As soon as other reports are ready, I will also forward them. \\Ne are told that the Benchmark results will arrive this week. If they do, well work to get those to you as quickly as possible. Yours truly, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent of Instruction BAL/adg cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 J Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge September 10, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring One Union National Plaza 124 W. Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Marshall: RECF''^D SEP I i' ?!l!)l urHbi\nV- 1 0WGATi02^GJjjI0RiMB All of our test scores are finally in, and we have compiled our reports, attaching for your files the following\nI am 1. ALT Reading and Language Usage 2. ALT Mathematics and Science 3. Grade 4 Literacy and Mathematics - Benchmarks 4. Grade 8 Literacy and Mathematics - Benchmarks 5. ACT, 1997-98 through 2000-01 6. Advanced Placement Please let me know if you have questions. Sincerely, Bonnie A. Lesley, Ed.D Associate Superintendent for Instruction BAL/adg Attachments cc: Dr. Kenneth James Chris Heller 810 W Markham  Litde Rock, Arkansas 72201  www.lrsd.kl2.ar.us 501-324-2000  fax: 501-324-2032 John W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 CC JOHN W. WALKER SHAWN CHILDS OF COUNSEL ROBERT McHENRY, P.A. DONNA J. McHENRY 8210 Henderson Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72210 Phone\n(501) 372-3425  Fax (501) 372-3428 Email: mchenrydl^wbell.net Via Facsimile - 371-0100 November 12, 2001 Ms. Ann Marshall Office of Desegregation Monitoring 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 RECEIVED NOV 14 2001 Re: LRSD Six Year SAT 9 Summary lafflCEOl- OeSTIONMONITORil Dear Ms. Marshall: Would you please provide the NCE scores for grades 5, 7 and 10 by year and race for the most recent LRSD Stanford 9 results. In other words, as measured by the NCE scores on the SAT 9, has the disparity decreased in academic achievement between the black students and white students in the Little Rock School District. Thank you for your attention to this request. incerely, John W. JWW:js Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Marshall, Federal Monitor One Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol, Suite 1895 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 11, 2002 Dr. Boimie Lesley Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bonnie: Thanks very much for forwarding a copy of your August presentation to the Board on recent algebra, geometry, and literacy test scores. The results indicate very encouraging improvements, upon which we congratulate you, your professional colleagues, and, of course, the students. some We appreciate your keeping us informed and look forward to hearing good news during the school year. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Marshall k st\u0026lt;ru\u0026gt; 144 vS jtu lift (x\u0026gt; July 22, 2005 RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2005 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Dear Mr. Walker: Thank you for your request for ACTAAP \u0026amp; ITBS disaggregated test results by school, race and gender from last school year. We have received such data related to the ITBS, however, ACTAAP data received by LRSD consists only of raw scores for individual students and is not yet normalized by the Department of Education. Our PRE Department will prepare a set of ITBS data for you in the format you requested and furnish it to you within two weeks. Please let us know whether this satisfies your request. Siricerely yours, L't/p :aren DeJamette, Ph. T H^ai fl . V // Director, PRE Department xc\nMr. Gene Jones, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring US District Court 1 Union National Plaza 124 West Capitol 1895 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Chris Heller Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 Regions Center 400 Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Thursday, May 9,1991 Arkansas Gazette Bghth grade MFT test results Caposite pass rate School: Dfetncts RodR\nN^\u0026lt;\nLJ^G|RiLiisskf: ? No. tested , 1792 fe^paSs^ll^ggig Q/ /o passed 78 536 ssas\n85.5 County 1483'1 B^253\n\u0026lt; 84.5 : I r. t J J- r. J ::Pa^s-rafie| bysubji^ Reading Language.... Sqenc8hi:W-:-: 87% 82 Soc. Studies '\"^ S- i \u0026lt; 89% SOT 86... 75 89%IGA  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT  THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1991 Arkansas Minimum Performance Test (Sth grade) STUDENTS FAILING School Cloverdale * iDuhbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann ^ulaski Heights Southwest * Elizabeth Mitchell DISTRICT Students passing ~7i 70 83 76 81 88 80 69 29 78 Black Male Female White Male Female 38 50 38 43 40 48 44 40 44 44 39 57 44 51 43 50 48 20 47 3 7 3 2 5 14 ' 2 2 40 18 13 4 3 3 0 3 NA 5 NA 17 Total students tailing 29 soil 17 24 19 12 20 3t 71 Note: Figures are percentages, with fractions rounded off to the nearest whole number, and therefore may not total 100 percent. WA = not available * = other races not included^Thursday, May 23, 1991...Arkansas Democrat _______________ LRSD pass rates on Minimum Performance Test I { } I I s.\nfrhe chart shows the percentage of black, white and tot^ studeriU.passlhg the MPT^ SCHOOL/GRADE READING MATH LANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES BADGETT 3 6 BALES 6 BASELINE 3 6 BOOKER 3 6 BRADY 3 6 CARVER 3 6 CHICOT 3 6 CLOVERDALE 3 6 DODD 3 6 FAJR PARK 3 6 FOREST PARK 3 8 FRANKLIN 3 6 FULBRiGKrS 6 QARLAN0 3 6 QEYER SPRINGS 3 6 GIBBS 3 6 ISH3 6 JEFFERSON 3 8 MABELVALE 3 8 MCDEFBAOnS 8 HEADOWCUFF 3 6 MICHELL 3 8 OUERCREEKS 6 PULASKI HEIGHTS 3 8 OHrSELL3 8 ROCKEFELLER 3 6 ROMINES 6 STEPHENS 3 6 TERRY 3 6 WAKEFIELD 3 8 WASHMQTON 3 8 WATSONS 6 WESTERN HILLS 3 6 W1LUAMS 3 8 WILSON 3 8 WOODRUFF 3 6 DUNBAR FOREST HBGHTS HENDERSON MABELVALE MANN PULASKI HEtOHTS SOUTHWEST ALL 73 88 67 86 85 88 93 99 P 98 99 96 .65 P 94 92 74 79 91 85 93 98 92 94 P 96 69 91 95 100 90 98 75 P 90 98 86 88 94 99 84 98 93 94 92 100 88 P 96 93 M 95 84 91 59 94 93 IM 87 96 90 93 P 95 93 92 94 1W P 87 P 98 B 69 86 65 84 83 85 90 98 77 98 98 92 54 88 97 89 78 78 91 81 87 97 90 95 72 93 67 90 93 100 83 100 75 83 89 97 74 85 91 96 78 96 92 94 83 too 80 87 96 93 85 95 87 90 60 92 89 too 82 94 80 84 77 92 94 89 97 100 84 90 80 97 w 88 100 71 100 100 92 97 100 94 100 100 100 94 92 85 too 71 -79 91 100 too 100 100 86 97 100 too 100 100 100 100 95 90 100 95 92 100 too 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 100 50 100 97 100 95 100 100 100 94 100 93 100 97 100 92 79 100 100 ALL 92 58 75 81 P 93 91 97 80 92 97 86 56 72 96 92 S3 80 88 88 99 100 87 83 83 92 58 76 100 too 88 90 75 83 90 98 77 76 89 96 81 100 100 88 96 too 90 89 92 93 97 95 94 84 65 94 93 97 88 85 98 100 77 95 98 too 94 97 72 91 76 98 B 90 62 73 78 78 96 88 96 74 91 96 75 49 68 97 91 80 78 88 85 97 100 87 81 72 88 58 n 100 100 78 95 75 83 83 97 70 74 86 96 75 100 100 88 92 100 84 90 92 93 96 95 97 83 60 92 89 98 83 81 96 100 72 94 97 too 91 97 68 94 67 97 W 100 40 86 100 100 85 97 100 94 100 98 100 75 85 92 100 88 84 91 100 100 100 75 86 100 97 100 67 100 100 100 85 100 100 p 81 95 95 91 100 100 100 100 100 88 100 100 83 too too 100 97 96 94 94 100 100 89 96 100 100 97 96 85 88 too too ALL 58 67 54 87 78 76 56 59 59 74 92 68 81 50 80 90 83 82 58 87 85 82 81 76 80 73 65 69 85 84 88 95 86 92 S3 80 B 80 63 52 78 74 63 51 49 49 P 90 65 68 52 86 90 83 72 61 82 79 82 63 77 80 71 65 75 76 81 77 94 81 n P 73 W 57 100 54 100 100 90 69 85 79 100 95 71 97 33 67 90 92 81 90 94 96 75 100 50 190 89 97 96 100 93 71 100 ALL 38 58 44 82 90 n 43 71 61 59 75 49 82 59 85 85 91 58 76 68 71 83 74 80 68 56 69 79 66 93 78 68 p 83 93 B it S3 44 71 88 61 29 60 51 48 69 43 73 55 93 81 P n 39 67 50 71 63 67 80 67 54 75 71 62 84 73 S3 75 94 90 W ao 87 46 97 100 95 85 100 79 100 82 71 94 100 67 90 100 100 85 92 94 96 100 100 75 92 72 100 68 100 89 79 100 ALL 38 58 54 92 73 78 44 P 55 68 80 55 86 53 95 83 75 80 58 82 78 76 85 74 80 68 75 68 85 78 81 74 78 88 65 75 B 38 58 59 P 70 61 34 48 46 59 72 49 76 48 100 81 75 P 50 74 71 76 63 70 80 17 73 n 76 72 65 67 75 81 65 70 W 40 48 100 100 91 77 92 74 100 90 71 100 100 83 85 10c 73 98 88 100 88 100 100 too 83 95 88 86 96 64 86 83 86 84 85 95 89 89 81 81 80 78 93 00 88 88 98 97 97 98 99 98 75 89 88 85 87 87 n 79 69 84 85 78 81 75 74 84 88 98 98 97 95 99 U 77 77 81 80 84 93 84 77 74 73 74 76 78 89 72 72 87 86 95 97 97 97 97 95 61 50 71 58 58 71 71 56 52 40 60 49 40 55 48 50 O 71 94 65 88 92 96 80 53 56 79 56 65 80 66 47 48 52 71 51 53 71 47 42  65 63 95 73 P P ' P i 61Thursday, August 8, 1991... Democrat LRSD Metropolitan Achievement Test comparison I Sr.high Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview I i Jr. high loverOale Dunbar Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann Pulaski Heights Southwest - 1990 7 B W 40 62 28 47 42 81 41 79 34 73 51 85 42 88 41 64 1990 10 B W 42 84 38 71 45 78 38 63 56 81 1991 7 B W 32 53 46 80 36 70 33 74 34 61 53 83 34 84 34 48 1991 10 B W 42 86 37 63 40 74 40 65 57 84 1990 8 B W 35 55 24 44 43 78 38 76 41 65 50 85 38 80 33 73 1990 11 B W 38 81 32 64 38 73 28 58 41 68 1991 8 B W 34 56 30 61 40 77 37 78 36 70 49 84 33 84 35 61 1991 11 B W 40 85 36 70 42 76 37 59 54 79 1990 9 B W 52 73 42 68 50 85 54 83 52 78 63 91 52 89 53 73 Chart shows percentile ranking, by grade and race, of the test's complete battery, comparing 1990 scores to 1991 scores. A ranking in the 50th percentile is considered average. 1991 9 B W 45 64 44 77 49 83 46 84 45 72 61 90 50 85 42 67 I ! Elementary 1990 1 B W 1991 1 B W Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver \u0026lt; . Chicot Cloverdale Dodd , Fair Pai^' Forest Park 29 40 55 79 45 66 27 83 45 54 30 50 41 74 38 74 23 63 46 72 95 73 41 59 29\n48: 66 40 27 50 21 78 97 42 1990 2 B W 30 46 30 53 60 63 60 80 42 84 63 93 26 48 63 50 60 52 32 79 40 \u0026lt;71 64 89 49 93 33 45 53 88 57 94 1991 2 B W 26 51 33 55 41 57 41 78 28 55 61 92 43 61 70 81 26 31 33 70 61 93 1990 3 B W 20 39 40 63 40 63 42 75 30 69 46 87 35 62 49 76 38 71 34 66 43 91 Frankiih. Fulbright _ 27 44 37-82 23 72 49 86 Garland 37 - 31 65 Geyer Springs 51 63 54 74 Gibbs :\u0026lt;\u0026lt;:4\n:\u0026gt; Ish Jeffersonii Mabelvale ,\u0026lt;\n: 40 84 39 88 43 25 28 60 . 38 78 25 \u0026lt;77 23 49 32 55 46 52 27 51 32 54 49 83 34 80 34 77 27 83 23 46 26 52 64 43 70 . 28 51 48 90 58 93 32 35 57 47 61 48 McDermott-  49 92 43 80 Meadowcliff MitcheiL- \u0026gt;  Otter Creek 31 67 32 60 \u0026lt; 48 91 53 71 57 84 37 80 44 76 42 74 46 88 50 59 34 63 33 53 62 89 61 87 44 78 34 73 44 60 32 78 42 23 44 75 47 28 43 78 45 80 Pulaski-'Heights 26 72 21 64 Rightsell Rockefeller Romine ,, Stephens\"  Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 51 73 47 - \u0026lt;39 43 33 70 ,38 48 55 , 44 25 61 33 - 40 85 64 - 34 37 40 81 48 79 46 52 39 68 20 63 45 94 40 54 50 58 1991 3 B W 29 56 26 37 37 47 39 73 34 61 55 90 23 49 54 53 34 36 38 83 46 89 38 77 40 81 25 57 37 66 49 86 37  40 80 31 ^7 44 75 36 76 45 56 51 81 1990 4 B W 35 35 27 45 53 59 1991 4 B 31 36 49 50 80 .44 44 70 72 93 38 70 39 63 62 54 58 80 57 1990 5 B 21 29 44 84 49 69 1991 5 B W 1990 6 B W 35 21 37 46 29 5 4 45 69 49 49 49 75 47 83 51 84 61 88 49 84 42 71 57 83 90 55 91 65 91 68 92 46 63 32 64 37 73 45 72 Q7 79 .17 85 39 63 49 55 41 26 44 72 29 75 53 87 36 62 44 68 40 37 53 49 47 90 32 47 29 , 45 49 85 51 87 \\53 99 : 59 81 25 - 51 76 52 83 50 74 49 82 38 - 40 67 40 55 59 38 50 42 60 55 74 41 52 80 32 58 46 84 95 52 88 36 85 53 :43 81 41 76 79 44 82 43 80 40 37 v' -\u0026lt;45 1991 6 B W 33 37 37 83 53 57 49 87 ' 51 82 50 91 39 70 39 63 38 64 66 82 57 95 49 64: 52 73 48 38 37 75 41 65 61 92 59 93 60 58 47 10 36 61 38 23 61 80 59 71 63 91 58 92 60 93 66 85 37 63 50 75 55 54 52 88 41 86 41 92 89 58 82 47 92\u0026lt; 46 64 35 57 34 34 35 55 51 62 45 53 51 84 62 84 49 49 38 68 41 80 55 83 53 61 37 82 43 27 72 - 44 83 58 83 45 76. 36 53 28 73 32 - 31 41 40 40 47 82 19 66 43 42 45 47 53 41 48 45 49 56 47 67 47 75 47 .40 53 \u0026lt;44 52 53 - \u0026lt; 53 43 88 58 82 50 78 41 36 59 31 :79 33 69 48 40 39 90 58 J 28 38 33 - 60 35 58 33 58 27^ 42 35 27 82 58 28 75 28 33 43 46 40 70 54 62 58 67 35 44 44 46 66 64 89 50 87 44 44 48 55 53 23 61 54 54 42 95 36 - 43 49 54 58 27 44 78 53 79 53 53 43 70 53 79 65 83 54 40 64 32 70 48 48 45 ' 61 56 73 55 65 79 39 84 40 85 30 30 41 74 51 38 88 33 51 30 46 32 74 39 55 45 48 25 66 48 85 50 83 84 94 87 :95 82 70 77 82 33 25 20 33 46 78 58 85 59 82 43 97 91 82 93 70 91 63 50 65 61 56 50 53 27 35 56 67 19 60 38 27 75 85 47 69 59 77 60 61 55 55 51 72 48 68 53 72 54 75 42 75 52 52 46 74 51 83 55 80 83 89 46 59 36 48 75 92 72 72 75 87 75 92 72 90 47 44 50 50 43 60 53 74 59 62 28 30 42 42 43 66 51 59 48 75Au.qust 12, 1991 Monday Arkansas Ppmncrat MAT 6 anaylsis for elementary schools (Total possible score is 600. School average of 50% or higher is 300 or more total points) _ . ' Total points I B ^4 Total points  Ranking 1 '??:.'2 3 Name Williams Magnet Car/er Magnet- Forest Park area Total points' i 4 Gibbs Magrwt 5 Otter Creek area 7 . 0 9 : 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 .27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 6 Terry area 502   455 402\n393:::'.- ' Name Williams Jefferson area McDermott area Fulbright area Booker Magnet Western Hills area Cloverdale area Washington Magnet Wilson area M J- Mitchell incentive Geyer Springs aroa Meadowcliff area Remine area- V Watson area Fair Park area \u0026lt; Rightseil incentive Rockefeller incentive Wakefield area , Brady areaii' Pul. Heights area Stephens incentive Baseline area Ish incentive Woodruff area Mabelvale area Chicot area [jodd area Franklin area Badgett area\nBale area Garland incentive 392  , 372 366 363 349 338 335 320 308 308 306 291 283 - 283 ( 283 282 281 281 279 269 . 268: 267 264 262 260 255 226 .218 :213 Carver \u0026lt; Gibbs Cloverdale Wilson Forest Park Mitchell Terry (black) 454 'S\u0026lt;i367''  329 .:.:S:329\n\u0026gt;-.' Name Carver (per 600 whita pupils 551 Forest Park ' 548 McDermott Romine Western Hills Otter Creek Rightsell Stephens Geyer Springs Ish Booker Fulbright Baseline Watson Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Jefferson Wakefield Brady Franklin Dodd Chicot Mabelvale ' Badgett Pul. Heights 325 312 311 303 296 294 284 283 272 i 272 263: 262 259 259 258 246 245 245 242 240 240 226 218 217 212 209 : :::208 Washington 207 Garland Woodruff Bale 204 202 188 Williams Gibbs- : Jefferson Otter Creek? Washington Booker McDermott Fulbright\\ : Western Hills Terry Pul. Heights Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Brady Franklin Cloverdale Watson. - Geyer. Springs Wakefield Bale Chicot Romine Wil sen Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Bale . Baagett Stephens\" Garland\" Mitcheir* Ish\" Rightseil\" 542 537 498 490 483 481 477 475 . - 472 468 : 426 417 415 409 404 402 400 372: \\ 369 368 366 358 354 351 345 330 325 318 306 283 261 255 206 *AI1 pupils based on total percentile rank for each grade \"Total points possible are less than 6CC because there were not white students enrolled in all grades.Metropolitan Achievement Tests ,tK': The chart shows how Arkansas students ranked against national percentiles on the MAT~6 tests, 1986-91 I '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 Composite / Basic Battery 64 66 66 67 67 65 Total reading 60 62 62 62 62 61 Total math 67 68 67 70 70 69 Total language 63 64 65 66 65 64 u Composite / Basic Battery 54 58 59 60 61 60 Total reading 51 53 55 Total math 53 57 58 Total language 55 59 61 55 59 62 55 54 60 59 63 61 ( Composite / Basic Battery 53 54 55 56 58 57 , fOtA, Total reading 49 49 50 Total math 50 51 52 Total language 58 59 60 51 51 52 I 53 61 55 54 62 61 SOURCE: Nat'l Education Assn. 7- M. STOREY / Democrat-Ga2etteI I, t * Arkansas Democrat MONDAY, AUGUST 12, 1991 B  I  I 4 J J 1 U Magnet schools rank highest in MAT6 scores 4  l! , BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat Staff Writer A ranking of Little Rock\nSchool District schools based I on their Metropolitan Achieve- ! ment Test results from last I I spring puts Williams Magnet I Elementary, Mann Magnet Jun- i ior High and Parkview Magnet I High schools on top. : Garland Elementary, South- i west Junior High and McClellan High schools make up the bottom of the lists when only test scores are considered. The test assesses students in the areas of social studies, mathematics, reading, language arts and science. Williams, which offers a basic skills magnet program, had the highest number of points, followed by Carver Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet School, Forest Park Elementary, Gibbs International Studies Magnet School and Otter Creek Elementary School. Four of the top 10 elementary schools were magnet schools, meaning they have special academic themes, strict rules on parent involvement and are open to pupils from all three Pulaski County school districts. The schools were created to enhance desegregation and are financed by all three districts and the state, which pays half the cost of educating each child. Parents voluntarily enroll their children in the magnet schools. No students are assigned to the schools. Little Rock Superintendent Ruth Steele in an interview last week cautioned that ranking schools could be like comparing apples and oranges. You have to remember that children or their parents want to be at the magnet schools and that they came from all three school districts, she said. They have waited on lists or participated in a lottery to be in those schools. That can be very different than staying at an assigned school. She also noted that poverty can affect student achievement and the incidence of poverty is likely to be greater among students in the districts area schools and predominantly black incentive ! 4 H I  3 ' J J i schools. Area schools are schools that have attendance I J zones and no special court-or- J dered desegregation program. The Arkansas Democrat t  I t  ranked the schools based on 5 ' the school-by-schooi, grade-by- t 1 grade data released by the dis- , trict last week. Three sets of 5 rankings were done using the ? test scores of all students, the a | scores of all black students J I and the scores of all white Stu- * dents. The rankings revealed: ,  Tremendous disparities j 4 exist between the average 4 achievement levels of black 4 and white students in the dis- 5 trict, and between schools in ,4 the district.  Eight elementary schools 1 I that ranked in the top 12 had both high white scores and the ! high black scores, indicating * that schools that do a good job ! for one race do a good job for J the other.  The elementary incentive J schools, which get double per- J See SCORES, Page 5B I I i J 1 Scores MAT 6 anaylsis for elementary schools  Continued from Arkansas Page pupil funding and are designed to improve the achievement level of black children, had mixed test results. Mitchell Elementary ranked highest among the incentive schools.  Some of the districts area schools, like Forest Park, Cloverdale, McDermott and Western Hills, reported high or fairly high test results. Those schools dont get the special funding and public attention that magnets and incentive schools get. The school rankings were determined by adding the percentile scores for all grades at a school. Fer example, Williams first-graders scored at the 92nd percentile. That was added to the second grade per- centile of 88, the third-grade percentile of 75, the fourthgrade score of 85, the fifthgrade score of 80 and the sixthgrade score of 82 for a total of 502 points. The highest number of points possible at any grade wa.s 100, thus the total perfect score would be 600. An average score was 300. Eighteen of the districts elementary schools scored above the 300 mark and 18 scored below. When the scores of black students were considered. only nine schools had 300 or more points. When white scores were considered in isolation, all schools scored above average. (The average for white students is less than 300 at some of the incentive schools because there were not white students in every grade.) I told the principals that whatever conclusions are drawn about the test scores, it is clear that what happens in a class to white students is very different than what happens to . black students, Steele said. Theres a lot of work for everybody to do. Im not pleased\nI cant be pleased when there are disparities of 30 percentile points or more between black and white children. (Total possible score is 600. School average of 50% or higher is 300 or more total points) Ranking Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Williams Magnet Carver Ma^t Forest Park area Gibbs Magnet Otter Creek area Terry area Jefferson area McDermott area Fulbright area Booker Magnet Western Hilts area Cloverdale area Washington Magnet WSson area Mitchell incentive Geyer Springs aroa Meadowcliff area Romine area Watson area Fair Park area Rightsell incentive Rockefeller incentive Wakefield area Brady araa Pul. Heights area Stephens incentive Baseline area Ish tocentive Woodruff ares Mabelvale area Chicot area Dodd area Franklin area Badgett area Bale area Garland incentive Total points* Name 502 474 455 444 402 393 392 377 372 366 363 349 338 335 320 308 308 306 291 283 283 283 282 281 261 279 269 268 267 264 262 260 255 226 218 213 Williams Carver Gibbs Cloverdale Wilson Forest Park Mitchell Terry McDermott Romir\u0026gt;e Western Hilis Otter Creek Rightsell Stephens Total points (black) 454 367 329 329 325 322  312 311 303 296 294 284 283 272 Name Carver Forest Park Williams Gibbs Jefferson Otter Creek Washington Booker McDermott Fulbright Total points (per 600 white' pupils Geyer Springs 272 Ish Booker Fulbright Baseline Watson Fair Park Rockefeller Meadowcliff Jefferson Wakefield Brady Franklin Dodd Chico\nMabelvale Badgett Pui. Weights Washington Garland Woodruff Bate 263 262 259 259 258 246 245 245 242 240 240 226 218 21' 212 209 208 207 204 202 188 Western Hills Terry Pul. Heights Fair Park Rockefellei Meadowcliff Brady FrankJir^ Cloverdale Watson 551 548 542 537 498 490 483 481 477 475 472 468 426 417 415 409 404 402 400 372 I I I Geyer Springs 369 Wakefield Bale Chicot Romine Wil sen Woodruff Mabelvale Dodd Bale Badgett Stephens* Garland Miicbeil** Ish** Rightseil* 368 366 358 354 351 345 330 325 318 306 283 261 255 206 All pupils based on total percentile rank for each grade Total points possible are less than 600 because there were not white students enrollee in all grades. The results of the MAT6 will be used to determine whether the district must repay a $20 million loan to the state of Arkansas. The loan is a provision in the districts financial settlement of the 8-year-oid school desegregation lawsuit with the state. If the district raises the average score of black children to 90 percent of the average score of white students by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay the money. The incentive schools are intended to help the district meet that goal by offering after-school, weekend and summer programs, as well as smaller class sizes, parent centers and field trips. When the scores of black children are considered by themselves, Mitchell students ranked seventh in the district. Rightsell Elementary ranked : 13th, Stephens was i4th and Ish was 16th, Rockefeller was 22nd and Garland 34th. Black students at Mitchell outscored black students at Terry, McDermott, and Jefferson, which are area schools, and at | Booker Magnet and Washing- 5 ton Magnet elementaries. In the junior high rankings, ,, Mann was first, followed by Pulaski Heights, Forest  Heights, Dunbar, Henderson, Mabelvale, Cloverdale and j Heights Southwest. Dunbar, the dis- s tricts newest magnet school, showed some large gains in scores when compared to last year. At the high school level, Parkview was first, followed by I Central, Hall, Fair and McClel- j Ian. When only the scores of white students were ranked, Central Parkview. was ahead ofuiasKi Black pupils in LRSD below national average on Stanford 8 scores BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer Black pupils in the Little Rock School District on average scored below the national average in all subjects and at all reported grade levels on the new Stanford Achievement Test. Eighth Edition. White pupils, on the average, scored above the national average in ail subjects and at -all grades reported. Dr. Ruth Steele, whose last day of work in the Little Bock School District is today, said Thursday the scores had changed little since last year. A disparity between black and white pupils continues to exist in the district, Steele said. As superintendent, I must say that one of my disappointments has been our inability to significantly raise the test scores and reduce the disparity, she said. score earned by black pupils was at the 48th percentile in sixth-grade math and fifth- grade social studies. The lowest average score was at the 28th percentile in fifth-grade reading. The 50th percentile is considered to be the national average. 7 must say that one of my disappointments has been our inability to significantly raise the test scores and reduce the disparity. ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1992 LRSD SAT results Stanford Achievement test. Eighth Edition national percentile {Districtwide summary, 1992) rank The achievement disparity between the races exceeded 30 points in some subjects and grades. . Steele is retiring from the district and will become a half-time associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Central Arkansas. Dr. Mac Bernd, formerly a superintendent in San Diego County, Calif., will replace her. According to the test results, the highest average The highest average score for white pupils was at the 77th percentile in second-grade math and the lowest was at the 57th percentile in grade-nine math. The achievement disparity between the races exceeded 30 points in some subjects and grades. In eighth-grade reading, white pupils scored at the 67th percentile, compared to black pupils 29th percentile score. A total of 19,287 pupils in grades one through 11 took the nationally standardized exam last spring. The Stanford 8 replaces the Metropolitan Achievement Test, Sixth Edition, which had been administered in past years. The Stanford 8 compares the achievement levels of Little Rock pupils with the achievement levels of a national sample of pupils who took the same tests. The test is especially signif- Grade/ race 1 TOTAL B W 2 TOTAL B W 3 TOTAL B W . -4 TOTAL 5 TOTAL B _______W. 6 TOTAL B _______W .2JQTAL 8 TOTAL B ______ML 9 TOTAL B ______ML *10 TOTAL 11 TOTAL B W Number tested 2,094 1,330 697 1,883 1,173 672' 1,783 1,131 632 1.867 1,922 1,288 612 1,843 1,209 609 1.694 1,573 1,060 493 1,554 995 ___53fi_ 1.602 1,472 825 612 Total Total Environment Soc. reading math Lang. Science science 42 35 63 39 29 62 39 27 63 44 38 26 63 50 37 24. AZ 41 29 44 30 ja. 49 50 34 69 48 40 70 57 46 n 58 46 76 58 53 43 2L 57 74 JS. 39 30 59 34 23 .52. 37 43 32 59 41 32 63 49 39 70 50 38 70 4^ 48 38 52 51 41 55 45 48 38 52. 54 42 25 48 48 35 66 37 27 59 43 32 65 43 30 67 46 45 33 20. 54 43 24. .42. 45 34 58. 50 38 22. 45 47 32 68 46 35 67 48 46 37 55. 59 48 25 42 46 34 22 49 36 73 43 51 36 69 Complete battery 39 31 64 45 33 70 47 34 70 47 44 32 ___S2_ 54 43 75 ___4S_ 43 30 ___sa_ 48 34 73 47 51 34 12. 'Data by race for grades 4,7 and 10 are unavailable at this time. \" At grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives are combined and reflected as one score under ENVIRONMENT NOTE: Totals may not add up because other* category was omitted. leant to the Little Rock School District in light of the district's financial settlement agreement with the state of Arkansas. If the district raises the average scores of black children to at least 90 percent of the average score earned by white pupils by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay a $20 million loan. The state is loaning the district the money to aid in the districts desegregation efforts. The district Thursday had not yet broken the test scores down by school, said Sterling Ingram, director of the districts planning, research and evaluation office. The district also does not have the fourth-, seventh- and 10th-grade scores broken down by race yet Those grades are handled differently in scoring the tests because the test results must be reported to the state Department of Education./   ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  THURSDAY, MAY 14,1992  1 2Wof LR eighth-graders fail state performance test t I L BY CYNIHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Stall Writer The number of Little Rock eighth-graders who failed the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in March climbed to LRSD 1992 MPT results (Eighth grade summary) a record 412 pupils, who arc now in jeopardy of not being promoted. Statistics released Wednesday by the Little Rock School District show that 23 percent of 1.781 eighth-graders failed the exam on the first attempt. Last year, 400 pupils, or 22 percent of the test-takers, failed the exam on the first try. 'The Minimum Performance Test, mandated by the slate, tests students in reading, math, language arts, science and social studies. It is given to pupils in third, sixth and eighth grades, though only eighth-graders must pas.s the exam to be eligible for promotion to the ninth grade. The Little Rock eighth- graders' failure rates are^ almost 7 percentage point.s higher than those recorded for the North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school districts, which released their All students I No. tested No. passed Percent passed Black males  Percent passed Black females - Percent passed White males  Percent passed White Females Percent passed Other--------------- Percent passed Reading 1,781 1,505 85 Math 1,781 1,523 86 Lang. Arts 1,781 1.435 81 Science 1,781 1,110 62 Soc. Slud. 1,781 1,172 66 Total 1,781. 1,369 77 76 79 69 57 57 NA 81 84 81 47 57 NA 96 98 97 94 88 87 84 NA 95 95 83 85 NA 92 86 81 81 NA 3 testing results Tuesday. Eighth-graders in both those districLs had 16.2 percent fail- ure rates. Pupils have three chances to pass the eighth-grade test The test will be given again May 26-29 and once more July 24-2!l. Last year, 92 percent of the eighth-graders . districts passed the test after three tries. Of the Little Rock eighth- graders who failed, 90 percent are black, though black.s make up 64 percent of the district's enrollment. A total of 372 black eighth-graders failed the test, as did 40 white pupils. Seventy pupils, or 34 percent of the test-takers at Southwest Junior High School, failed the test thi.s year. South- west's failure rate was the highest among the eight junior high schools. Mann Magnet Junior High School had the highest pass rate 87 percent. Here are the failure rates fol' the other junior highs:  Forest Heights Junior High - 73 failures, 32 percent.  Mabelvale Junior High - 52 failures, 30 percent.  Henderson Junior High - 54 failures, 25 percent.  Dunbar Magnet Junior High - 50 failures, 21 percent.  Cloverdale Junior High - 37 failures, 17 percent.  Pulaski Heights Junior High - 30 failures, 16 percent. Among the district's third- graders, 68 percent passed the reading test, compared to 88 percent last year. Eighty-seven percent of the third-graders passed the math test last year, compared to 91 percent this year. At Carver Magnet Elementary School, all third-graders passed the reading test and 99 percent passed the math test. See TEST, Page 7B lebi j  Continued horn Pulaski Page\nAll Gibbs Magnet School third- */[ (I __________ js^uisiig nin fit ittainHn I r graders the test All s ividf^iivb .J...--- passed both parts of 1 \"Uie Uiird-graders at 1, Otter Creek, J\n^I(i:i^'aTwe\n^n-llills I passed the math test. Overall, pas.s rates lor sixth- Overall, pass uveiaii, , graders fell from 94 percent to m normiil Ulis year in reading. 92 percent this year  90 ^r-U to 89 1 in inatli.iind rroni TH perceiiUo\n77 percent in language aits. ____ imnro I ates improved The pass rates improveu 73 percent to 75 percent from LRSD desegregation official resigns to take post at Hendrix ir science JI VVHV vv r- - and 73 percent to 74 IP hvivuv-'- I..-  1 l^uccnt in social studies. I Janies Jennings, associate .superintendent for desegregation in tile Little Rock School District, said Wednesday that lie i.s resigning to become an assistant professor of education at Hendrix College in Con- I  way. Jennings, who has been an associate superintendent since March 1987 and a district I L i I einployce since 1977, said his resignation is effective Juno 30. lie is completing liis doctorate in educational administra- tion this spring at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. He will attend Memphis Slate University thi.s summer and next fall to obtain a master's degree in history. Jennings is one of five top administrators leaving the district this year. The others include Superintendent Ruth Steele, Deputy Superintendent Tony Wood, Manager for Support Services Janies Ivey and Transportation Director Richard Johnson.Arkansas Democrat W(Sazettc ABk-AMCAg- MCWCPAPFR LITTLE ROCK. AUGUST 14,1992 88 PAGES 9 SECTIONS 35e White students still outpace blacks, achievement tests show BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer White students in the Little Rock School District continued to outperform blacks in standardized tests in 1991-92, according to school-by-school results on the Stanford Achieve- mejit Test, eighth edition. - The scores were released .i74th percentile to the 82nd per- Thursday for exams taken in April by 19,287 students in grades kindergarten through 11. They show wide variations in achievement between schools. For example, Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School averaged scores for the six grades that ranged from the i centile. Pupils in five of the six, ^ades at Garland and Franklin incentive elementaries averaged scores that were below the 30th percentile. The 50th percentile is considered the national average. We have some areas to cheer about, and some we could hold a wake over, Dr. Mac .1 Bernd, Little Rocks new school superintendent, said. The test shows us where we need to improve. The test results and the elimination of the racial disparity gap are especially important to the Little Rock district. Narrowing the gap would be a general sign that )^e district is ac- . - ) eomplishing its desegregation goals. Also, if the district narrows the gap to the degree that the average score of black students is at least 90 percent of the average score of white students by 2000, the district won't have to repay a $20 million desegrega- See TESTS, Page 14AH4A  ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  FRIDAY, AUGUST 14,1992 LRSD Stanford 8 Test results Chart shows percentile ranking, by grade and race, of the tests complete battery. A ranking in the 50th percentile is considered average. Elementary Badgett Dale Baseline Booker(M) Brady Carver (M) Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin (1) Fulbright Garland (I) Geyer Springs Gibbs (M) Ish (1) Jefferson Mabelvale' McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchel! (I) Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Righlsell (I) Rockefeller (I) Romine Stephens (I) Terry Wakefield Washington (M) Watson Western Hills Williams (M) Wilson Woodruff 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT TOT BL WT 19 20 27 23 27 25 35 21 47 36 76 68 35 26 56 54 21 22 33 26 61 29 21 19 40 18 26 26 32 26 49 36 25 25 54 21 31 24 59 35 31 26 26 25 54 38 42 18 39 40 42 37 49 47 24 24 61 43 21 18 55 38 24 22 43 29 80 72 68 67 28 14 17 65 34 54 66 85 50 71 20 70 84 48 66 38 68 75 40 84 44 49 70 73 51 63 25 71 33 82 32 61 89 71 56 39 31 67 29 26 54 28 22 47 52 35 74 44 39 58 73 54 89 36 26 56 49 39 77 36 27 44 31 22 71 64 30 74 23 21 59 60 41 75 26 23 58 47 40 64 71 53 84 43 43 49 58 28 77 37 27 52 61 40 82 34 28 47 26 26 12 57 30 69 55 27 76 58 58 - 30 24 53 25 26 16 22 22 - 54 33 67 36 26 48 52 29 81 39 34 64 52 40 72 79 68 89 58 54 63 26 18 40 33 30 45 31 30 35 38 31 63 44 29 60 30 20 64 72 49 90 39 36 46 54 50 61 31 28 35 36 27 72 66 32 66 20 18 42 63 35 78 17 17 - 33 33 32 72 57 88 31 31 - 63 46 76 38 28 52 69 54 81 31 29 27 30 27 71 60 39 76 62 39 78 34 34  25 18 39 40 40 42 31 31 - 68 50 82 37 30 49 44 22 72 31 20 58 53 40 71 77 67 86 45 41 56 35 28 60 32 25 44 60 38 74 37 57 42 41 56 23 56 26 / 33 lij 67 m 38 3 58 g 36 \u0026lt; 56 5 37 H 26 i 56 i 47 I 32 I 26 i 41 I 47 1 54 i 42 i 51 i 40 i 39 i 74 I 38 i 33 5 lU co \u0026lt; O z 21 20 24 31 28 47 35 36 32 51 41 65 33 29 41 63 42 82 40 32 54 49 43 63 48 42 44 30 27 71 57 31 87 20 19 18 46 29 61 28 28 - 32 25 49 67 40 88 31 32 20 68 37 85 38 30 49 53 40 68 33 19 56 42 40 67 52 37 69 44 28 62 29 29 - 35 32 52 39 38 42 26 26 - 46 31 67 28 22 56 46 28 70 45 46 44 40 31 60 74 59 86 30 29 39 45 38 54 41 38 46 30 27 46 37 36 46 59 44 76 44 32 66 79 69 90 47 36 59 51 50 56 56 48 65 47 41 75 64 43 82 36 34 67 66 40 78 38 38 - 44 43 48 72 48 87 44 44 - 79 56 90 41 35 52 50 43 67 51 46 67 36 36 - 66 39 84 36 28 54 40 40 - 45 40 61 44 41 76 35 30 76 71 57 82 43 36 59 56 38 78 53 40 71 60 51 72 82 76 88 44 41 56 38 30 50 Jr. high Cloverdale Dunbar(M) Forest Heights Henderson Mabelvale Mann (M) Pulaski Heights Southwest 7 8 9 35 59 50 37 33 55 55 34 LU m LU \u0026lt; 32 27 49 39 33 53 53- 36 72 39 26 65 37 29 66 38 25 69 50 38 74 42 34 70 Sr. high Central Fair Hall McClellan 10 11 37 27 56 ' 42 29 61 O z O z 56 43 79 45 26 76 33 28 50 61 64 82 57 30 82 40 33 66 55 36 43 34 LU CO 3 UJ (D 3 Parkview (M) 58 b z  57 33 82 39 28 58 50 34 69 42 33 56 57 43 75 Noles: Scores lor race by grades 4,7 and 10 are not yel available. Magnet schools are noted with an *M*, Incentive schools are noted with an 'I'. Tests  Continued from Page 1A lion loan from the slate.  Bernd said the districl.s new curriculiini, which begin.s this fall, could improve scores. Its a simple concept of teaching students what you are going to test them on, he said. If we know that long division ixS on the lest, then we should make sure the students know long division and are skilled in it. Asked if the scores would show improvement by next year, Bernd said he gets suspicious if he sees sudden,huge gains in a ^districts test scores. ' I think we can set this district on a course of steady improvement so that in five years people can look back and say, \"We really improved.  Il is difficult to compare the 1991-92 lest scores lo the scores earned in past years because the state changed the test from the Metropolitan Achievement Test (MAT6) to the Stanford 8. Racial disparities existed in test results on the MAT6 as well. While comparisons are hard to make from last year to this year on race disparities, a review of the scores this year showed at least one case where the white first-graders scored 54 points higher than their black */ think we can set this district on a course of steady improvement so that in five years people can look back and say ff f we really improved. classmates. A review of the scores showed that students at the dis tricts seven double-funded, pre- dominantly black incentive schools did not have high average scores. Black second-graders at Rightsell Incentive Elementary School scored at the 58th percentile. That was the only average score for black children in the incentive schools that was above the 50th percentile. Students at the districts magnet schools, which also get extra money, averaged scores higher than the incentive schools. Scores for black children at Williams ranged from the 59th percentile in the fifth grade to 76th percentile in the sixth grade. At Booker Arts Magnet Elementary, however, the scores for the black children ranged from the 21st percentile in the first grade to the 44lh percentile in the sixth grade. Bernd said the incentive schools are going to be the focus of some strong efforts in the coming year. He plans to meet with the principals of those schools soon to discuss ways to improve the schools by encouraging excellent teaching. Bernd is an advocate of the effective schools body research, which prescribes certain steps for improving learning conditions for children. He already has conducted one workshop for Little Rock principals on the program. The test scores showed some strengths at the districts area schools, which arc non-magnet, non-incentive neighborhood schools. Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry elementary schools were among the schools with average scores over the 50th percentile...IB'- rs I\" it (? tg 5.  THUnSDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1992 LR seniors raise ACT average 0.2 point in 92 ) I ) BY CYNIHIA ROWELI OnnKR'ial G.i7rHP E(1ih\niIiwi WhIpi The composite score earned by Little Rock School Dislrict .senior.s on the American College Test improved in 1992 as compared to 1991. but it remained below the stale and national composite scores. The Little Rock district on Wednesday released its 1992 scores for both the ACT and the Scholastic Achievement Test, the two most common college enirance exams in (he country. More than three times a,s man.v Lillie Rock graduating studenl.s took the AI'T ill 1991- 92 than look the SAT. Thal is I commonly the case, as most , Arkansas colleges and universities retpiest the At/!' score on I enrol I incut applications. The results of the exams I\nshowed that students who took traditional academic courses and Advanced Placement courses are more likely tr? score higher on the college entrance tests. Superintendent Mac Bernd said he hoped to increase the nund)er of advanced courses as a way of improving student achievement levels of both black and white students. Ad vanced Placement courses are LRSD ACT scores ^1992 LRSD SAT scores i National State LRSD Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview -Noniber 832.217 16,977 1,101 *264 *144 *224 *155 *166 Composite\n___score 20.6 20.0 19.7 19.9 19.1 19.9 18.3 20.7 Black students While sludenls Number Composite Number Composite 1991 Number 75,356 2,373 465 141 65 92 82 85 17 16.7 17.2 16.2 16.4 17.7 17.0 18.9 604,469 11,577 488 123 79 132 73 81 21.3 20,6 21.7 23.0 21.6 21.1 20.0 22.5 tested Verbal 1991 scores* * Includes only black and wtiite tesi takers and nol students of other races _____________ National' State LRSD Central Fair Hall McClellan Parkview 1,032,685 1,660 293 151 15 97 4 26 422 482 467 480 485 434 NA 502 Math 474 523 495 502 527 477 NA 516 1992 Number tested 1,034,131 1,579 315 122 24 96 3 64 1992 scores* Verbal 423 474 453 457 451 441 NA 455 Math 476 516 489 489 521 486 NA 481 * Top score in each category Is 800. NA = not available those courses taken in high school that enable some stu dents to receive college credit for their work. \"We must work to prepare all our students to (pialify for. enroll ill and complete the more advanced and challenging Advanced Placement courses,\" Bernd said. A total of 1.101 graduating students took the ACT in Little Rock. Slightly more students took the test in 1992 than in at least the last four years. The district's composite score of 19.7 reversed an annual decline in score.s since at least 19117. when the composite was 20.2. In 1991. the composite  which i.s c.ilculated from Eiig- lish. mathcnmlics. rcadiiiE and science scores  was 19..5. The Little Rock score was below the national composite of 20.6 and the state composite of 20.0. Parkview Magnet High School students, with a 20.7 composite score, exceeded both the state and national composite scores. The highest possible score is 36. The Little Rock student!! scored the highest in reading. Allowed by English, science, and then math. When the scores arc broken down by race, while student.s in all five Little Rock high school.s scored highest in reading. Black students, however, were likely to score a.s high or higher in subjects other than reading. Average scores for white students were higher than average score.s for black sludenls on both the ACT and the SAT. The largest disparity in ACT scores was the 6.8 poinis between black and white students at Central High. The composite score of Little Rock black students. 17.2. was higher than the Arkansas com posite for black students, 16.7, and the national composite for black students, 17.0. Similarly, the composite score for Little Rock white stu dents, 21.7, was higher than the Arkansas composite for whites, 20.6, and the national composite for wliites, 21.3. On the SAT. a total of315 slu dents took the lest, scoring 453 on the verbal exam and 4B9 on the math exam. Both scores represented a decline from the 19tH scores of 467 on the verbal exam and 495 on the math exam. The number of students taking the lest rose by 22 from 293 in 1991. The Little Rock scores exceeded the national scores of 423 on verbal and 476 on math tests, but they were less than the state averages of 474 on the ver bal test and 516 on the math exam. I 1Arkansas Democrat ^(i^azctte THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1993 Copyright  1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. B LR group hopes after-school tutors will raise black awareness, grades BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer An after-school and Saturday educational program that offers academic tutoring and cultural exposure to black students in the Little Rock School District is being planned for next fall by an off-campus group. Wayne E.X. Burt, chief elder of the Council for African-American Progress, said Wednesday that the after-school program will be housed in the education building of the Liberty Hill Baptist Church, 1215 S. Schiller St. The council is seeking at least 24 trained teachers, as well as volunteer tutors, to work in the program, Burt said. The program is designed to serve as many as 500 students in grades one through 12, Burt said. Hours will be 3:30 p.m. until 8 p.m. weekdays and 9 a.m. to noon Saturdays. The program, called the Institute of African-American Studies and Progress, will be financed by council members. No tuition will be charged. Burt announced the councils plans at a lecture at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. His talk was one of three lectures sponsored this semester by the UALR Black Forum. The program will save the Little Rock School District $20 million, Terrence Cain, education director for the council, said Wednesday. Cain was referring to a $20 million loan from the state of Arkansas that the school district will not have to repay if it can raise black childrens standardized test scores to within 10 percent of white students scores by the year 2000. Cain and Burt said they believe their program can reduce the academic achievement disparity that has traditionally existed. The Council for African- American Progress spent more than a year lobbying the Little Rock School Board to add more information about black history, culture and perspective to the district curricula. The school board did adopt a new curriculum that includes information about a variety of cultures, but council members have said they are not satisfied with those offerings. Burt said the council decided to turn its attention to an afterschool program. In his lecture Wednesday, Burt said blacks must learn to provide for themselves, to create industries and jobs for one another. One segment of the community is producing jobs and two segments need them, he said. He also s4id blacks must learn about themselves as a way to develop self-esteem. Black and white Americans know far more about European history and geography than they do about Africa,land both races must be educated, he said. I (Arkansas Democrat (gazette   FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1993 Copynght  1993. Una Rock Newspapofs. Inc, I Flunking MPT no longer i forces rerun of Sth graded' New law brings other criteria to bear  BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Wnter Arkansas Minimum Performance Test wont terrify eighthgraders anymore. It wont force them to repeat the grade or intimidate them into dropping out Instead, the MPT and new tests that will be developed can help students, many educators say. Arkansas pupils in grades three, six and eight have taken the MPT since 1982 to measure their competence in basic skills. In 1988, at the suggestion of the Education Standards Committee led by Hillary Rodham Clinton, schools began to use the test to determine whether eighth-graders could advance to the ninth grade. But a new state law has changed things. The requirement that eighth- graders pass the test before promotion brought considerable criticism. Teachers and parents have complained over the years about the eighth-grade MPT, saying too much instructional time is spent preparing students for a relatively e^asy, multiplechoice test. In a recent Winthrop Rock^ feller Foundation survey at. 2,100 teachers, the educators said the test was too easy, de-^ tracted from the teaching of cre^' ative and advanced thinking\nskills, and was more likely.to cause students to drop out than to motivate them. ' \"i. About one-fifth of the teach?\ners recommended eliminating the test Others suggested maior revisions in the format and the way it is used. -I- i In a significant change of dU  rection, this years Act 846 of the' I legislative session declared th'a^' eighth-graders who flunk the test will not automaticallylbe forced to repeat the eighth grade. And in what proved someJ thing of a surprise to educators\n: ! the provision affects this years: eighth-graders, who took the test in March. I  Under newly adopted guid^ lines, local school districts must establish other criteria which can include MPT failure and bad grades  to decide whether , r See MPT, Page 17AMPT  Continued Irom Page 1A a pupil should be held back. :rm particularly pleased they dropped the compulsory retention, Gene Jones, assistant superintendent for instruction in the North Little Rock School District, said of the new law. 1 was a little surprised they did it this year. -. Jones said he didnt believe mandatory retention had produced better-educated students. Several North Little Rock eighth-graders who failed the exam this year were held back last year for failing the test, he said. Students may be more successful if they know they can be jlromoted if they go to summer school or take other steps to raise their grades or improve their attendance, Jones said. ! Vicki Gray, administrative a'dyiser for student assessment ih the state Department of Education, said this week that despite the law change, school districts must continue with plans to give eighth-graders three chances to pass the exam and offer remedial help to those who do not pass. It's obvious the students have not mastered the skills they will need in ninth grade, Gray said of those who failed the tpsjt on their first try. i It is especially important that eighth-graders learn the skills this year because they will be thd first in the state required to Ilas^ an exit exam to get a high srchool diploma, she said. The exit exam, which will go into effect for the 1996-97 school year, dlso is provided for in Act 846. Act 846 authorizes the state pepartment of Education to change the way student achieve- hient and thinking skills are assessed in the public schools.  The law also spells out how the MPT should be used while Ihe new system is being developed. That transition period piust end by June 30,1996. Education Department officials are circulating a memo describing the law and the testing changes. It notes that:  Beginning next year, Ihird- graders will no longer take the MPT, though the te.st will continue for the sixth and eighth grades.  The Education Department will institute a comprehensive assessment program for grades one through three next year that will include testing and teacher evaluations.  School districts experimenting with alternate forms of student assessments may ask the state Board of Education to waive the MPT requirements for the sixth and eighth grades. The current test was developed by Arkansas educators. It consists of five sections  reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. The exam is given once in March and again at the end of the school year. It is given again in midsummer for those who failed it earlier. In 1988, 98.6 percent of the eighth-graders passed the test. In 1992, 95.7 percent of the eighth-graders passed. Statewide test results are incomplete for this year, although individual school districts have received reports on their students' performances. Virginia Raum, director of counseling services in the Pulaski County Special School District, said the MPT has served a purpose in forcing school officials to look at what individual students were accomplishing. But she also said it is time to move to a different kind of assessment. The county school district is using the same methods it employed in past years to help eighth-graders who failed the test in March. The district hires substitute teachers so that regular classroom teachers can work in small groups with the pupils who failed. Packets of practice questions were sent to the parents so they also can help their children pass the test when they retake it later this month. Decisions on retentions will be made on a case-by-case basis aRer the third administra- I tion of the test, Raum said. Concerning development of a new testing system, Dr. Emma Bass, associate director for school improvement in the Education Department, said the new program may not consist of only a single test. Instead, she said, it will likely be a combination of different kinds of evaluations. The new system for grades one through three must be designed as soon as possible this summer to give school districts time to plan and budget for it, Bass said. Rules and regulations for any new system will be advertised and explained during public hearings, she said.Arkansas Democrat SATURDAY, MAY 22, 1993 Copyright O 1993, Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. I________________________________________________________ _______----------- ---------r - T III ...................................- -    MPT failure rates increase in NLR, county BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Qazette Education Writer Failure rates increased for North Little Rock and Pulaski County Special school district eighth-graders on the Minimum Performance Test this year but improved slightly for Little Rock pupils. The test measures mastery of basic skills in reading, mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. Statistics released by the three Pulaski County districts showed:  Eighteen percent, or 267, of the county district students failed the slate-mandated exam on the first try in March, compared to 16.2 percent, or 223 students, last year.  Twenty-one percent, or 138, of North Little Rock pupils failed, compared to 16.2 percent, or 97 pupils, last year.  Twenty-two percent, or 383, of the Little Rock eighth-graders failed this year, a 1 percent improvement over last year, when a record 23 percent, or 412 pupils failed. Minimum Performance Test resuits 1993 Minimum Performance Test pass/fail rates District____________ Little Rock North Little Rock Pulaski County Special Total tested Total passing 1,750 668 1,455 1,367 (78%) 530 (79% 1,188 (82%) Note: Results following the first administration of the test, which will be given two more times. Source: School districts ___________________ by 1996 as newer, more broad- tive of a first year of a new cur- based exams are developed. The test results are reflec- riculum, Little Rock Superintendent Dr. Mac Bernd said. The district this year began a revised curriculum in most key subject areas in an effort to correct problems found by a team of out-of-state educational auditors in 1991. Until this year, eighthgraders who failed the MPT could not enter the ninth grade. Students who fail the test this year also are in jeopardy of not passing the school year, but Act 846 of the 1993 legislative ses- High. The failure rate was 19 sion says criteria besides the test results must be considered before holding back a student. The MPT will be phased out Total failing 383 (22%) 138 (21%) 267(18%) The MPT will be given again this month and in July. School districts are directed by law to provide remedial help to the students who fail. Schools that have failure rates in excess of 15 percent must implement improvement programs. Following are the school-by-school results for the eighth-grade test:  Little Rock  The failure rate ranged from 16 percent at Mann Magnet Junior High to 29 percent at Cloverdale Junior percent at Dunbar Magnet Junior High, 23 percent at Forest Heights Junior High, 24 percent at Henderson Junior High, 23 percent at Mabelvale Jupior High, 18 percent at Pulaski Heights Junior High and 26 percent at Southwest Junior High.  North Little Rock  The failure rate ranged from 16 percent at Lakewood Middle School to 25 percent at Rose City Middle School. The rate was 19.per- cent at Ridgeroad Middle School. Only two of the'13'students at the alternative school who took the test passed it.'.  Pulaski County Special  The failure rate ranged from 9 percent at Robinson Jiihior High to 27 percent at Fuller Junior High. The failure rale was 18 percent at Jacksonville North Junior High, 26 percent at Jacksonville South Junior High\n10 percent at Northwood Junior High, 14 percent at Oiik Grove Junior High and 18 percent at Sylvan Hills Junior High: Virginia Raum, district director for guidance services, said there were computational errors at Jacksonville North and.Qak Grove, which will be corrected and reflected in later reports.Arkansas AAansas Democrat '^(Fijizcttc MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1993 Copyright O 1993. Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. B Rising remedial student figures disturb educator BY SHAREESE HAROLD ............................. Democrat-Gazette Staff Writer More Arkansas college freshmen took remedial courses in state-supported schools this year than did those who entered Arkansas public colleges and universities last year, a recent report shows. One state education official said the figures are disturbing. According to the 1993 high school feedback report, 57.1 percent of 1991-92 high school grad- uates attending the states public colleges and universities were assigned to at least one remedial course. Last year, 56.6 percent of the 1990-91 graduates were assigned to remedial math, reading or English classes. Remedial courses are semester-long, noncredit skills enhancement classes. Students are placed in these classes based on their performance on the ACT college entrance test or college- sponsored assessment examinations. Each year, the state Department of Higher Education releases two remedial monitoring reports. The high school feedback study shows how Arkansas high school students rank, and the placement status report, prepared by the American College Testing Service each spring, rates remediation levels of all Arkansas college freshmen. Ed Crowe, associate director of planning and research at the state Department of Higher Education, called this years feedback report figures disturbing. Especially since we had 50 percent of Arkansas (high school) students complete the core curriculum in high school, which should have prepared them for college,\" Crowe said. Its a little disappointing because we felt we were making progress. Districts core curricula include college preparatory courses designed to strengthen students math, reading and English skills. The major factor in college placement is whether students take these courses, Crowe said. In Arkansas, 50.7 percent of the fall 1992 freshmen took these courses in high school,___ pared to 43.8 percent last year and 41 percent in 1990. com- STATEWIDE: graduates The feedback report reflects the number of students who took the ACT college entrance exam. Students who score below 19 on any ACT category are automati- cally placed in a remedial course for that particular category. By subject area, 48.2 percent of the 1992 Arkansas graduates needed math remediation, a small decrease from the 48.9 percent who needed such help in 1991. In reading, 29.2 percent See COLLEGE, Pago 5B Pct, needing remediation in: High schools Graduates* l^nglish Math Readino ( Northwest  Fayetteville 107 Fort Smith (Southside) ioi Fort Smith (Northside) Springdale Van Buren Northeast Blytheville Jonesboro Newport Greene Co. Tech. Southwest Arkadelphia Ei Dorado Hope Hot Springs Southeast 69 103 52 46 156 52 .48 65 82 45 37 PULASKI COUNTY: High schools Pct needing remediation in\nGraduates* I English Math Reading J Dermott Pine Bluff Stuttgart 21 53 150 41 15 17 28 21 12 43 22 23 27 26 28 29 35 48 49 51 14 30 41 16 21 57 36 31 38 40 51 49 46 81 74 58 10 17 23 14 13 28 20 29 23 31 27 22 32 College  Continued from Page 1B took remedial courses, up from 27.8 percent the year before, and 33.1 percent needed English remediation, compared with 32.7 percent in 1991. Crowe estimated that 15 percent of the states college-bound seniors last year attended out- of-state and private colleges or universities. Those students are exempt from state-required college-entry testing in math, read- ing and English and are not included in the report. Act 1052 of 1987 requires all freshmen entering state-funded colleges and universities to complete math, reading and English placement tests. Future first-year college students from Arkansas may need fewer remedial programs, Crowe said, because of the states more rigid training for math and science teachers and early intervention. One long-term solution is coming from Governor (Jim Guy) Tuckers suggestion to the state Legislature urging them to look into strengthening the education process of kindergarten to third grades, Crowe said. Students are afraid of taking math and science classes because they were never encouraged to go that way in the early grades. Teachers are now being taught to emphasize those areas by stroking younger students curiosities about math and science. Crowe said once teachers are better trained to teach these courses, remedial placement scores should start to look better. Central Hall J.A. Fair McClellan Parkview Non-dlstrict Ark. School for the Blind Pulaski Co. Special Jacksonville Mills Oak Grove North Pulaski Robinson Sylvan Hills North Little Rock NLR High School Private schools 111 112 89 77 93 3 46 42 38 39 31 33 54 59 46 65 49 100 46 38 33 39 38 -ihM 33 26 27 25 17 13 21 26 ' , 108 44 53 92 39 119 146 55 42 16 13 31 27 25 25 18 29 22 51 48 49 38 38 34 37 29 55 13 46 57 60 43 '' 32 29 29  Flgum ar. la-tax gadoM, anading paOllc cgUagn and [sources: Stale Oept. o( Higher Education: Amencan Colleqe Testing Sarwce. Catholic High School Mount St. Mary Pulaski Academy I Arkansas Baptist 18 12 6 15 18 19 13 31 STOREY/SCALUON/Oemocrar-Ga^etre  SUNDAY, AUGUST 22, 1993  5J SAT results put males ahead Attention countrymen, who may have believed, as I always have, that women are smarter than men. The next time one of your countrywomen starts putting on airs, ask her about the SAT scores. SAT stands for Scholastic Aptitude Test. It is one of the tests that most colleges require would-be college students to take. There is a rousing argument in academic circles as to whether the test accomplishes its purported objective, which is to predict the probability of success in college, but it's been around for a couple of decades and it shows no signs of going away. The 1992 SAT scores were reported and hidden away in Thursdays Democrat-Gazette. Among the phalanx of comparative figures was this one: Men outperformed women. Not by just a little bit. The men creamed the women. Maybe I should say the boys creamed the girls, given that were talking about teen-agers here, but whatever the terminology, the average score of males was 930 to 877 for females. Males beat females on both the math and the verbal portions of the exam. The edge was only eight points on the verbal (428 to 420) so most of the male margin of victory was in the math portion, which measures the skills that will be most valuable in the technological age that is rapidly engulfing us. As you might expect, the College Board, which watches test results more closely than most of us, had a ready excuse for women. Men scored better, board spokesmen said, because they /I ^ohn R. Starr tend to take more difficult science and math courses, such as physics and calculus, in high school. That (and not discrimination) might also be why men have more of the high-paying jobs that demand math and science skills. News in the test scores was not all good for men, whose average score was exactly the same as last year. The womens average score was up a point. When SAT scores are reported, the comparison of the accomplishments of men and women is usually forgotten as the social scientists rush to see how blacks did in comparison with whites. The Scripps Howard News Service, which provided the SAT story used by the Democrat-Gazette this year, neglected to report SAT scores by race. Instead, the story used figures that show that youngsters from families with incomes over $70,000 a year do a lot better than those from families that live on $20,000 to $30,000 a year\nthat those who attend private schools do better than those who attend public schools\nand that those who attend suburban public schools do better than those who attend inner city schools. Results from tests administered by the three Pulaski County school districts did compare white and black performance, and these figures, like those in previous years, demonstrate that, while all men are created equal, differences develop rather quickly and often are quite pronounced. In Little Rock, where the public schools have almost been destroyed in a 26-year effort to equalize educational opportunity between the races, white scores on the Stanford 8 battery of tests were almost double those of blacks. In the fourth grade, whites were in the 75th percentile, which means they did better than 74 percent of the students taking the test nationwide. Blacks were in the 40th percentile. In the seventh grade, whites were in the 69th percentile, blacks in the 31st, In the 11th grade the percentiles were 74 for whites, 34 for blacks. Blacks did best (45th percentile) in the sixth grade, worst (28th percentile) in the first grade, indicating that the schools reduce the environmental factors that contribute to poor performance for the first six years but then begin to lose ground. The good news for Little Rock was that, generally, its students  white and black  did better than those from the other two districts. In the second grade in North Little Rock, blacks scored in the 13th percentile, a performance that should be embarrassing both to their parents and to the school district. ----------------- John R. Starr is the former managing editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. His column appears every day.Arkansas Democrat \"^(^azettc } THURSDAY, APRIL 7,1994 __Copyngh, 8 u. Ro I Insulting to black community I read with great dismay that Little Rock school Superintendent Henry Williams continues to pursue replacement of the SAT test as a good indicator of the educational level of the black student under his care. This continual quest of a lower common denominator for the black student is insulting to the black community, the Little Rock community at large and the classroom teachers of Little Rock. Williams continues to imply through this effort that a black student, while sitting in the same classroom and receiving the same information as a white, Korean, Hispanic or other student, is unable to take the same test in the same manner and produce positive results. If this is true, the SAT test is not the problem. Williams attempt to dumb down the test for black students or escape a test vehicle such as the SAT that is successfully used by tens of millions of students each year is a sickening statement of affairs in the Little Rock School District. Williams poor black us attitude is leading the black student to an educational grave. Is there not one member of the Little Rock School Board who has the courage to challenge Williams to factually prove and present specific examples of racial discrimination within the SAT? He should be publicly rebuked for such a reckless and racist attitude. Anyone who has taken the SAT knows that if you can read, write and do basic computations, then the SAT is easily understood. I believe that the black student is the equal of any other student, in spite of what Williams might imply. I reject his insinuation that the black student needs a set of tests and standards different from the rest of America and the world community. Will anyone speak this encouragement to them? I ISATURDAY, AUGUST 13. 1994 Coovncm O Crtda ftocx ^-nrwwrr. iw. Gap lingers between black, white scores BY DANNY SHAMEER AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemocrat-Gazatts Stall Wntan A large gap persists between standardized test scores of black students and white students in the Little Rock School District, a report released Friday shows. Among black students, only fifth-graders improved for 1993- 94, increasing the average score three points to 37 from 34 for 1992-93. But white fifth-graders increased by four points  to 74 from 70  during the same period. A score of 50 is the national average. Scores  Continued from Page 1A great deal of energy and im- Narrowing the gap between black and white students is a key provision of the court-enforced desegregation settlement under which Pulaski County's three school districts operate. The disparity is also a significant issue because of a financial settlement with the state. If the district can show it has raised the average scores of black students to at least 90 percent of the average scores of whites by the year 2000, the district will not have to repay up to $20 million in loans from the state. The state is lending the dis- 10th.  In math, students in grades two, three, four, five and six were above the 50th percentile. In science, students in fourth. trict money to help with desegregation, and the financially struggling district counts on that money to meet e.xpenses. So far, the district has borrowed $12 million, and it plans to borrow another $1.6 million this fiscal year to buy buses. In two years, the district will have to start putting money into a trust fund to repay the state in case achievement goals arent met The settlement agreement states that the district must pay back the loan seven years after starting to get the money. Because the district borrowed $6 million in the 1989-90 school year, it would need to begin repayment in the 1996-97 school year. Dr. Henry Williams, district superintendent, said the 1994 test results reflected some gains by black students when compared to test results flrom previous years, and he was encouraged. He expects greater improvements ne.xt year at schools across the district. Im hoping the enthusiasm of building level administrators and teachers will generate a See SCORES, Page 16A Little Rock School District test scores 4 provements in instructional fifth and sixth were at or above strategies.\" Williams said. He the 50th percentile. noted that many schools will have new principals this year.  Black students on average failed to reach the 50th per- One reason that he gave this centile on the complete battery summer for shifting principals in any grade level. Black first- was to improve instruction and graders did the worst, scoring at student achievement. the 30th percentile. Black sixthTest results varied widely graders fared the best, reaching from school to school. For example:  Williams Magnet Elemen- the 44th percentile.  White students averaged above the 50th percentile in tary School black students every grade with a high of 78 at scored well above the 50th per- the sixth grade and a low of 68 centile in every grade level. The at the first grade. lowest black score was the 63rd Williams said the district percentile at the sixth grade, will implement a Great Expec- The highest was 80 at the first tations program at Mitchell and grade.  At Dodd Rightsell elementary schools Elementary that he hopes will help students School, the highest average per- knock the top ofF test scores centile by blac.k students was 48 next year. at the sixth grade. The lowest was the Sth percentile at the centive schools. Mitchell and Rightsell are in- first grade. Modeled after a program in In an example of disparity. Oklahoma City public schools. Forest Park Elementary School the Great Expectations program white second-graders scored at is an approach to teaching that the 85th percentile. But black promises student success. Stu- second-graders averaged the dents and teachers make a con- 21st percentile. Results showed: scious effort to speak in sentences and address each other by  In seven of 11 grades, name, students recite from mem- scores regardless of race. showed some increase over 1992 in the complete battery. ory. and students write daily. The Stanford 8. which students took last spring, compares  Students, overall, scored at the achievement levels of stu- or above the 50th percentile on dents with the achievement lev- the complete battery in four els of a national sample of stu- grades: fourth, fifth, sixth and dents who took the same test. 1994 test scores by grade Stanford Acfiievamant Test scores for the Uttfe Rock School District 88 7Z 7t  7^ 78 77 50 30 25 32 \n 0 47 44 III 32 I aadc.-.. r Whitar 1 '34  II I 3' 1 30 IhLULIlLIIJ 1st 2rxJ 3rd 4m sth em 7m sm 9m iom urn  Little Rock School District IST GRADE students took the. Start ford Achievement Test in April. Students who score in the 50th Reading percentile are at the naSortai axerage. Anything balovftheSOtnparcantila is considered bekw average. Math Language arts Science Social studies Total. 46 48 48 46 Blacfc 35 3S 2ND ORAOE 67 35 34t 69 3i6IUDE- Reading Math Language arts Sdenca- Social studies Reading Math Language arts Science- Sociai studies Reading Malhr , Language arts Science' Social studies Reading ' Language arts Sdene^ Social studies Total 41 58 51 48 Black 28 45 38 35 White 64 77 71 70 Total. 43 5T 51 4 52 Blaclc.\\^ 29 68 12 38 72 4g 39 74 ' ATHGRABE smeitAoe Total 49 61 55 50 61 Black 35 Whits 71 50 - TT 43 38 49 74 7Z 78 Thtat 41 5G' 56\n5^ 56 Biwdr'^ 28 67 j STH GRADE Total 52 59 53 57 58 Black White 39 49- 43 45 47 77 78 71 78 77 STH GRADE Total 42 41 '  51 I\"- 48 \" 48 Black 29\n30  ' 39 3S 34 lOTH GRADE 4at 44 *45 75 74 7TKGRADC\nTotal ' BiKfc 1 *45  52 '47 White 69 ^63.\" 74 \"72\"  73'\" 32 . J? 331^ 39 36 ETHGiUDe\nTout Bli 43 \"\" i 47  31 40 35 71 77 69 69 72 Reading Math Language arts Science Social studies Total 49 43 49 49 53 Black 35 33 36 34 41 Whita 74 81 71 74 73 UTH Total 45 40 46 43 47 31 69 -i, 33 68 (.n OvSt ScfToot Ostnet 31 71Arkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1995 Whites score well in LRSD But districts blacks dont do as well on Stanford test as some in area BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazene Education Writer When it comes to student test scores, especially for white At a glance students. the Little Rock School District compares well to outlying districts. The state Department of Education released district-by- district Stanford Achievement Test results this week. A spot check of basic battery scores, broken down by race, showed that Little Rock white students overall netted higher scores than their peers in several Central .Arkansas districts, as well as in some of the states other large districts. The basic battery scores are a combination of mathematics, reading and language arts scores. Following is a listing of 10 school districts and their 1994 Stanford basic bat- tery scores for 1994:  School district  Little Rock  North Little Rock 4th grade 7th grade Black White Black White 10th grade Black White 42 31  Pulaski County Special 37  Conway  Cabot  Bryant  Pine Bluff  Jonesboro  Fort Smith  Fayetteville 43 na na 32 40 32 38 76 59 61 71 62 58 56 63 65 61 33 30 29 41 na na 32 35 33 38 69 58 51 65 58 53 71 67 61 63 36 28 28 33 na na 37 34 38 43 72 66 55 67 60 54 74 67 69 66 Little Rocks black students outperformed white stu- didnt fare quite as well. Black *es in the nearby Pulaski students attending Little Rock County Special, North Little schools scored higher than Rock, Conway, Cabot and black students in the Pulaski Bryant districts, according to the 1994 test results. County Special and North Little Rock districts, but that wasnt always the case in comparisons with other districts in Central Arkansas, The Arkansas Department of Little Rock whites also outscored  whites in the more distant Jonesboro, Fort Smith and Fayetteville districts. Little Rock whites scored at Education administers the the 76th percentile in the Stanford Achievement Test to fourth grade, the 69th per- students across the state in centile in the seventh grade fourth, seventh and 10th and the 72nd percentile in the gr^es. 10th grade. Of the 10 districts included The Arkansas students are compared to a national sample in the spot check, only the Pine of students, the percentile Bluff School District reported o , 1,. -- XU - higher average scores for tional average on the test, white students in two grades\nWhite students in grades white seventh-graders scored at commonly referred to as the na- four, seven and 10 in Little the 71st percentile, and 10th- graders scored at the 74th percentile. White fourth-graders in Pine Bluff scored below their Little Rock peers, at the 56th percentile. Little Rock black fourthgraders scored at the 42nd percentile, seventh-graders scored at the 33rd percentile and 10th- graders scored at the 36th percentile. Black students in the nearby Conway district outscored the Little Rock blacks at both the fourth and seventh grades. Black lOth-graders at Pine Bluff, Fort Smith and Fayetteville had higher average scores than their peers in Little Rock. The Cabot and Bryant districts had very few or no black students in the targeted grades.iMUHbUAY, JUNE 22. 1995 All SAT scores rising, but white pupils gains outdistancing blacks BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer standardized test scores earned by both black and white students in the three Pulaski County school districts have improved since 1991-92, but achievement disparities between the races have widened, according to a new study by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The study, submitted Wednesday to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber WrighL compares Pulaski County students scores in 1991-92 with those earned in 1993-94 on the Stanford Achievement Test eighth edition. In their desegregation plans, all three districts made commitments to reducing the achievement gaps that have traditionally existed between black and white students on standardized exams. The Little Rock School District, in particular, has staked repayment of a $20 million state loan on narrowing the racial disparity gap by the year 2000. The study looked at the 1991-92 test scores for first-, fourth-, seventh- and ninth-graders and the 1993-94 scores for third-, sixth-, ninth- and llth-graders. Among the three districts, black and white Little Rock students had the highest overall scores, followed by Pulaski County Special School District students. Although the North Little Rock district had the lowest overall scores, it also showed the greatest improvement between 1991-92 and 1993-94. North Little Rock students improved their scores on the exams five subject area tests by a total of 64.3 points, compared to 50.6 points in the Little Rock district and 59.2 points in the Pulaski County district The five subject area tests are in reading, mathematics, language arts, science and social studies. In Little Rock the disparity widened in most subjects at each grade by an average of 1.9 points. The disparity grew in each subject at each grade by an average of 1 point in the Pulaski County district LRSD board to meet on 2 budget issues The Little Rock School Board will hold a special meeting at 5 p.m. today to vote on budget proposals for next year, including hiring a private company to operate the school bus system and closing two elementaiy schools. After the special meeting, the board will hold its regular monthly meeting at 6 p.m. The board is to consider hiring Laidlaw Transit Inc. of Ontario and Cincinnati to run the bus system next year. The contract could save the district $700,000 next year. The board also will consider closing Badgett and Fair Park elementary schools, among the districts smallest schools, for a possible savings of about $1.1 million next year. and an average of 0.4 points in North Little RocL The actual 1993-94 test score disparities in Little Rock ranged from a low of 15.4 points between black and white sixth-graders in language ' arts to a 24-point gap between black and white third-graders in science. The disparity in Little Rock nar- , rowed only in sixth-grade language arts, ninth-grade reading and llUi- grade mathematics. In North Little Rock the 1993-94 disparities ranged from a low of 12.9 points between black and white sixth-graders in language arts to a 22.7-point gap in ninth-grade reading. The disparity gap narrowed in seven of the 19 categories analyzed, i In Pulaski County the disparities I between black and white students in 1993-94 ranged from a low of 9.1 points in llth-grade mathematics to  a gap of 16.4 points in sixth-grade reading. The disparity narrowed in seven of the 19 categories analyzed.THURSDAY, JULY 6, 1995 \nLRSD test scores slip overall, fail to close racial gap Superintendent Henry 1 Williams could not be reached BY MARTHA DUNN AND CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral QuelW Stall Writ. seven of 11 grades fell below last years. Students scored belter than the nalional average in just scores. f. j\nTwo years of improving Stan- three grades. High school seniors ford Achievement Test scores in tlie Little Rock School District pare Little Rock students scores ended this\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_781","title":"Test data","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":["1991/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Education--Standards"],"dcterms_title":["Test data"],"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/781"],"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\nIndiana Achievement Level Tests Reading Goal Structure 1. Reading Strategies/Word Meaning a. Context clues b. Root/base words, structural analysis, prefixes and suffixes c. Synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, multiple meaning d. Phonetic clues 2. Literal Comprehension a. Identify main idea/summarize b. Recognize or recall significant detail c. Determine sequence of ideas or events d. Interpret directions e. Use reference skills 3. Inferential/Interpretive Comprehension a. Make inferences b. Make predictions c. Identify cause and effect d. Categorize information 4. Critical Judgment Skills a. Draw/evaluate conclusions b. Distinguish between fact and fiction c. Identify persuasive content d. Identify authors purpose e. Identify authors point of view, bias, stereotypes f. Identify literary devices/techniques (figurative language, mood, tone, etc.) g. Identify literary elements (plot, characters, setting, theme, etc.) h. Distinguish between fiction-nonfiction, fantasy realityIndiana Achievement Level Tests Language Usage Goal Structure 1. Writing Strategies and Skills a. Prewrinng b. Drafting skills: complete sentences, clarity, figurative language, mood, tone, etc. c. Revising proofing, editing d. Forms appropriate to purpose e. Appropriate sentence forms f. Paragraph skills including form, topic sentence, etc. 2. Grammar and Usage a. Basic sentence patterns b. Types of phrases and clauses c. Noun forms including plurals, possessives d. Verb tenses e. Irregular verb forms f. Subject-verb agreement g. Adjective forms h. Adverb forms i. Pronoun forms including plurals, possessives j. Negative forms 3. Mechanics of Writing a. Appropriate end punctuation b. Commas c. Apostrophes d. Enclosing punctuation e. Underlining titles f. Beginning capitalization g. Capitalization of proper nouns and adjectives h. Capitalization of pronoun I i. SpellingIndiana Achievement Level Tests Mathematics Goal Structure 1. Reasoning/Connections/Problem Solving a. Logic/reasoning b. c. 2. a. b. c. d. Strategies Connections/application of process skills Number Sense/Place Value Counting, order Greater than, less than, equal comparisons Odd, even Place value e. Rounding f. Fraction and decimal concepts and relationships g. Ratios, proportions, percent h. i. j- 3. Notation systems Primes, factors, multiples, roots Application of process skills Computation /Estimation/AIgebraic Functions a. Addition and subtraction of whole numbers (algorithms) b. Multiplication and divisions of whole numbers (algorithms) c. Addition and subtraction of fractions and decimals (algorithms) d. Multiplication and division of fractions and decimals (algorithms) e. Commutative, associative, distributive properties/order of operations f. g- h. i. 4. Solve equations, evaluate expressions, understand concept of variable Patterns and functions Coordinate system Application of process skills Geometry and Spatial Sense a. Recognize, describe, compare, classify geometric objects b. Describe geometric relationships c. Identify, describe angles d. Line characteristics e. Geometric patterns f. Identify fundamental transformations g. Pythagorean theorem h. Application of process skills 5. Measurement and Estimation a. Attributes of length, capacity, volume, weight, mass b. Attributes of time and temperature c. Concepts of perimeter, area, diameter, radius, circumference d. Value of money e. Relationship between and among metric and customary units f. Application of process skills 6. Data Analysis, Statistics, and Probability a. Analyze data from charts, graphs, and tables b. Concepts of chance, probability, prediction c. Measures of central tendency d. Ordered pairs e. Application of process skillsNWEA NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION Achievement Level Tests: Assessments that Make a Difference Achievement Level Test results help teachers, schools and districts to: T'he Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Achievement Level Tests are a  Monitor the progress of all students toward state and district standards series of tests aligned with local curriculum and state standards. While most tests simply provide scores that compare and rank students and schools. Achievement Level Tests provide the information most important to educators  scores that measure growth in student achievement. Level tests provide thorough and reliable data that can be used with confidence to make instructional and program improvement decisions. about the testing experience. Another benefit of focusing the tests around specific achievement levels is that each test is shorter in length, resulting in less class time used for testing. But most importantly, teachers receive accurate information that enables them to monitor each students academic growth. When to Administer Achievement Level Tests Most districts administer Achievement Level Tests in both the fall and spring. Tests may be administered starting in the spring of second Measure growth in student achievement over time Place students into appropriate courses or instructional settings  Provide instructional focus  Screen students for Title I eligibility, special education services and gifted programs  Evaluate program effectiveness More Accurate Data About Individual Students Teachers want to improve student learning, but to do this, they need more accurate information than the traditional, single-form test can provide. With conventional tests, low-performing students see only a few questions that they can get right, and high-performing students see only a few that they will miss. This RIT Score 250 r 238 - 226 - 214 - 202 - 190 Achievement Level Test Longitudinal Report   *  diiu| R Score H Average W Grade 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 grade. The reading and language usage tests are appropriate for most students through grade 10\nthe mathematics tests through algebra and geometry. Science tests can be given to students in third grade through high school science courses. Term F96 S96 F97 S97 F98 S98 F99 Academic growth for individual students can be tracked through the NWEA longitudinal report. Shown here is a student's progress in mathematics from grade 6 through grade 9. The Test Administration Process Achievement Level Tests are not timed and take about one Communicate to parents and the community not only causes boredom and frustration in students, it also makes achievement scores less accurate. With Achievement Level Tests, students take tests that are tailored to their current achievement level. This gives students a fair opportunity to show what they know and can do. There are no wasted test items on level tests. Students can actually attempt all items in a given test, which makes them feel better hour per subject for most students. An easy-to- follow administration booklet and instructional video smoothly guide the test administration process. For all districts new to the concept, NWEA provides an on-site introductory workshop that guides teachers through proper test administration procedures. The administration of NWEAs Achievement Level Tests differs from other tests since students must be assigned a test of appropriate difficulty. In the first year of the program, brief locator tests help place students into the right test level. In subsequent years, NWEA's scoring program uses prior test results to automatically assign students to the right level. Test Results Returned Quickly, Measure Progress Level test results are returned within two weeks. Districts with appropriate technical expertise may license the NWEA scoring software for immediate on-site scoring. Level test results are reported on an achievement scale called the NWEA RIT scale. This scale RIT Score -! State Standard Score = 23i~~|-- 220 - IM T 21 7l 221 225 205 - 190 - 201 208 211 175 Grade Median RIT Score Achievement Level Test scores can predict performance on critical state tests. The chart here shows the progress of students towards one state's reading standard of 231. 3 4 enables teachers to measure student progress much like a yardstick measures height. Growth in student achievement can be accurately tracked between terms and across years. In addition to the RIT score, NWEA provides percentile scores for districts to use to compare their students to others in the nation. NWEAs norms include more than 500,000 students, the largest K-12 norm base in the country. More importantly, NWEA provides the only systematically-collected set of growth norms available, enabling districts to accurately compare the growth of students with others in their grade. Goal scores provide specific measures related to the districts curriculum. These scores make it possible to compare student performance in each goal area to typical performance for students in that grade. Reports Summarize Test Results, Used to Improve Learning NWEA provides class, grade, school, district, and parent reports. Teachers use the information to focus classroom instruction and help pinpoint areas where individual students might need extra attention. District and school leadership teams use the data to make informed decisions and answer the difficult question, Are we a more effective school system today than we were yesterday? \"This scale enables teachers to n n n n n n 5 6 7 8 Predicting Student Performance on State Tests Schools should never be surprised by student performance on high-stakes tests. NWEA staff works with school districts to create an alignment between the level test scales and the state test scales. Districts commonly use data from Achievement Level Tests to predict student performance on state tests, which measure student progress much like a yardstick measures height.\" helps districts identify students eligible for special intervention programs and shows how all students are progressing toward the standards. NWEA Support to Districts NWEA provides extensive support to districts that use Achievement Level Tests, from early design decisions through the implementation process, and appropriate and effective use of the data. NWEA: Assessment Expertise The Northwest Evaluation Association is a non-profit organization working in partnership with many of our nations school districts. Our mission, Partnering to help all kids learn, is rooted in the belief that accurate information about student achievement leads to improved student learning. NWEA provides professional training, consulting services, and ongoing research. We build long-term relationships with clients, helping them design and maintain comprehensive assessment programs that are making a difference in student learning. Northwest Evaluation Association 15115 SW Sequoia Pkwy, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97224 Tel: (503) 624-1951 Fax: (503) 639-7873 www.nwea.orgLittle Rock School District ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 2000-2001 Test Grade K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 'j I. i\"! I  1 t , / 1*1 1 it| I \"n ^IjI hki J ta' 'fe 'fc* it IsStiBi- .  'riji.-M 1 --H-l--J'lTi JfiBi! 1-,-1 ' 12 Observation Survey Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Achievement Level Tests: Reading, language arts, math, science April Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring Fall and Spring 1st Quarter CRT-October Alg I \u0026amp;II Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg I 811 Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig 2! Quarter CRT-January Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts 3'\" Quarter CRT-March Read. \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts Read \u0026amp; L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts L. Arts Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig Alg l\u0026amp;ll Geom Trig End of Module Math As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed End of Unit Science As completed As completed As completed As completed As completed End of Level Social Studies State tRa lli'hti Miifefy' of kfstii bon^hitiarkdi And standards, ' May SwHaSSl state Benchmark: Math and Literacy April April (pilot) April End of Course Algebra I (pilot) May May May May End of Course Geometry (pilot) May May May End of Course Literacy (pilot) iBSi 1 Ihfeij^ibk/\nft May SAT-9: Norm-referenced Test Sept ACT. PLAN, EXPLORE PSAT NAEP Feb. NAEP (randomly selected schools) February Sept Sept October Feb. Feb. FebruaryLittle Rock School District HAND DELIVERED February 13, 1991 53 V I a*?'  Mrs. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building t * Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Hart: As per your telephone request through Polly Ramer on February 12, 1991, I am forwarding 1990 test scores for Carver and Washington Elementary Schools. I regret the delay, but I was out of the office at the time of the request and my staff is not authorized to release information without my approval. Sue Tadlock indicated to Ms. Ramer that a written reguest was needed for our records. Please be advised that a written request is not needed at this time, letter in our files is sufficient. A copy of this Please contact me if you need additional assistance. Sincerely r Sterling Ingram, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation cc: Ruth Steele James Jennings bjg 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Little Rock School District August 27, 1991 RECEIVED Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building AUG 2 8 1991 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregaticn lioring Dear Mrs. Brown: We are enclosing the third administration summary report of the 1991 Arkansas Minimum Performance Test. This is in addition to test information provided to you on August 21, 1991. If I can answer any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Sterling Ingram, Director Planning, Research and Evaluation 324-2124 cc: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent James Jennings, Associate Superintendent bjg 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADMINISTRATION 19 9 1 *NUMBER INC. SCHOOL/IN SUMMARY TOTAL TEST PASSING SCORE = ____________STUDENTS FAILING 4204 STUDENTS PASSING BLACK WHITE OTHER TOTAL CLOVERDALE/219 Number Percent 193 88 12 46 9 35 4 15 26 12 DUNBAR/152 Number Percent FOREST HEIGHTS/219 Number Percent HENDERSON/295 Number Percent MABELVALE/193 Number Percent MANN/284 Number Percent PULASKI HEIGHTS/223 Number Percent SOUTHWEST/206 Number Percent ELIZ. MITCHELL/5 Number Percent DISTRICT/1796 Number Percent 136 89 197 90 263 89 178 92 276 97 207 93 191 93 2 40 1643 92 8 50 11 50 16 50 9 60 4 50 7 44 6 40 1 33 74 48 5 31 10 46 15 47 5 33 4 50 9 56 9 60 66 43 2 13 2 67 16 11 22 10 32 11 15 8 16 7 15 7 3 60 153 __8 M F 0 M 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 5 3 F 1 6 1 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 M 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 *The number included in this summary has been revised to reflect students moving into and out of the district since the first and second administrations.O' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: November 22, 1991 To: Ann Brown Office of Deseiggrreeggaattiioo:n Monitoring From: sterling Ingra: itor Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Test Scores Incentive Schools As requested today by Polly Ramer, we are providing Metropolitan Achievement Test results by race and gender for each of the incentive schools. If you have questions, please feel free to contact this office. bjg GnADE/nftCE iruHLirii TKSYKO J TOT/.T* W D 2 TOTAL II W o 1 TOTAL h W o 1 TOl'Al. n w 0 5 TOTAL D y o 6 TQTAI^ 8 W 0 7 7'lZJ AL II H O 8 TOTAL w o 9 Tar.M, 0 w o m TOTAL h If o J 1 TOTAl. n H 0 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANHIHC, RESRARCir AHO EVALVZiTIDH STANFORD ACHlKVBMEirT TEST\nEIGIITK EDITION MATlOriAI. PP^CRMTILr RAHK/KORMAL CURVE KQUIVAI.KHT SCORES (PR/NCR) UlSl'RIGTWIDE aUHMARY 1992 EMVlROHMEMT* TOTAL HEAODIC TOTAL r4ATHRHATICS LArrctmoE BCICHCE SOCIAL tJClEHC*: /*SIC nATj'Env COMPLETE  n/iTTERV 269 4 1330 697 24 1883 1)73 67 2 28 170 3 1 131 632 IC 1867 L211 632 23 1922 1200 612 22 184 J 1709 609 25 1694 1122 050 31 1 57,7 1060 493 19 15114 995 53 6 23 1602 949 609 4 1 .3 4 72 B25 612 3 5 12/45,8 35/41,9 63/37,(1 66/58,0 4fl/49.0 4Q/44.6 70/CJU 74/63,3 41/45.1 32/40.2 63/57.2 66/60.1 37/43.9* 27/37,3 S9/55.0 49/49.5 45/47.5 36/42,4 67/59.5 74/63,5 39/44.0 31/39,5 64/57,0 67/59.1 O 30/44.1 29/38.1 02/55,3 57/56.9 39/44.2 27/36.9 63/57.0 57/53.5 44/47,0 33/40.9 67/59,2 60/55.4 38/43.3 26/36.6 63/56,8 58/54.1 60/49.9 37/42,0 74/63.6 67/59.2 12/ 5 31/39.3 70/61.0 72/62,2 41/45,2 29/.nO-S 6//59,4 73/62.6 44/46.6 30/39.2 08/60,1 63/57.2 49/49,2 35/-ll.n 72/62.3 64/57.4 50/49.8 34/41.4 69/60.7 66/58.4 57/53,8 46/47,7 77/69.6 07/73.6 *'/49.7 59/43.9 70/60.9 64/57.4 43/46,3* 32/40.0 65/5n,0 O7/59 3 45/47.4 34/41.3 69/60.3 73/61.6 45/47.3 33/40.8 70/C1.2 74/63.5 C I 50/54.1 46/47.8 76/65,1 00/68.0 50/50.D 38/43.6 70/60.9 68/59,6 43/46.1 30/30.0 67/59.1 63/57,1 46/40.0 35/43.6 67/59.2 61/55,9 49/49.2 36/42.4 70/61.1 69/60.4 47/48.2 34/41.0 70/61.0 68/51.7 57/53.9 43/49.2 73/63.0 76/05.1 46/47.6 35/42.1 05/50.0 64/57.4 46/47.6 34/41.5 68/60.0 66/58.7 4Q/4*J.O 38/43.S GB/59.7 69/G0.3 48/45,0 3A/43.6 68/59.7 67/53.0 47/48.2 36/42,2 60/60.0 67/59.0 53/51,7 43/46,5 71/61,9 03/69.9 48/48.7 38/43.7 67/59.1 66/50.7 45/47.4 33/40,6 70/61.2 74/63.6 46/48.1 37/43.1 65/58.2 70/60.0 44/46.0 34/41.1 65/58.3 71/61.5 44/46.7 32/40.4 67/59.2 72/63,4 57/53.0 48/49.7 74/63.3 75/64.3 51/50.3 41/45.4 68/59.9 64/57.7 54/52.0 43/46.0 74/63,5 75/64.0 59/54.5 49/49.0 76/65.0 72/62.0 54/52.1 43/4C.4 73/63.1 72/62.2 54/52.1 43/46.0 75/64.0 73/62.6 45/47,4 36/42,2 64/57,3 75/64.3 39/1UO  n/lB.IJ 9/54.7 07/73.C 34/41.2 23/34,1 57/53.9 68/59.6 37/43.2 26/36.7 56/53,1 58/54.n 43/46.5 32/40,1 59 / 54,6 62/56.4 43/46,1 33/40,7 64/57.7 70/61.1 42/45,6 31/39,7 6S/S7.9 75/64-5 47/40.6 35/42.1 72/62,0 80/67.8 46/47.9 '35/41.7 69/60,6 75/64,5 46/47.7 33/40.9 71/61.5 70/66.0 o O o tO/49.1 Jn/\u0026lt;13.6 G0/GO.7 E1/GB.5 45/47.4 34/43,3 CB/60,1 77/65,7 46/40.0 34/41.3 72/62.1 63/70.0 43/46.2 32/40.0 66/5B,6 04/71.2 43/4G.1 30/39.2 60/59.0 86/72.6 cn 54/51.9 42/45.9 73/63,0 69/60.6 50/50,2 38/43,4 72/62.5 69/60.7 49/49.6 36/42.5 73/62,6 71/61.4 47/40,2 34/41.I 70/61,0 71/61.7 48/48.8 34/41,1 73/62.6 73/62.9 47/40.6 31/41.5 68/60.0 59/54.6 45/47.3 32/39.8 67/59.D 64/57.3 43/46.2 30/36.7 66/58.4 57/53,8 47/48,4 34/4 1.2 6B/60.1 64/57.7 47/48.5 3?/4O,4 70/61.2 65/58.2 40/49.1 35/41,9 66/50.S 61/56,1 32/40.2 fin/[i9.7 SQ/54.4 Sl/50.6 36/42.7 69/60-7 72/62.3 * At O.TdoH 1 nnd 2 tliD .SCIENCE nnti SOCIAL.SCIENCE objoctlvos aro comblnad .ind rnflortrid nii ceorts uinicr EWVIROPMEUT. 51/50.4 36/42.3  70/60,9 69/60.S Sl/90,4 34/41.3 72/62.1 7O/61\u0026lt;D li O oSCHOQI./MO. TESTEO* saazEBEftiiEzm Humber _ Peroent ssaiBABma Humbar --------Eaiaant LITTLE HOCK SCHOOL DISl'RICT Pr^KHIttB, RESBWICIt, AHD EVALUATIOll ARKANSAS dlNIMUH PERFORMZiNCB TEST GRADE EIGRT SUKHARV third adhihistratioh 19 9 3 ----ISTAb TEST PflSaiKS-'^RE c, 4304 STlfDEHTS ____ PASSIRQ __ DUCK gWi\u0026gt;E.KTB FA I LIMO LtKI Tnr\u0026gt; -_____ K WfllTB . A OTHER Z. J^OIidL . aeuagL/Ho. tested* ailEa3AJEIiiJ[I5/221 Humber UllSEBSa)lZ213 Humber laiDELyALEzua Hiinbor Pprcowt H\u0026amp;lUf/lSi Humber ------Pgroaht raiAEKIABISHlS/Jll Humber flO5TFIWF.ST/t94 Rinahor ______RSLEflflI lIlA_niTHELC4Z2 Humber --------Ea2SHt_____ limiAeLE POINTMl Rumbsr ---------Eaxaant______ CISlEl 1/1162 Humbor _____- Paroei 154 _2i 201 -AA 115 SA 214 BA lai SA 234 _2A 2il\u0026gt; ----------Ifi____ ISfi ___52- A AA 31 1525 ___SA 12 AA 12 AA 24 25, 14 -lA 12 JI A .41- 14 -5A 20 59 A 0 ii 121 _SA * The number of students tested lias Into and out of the district i special education students Qdnij.i)iatraklefk fiummary. 13 -12 A -21 A 25 IS -.-S2_ 12 43 11 II -12 ~0 A ___0 A. 3A -A lA _1 100 A 12 Al .11 .3 A. A 0 ii A A. A 21 IS 0 A. _a -A A_ _a A. A -A A A_ A _A _3 A A -A 32 A -A A' -i_ A -A 31 lA fiisyBiiEjUiEZiia tlUDbsr Patoont A A 25 Al_ liHHUABZm Hunber JL ~o 32 -lA FOREST HElnilTH/21A Nunbor _6 _A_ A -A 25 18___ UEamaotf/ui Hun.bnr __- Peroant A A A A- A -A A -A -12. Zi_ A A A -A A -A A -A A -A A A _A 25 JA 22 9 2J 10 34 -la___ ii. A -Al 235 A3_ tevlsed to reflect studenta movinc since the second adininlstraticn and to exclude 10 inav hava hn^n a-,.. ' uxeauao . --------  KILAa UAUI vho may havo been includod In the second BiaEurALBZua Rtlinber -- Percent MAHH/273 Humber ______Paroenl PULASKT HEIgKTS/?2fl Riunbec Pnroant:  sflimniEaiziaa Humber 5mAIITCIIEl.r./9 Humbar ---------latoent  EtUHACl.B POIHT/S  Humber _____Percent_____ DISTniCT/1779 Humber ______Peroent l.ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PWRHINQ, RESEAHCri, AHI) EVAUJATIOH ARKAHSAS MtHIMUH PERFOIIHAlfCE TEST GRADE EIGHT SUMMARY THIRD ADHIHISTRATIOH 19 9 2 BTUDEHTS isaiiL ISA 90 222 ____SA iSi -AA 122 - Bj 153 -AA 251 A4. 2S2 _AA 152 -AA A IS. Ji 1555 __BA to co o CD iffioUt.TES'C-jasauffi^coRE 4204 1-lU- SLACK 10 Ai_ IS -SA 21 -SA 12 5B JL AA_. 19 in 15 Al 0 IOS -SS- F 10 AS Ji 12 ii AA- -15- A S8 15 -iL JA A 2A SS AA ejWBEHTB EAIUUg___ JI KKITE i JI OTHER o _IS1AL_ 0 10 0 0 A -U. Q 0 2 A _2 54- ii 11 -5. A -i_ JA 0 0 1 A 0 0 A -14. _2i_ _1 AA 12 -A- 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 _a o 0 a 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 _a 0 21 -IS 20 0 32 -H 32 AA 22 .11 IS -A 26 Ak 32 AA Ai JAai_. 225 18 (Into Olid out of the diatriot aiiino^hn^T to rntlect students moving apoolnl Bducatlon otudonte who may hava hm '''\"'^olstratlon and to oxolude\nadministration sumnary? inoludsd In the socond I t3 Dl O to tJ \u0026gt;c 50 o\u0026gt; o C3- o o O) IS o oijJ. I i LiE. KUtA OC-ilUUlj UXJj TKX^- T PLAHNIWG, RES15AKCH AND EVALUATION EXHIBIT 2 A ARKANSAS MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST PERCENT OF STUDENTS PASSING FIVE YEAR COMPARISON 1909-1993 \\   I I 1 I ALL STUDENTS GRADE SUBJECT '09 '90 '91 '92 '93 ' 89 BLACK STUDEN' ' 90 '91 '92 '93 '09 WliITE_STU DENTS__ '90 '91 ' 92 '93 ' 09 OTHER STUDENTS ' 90 '91 '92 '93 i\u0026gt; 3 6 8 0 READING MATH READING MATH LANGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES READING MATH rj^NGUAGE ARTS SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES TOTAL TEST * 86 89 88 09 75 66 70 90 89 85 67 74 91 07 87 90 90 77 72 77 09 8 7 84 74 75 91 87 87 94 90 70 73 73 07 84 02 63 63 92 08 91 92 89 77 75 74 05 06 01 62 66 00 86 88 91 80 7 6 80 76 86 03 80 63 67 82 06 8 4 86 60 56 60 86 06 79 55 65 83 82 07 88 70 62 '69 05 83 79 64 68 02 83 92 88 71 64 65 02 79 76 SO 54 02 0 7 09 06 70 67 66 79 81 75 52 57 81 83 07 84 70 73 69 02 70 75 51 58 * TOTAL TEST SCORE AFTER THIRD ADMINISTRATION EACH YEAR. 96 97 96 95 89 86 09 90 97 97 09 91 95 95 97 96 92 92 94 98 97 93 93 91 95 94 90 95 90 90 09 97 95 94 08 01 90 97 90 95 90 90 09 97 95 92 85 04 96 96 99 94 90 95 91 95 92 91 07 05 70 83 96 96 80 05 80 90 80 70 70 83 95 90 95 95 06 82 9 5 08 93 00 03 01 96 91 100 97 90 07 90 9 0 90 02 70 70 96 96 94 91 85 00 05 97 92 06 01 01 06 91 95 9 2 92 02 02 02 77 79 69 74 I |! .h I1 ,a r w Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE October 7 1992 For more informations Dianne Woodruff,\n020 J LR5D ACT AND SAT SCORES RELEASED Better ACT and SAT scores were aligned with those Little Rock School District students who had taken advanced placement and honors t jurses in addition to their regularly required core courses. Students who took honors classes scored much better on the SAT on the average than the mean scores for all students. Of the 315 students who took the SAT, 212 C677.3 had taken honors English and 152 t.4SZ.') had taken honors mathematics c our ses. \"These test summaries support the belief that student will do better on tests if they take advanced placement and s honors level courses,\" said Mac Bernd, super intendent. Although LRSD offers more advanced placement course than other districts, as part of our emphasis on academic achievement were working towards offering even more advanced placement courses, If Bernd added. II In terms of the disparity among blacks and whites. we can see that getting students into advanced placement c1 asses could really help their achievement levels, If Bernd said. (MORE) 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ^(Sonag^MoooLRSD ACT and SAT Page 2 scores \"We must work to prepare al 1 our students to quali fy for, enrol 1 in and complete the more advanced and challenging advanced placement c ourses,\" said Bernd. Recently released SAT and ACT scores for the 19'31-92 school year show a variety of statistical information that compares LRSD students to other Arkansas district scores and to the National averages. Both tests are administered several times throughout the school year and are summarized at the end of the testing period. The tests measure verbal and mathematical reasoning skills, developed over many years of education. that are related to academic performance in college. The ACT exam was administered to 1,101 LRSD students, while 315 students took the SAT exam. The ACT test summary shows an increase in overall composite scores from 1990-91 to 1991-92 for LRSD students. English. mathematics and science reasoning all had increased sc or es. The reading score did not change over the two-year period. Parkview Magnet School students c jmposite scores wer ea better than Arkansas and National composite scores. Students from Fair, Hal 1, McClellan and Parkview Magnet had higher composite scores in 1991-92 than in the 1990-91 school year. CMOREjLRSD ACT and SAT Scores Page 3 In comparing 13'31 and 1'3'32 ACT composi'fcB scores for black and white students, the black pupil composite remained stable at 17 i while the white student composite score increased slightly from 21.'2 in 1'3'31 to 21.7 in 1'3'32. Although LRSD students did not score as high on the SAT test in the verbal \u0026lt;453) and mathematics \u0026lt;48'3) areas as in the previous year, the 1'3'32 mean scores for LRSD students were substantially higher than the National Average scores of 41 verbal and 47S mathematics. Fair High School students scored higher on the SAT than the Arkansas and National average in mathematics. In comparing black and white students. LRSD, Ar kansas and National white students scored higher on the average on the verbal and mathematics sections than black students. Note: A detailed summary which includes national. school comparisons will be mailed state and LRSD upon request.u 10/07/92 16:27 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @001/004 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 DATE (Qc. TO FROM 7 SENDER'S PHONE# SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Pages (include cover page) Fax Phone Number Speed dial FOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE USE ONLY Transmitted By Date Time . RECEIVED TO: Mrs. Janet Bernard, Associate Superintendent FROMz'^a. Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr. DATE: May 16, 1993 MAY 1 3 1993 SUBJ: Oitica of Dossgregation Mcnitoring AMPT Test Summary/Six Years I am providing you with the results of Garland's sixth grade (Black male)student performance over a six year period. The results from 1988 -1991 reflect the progress of Black male students under the instructional leadership of another principal. Particular focus on Black males is being used because of the enormous gender disparity in performance between black students. Detailed results of the performance of Black male students from 1988 to 1993 can be obtained from the office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation. The results in reading are being provided for you because they are the single most important predictor of future success in educational attainment. The District Summary results are being used as a standard to normalize the results at Garland. READING 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 District Summary Percent Passed Garland School Percent Passed Difference 78 79 84 88 86 84 73 -5 47 -32 80 -4 77 -11 91 +5 95 +11 The major difference in the variables impacting the results for the last two year has been the emphasis placed on culturally specific content in the school's curriculum. The students at Garland School, in grades 4 through 6, responded to this statement \"African-African American History is taught in this school\", on the Incentive School Student Survey with 80% favorable response as \"ALWAYS\". When the outcomes of the MPT performance in Reading and Math were shared with the sixth grade students, they were asked to explain the cause of the difference. They responded by saying that school was about them. They learned a lot about Africa and African Americans. When you compare the District Summary with Garland's progress for the same period. you find a significant difference in gains for Black males, uncharacteristic of the performance level during the tenure of another principal. I would like to get on the agenda to share this with the Board of Directors. I am asking your assistance in making this happen. We can close the gap before the year 2000. cc Monitoring Teams05/21/83 14:36 0501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 121002/003 \u0026lt;1 I I Little Rock School District I t NEWS RELEASE May 21,1993 For more information: Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RH.FASES MINIMUM PERFORMANCE TEST SCORES Three Little Rock School District schools, Cloverdale and Terry Elementary, both, area schools, and Williams Magnet Elementary achieved 85% I mastery of the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test in all areas in all grade levels. Six additional schools achieved mastery in all subject areas except one  in aU grade levels except one. The schools are McDermott, Jefferson and Woodruff area elementary schools and Carver Magnet, Ish Incentive and Romine Interdistrict elementary schools. j I 1 The seven incentive elementary schools improved as a group and are 1 making progress, especially at the 6th grade level. Rightsell Incentive I I i Elementary students in grade three and six improved in six of the seven areas of testing. Mitchell Incentive Elementary and Stephens Incentive Elementary improved in all areas in grade six. Rockefeller Incentive Elementary I I I improved overall in grade three. The Districts Magnet Schools continue to score at or near the 85% passage requirements in all grades and areas tested. (MORE) fin iaMteAMia05/21/93 14:36 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003/003 I LRSD MPT Tests-1993/94 Page 2 The district-wide passing rate for Sth grade students is seventy-eight percent which is one percentage point higher that the 1992 school year passing rate. The increased passing rate indicates continued growth in Little Rock School District student's mastery levels. ### I i i i ( I ireceived t JAH OHse o5 Dsesesi^' .MpPi-pnCiS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date: January 4, 1994 To: From: Margie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Sterling Ingra^^Director Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Arkansas Minimum Performance Test, 1993 As requested in your telephone call today, we are enclosing copies of the school summary reports for the 1993 Arkansas MPT. If we can provide any additional information, please let me know. bjg cc: Jerry Malone P 1 4 1 t JRECEIVED AUG 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT DATE: August 18, 1994 TO: Ms. Margie Powell, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: r. Robert Glowers RE: 1993-94 Stanford Achievement Test Results Please find enclosed results of the 1993-94 administration of the SAT-8 test for the Little Rock School District. Enclosed are districtwide and individual school reports disaggregated by ethnicity. One report provides a three year trend of the test administration giving the basic and complete battery score results. The second report provides subject area results along with basic and complete battery scores for the 1993-94 school year. Please let me know if you have any questions. Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent 08/31/94 13:36 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst 002 5-- C3X Little Rock School District August 31, 1994 RECEIVED TO\nFROM\nMargie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring Or. Robert dowers. Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation SUBJECT\nAUG 3 11994 0ffiC3 of !9 Stanford-8 Results for Incentive Schools, 1991-92 As per your request, please find attached copies of the Stanford-8 Test results for the Incentive Schools by Subject area/Race for the 1991-92 school year. If I can be of further assistance, please contact iny office. dge Attachmentco o o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION (A C5 STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTII.E RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o Xi o (/3 a SCHOOL\nFRANKLIN ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE HUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM CO o C'l CM CO o IO 3 co co 05 co co* o 1 TOTAt, B W O 2 TOTAL B H O 3 TOTAL B H O 4 TOTAL B W O 5 TOTAL B H O 6 TOTAL B W O 70 64 6 63 60 3 60 55 5 39 37 2 56 50 4 2 55 51 4 25/35.5 25/35.5 26/36.2 26/36.3 25/35.8 35/41.6 19/31.5 18/30.8 30/38.8 28/37.9 26/36.4 58/54.0 25/36.0 25/35.5 33/40.8 21/32.8 19/31.3 48/48.8 19/31.5 18/30.4 59/54.5 17/29.5 16/28.6 31/39.3 25/35.6 23/34.6 75/64.4 15/28.5 14/27.1 18/30.9 66/58.6 30/38.8 28/37.5 62/56.2 35/41.9 35/41.6 47/48.4 29/38.3 27/37.0 56/53.0 31/39.4 27/36.9 97/89.6 28/37.6 26/36.7 24/35.4 74/63.8 36/42.7 34/41.3 69/60.6 27/36.9 26/36.2 51/50.7 25/36.0 23/34.5 79/66.9 25/35.6 24/34.8 56/52.9 23/34.1 21/33.1 59/54.9 27/37.0 26/36.1 46/48.0 24/34.9 21/33.0 85/71.4 28/37.5 25/35.9 34/41.0 86/72.7 38/43.3 36/42.5 57/53.8 18/30.8 16/29.0 50/50.1 18/30.9 19/31.2 81/68.2 23/34.2 22/33.5 13/26.6 77/65.8 39/43.9 37/43.1 59/54.8  At Grsdcs 1 and a the SCIENCE and SOCIAI. SCIENCE objootivos are combined and reflected as one score unde EWVinoNHENT. 23/34.2 21/33.0 45/4 7..3 23/34.1 21/33.0 43/46.2 20/32.1 18/30.9 42/45.9 28/37.8 26/36.7 68/59.6 26/36.2 24/35.3 19/31.2 81/68.2 43/46.0 41/45.0 66/58.9 26/36.1 25/35.8 89/76.2 21/33.0 19/31.7 21/32.8 77/65.2 36/42.7 34/41.4 66/58.4 23/34.1 22/33.8 89/75.5 20/32.3 19/31.1 18/30.4 78/66.3 36/42.3 34/41.0 67/59.2o [l Liri'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIJVNNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION U) n STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o X3 U cn Of SCHOOL: GARI^ND ELEHENTARY EMVIROHHENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM ec o CM CM CC o ira 3 n ec X 00  o _1 _TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B N O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B H O J2_._ 32 29 26 3 28 28 31 30 1 35 35 62 62 ** At Grades 1 -_-62/_6S--5- -31/39.7-- 31/39.7 - -29/38,^-- 29/38.5 -20/32t1 20/32.1 -------35/Al-r$h 35/61.9 -26/36^1----- 26/36.1 19/31.8 17/29.7 51/50.7 32/60.3 29/38.6 65/58.3 25/35.9 23/36.5 68/60.7 25/35.7 21/33.3 65/58.3 21/33.1 18/30.8 55/52.8 26/36.2 23/36.1 58/56.2 12/25.6 12/25.6 29/38.5 29/38.5 26/35.0 26/35.0 20/32.0 20/32.0 22/33.9 22/33.9 19/31.2 19/31.2 17/30.0 17/30.0 23/35.1 43/46.3 23/36.3 23/36.3 27/37.2 27/37.2 39/66.3 38/43,7 69/60,4 29/38.1 28/37.9 43/46.3 26/36.7 26/36.2 54/52.1 36/61.5 33/40.9 69/60.4 28/37.7  28/37.6 49/49,5 26/36.6 20/37.9 51/50.5 30/63.8 38/63.8 63/66.6 63/66.6 and z the ecIBNCE and flocIAL 32/60.0 32/60.0 39/66.3 39/66.3 SCIENCE objectives 30/38.7 30/38.7 31/39.5 31/39.5 29/38.3 29/38.3 28/37.6 28/37.6 39/63.9 39/63.9 67/68.5 67/68.5 39/63.9 39/63.9 38/63.5 38/63.5IO o o Ka.'S LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PIANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION CA o STANFORD ACIIIEVFJIENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 4= O CZ5 0 SCHOOL: H1TCHEI.L ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY cv n o CM CM CC o IO \u0026amp; co cc 03 cc 00, o _ 1 TOTAL B H O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B W o 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 40...... 38 2 32/40.1 31/39.6 49/49.6 30/39.1 30/38.7 43/46.3 30,38.8 29/38.4 44/47.0 21/33.9 - 20/31.9 55/52.6 __.ie'it -31/39.5- - 30/38.8 54/52.1 26/36.3  25/35.6 49/49.4 43 41 2 39 35 3 1 41 38 ,3 24 23 1 38 38 20/32.0 21/32.9 4/13.8 25/35.9 23/34.1 58/54.4 42/45.8 26/36.3 26/36.2 26/36.5 27/37.1 26/36.4 55/52.6 29/38.3 29/38.3 At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIENCE are combined and rrt F 1 48/49.0 49/49.5 31/39.6 31/39.7 32/40.0 21/33.0 26/36.3 25/35.6 52/50.9 29/30.6 30/39.2 12/25.3 26/36.2 26/36.7 12/25.2 46/40.1 44/47.0 73/62.9 43/46.3 34/41.3 31/39.5 75/64.2 26/36,.5 29/38.2 25/35.7 71/61.5 65/58.1 42/4 5.9 39/44.1 78/65.9 49/49.5 32/40.0 28/37.9 73/62.6 40/44.7 30/39.2 27/37.1 71/61.8 42/45.8 37/42.8 37/42.9 34/41.3 56/53.1 56.53.4 44/46.8 42/45.9 42/45.9 25/35.9 25/35.7 29/38.3 26/36.7 26/36.5 30/39.1 29/38.2 29/38.2 28/37.7 29/38.2 34/41.3 30/39.0 26/36.7 29/38.2 28/37.5 43/46.3 40/44.7 94/82.7 33/40.9 33/40.9 and SOCIAL SCIENCE objectives 35/41.6 34/41.0 66/58.7 50/49.8 49/49.6 59/54.8 42/45.6 41/45.0 67/59.3 42/45.5 40/44.9 67/59.3 43/46.2 43/46.2 39/44.2 39/44.2 36/42.6 36/42.6 36/42.2 36/42.2co o o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ce Q STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE HANK/NORHAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 3 O W o: SCHOOL: RIGHTSEIX ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM CD CM CM CO O1 co co OJ co \\ co * o 1 TOTAL B ' V O 2 TOTAL B H O 3 TOTAL B W 0 4 TOTAL n H O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W O - 39- 38 33 32 38 37 33 33 62 62 33 33 *'63/66.2 63/66.5 '*56/67.9\" 66/68.0 32/60.6' 33/60.3 25/35.9' 26/36.2 60/66.7 61/65.0 39/66.0 60/66.6 65/67.1 65/67.2 32/60.2 32/39.9 53/51.6 26/36.2 26/36.2 21/33.1 21/33.1 36/61 .0 36/61.0 71/61.5 70/61.0 66/68.1 65/67.1 95/86.6 53/51.6 53/51.6 69/69.5 69/69.5 66/58.7 66/58.7 66/66.9 65/67.2 57/53.8 57/53.8 58/56.1 58/56.1 62/65.7 61/65.0 86/70.9 37/62.8 37/62.8 37/63.1 37/63.1 62/65.6 62/65.6 26/35.2 23/36.7 56/53.2 26/35.1 27/37.2 28/37.9 28/37.9 36/62.3 36/62.3 30/38.8 29/38.6 55/52.6 31/39.6 31/39.6 37/63.2 37/63.2 61/65.2 61/65.2 38/63.8 38/63.3 75/66.2 . 36/62.6 39/66.2 30/38.8 30/38.8 63/66.0 63/66.0 36/61.5 36/61.0 73/62.9 32/60.1 35/61.9 29/38.6 29/38.6 60/66.6 60/66.6 o lO 3 1 ** At Grades 1 and 2 the SCIEJtCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE obioctivo aro combined and reflnnl-od 13o s LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION ) o STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o .c o tn q: SCHOOL: ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY CM O CM CM O to ei o co a\u0026gt; 00 J o --1 TOTAL B W O 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B M O 4 TOTAL B W o 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B H O - 62----- 41 20 1 - 42/45\n8 - 52/51.0 64/57.5 -30/3071  45/47.1 61/56.0 59/54.8 51750 .'3----- 46/47.8 59/54.8 70/61.0 33/40-.3!.... 26/36.7 49/49.3 35/41.9 46/48.1 41/45.1 57/53.6 68/59.9 42/45.5 37/42.8 51/50.7 63/57.0 41 29 10 2 39 26 12 1 38 33 5 38 32 5 1 36 27 9  At Grades 1 and 20/37.8 23/34.6 43/46.3 34/41.0 42/45.9 38/43.5 56/52.9 40/44.6 44/46.9 38/43.5 58/54.0 68/59.6 30/38.9 23/34.2 54/52.2 26/36.7 31/39.8 25/36.0 51/50.3 36/42.4 30/39.2 24/34.8 53/51.3 35/41.8 20/32.2 13/26.0 38/43.8 69/60.4 36/42.7 33/40.5 43/46.4 67/59.3 35/41.6 26/36.4 54/52.1 63/57.0 20/31.9 16/29.4 24/34.9 61/55.9 27/37.2 22/33.9 38/43.3 38/43.6 28/37.6 21/33.2 41/45.2 66/58.7 25/35.7 18/31.0 39/44.0 63/57.0 29/38.4 28/ 37.6 38/43.4 30/39.2 28/38.0 39/44.0 55/52.6 37/42.9 32/40.3 53/51.6 38/43.4 36/42.3 51/50.5 49/49.7 46/47.7 71/61.4 63/57.0 48/48.7 43/46.1 64/57.3 2 the SCIENCE and SOCIAL 25/35.6 23/34.5 41/45.3 26/36.7 28/37.6 41/45.2 31/39,3 27/37.0 58/54.3 28/37.8 29/38.6 40/44.4 26/36.3 27/36.8 41/45.1 41/45.1 36/42.6 63/56.9 75/64.2 43/46.2 38/43.8 66/58.8 66/58.7 34/41.0 32/40.0 40/44.6 59/54.8 36/42.4 33/40.7 52/50.9 62/56.4 35/41.8 32/40.0 52/51.0 62/56.4 38/43.8 34/41.1 55/52.7 48/49.0 45/47.3 58/54.2 56/53.4 50/49.9 75/64.1 45/47.4 40/44.9 59/54.9 45/47.5 40/44.8 61/55.7 SCTEHPP nh-i oci-00 o o LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PliANNlNG, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION U) Q STANFORD ACHIEVEMENT TEST, EIGHTH EDITION NATIONAL PERCENTILE RANK/NORMAL CURVE EQUIVALENT SCORES (PR/NCE) SCHOOL SUMMARY 1992 o o 43 O tn os SCHOOL: STEPHENS ELEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT** GRADE/RACE NUMBER TESTED TOTAL READING TOTAL MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE BASIC BATTERY COMPLETE BATTERY -----1 TOTAL D W O 38- 37 1 22/3i-.%  22/33.8 23/34.4  42/5-r5-  41/45.4 52/51.1 -35/41.-8 - 35/41.6 53/51.6 -23/34T5- 23/3ii.l th tn .2 31/39. 6 ' 31/39.6 35/41.9 75735.-3 - 24/35.2 25/35.8 C-l n o CM CM CO o 1(5 63 n Oi co OO \u0026gt; 2 TOTAL B W O 3 TOTAL B W O 4 TOTAL B W O 5 TOTAL B W O 6 TOTAL B W 0 32 32 21 21 2 2 39 39 30 28 1 1 At Grados 1 27/37.3 27/37.3 20/32.6 20/32.6 24/35.4 30/39.2. 17/30.2 17/30.2 33/40.9 . 29/38.2 73/62.9 98/93.3 26/36.2 26/36.2 43/46.1 43/46.1 34/41.4 34/41.4 35/42.0 35/42.0 40/44.9 35/41.6 94/32.7 99/99.0 33/40.5 33/40.5 35/42.0 35/42.0 38/43.6 38/43.6 34/41.3 34/41.3 37/42.9 35/42.0 33/40.7 84/70.9 and 2 the ECIENCE and SOCIAL SCIENCE obloctivas 24/35.2 24/35.2 23/3^.5 29/38.5 27/36.8 27/36.8 32/40.4 38/43.3 34/41.4 54/52.1 97/89.6 21/33.3 21/33.3 22/34.0 22/34.0 36/42.3 36/42.3 33/40.5 33/40.5 31/39.7 31/39.7 35/41.9 35/41.9 32/40.2 32/40.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 26/36.2 42/45.5 37/42.9 89/75.8 96/86.9 36/42.3 31/39.7 98/93.3 35/41.8 30/39.2 76/64.9 98/93.309/07/95 ! i I 13:29 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM @002/002 i i mn V J. I Little Rock School District I 1 f i t i Media Advisory PREPARATIONS FOR STANFORD 8 TESTING I i September 7,1995 f I I For more information\nDina Teague, 324-2020 Friday, September 8,1:30 - 2:00 p.m. Stanford 8 testing begins around the state on Monday and students at Otter Creek Elementary School will get ready at a Test Buster Assembly in their cafeteria. One student will dress as Rocky (the boxer) and will \"challenge\" the test. ### I I ! I09/11/95  10:15 501 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI ODM 002/002 f' Little Rock School District Media Advisory I ( I } i i I i i I 1 September 11,1995 For more information: Dina Teague, 324-2020 No special events are scheduled for students in the Little Rock School District this week while Stanford 8 Tests are being administered. ! Thursday, September 14, 5:00 p.m. The LRSD Board of Directors will hold their regular monthly agenda meeting. I I 1 ### 1 I I 1 I I ( f i ! 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 78201  (5011324-2000c\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research, and Evaluation NOV 2 2 1995 of Desegregation f^Ol'IiiOfiiig MEMORANDUM Date: November 21, 1995 To: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Planning, Research, and Evaluation Subject: 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report C^cc Please find enclosed your personal copy of the 1994-95 Stanford Eight Achievement Test Annual Report. Also enclosed are copies for distribution to the Board members. If 1 can be of further assistance, please call me. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board Members Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Joshua Intervenors John Walker, Attorney ^Office of Desegregation MonitoringI'l/i h Dra ^T^sr Tt. 'ry (tz. ** Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation MEMORANDUIVI RECiSVED DEC 1 5 1995 J\nOffice of Dssegiegauon Munuwuiy TO: Ann Brown. Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director RE: Revised Stanford Achievement Test Results: Historical Comparisons DATE: December 12,1995 h bra t'y - An error occurred during the processing of the comparative data report causing the scores for five schools (Mabelvale, Meadowcliff, Mitchell, McDermott, and Martin L. King) to be interchanged. The results affect these schools only. All other data, to include other school and district totals, remain the same. Please replace previously received data with the attached revised version. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Lacey, Testing Coordinator or myself at 324-2120. Attachment a: e?ved N 1995 CKffiBB Little Rock School District Office ol Desegregation December 8. 1995 Monitoring MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director vl Planning, Research, and Ev^uation Tl.'k I'x RE: 1995 Stanford Achievement Test Results Cop'd /I'bi-a 'LX t Please find enclosed results of the Fall 1995 administration of the SAT-8 test for the Little Rock School District. Enclosed are districtwide and individual school reports disaggregated by ethnicity. One report provides a four year trend of the test administration giving the basic and Complete Battery score results. The second report provides subject area results along with Basic and Complete Battery scores for the Fall 1995 school year. Please let me know if you have any questions. Enclosure cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)824-2000c: /tlrye. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation RECEiV''n FEB 8 1996 3 MEMORANDUM FROM: RE: January 25, 1996 Superintendents Cabinet Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Insert for SAT-8 Annual Report Office of Deseflregation Monuoii htg Please see attached SAT-8 Annual Report pages 7 and 8. If your document is missing these pages, please insert. We regret the inconvenience. cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams LRSD Board Members Arm Brown, ODM John Walker, Attorney Magnet School Review 1O-.8 (2, 4, 6, 9, and 10) scored average or above\nin 1994, eight grades (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) scored above the national average, and for 1995 six grades (2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9) scored at or above the national average. Grade 6 and 9 have remained above the national average for each years results. Fifth grade students in 1994 scored at the 56th percentile which equalled grades 4, 5, and 6 in 1995. 4.1.6 Science Five grade levels (2, 4, 5, 6, and 9) scored at or above the 50th percentile in science on the Stanford Eight in 1995. Only grades 4, 5, and 6 scored at or above the 50th percentile for the 1994 administration. In 1993 grades 4 and 6 exceeded the national average while in 1992 grades 6 and 9 scored average or above. 4.1.7 Social Science The 1994 social science data show that five of die nine grades levels tested (3, 4, 5, 6, and 10) scored above the national average. Grade 4 achieved the highest percentile rank in social science. In 1993, grades 4, 5, and 6\nand in 1992, grades 6 and 11 scored above the average national percentile. In a review of the 1995 data only 9 grades 4, 5, 6, and 10 exceeded the average national percentile (See Exhibits 1-6). 4.1.8 Highest Performance The national percentile ranks for grade 6 were at or above the national average in every subject area for all administrations (1992 through 1995), and grade 4 was above average in every subject area except reading (See Exhibits 1-6). 4.1.9 Analysis of Test Data for Elementary Students The Group Skills Analysis with Objectives Performance reports presents summary information for a class, school or district. This analysis provides a summary of the groups performance on the \"Content Clusters.\" Below average (BA) refers to the bottom 23 % of the reference group\nAverage (A), to the middle 54%\nand Above Average (AA), to the top 23%. These performance categories are especially helpful when identifying strengths and needs within content areas. This report, as well as other alternative assessments, assists the schools instructional leaders and staff when reviewing curriculum and setting priorities for instruction.Grade all Sheet 1 Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) Scores by Elementary Schools compared Io Total District Scores - Complete Battery [ School Name Williams (magnet) Carver (magnet) Icioverdale Romine (interdist) iGibbs (magnet) Western Hills I Rightsell (incent) Terry I King (interdistrict) Otter Creek I McDermott Rockefeller (incent) I Booker (magnet) Wilson I Fulbright Watson I Pulaski Heights Brady I Wakefield Washington (Inter) I Woodruff Forest Park I Bale Geyer Springs I Meadowcliff Dodd I Jefferson Fair Park iGarland (incent) Mabelvale I Chicot Baseline I Badgett Mitchell (Incent) I Frankin (incent) School Black 61.5 50 District Black 41.7 41.7 48.48 I 41.7 48.2 47.44 45.28 45.26 45 44.92 43.92 42.58 42 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 41.86 I 41.7 41,84 41.54 41.16 40.9 40.88 40.34 39.88 39.64 39.4 39.06 39 38.4 38.16 37.7 37.64 ,. 37.58 f 37.48 37.34 I 37.22 . 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 1 41.7 41.7 I 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 34.96 1 41.7 34.94 31,8 1 41.7 41.7 % diff 147.5% 119.9% 116.3% 115.6% 113.8% 108,6% 108.5% 107.9% 107.7% 105.3% 102.1% 100.7% 100.4% 100.3% 99.6% 98.7% 98.1% 98.0% 96.7% 95.6% 95.1% 94.5% 93.7% 93.5% 92.1% fo 91.5% , 90.4% 90.3% 90.1% 89.9% 89.5% 89.3% 83.8% Sorted by the % difference of School Black Scores to District Black Scores School White 75.58 71.36 I 65.9 49.3 I 69.24 63.96 I 17.3 68.56 I 62.3 61.54 I 66.12 51.38 I 57.98 52.06 I 66.82 48.32 I 68.62 56.68 1 48.78 63.28 I 53.9 75.66 I 53.96 46.2 I 48.76 , 48.76 83.8% 76.3% I 70.66 64.06 0 50.94 49.34 38.64 45.86 52.8 62.4 ZIZ Dlstricf White 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63,32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 % diff 119.4% 112.7% 104.1% 77,9% 109.3% 101.0% 21.3/^ 108.3% 98.4% 104.4% 81.1% 91.6% 82.2% 105.5% 76.3% 108.4% 89.5% 99.9% 85.1% 119.5% 85.2% 73.0% 77.0% 77.0% 111.6% 101.2% 0.0% 80.4% 77.9% 61.0% 72.4% 83.4% 98.5% School Total 68.46 60.86 50.2 49.28 57.16 51.92 45.24 58.4 53.64 54 53.58 45.02 49.34 44.54 54.18 42.44 55.52 45.52 41.52 48.58 45.68 58.08 42.32 40.58 40.98 41.96 57.52 41.84 37.76 42.08 39.56 37.64 37.64 35.24 32.64 Page 1 District Total 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 I % diff 138.6% 123.2% 101.7% I 99.8% 115.8% I 105.1% 91.6% I 118,3% 108.6% I 109.4% 108.5% I 91.2% 99.9% I 90.2% 109.7% I 85.9% 112.4% I 92.2% 84.1% I 3rd Qlr Enrollm't 513 630 454 312 310 318 223 534 557 333 484 402 605 384 520 453 434 389 428 98.4% : 656 92.5% I 117.6%  85.7% I 82.2% I 83.0% 1 85.0% I 116.5% I 84.7%  - I 76.5% I 85.2% I 80.1% I Report date: May 23,1996__ % Black % eligible for free or___% ellgito for reduced Lunch free lunch 241 433 343 320 405 281 506 273 257 448 454 76.2% . 323 76.2% i 71.4% 66.1% I 220 258 455 52.0% 52.0% 85.0% 71.0% 54.0% 66.0% 96.0% 45.0% 54.0% 41.0% 53.0% 64.0% 52.0% 79.0% 49.0% 80.0% 47.0% 63,0% 86 0% 64,0% 67,0% 47,0% 70,0% 75,0% 76,0% 65,0% 42.0% 92.0% 69.0% 76.0% 76.0% 79.0% 97.0% 93.0% 22.4% 33.0% 78.0% 54.5% 39.4% 61.3% 83.0% 28,7% 51,7% 34,8% 41,3% 65,9% 46,9% 73,7% 36,2% 74,8% 43,6% 49,6% 81,1% 63,0% 68.5% 37.0% 74.9% 76.6% 73.3% 66.9% 38.3% 75.5% 94.6% 73.9% 77.3% 81.7% 77.3% 98.5% 86 5% 17.9% 27.0% 69.8% 46.5% 33.5% 54.4% 76.2% 27.2% 43.8% 30.9% 37.6% 59.2% 36.7% 68.0% 31.7% 67.3% 39.2% 43.4% 72.2% 56.7% 61.8% 32.3% 66.4% 65.9% 68.9% 61.9% 36.0% 69.6% 89.9% 64.1% 68.1% 74.3% 74.1% 95.0% 79.8%Sheen Normal Curve Equivalenl (NCE) Scores by Elementary Schools compared to total District Scores-- Complete Battery ~]~ Grade all School Name Forest Park Williams (magnet) ICarver (magnet) Jefferson iGibbs (magnet) Pulaski Haights iTerry Fulbright iMcDermotl Cloverdale I Fair Park Western Hills Iwashington (inter) Frankin (incenl) I King (interdistrict) Otter Creek I Booker (magnet) Brady (Bale Woodruff I Mitchell (incenl) Wilson I Rockefeller (incenl) Mabelvale IChicot Romine (interdist) [Wakefield Dodd I Meadowcliff Watson [Geyer Springs Badgett [Baseline Rightsell (Incent) [Garland (incenl) Sch(X)l Black 39.4 61.5 50 37.7 47.44 40.9 45 41.54 42.58 48.48 37.64 45.28 39.88 31.8 44.92 43.92 41.86 40.88 39.06 39.64 34.94 41.84 42 37.48 37.34 48.2 40.34 38.16 38.4 41.16 I 39 34.96 [ 37.22 45.26 [ 37.58 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I i District Black 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 % diff 94.5% 147.5% I 119.9% 90.4% ] 113.8% 98.1% 107.9% 99.6% 102.1% 116.3% 90.3% 108 6% 95.6% 76.3% 107.7% 105.3% 100.4% 98.0% 93.7% 95.1% 83.8% 100.3% 100.7% 89.9% 89.5% 115.6% 96.7% 91.5% 92.1% 98.7% 93.5% 83.8% 89.3% 108.5% [ 90.1% I 1 I Sorted by the % difference of School White Scores to District While Scores School While 75.66 75.58 71.36 70.66 69.24 68.62 68.56 66.82 66.12 65.9 64.06 63.96 63.28 62.4 62.3 61.54 57.98 56.68 53.96 53.9 52.8 52.06 51.38 50.94 49.34 49,3 48.78 48.76 48.76 48.32 46.2 45.86 38.64 17.3 0 District While 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 63.32 % diff 119.5% 119.4% I 112.7% 111.6% 109.3% 108.4% 108.3% 105.5% 104.4% 104.1% 101.2% 101.0% 99.9% 98.5% 98.4% 97.2% 91.6% 89.5% 85.2% 85.1% 83.4% 82.2% 81.1% 80.4% 77.9% 77.9% 77.0% 77.0% , 77.0% 76.3% 73.0% 72.4% 61.0% 27.3% 0.0% r Schrxjl Total 58.08 68.46 60.86 57.52 57.16 55.52 58.4 54.18 53.58 50.2 41.84 51.92 48.58 32.64 53.64 54 49.34 . 45.52 42.32 45.68 35.24 44.54 45.02 42.08 39.56 49.28 41.52 . 41.96 40.98 42.44 40.58 37.64 37.64 45.24 37.76 Page 1 DisIricI Total 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 49.38 % diff 117.6% 138.6% I 123.2% 116.5% I 115.8% 112.4% I 118.3% 109.7% ( 108.5% 101.7% [ 84.7% 105.1% I 98 4% 66.1% [ 108.6% 109.4% I 99.9% 92.2% 85.7% 92.5% 71.4% 90.2% 91.2% 85.2% 80.1% 99.8% 84.1% 85.0% 83.0% 85.9% 82.2% 76.2% 76.2% 91.6% 76.5% I 3rd Qlr Enrollm't i 433 513 630 506 310 434 534 520 484 454 273 318 656 455 557 333 605 389 343 241 258 384 402 448 454 312 428 281 405 453 320 220 323 223 257 I Report Dale May 23,1996 % Black 47.0% 52.0% 52.0% 42.0% 54.0% 47.0% 45.0% 49.0% 53.0% 85.0% 78.0% 66.0% 64.0% 93.0% 54.0% 41.0% 52.0% 63.0% 70.0% 67.0% 97.0% 79.0% 64.0% 69.0% 76.0% 71.0% 86.0% 65.0% 76.0% 80.0% 75.0% 79.0% 76.0% 96.0% 92.0% I I I I 1 | I I % eligible lor free or reduced Lunch I I I I I I I LZ 37.0% 22.4% 33.0% 38.3% 39.4% 43.6% 28.7% 36.2% 41.3% 78.0% 75.5% 61.3% 63.0% 86.5% 51.7% 34.8% 46.9% 49.6% 74.9% 68.5% 98.5% 73.7% 65.9% 73.9% 77.3% 54.5% 81.1% 66.9% 73.3% 74.8% 76.6% 77,3% 81.7% 83.0% 94.6% I % eligible for free lunch 32.3% 17.9% 27.0% 36.0% . 33.5% ' -  39.2% 31.7% 37.6% 69.8% 69.6% 54.4% 56.7% . , 79,8% 43.8% 30.9%  36.7% . 43.4% ,\n66 4%  61.8%  95.0% 68.0% 59.2% 64.1% 68.1% 46.5% 72.2% 61.9% - 68.9% 67,3% 65.9% 74.1% 74.3% 76.2% 89.9%Shee11 Normal Curve Equivalent (NCE) Scores Elemenlary Schools compared Io To1al Dislrid Scores Complele Ballery f aii School Name Williams (magnef) Carver (magnet) I Terry Forest Park I Jefferson Gibbs (magnet) I Pulaski Heights Fulbright I Oller Creek King (inlerdislricl) I McDermott Western Hills Icioverdale Booker (magnet) I Romine (interdist) Washington (inter) I Woodruff Brady I Rightsell (incent) Rockefeller (incent) I Wilson Watson I Bale Mabelvale I Dodd Fair Park I Wakefield Meadowcliff |Geyer Springs Chicot iGartand (incent) Badgett I Baseline Mitchell (incent) iFrankin (incent) School Black 61.5 50 I 45 39.4 I 37.7 47.44 I 40.9 41.54 I 43.92 44.92 I 42.58 45.28 I 48.48 41.86 I 48.2 39.88 I 39.64 40.88 I 45.26 42 I 41.84 41.16 I 39.06 37.48 I 38.16 37.64 I 40.34 38.4 I 39 37.34 I 37.58 34.96 I 37.22 34.94 I 31.8 1 I District Black 41.7 41,7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41 7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41.7 41 7 41 7 % diff 147.5% 119.9% 107.9% 94.5% 90.4% 113.8% 98.1% 99.6% 105.3% 107.7% 102.1% 108.6% 116.3% 100.4% 115 6% 95.6% 95.1% 98.0% 108.5% 100.7% 100.3% 98.7% 93.7% 89.9% 91.5% 90.3% 96.7% 92.1% 93.5% 89.5% 90.1% 83.8% 89.3% 83.8% 76.3% I Sorted by the % difference of Schooi Tofal Scores fo Disfricf Total Scores School White 75.58 71.36 68.56 75.66 70.66 69.24 68.62 66.82 61.54 62.3 66.12 63.96 65.9 57.98 49.3 63.28 53.9 56.68 17.3 51.38 52.06 48.32 53.96 50.94 48.76 64.06 48.78 48.76 46.2 49.34 0 45.86 38.64 52.8 62.4 D^trict White 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 . 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 63.32 I 63.32 % diff 119.4% 112.7% 108.3% 119.5% 111.6% 109.3% 108.4% 105.5% 97.2% 98.4% 104.4% 101.0% 104.1% 91.6% 77.9% 99.9% 85.1% 89.5% 27.3% 81.1% , 82.2% 76.3% 85.2% 80.4% 77.0% . 101.2% 77.0% 77.0% 73.0% 77.9% 0.0% 72.4% 61.0% 83.4% 98.5% School Total 68.46 60.86 58.4 58.08 57.52 57.16 55.52 54.18 54 53.64 53.58 51.92 50.2 49.34 49.28 48.58 45.68 45.52 45.24 45.02 44.54 42.44 : 42.32 42.08 41.96 41.84 41.52 40.98 40.58 39.56 37.76 37.64 37.64 35.24 32.64 Page 1 District Total 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 , I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 , 49.38 I 49.38 Z 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 49.38 I 49.38 I diff 138.6% 123.2% 118.3% 117.6% 116.5% 115.8% 112.4% 109.7% 109.4% 108.6% 108.5% 105.1% 101.7% 99.9% 99.8% 98.4% 92.5% 92.2% 91.6% 91.2% 90.2% 85.9% 85.7% 85.2% 85.0% 84.7% 84.1% 83.0% 82.2% 80.1% 76.5% 76.2% 76.2% 71.4% 66.1% 3rd Qfr Enrollm'f 513 630 534 433 506 310 434 520 333 557 484 318 454 605 312 656 241 389 223 402 384 453 343 448 281 273 428 405 320 454 257 220 323 258 455 r Report Date May 23, f996 % Black _%^ligible tor free or reduced Lunch 52.0% ... 52.0% I 45.0% 47.0% I 42.0% ,, 54.0% j 47.0% ~ 49.0% I 41.0% 54.0% I 53.0% 66.0% I 85.0% 52.0% I 71.0% 64.0% I 67.0% 63.0% . I 96.0% 64.0% I 79.0% 80.0% I 70.0% 69.0% I 65.0% 78.0% I 86.0% 76.0% I 75.0% 76.0% I 92.0% 79.0% I 76.0% 97.0% I 93.0% 22.4% 33.0% 28.7% 37.0% 38.3% 39.4% 43.6% 36.2% 34.8% 51.7% 41.3% 61.3% 78.0% 46.9% 54.5% 63.0% 68.5% 49.6% 83.0% 65.9% 73.7% 74.3% 74.9% 73.3% 66.9% 75.3% 81.1% 73.3% 73.3% 77.3% 94.6% 77.3% 811% 98.5% 86.5% % eligible for free iunch 17.9% 27.0% 27.2% 32.3% 36.0% 33.5% 39.2% 31.7% 30.9% 43.8% 37.6% 54.4% 69.8% 36.7% 46.5% 56.7% 61.8% 43.4% 76.2% 59.2% 68.0% 67.3% 66.4% 64.1% 61.9%  69.6% . 72.2% 68.9% 65.9% 1-68.1% 89.9% 74.1% 74.3% . 95.0% 79.8%e' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 West Markham Street Little Rock. AR 72201 r* ve\u0026lt;' J MEMORANDUM ' D Date: May 29, 1996 To: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Superintendents Cabinet Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Magnet Review Committee CTA From: Dr. Ed Jackson, Director Subject: 1995-96 Fall Stanford Achievement Test - Eighth Edition Annual Report Analyses '' /t 7) Please find enclosed the 1995-96 Stanford Achievement Test - Eighth Edition Annual Report Analyses. This report represents a summary of the Stanford Eight Achievement Tests that were administered to students in grades 2 through 11 in the fall of 1995. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Enclosure cc: LRSD Board MembersJohn w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 OCT 1 b 1996 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. Office of Desegregation Monitoring via Facsimile 324-2308 October 15, 1996 Mr. Rudolph Howard, Principal Central High School 1400 Park Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Howard: I am writing to request information regarding the PSAT testing that was done at Central today. This office has received several calls from parents of class members alleging disparate treatment regarding the testing. For example, in one of Ms. Becker's 10th grade English classes, none of the black students were allowed to take the test nor did they receive information regarding the same. With information that I have provided thus far, would you please provide the following to this office: 1) gender and grade level\nthe number of students who took the PSAT by race. 2) the name of the teachers by core subject whose students were given the PSAT\n3) state the date(s) of the next PSAT testing\nprovide all documentation that was published by the administration and/or staff to advise students of the PSAT 4) testing\nprovide all documentation (item #4 above) including criteria used to be considered for testing that was provided to the students and the date(s) this information was provided either through written notice or announcement\n5) 6) provide all correspondence, brochures, literature that the administration, teachers, counselors and other staff members have regarding PSAT testing\nand 7) state the name of the person(s) responsible for the PSAT testing besides yourself.I would like to have this information by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday afternoon, October 17, 1996. immediate attention to this request. Thank you for your incerel I /^oy C. Springer Kloshua Intervenors JCS/ cc: Dr. Victor Anderson Dr. Don Roberts Ms. Ann Brown Joshua class membersLU Q UJ LU m LU Visit our home page on the World Wide Web: hup: 11 WWW. collegeboard. org  iap z cc o U5J z o i 5 S I -J 55 LU oz cci (fi DC UJ Q. V) Vi 0)3 QQ^ LU LU (/) Vi LU CC O Q co Q LU m UJ O H t/i O 0. _ i/\u0026gt; OJ LJ .y X- \u0026gt; (U Ln m G o m m 9^ o O O \u0026lt; O QQ \u0026gt; -5 QJ  2 I'C-Se^' /SI I 5o h\ntj U O 7 m 'I 2  - x: in Q H H Wwe^a n,t .hear from , you: to The College Board Educational Excellence for All Students Tell us whot you think of the PSAT/NMSQT Student Bulletin Tell us about yourself So,, 1. How much do you actually read? _____ all of it _____ most of it _____ some of it _____ none of it 5. 6. 2. Which pages do you read? [Check all that apply.] _____ None _____ Front page _____ Tips and hints about verbal questions _____ Tips and hints about math questions _____ Tips about bubbles for address, scholarships, (2-5) (6-9) 3. 4. majors, etc. _____ Full-length test ____ Scholarship information (11-12) 7. How do you rate the Student Bulletin? [For each characteristic, circle the appropriate number on the scale.] 1____ boring 2 3 4 5 6 interesting 8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 hard to read easy to read 1 2 3 4 unattractive 5 6 attractive 1 2 3 4 5 6 uninteresting lots of helpful info 9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 information hard to find information easy to find 1______ too long 2 3 4 5 6 too brief 10. 1 2 3 4 5 6 disorganized well-organized What is your overall impression of the Student Bulletin? Sex _____Female _____Male Grade Level _____12th grade _____11 th grade _____10th grade _____ 9th grade _____ Sth grade _____Not yet in Sth grade you re thinking about college Grade Average _____A+ or A _____A- or B+ _____ B or B- _____C+ or C _____C- or D+ _____D or below Educational Plans _____specialized training or certificate program _____two-year college degree _____four-year college degree _____master's degree _____doctoral or related degree _____I don't know How did you get your copy of the Student Bulletin? from a counselor from a teacher from a volunteer or secretary Other (Please specify) Did you take the PSAT/NMSQT last year? ______yes ______no Optional Name (please print) School Code Phone ( ) thank you The College Board wants to help you get ready for college. Taking the PSAT/ NMSQT lets you get feedback about academic preparation, get mail from colleges, and get scholarships. The PSAT/NMSQT Student Bulletin has a lot of helpful information about doing well on the test. But it won't help, unless you read it. We want to know what you read (or don't read), and why. Your answers will influence future editions. Thank you. Sincerely, Maureen Welsh Director of School Services P.S. If you tell us who you are, we may contact you.I CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL 1500 SOUTH PARK STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 2 / /995 October 17, 1996 Office of ^^^^gregation Moniionna Joy Springer Joshua Intervenors 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Ms. Springer: In response to your request for information regarding PSAT testing practices and procedures at Central High School, the following insights are herein provided according to your fax dated 10/15/96. 1. The number of students according to race, level. gender and grade A. Race White 230 Black 94 Other 22 Total 346 B. Gender WM 78 WF 152 BM 35 BF 59 OM 11 OF 11 Total 346 C. Grade Level Grade 10 Grade 11 WM WF Sub Totals 27 68 95 BM BF 2 OM 13 OF 15 4 6 10 WM WF 51 84 135 BM BF 2. Total Grade 10 - 120 Total Tested 33 46 79 OM OF 7 5 12 Total Grade 11 - 346 226 The name of the teachers by core subject whose students were given the PSAT. As I indicated in our phone conversation on 10/16/96, I do not fully understand what you are needing here, however, I hope that the following explanation suffices. A. The PSAT is a test which is strongly recommended to be given to 11th grade students, however, we do encourage 10th grade students to take it. that we promote for 10th graders to take. The PLAN Test is a test I make this point because a greater effort of solicitation is made to 11th graders versus 10th graders. Observe, however. that many 10th graders (120) as well as 11th graders (226) took the test. Page 2 B. C. Since any and all students who take the PSAT are enrolled in core subjects, any and all teachers that teach the core areas will have students represented. Is a roster of all my English, math, science and/or social studies teachers being requested here? The PSAT is not administered via classes, e.g., English, math, etc. Testing sites are set up according to our scheme and students from all classes, English, math. etc., are assigned to the sites. Please see the five page special bulletin attachment for the testing sites and the students assigned there. 3. The next PSAT testing will be in October of 1997. Again, it will be recommended for 11th graders, but 10th graders will be encouraged to take it. 4. Provide all documentation that was published by the administration and/or staff to advise students of the PSAT. A. Announcement of PSAT testing is provided in the LRSD's 1996-97 calendar. The District's calendar is presented by the Superintendent to the Board for approval in the Spring each year. All patrons and schools have access to the calendar prior to the beginning of school each year. See attachment. B. Central High School publishes a monthly calendar. It is distributed to all staff the week prior to the beginning of each month. calendar in their classrooms. Teachers are encouraged to post the C. See attachment. Central High communicates all major and/or important events through its newspaper. The- Tiger. The paper is delivered to our students by the journalism department D. twice to three times per month. See attachment. Central attempts to keep its students informed via a Daily Bulletin. The announcements concerning the PSAT were contained in the bulletins on the following dates: 9/20/96 10/09/96 10/01/96 10/10/96 10/04/96 10/11/96 Teachers read the daily bulletin to students during 1st period. See attachment. E. In addition, announcements regarding the PSAT were made via intercom both mornings and afternoons, October 1-4, 1996. Special bulletins were published and distributed 10/7, F. 10/11 and 10/14, 1996. See attached. Counselors personally visited every 11th grade English class during the period 10/1 - 10/11, 1996, in an effort to discuss the importance of the test and to encourage registration.Page 3 G. All teachers, irrespective of subject area and/or grade level, received two (2) special bulletins regarding the PSAT on the following dates: 1996 . See attachment. October 7, 11, and 14, 5. Provide all documentation (Item #4 above) including criteria used to be considered for testing . . . Item #4 contains all documentation asited for in Item #5. There was no additional criteria provided to students except that they pay for the cost of the test, $9.00, at which time the PSAT Student Bulletin was given to every 10th grade student who signed the stand-by list and to all 11th grade students who paid the $9.00. 6. Provide all correspondence, brochures . . . See Item #6 and PSAT Student Bulletin (attached). 7. State the person(s) responsible for the PSAT testing besides yourself: Sam Blair, Test Coordinator and Head Counselor Ann Graves, Counselor Peggy Hawthorne, Counselor Lynda Johnson, Counselor Linda Porter, Counselor SincefrefLy, Rudodph Howard Principal RH/mj s cc: Dr. Dr. Ms . Victor Anderson Don Roberts Ann Brown Joshua class membersLittle Rock School District First Class Schools For World Class Kids dis n/ Vil'. ^'l jl h  t-' ^f-y.-. ... ^' / \"V . 1\ni- ^'1/ '\u0026gt;J SB V /'r i!' ^2 ii ig\n! w  * * iS\nw A y t ik..^ y\" 1996-97 CALENDAR0^ S M T W T F s 1 School Day Photos 10th. 11th. Kinoer-garten \u0026amp; Faculty PTSA Mtg Library 5:30 p.m. 2 FBLA Meeting 125B 3 Senior Make-up Picture Day (Rm 103) 4 Home-coming Court Nominees Pep Rally(NLR} Order Senior Ring Lunch Times only 5 6 20 ! r. 13 College Admissions Program 2:00 Auditorium I 27 'Daylight Savings Time Ends I'\"'\" 7 Faculty Meeting 14 21 Home-coming Carnations Sale Mu Alpha Theta 28 8 15 PSAT (Periods 10th \u0026amp; 11th Graders End of 9 weeks 22 Early Dismissal 29 Order Senior Announcements Invitations/ Caps Gowns Report Cards Go Home 9 Teachers meeting with Dr. Roberts 4:30 p.m. 16 Students Out Teacher Workday 23 30 Order Sr. Announcements Invitations/ Cap \u0026amp; Gown Plan Test 10 FBLA Mtg 125B 17 24 1st Equity Monitoring 31 11 Pep Rally (Conway) I 12 I I 18 Scoliosis Screening 25 Pep Rally (Home-coming) Park view 1 I 1 I 19 26 i I I ! I i t I II IV [ n II I L-......  w .. CenfRolHighTigeRsJ Enrollment totals 1785 students Sophomores - 760 Juniors - 529 Seniors 464 Kindergartners  32 Tonight's football game is here at Quigley. Kickoff is 7:30 p.m. LITTLE ROCK CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL Volume 102 Little Rock, Arkansas, October 4,1996 Number 5 THE BELL IS BACK!  i * Winning BELL very special to Class of 97 Ringing the belt Pictured at left are three Central High Tigers who want nothing better than to re-paint the bell from orange and white to black and gold. At left are Ralph Jack-son. Joseph McCraney and Errick Berry. Students had an opportunity to see and hear the Central bell ring Tuesday niorning while It sat in Student Council Sponsor Mr. Mark Mead ows truck on the school's front law. It was a truly glori OUS sight. By Ryan Davis It's back!! And it'saboui linx. After four years al Hall Ihe coveted Bell is honw. all thanks lo the spanking given lo ihe Warriors by Ihe TiguT bxnhalt leani. Rushing for 267 yards, die Tigers delivered a smashing 20-0 defcal to iIk Wjuriors of Hall High. \"It's bevn four years (since we last had Ihe Hell] iuid we didn't gel any respcx'i.\" senior light end Jixscph McCr.iixV staled. \"We got our rcs|X'Ci back. Anyixxly who thinks b.id alxml the leaiii. ...we an- going to prove them wrong.\" The Warriors, whoenlereil the \"Hallie for llie Hell on a ihrcv-gaiiK winning sire.ik, were only able lo allain 7.S yards rushing due lo the lix\u0026gt;l-pn.Hf Tigei defense. \"We tried lo prose sonwlliing lo our fans aixJ coaches. ' senior defensive eixl Fmck Herry s.n,l. Berry liiilliei si.iu-d lli.tl ilu \"defense' kind \u0026lt;f lei dow n dm iiig the ganx.' :il West Memphis,\" which allowed the Blue I X s il- h \u0026gt; rush oser 7\u0026lt;X\u0026gt; yards. Il Was an alt (lefeiise first h.ilf with die Tigers leading 7 0 .i-. h.ilflinx buzzer s^uixled. Tlii' was due lo senior l.iilb.n k Virgil Jones' selling up the louelxlowt. followiijg.i 47 y.trd p.isscmpk lii'n from qii.irlerb.iek Rt'bbie Stilleiiger .iiid dien niiming foiii y.irds for the hHiehdwn. Thl^ iixrcdible pl.iv c.iiiie willi I I' Continued on page 4 Ntws BRiefs\n4 of states 10 scholars are Central High students Krill .lohnsnn, a Cenii'al High innior. will lx* leaiured .is fli.innel Il's \"SliMlenl of Hie Week\" ironi (X t. 1-11. Johnson i\\ .1 .Student Council junior ap. president of Little Rixks chapter ofTop Teens, vice pa*sident of Centr.il's SBCMIi. .ind was nominated for the 1997 N.i-tion. il Youth Le.idership l-orum on Medicine. He w.is the winner 01 the I99.S-9f) Mr. LRCH Photogenic Contest. S* By Christine Whitson Four seniors .ire semilln.il-ists in the National Achievement Scholarship Program (NASP). Tliey are Salonica Gray. Larissa Jennings. T. Michelle Payne, and Ngozi i Scott. This awjird honors - ouisiJinding African-Americiin students. World Test, a celebration of uorld coinmuniiies. people, pl.inis and animals, will lx* held lomorrow Ironi 10-7 ill M.icAnhiir P.irk. Aeimission is free. Semifinalists. These three seniors were among 10 students from around Arkansas who were recently announced as National Achievement Scholar semifinalists. Pictured are Ngozi Scott, Salonica Gray and Larissa Jennings. The fourth semifinalist, not pictured, is T. Michelle Payne. About 1,200 finalists and 750 scholarships will be awarded next spring. To Ik considered, sludeiils iixik the Preliminitry Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) in their junior year. The NASP is conducted by the National Merit Scholarship Coqxxa-tion. An estimated I(X).(XK) Africiin-Aniericiui students entered the competition by taking the PSAT iind 1.5(X) semilinal-ists were chosen natiiutwide. The semifinidisis will com-peic by Inking ihc Scholnsiic Aphiiidc Test (SAIIi .Uhl cdinplcimg .1 SIX) word esvix. Tlie essay is lo lx* .ilxui then ac.idcnuc |Xrloriii.incc. exir.i curricular acliviiics they participate in. iheir contribiiitons lo Ihe community and scIuk)I. iuid their educational plans lor the filllire. There will lx* 1.2\u0026lt;MHinalisis and 750 scholarship.s awarded totalling S.^ million. They will be given next spring. Juniors inieresicil in com|Xiing for next years scholarships shotikl coniact their counselor. Other semifinalisis in Arkansas are fmm Blytheville. Jacksonville. Mount St. Mary's. Pine Bluff. Russellville, and Helena. Ocfolivr will be a busy monih al Central and throughout the LRSD. College night is Thursday. (X t. 10. A pep rally IS planned for next Friday, (kt. 11 for the hxuball gameagainsi Conw.iy. The S Yl' Tesi is (Xt. 12. The ISAI will fx given to HUh and llih graders during period.s l-.l on Tuesday. (Xt. 1.^. Thal IS Ihe final day of ihe firsi 9-weeks. Siudeiiis are out of school on Wevlnesil.iy, (X'l. 16 for a teacher workday. Mu Alpha Theta will hold a carnation sale for lloinccom-ing Week.l XI. 21 -2.\u0026gt;. Tuesday. I \u0026gt;ci. 22 IS .in early dismissal ^Liy. The homecoming game is I'rid.n. Oci. againsi Parkview. Seniors will or^ler oul guuHs tX't. 2v-.P\u0026lt; ni Homecoming nominees told A total of 22 young ladies have been nominuied Homecoming nominees. Pictured above are Kumari Hardy. Jenny Wiedower. Misiv Price. Tiffany Mays, NiLki MclilHMg, Suzanna Monk, Evita Washington. Mary Fleming. Jill Irv.'in. Eiuubuili Faulkner. Moyao Kearney. AlonUra Givons, Molly Darragh, Tiffany Cravens, Tanya Corbin, Monica Simpbuii, thmugh first periixJ ciasse.s to contend for posiiioiw on the 1996 Central High Fixxlxill Homecoming Court. These students met with Mr. Mark Meadows. Siiident Council .sponsor, last Thursday lo Iciini about practice and appropriate attire. They will be* presented before the student btxly at an assembly nxlay. Students will have m opportunity to vote for the court, lloniecoining is Oitober 26 against Ihe Parkview High Schi**\ni i I 1 CENTRAL ilIGM SCHOOL DAILY BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 20, 1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter 1/f Richard Boyd I/f Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson l/f Patrick I Tilery Expul Jonathan Van Buren I/T Vincent Williams lixpul luirl Westbrook lixpul I b iea Singleton-I I lenry James -xpi /r James llubbiud lixpul Rec. Nicole Breedlove l/f Eabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Harold Smith 9/19-9/25 Kissy Russell I/f Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Courtney Smith 9/12-9/25 , Edmar Higgins Expul. Courtney Blackwell 9/13-9/26 Maria Slubbcrfield 1/f Quentin Davis 1/f Danny Brown LT Antimoore Jackson Expul Phillip Hatton L/T John Roberts LT Rec. Wyncse Gantt 9/18-9/25 Korey Williams Rashee Barnett 9/19-9/26 Shawnrita Sain 9/19-9/25 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Ryan Bell 9/19-9/26 David Hall 9/19-9/25 Elijah Johnson Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris I/f Adrias Moore 9/12-9/26 Archie Howard 9/11-9/24 Melvin Shepard 9/16-9/27 HI-STEPPERS: Teachers please dismiss all Hi-Steppers at 3:00 pm to leave for the bailgame in West Memphis. TEACHERS: Thank you for your splendid help in administering the Stanford 9. We had almost 100% perfect teacher attendance for the three days. Please add these future test dates to your calendar\nwe know that nobody likes to be surprised. As you can tell, the standardized test mania continues unabated: * October 15 - PSAT (about 400 juniors and sophomores) October 30 - PLAN test for sophomores (pre-ACT\nLRSD mandates it for all sophomores now) November 11 - 14 - State-mandated Exit exam for juniors (4 days) November 15 - Exit exam makeups STAFF MEMBERS: If you are cunenlly certified in First Aid, please notify Mrs. Stone immediately. ALL STAFF: Anyone interested in coaching swimming? Please contact Mr. Howard. WELLNESS CIJNIC: Friday Sept. 20th is the last day to sign up for a group in the Wellness .Clinic. All students who are interested in a group and all teachers or administrators who want to refer a student to a group should do so by that dale. STUDENTS: YOUNG DEMOCRATS: There will be a meeting on Tuesday the 24th during both lunches in Mrs. Cobbs room 337. SOPHOMORES \u0026amp; JUNIORS: The Congress-Bundestag Youth Exchange Program scholarship is now being olTered to students with a 3.0 GPA or higher. The student winners will spend a full year in Germany immersed in the lan| studeiit.s I,PA language and '199^'^' guidance office for an application. Applications must e postmarked by November 12, GERMAN CLUB: Sign up for German Club in room 312. Dues are $3.00. Our first meeting is Friday September 20. GUIDANCE: Any 10th, 11th and 12th graders interested in applying for the Prudential Spirit of community award, see Mrs. Porter. Central Highs top volunteer will be chosen to compete at the state level. Requirements include writing. Two essays about your volunteer work. Deadline for submitting your application. Deadline is Oct. 18,1996. GUIDANCE: Any 10th, 11th and 12th graders interested in applying for The voice of Democracy scholarship, see Mr s Graves. Requirements include a 3-5 minute recording and an essay on the students personal responsibility and understanding of the rights and responsibilities of being an American. Deadline: Nov. 2, 1996. INTERACT CLUB: Do you ever feel the urge to Mamba? Does the sight of Leder-hosen give you goose-bumps' Do siicred pigeons erk your curiosity'. If you answered yes to any of these questions then youd best get on the train and sign up for Interact, a service oriented club with an internal flare. Register today at lunch! JOURNALISM: Attention all seniors - those seniors who need a senior photograph made for the yearbook or to purchase must come by room 103 between Sept 13 and Sept 20 to receive an appomtment. See Mrs. Cherry to make your appointment ASAP. Thursday, Oct 3 is the last day our school photographers will be here taking senior pictures. SPANISH CLUB: Anyone currently enrolled in a Spanish Class that is interested in joining Spanish Club Please sign up in Rm. 335 or pay your Spanish Teacher. Dues are $3. Deadline to sign up is September 20. interested in joining Mu Alpha Theta should obtain and return a form in room 145 by F:3O pm^^ P a:ements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8:30 am -DAILY B U L L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 1, 1996 TUESDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Danieks Adrin Shorter L/T Richard Boyd L/T Jabari Cummins lixpul Demingo Johnson L/T Patrick Tillery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams lixpul liarl Westbrook lixpul lirica Singleton-I/f lidmar Higgins Expul. Maria  Iliagins Stubherlielu L/T Quentin Davi.s I./'f Danny Brown LT Chris Beasley 9/23-10/7 Mark Thompson 9/24-9/30 l ory Irby 9/25-10/2 Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Justin Thabit 9/26-10/3 James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Jeffrey Moss 9/26-10/3 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1 st Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris L/T Antimoore Jackson Expul Phillip Hatton I/f Archie Howard ITT Rashaad Profit I/f Felyxia Williams 9/25-10/2 De Wayne Veasley 9/25-10/2 Lakilia Turner 9/26-10/3 Sem John Roberts LT Rec. Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Korey Williams Kinte Perry 9/30-10/4 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1st Sem Elijah Johnson Expul Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Marina McElrath 9/25-10/2 Teri Walker 9/25-10/2 Billy Robinson 9/26-10/3 WELLNESS: Wellness Clinic groups will start meeting Monday, 9-30-96. liach member will sign a group contract and we have placed a copy of it in your mailboxes. As soon as group membership has stabilized (1-2 weeks) wc^will give vou a calendar and roster. If you have any questions please contact the Wellness clinic. ' .hoMahis Rouse Scholarship for Outstanding Teachers are available in O  t f Stone if you wish to apply . Each school may nominate two teachers. Ilie award consists varies  lSKr?p?ytoffK M  educational activity. The cash award ATTENTION TEACHERS: The following students are helping with school pictures. Please allow them to make-un anv k\"Sept. 30} 9-12 noon: Matt Milhollen, Meghan OMalley, and Tara Hall From 12-3 1 eah lleloUi \u0026lt;? *^7  Wick^d. (Tuesday, Oct. 1 )9-12 noon: Paula Moore, Lucie WetzeL Molly fhmsd J Oct 31 9 ?2 noon-Idlahunty and Kristen Wanek. Matt^lb^R-n indV.m d^n^fer Wagner. 12-3 pm.: Anthony Jacuzzi, Jill Irwin. Matt Milfiolen, and Tara Hail. STUDENTS\nJUN IORS \u0026amp; SENIORS\nIf you would like to be nominated for the National Youth'i.eadership Forum on Defense Intelligence and Diplomacy to be held in Washington D.C. in February, please see Mr.s Graves You must have a B average. I he cost to you is $890 plus transportation to Washington. -a cs. i ou iiiusi nave a i j Troubadour Members there will be a meeting in room 134 on Thursday October 3 1996 We w ill meet in room 134 dunng each lunch penod. Please attend we will nominate officers at this meeting! Th.\\h^th^'^ldmf Giris Basketball Team will be Thursday Oct. 3 at 6:00 in the Gvm. 1 nis IS inc XiriiH irvout. It vou nave anv cpc* f ia*) * Ihis is thcLjnal Tryout. If you have any questions see Coach Fitzpatrick in room 102. K Attaition French Club Members there will be a French Club meeting this Thursdav October 3rd diirino SKnS:.,'\n\" -'I \u0026gt;5.  lunch seniors portraits on matted \"'de^ See M^^. CheiT7befom SMOKING CLASS: Smoking class will be held October 2nd \u0026amp; 3rd at 8:00 in the Library Conference room. -d-?pd lunch in room 325. Elections will be held  t , r Al --------luuivii Hl luviu ixj aiiu secont and plans for the year will be discussed. Drawing for grand prize will be Oct. 2. W^d 2 Teenage Republicans will be having their membership drive from Wed., Sept 25 to cd. Oct. 2. Ihcrc will be a tabic in front of the library during first and second lunch for anyone interested in signing up. f ^der your caps \u0026amp; gowns \u0026amp; 1:30 pm. announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8 30 am - tllN JOKS : Unlike the SAT or ACT, which are the PSAT is not a required test. used for college adnii ss ion , SOPIIOMOKI- UTrniiKS JENIOKS JDNIGRS: used to determine However, it is the tesl , next year's National Merit and National Achievement Semifinalists. This year's test is October The cost This year's _____ is $9.00 (correct change) payable in advance You may bring your payment to Mrs. Graves in the Guidance 01 fice B1^ORE_ school or DURING LUNCH by Thursday. October You will be given test 1 \u0026gt;. Graves Thursday, a receipt, whicE~will be your ticket. well as your pass to class. Please come to register early. of admission as Please 111. : The PSAT is a test for juniors, tests than we expect to need. but we have ordered iiioi e Sophomores wishing to trike the PSAT \"for practice\" may sign a stand-by list Gii i dance bn t office beginning today. The test costs in the sophomores will pay on the day of the test since we don't know how many tests will be\"available. stand-by list does be taking the test. Signing the not assure a sophomore that ho/she will Kepreseiitatives from the following colleges will be In the Guidance Conference Room next week applicants. to talk to prospective If you are interested-and meet the college's admission requirements, you may sign the list on the back bulletin board in the Guidance Office before the d.iy of the visit. - ---- Mon., Oct. 7: Wed., Oct. 9\nThur!!. Oct. 10: Erl., Oct. 11: 10:00 a.m. Hendrix College, Conway, AK. 9:55 a.m. Park College, St. Louis, MO 1.45 p.m. Drury College, Springfield, HO. 8:55 a.m. University of Chicago, Chicag.o, 8:55 a.m. Kenyon College, Gambler, Oil. III.. 10:00 a.m. Centenary College,Shreveport, LA. 11:00 a.m. University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 1:45 p.m. Columbia U. , New York, New York 2:45 p.m. Davidson College, Davidson, N.C. The applications for the Discover Card_ Youth Program Tribute Award Scholarships are here in Ihe Guidance Of fice. These scholarships can be used for any post high school training you are planning to enter. mus_t have a GPA of 2.75 or higher to compete. You You must demonstrate accomplishments in four out of these five a teas: Special Talents, Leadership, Obstacles Overcome, Community Service, Unique Endeavors. due to be received The application i: See Mrs. Graves for an application. by the committee by January 10, 199/.DAILY B U L L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 4,1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter L/T Richard Boyd ITT Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson L/T Patrick I illery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren ITT Vincent Williams Expul liarl Westbrook Expul Erica Singlcton-I/T lidmar\"' Higgins Expul. )ore Jackson Ex Antimoore Expul Quentin Davis IZf James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Jeffrey Moss 9/26-10/3 Kissy Russell ITT Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Hams ITT John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Kinte Perry 9/30-10/4 Deshun Williams 10/2-10/8 Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul IJanny Brown LT Chris Beasley 9/23-10/7 Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Phillip Hatton L/T Sherita Smith 10/2-10/8 Rashaad Profit L/T Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Drh?m ' teachers: Please send your Individual Improvement Plan (IIP) to ^^^^'^^FRS. 1 lease excuse the following students on Tuesday Oct 7 nt in-tsnm trv *1 \u0026lt; wc have placed a copy of it calender and roster, l VJ\" meeting Monday, 9-30-96. liach member will sign a ei 11 you have any questions please contact the Wellness clmic. ' ' I^ch member will sign a groifp contract and we will give you a are available in ATTENTION TEACHERS: The following student.s missed work. . (MoX Sept W 9 12 n^-lJfaSMiZnxf ^hool pictures. Please allow them to make-up any Vi.,:.:.. cV 1 P Matt Milhollen, Meghan O Malley, and Tara Hall From 12-3 1 pah ftplmti .ef.? Wickard. (Tuesday, Oct. 1)9-12 noom Paula Moore Luefe We^el Mollv Santini, and Lydia Mcew. 12-3 p.m : Meghan Rose, Katie Dowell, Ashley Dillahunty and Kri^cm ^anck Tiffany Wyatt. Ellen leay, and Jennifer Wagner. 12-3 pm,: Anthony/aXuill S Kelly Morion, uiumvj, onu v-tum\nWlCKa Darragh. James Mccoy (Ihursdav, Oct. 3) 9-12 noon: Malt Milholen. and Tara Hall. STUDENTS: yu ni^ mo^to a\"sS Ar?\"= stop by the bookstore this Friday if Ibk\\n n 7\" Calendar of activities and Fall Conference Room 325A or from yur business teacher. The next meeting will be Wednesday, October 10. information may get Md? L8?(13^163^* Multi-CuItural Day for Seniors on Monday, October CONGRATULATIONS TO 96-97 LATIN CLUB OFFICERS: Whitney Bailey, I reas. Kara Lipsmeycr, Rep. Brooke Ishmael Pres. Patrick Hicks, V-Pres. Chastity Hicks, Scc.-SPANISH CLUB\nI or anyone who signed up for Spanish Club, ihere will be e meetina Tuesday October 8 Tbi,  very iinportunt. Wc w.lf be elceling officer,. Fir,l IrrrK* will meet to R. 314 and Snd 13'vSl nSl to S 3 ------------------------s meeting will meet in nn. 335. GO'*'  \"k'' 'taulalion. See Mm. AH ENTION SENIOR REPRESENTATIVES: Then! will be a meeltog of the Senior Council on Frid.v  P'* K-ic will be finalized.^' in Ms. Cobbs* I. Ifaltcnduncu is SENIORS: Applications for the National Beta Club chgihic tor mcmbcrsliip, ----- '  - good cilizen.ship grades.' ,, --------''4are available in the Library and Rcxim 219 Tube ' 1-hi^ g.'^e pom! average (including 9th grade) of at least 3 0 and have Jhe application deadline is Fnday, October 11,4:00p.m. El^^iu. joiu. E' SCHOLAR.SHIP INFORMATION HAS ARRIVED IN THE GUIDANCE OmCF Cheek ihe srtholarship box. Your l-.nghsh teacher also has a copy on her bulletin board, rfltl.. Check the YOUNG DEMOCRATSTEENACE HEPUBUCANS\nIf you are 18 before Nov S ckclIOtl Yon \u0026lt;-nn rPDKtnrbv thaa likvoww Uei. 1 u-? vviviv iiv. j, s .SEC'ME\nStudents who are creative and motivated iipplication. are encouraged lo join SECME. Sec Mrs Blcvtoa (room 122) fur an VC a I) LW pm^' *'8' * nnouKanoiU from Josinu to the bookstore On 291h \u0026amp; 30lh 8:30 am - ll KI It (ttt.\nHl. like the SAT or ACT. which . - ---------- are used for college ndmi Ih.\nl.SAl IS not a required test. ii.Hd lo duterrnj! However, It in i|i(\u0026gt; tfst , . , years National Merit ami N.iiion.il Aclilovpment Semi f inali sts . \"*  III.' cost This year's tost is Octnhci V.niA/eAl W..aa*evU1* a*' ' ~  ' iH 59.00 (correct change) payable in aJv,ii\u0026gt;cc* i.Mi may hi mg your payment to Mrs. Craves in the Guulaiic- 'Ml mo BIJOHK SCIKXJL oc pllRING LUNCH by Thursday, Vou wilt ho given a receipt, whTcKwill bo  'I Hiiiiission as well as your pass to class. Ot'tOhlM 'iHirttiiKi:  \u0026gt;l your ticket li tcijister early. Ile.uto come The PSAT is n tost for juniors, but we have ordciwd tji than wc export to need. inoj  Sophomores wishing tf) t.ikt*   It. --.W|..ua WAOIIAIKI I tJ l.ll Hit' ISAf tor practice\" may sign a stand-by list iti ttn- Co idanco otEico beginning tflday. .---------------XAJSI\n*. The tost costs 59.0(1. sopiioinores will pay on the day of tlio test niiitro -I'oil know how mony test.s will be nvail.ible.  I.iiul-liy tint does not assure wo SigniiKj (h.\u0026gt; Ik- lakiiK] the tost. a sophomore that hn/siin wi I I Hi.-iinii\n: ' I n mu:\nUIIHOIh\n: Rcprcuentatlwes fro the following cnllegcn will bo in the Uuld.nicc Coiifereoce Rona oext week to talk to --- pronpertIve If you are Interested vaod acet the ro] irge'ii udaliialuii requlrvacnts, you asy alga the list on the h.irk nppllcantu. biillctla board In the Guidance Office before the day w I u \u0026lt; \u0026gt; ----------- TUES, Oct. 8: Wi-d., Oct. 9: Tlnirn.Oct. 10: Frl., Oct. 11: |\u0026gt;I \u0026lt;h\u0026gt;- 10:00 a.a. Hendrix College, Conway, AH. 9:55 a.a. Park College, St. Louis, MO \" Drury College, Springfield. MO. 1.45 p. 8:55 a. 6:55 a. 10:00 11:00 1:45 P Ualverslty of Chicago, Clilr.np.ti, III.. Kenyon College, Csabler, OH. Centeoary College,Shreveport. 1^. University of Tulaa, Tuhi.i. (JK Goluabla U. , New York, New Yik 2:45 p.a. Davldsoo College, Davldcon, N.C. Tin* applications for the Discover Card Youth Pro.jr.nn 11ibute Award Scholarships are here in the Guidance of H co. These scholarships can be used for any post higli school training you are planning to enter. have a GPA of 2.75 or higher to compete. Yon You must ilt.-inonstratc accomplishments in four out of these five \u0026lt;11 nns s Special Talents, Leadership, Obstacles Overconx!, ('(iimniinity Service, Unique Endeavors. The Application is linn to be received by the committee by January 10, 1'197. .Stjc Mrs. Graves for an application.DA I L Y B UL L E TIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 9, 1996 WEDNESDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adi in Shorter L/f Richard Boyd L/f Jabari Cummins F.xpul Deiningo Johnson L/T Iiilhck Tillery Expul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook Expul Erica Singleton-1/f Edmar Higgins Expul. Anlimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis L/T Danny Brow n LT Rashaad Profit ITT Natasha Samuel 9/25-10/9 Jainc.s Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/f Fabrian Bridgewater F.xpul Deon Earnest Expul Deshun Williams 10/2-10/8 Kissy Russell I./!' Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Sem Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris ITT DeWayne Veasley 10/3-10/9 Phillip Hatton L/T Sherita Smith 10/2-10/8 Gerron Garrett 9/24-10/9 Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard IVr Korey Williams Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Timothy Turner 10/4-10/10 Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 TO ALL FACULTY, STAFF AND STUDENTS: The Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art works ot many prominent African American artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob I.awrence. These works on paper arc from the Arkansas Arts Centers permanent collection and will be on display through October 30th Ihis show sponsored by the Central High School P.T.S.A. IS STUDENTS: ,1 a program on the College litorium at 2:00 p in. this Sunday. Panelists will COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS AND SENIORS: The Guidance Department has arranged Admission Process for parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium at 2:00 p in. th... Vur^fi'^^scntatiyes from the University of /Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University 1 he Rice representatives will speak about the college admission process as it applies to highly-sclective colleges We hope the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an annual program ATTENTION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and your parents arc cordiallv nivited to the atmual Little Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower level of the Excelsior Hotel in downtown Little Rock, Thursday evening. Financial aid workshop starts promptly at 6:00 p.m., with browsing at 6'30 Don t forget to come. z . ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and 5^5?,*?' s a day long seminar designed to promote friendship, learning and harmony. Ihe Retreat VVI he ni'lfl wnHnoccinv CV'trtKoi- 1 A orrl le AXnJ _________ti_________________ \u0026gt; \u0026lt; \u0026gt; \u0026lt; i-v ... II 1_ Lil MJ J J ----1_---------------. o lA IWAlUOllAM) IVUllllXlg OliU iiadUVtiy. 1X1 wi 1 be held Wednesday, October 16, and is free to ANB members. Pick up applications from Mrs. McDennott in room 33X or Ironi an ANB Steering Committee member. THE LADIES CLUB: Ihe Ladies Club will meet during both lunch periods Thursday, Oct. 10th in room 220. Please bring your $3 .00 dues. Do not bring any food ro drinks to the meeting. You will have plenty of time to eat lunch. is the ^LLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS: Have you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning dciidline. Bring your moiiey-$9.00 in correct change or a personal check made out to LR Central High. to the Guidance Ollice by 10:00 a.m. Friday. Students who registered after this time will go on the sophomore waiting list FBLA: Any FBLA members not enrolled in a business class and that would like a subscription to the free magazines should come by room 325. e central inon school or mr. central high anyonein TERES IEDMUST BRING A8x 10 black or white or color photograph to room 134. Ihe cost fh,. n,t.,. .etinm -n, photographers will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook. Troubadours lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25,1996. For more details see Mrs of the competition is $ 10.00 per photo. The arc the sponsors of the contest. The contest Holladay. JUNIORS: Ihe Japen-U.S.Senate Scholarship Program applications are in the Guidance Office. If you are interested in \u0026lt;ni*nziino n ciimmw iti Innon onH kovia nt lanoE n \"i /\"ir* a ___________________i.. a___i _x! . z \u0026lt; ------------------------------------------r *-re-\"-'. vziin.!-. n yuu aic line Japan and have at least a 3.0 GPA, you may apply. Applications must be postmarked by 15. 1996. liach scholarship recipient is required to pay a $500 program contribution. You must also pay some ! domestic travel. See Mrs. Graves. November expenses including program contribution. You must also pay some other EBLA: Attention any member who did not get the 1996-97 calendar of activities and Fall Conference infonnation may eel 1 hlin KllClin / S A rrnm V/Mir hiicinoee foozvl-tav. \"TTnzi 'TT..___J - V  i o this in Room 325A or from your business teacher. The next meeting will be Thursday, October lO. * '?*' Univereity of Arkansas at Fayetteville will have Multi-Cultural Day for Seniors on Monday October 14th. Il you are interested in attending call 1-800-377-8632.DAILY BULLETIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 10, 1996 THURSDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter IZf Richard Boyd L/T Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson Lff Iatriek T illery lixpul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook E^ul Erica Singleton-L/T Edmar Higgins Expul. Antimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis L/^f Danny Brown LT Rashaad Profit L/T James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove iVt Fabrian Bridgewater Expul 13eon Earnest Expul Ryan Goins 10/9-10/23 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1st Acie Cummins Antonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris L/T John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Sem Anton Grant 9/9 to End 1 st Sem Rikita Robinson 9/30-10/11/96 Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Timothy Turner 10/4-10/10 Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 Phillip Hatton L/T Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 staff and STUDENTS: The Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art works 01 many prominent ?Vncan Amencan artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob Lawrence. These works on paper s^msoTed b^'^TentrlfH^ This show is STUDENTS: ATTN NATIONAL MERIT SEMIFINALIST: Thursday at the beginning of 1st lunch, meet on the front steps to take a picture for the yearbook. It wont take long dont miss out.   ... :,ieps lu laxc a TOURNAMENT: Please excuse the following students on Thursday, October 10 at 10:20 tnt- VOIIl'V HhI 1 Tni im.'imont of Ui-vTnrs* a__________  w, t* \u0026lt; it . .. a.m. to go to lU V X/ 11 k 11 T X X vrtvuov 111%, iMiiMVTiiig oiuuviiid uii iiiui^ay, MClODcr lu at iu:zo a ir tlK Volleyball Tournament at Mountain Home: Samatha Jones, Anne Davis, Holly Edmonds, Judith Batson Jill And^on, Haley Walker, Courtney Hager, Katara Nowden, Blair Wdllace, Cordelia Bohlar, Heather Alverson, Breanna Brakhop, Misty Lewis. bin CULTURAL SOCIETY: There will be a Black Cultural Society meeting in Mrs. Blevins room 122 during both lunches. I his meeting is very important please plan to be therethank you. A SENIORS: Representatives from the following colleges will be in the Guidance Conference Room next week to talk to prospective applicants If you are interested and meet the colleges admission requirements you may sign the list on the back bulletin board m the Guidance Office BEFORE the dav nf the vi.it emeius. you may sign lulletin in day of Ute visit. Mon., Oct. 14: 11:00 a m. Rice University, Houston, Texas fhurs.. Oct. 17: 2:45 p.m. Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. I  1: Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. 11:00 a.m. Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. Fri.. Oct. 18: 9:55 a m. Middlebur juniors and SENIORS: The Guidance Department has arranged a program on the College parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium at 2:00 p.m. this Simday. Panelists wall th . from the University of Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University Hie ^cc representatives will speak about the college admission process as it applies to highly-selective colleges We hone the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an aumual program. =\u0026gt;viecuve colleges, we hope state institutions, and Rice University. ATTENfrION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and your parents are cordially in\\ ited to the annual Little Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower levefof the Excelsior I lotel ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and u m'if-h\"l ts a day long seminar designed to promote friendship, learning anil harmony lire Retreat \"i\" l * a SiSjSmmiS S A' JUNIORSUlavc you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning ntrn-. hv 1 \u0026gt;our money-$9.W m correct change or a personal check made out to LR Central High, to tire Guidance Oiliee bv 10:00 a.m. Pridav uho ...:n____xi_____i___ . .  .* '-juiumitv deadline. Bring your money$9.00__________________ _____ i ix vein Oflice by Friday. Students who registered aflerUiis time wilTgo on'thrsophomo^^ is theFBLA: Any FBLA members not enrolled in a business class and that would like a subscription to the free magazines should come by room 325. ATTENTION STUDENTS\nYOU MAY BE THE NEXT MISS CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OR MR CFNTRAI HIGH SCIKXJL. ANYONE INTERESTCD WJST BRING A 8 x 10 black or white orcolor photograph^ooni 134^e cost '97 school yearbook. Troubadours of the competition is $10.00 per photo. The photographers will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook Troubadours are the sponsors ot the contest. Ihe contest lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25, 1996. For more details see Mrs. Holluday. JUNIORS: Ihe Japen-U.S.Senate Scholarship Program applications are in the Guidance Office. If you are interested in spending a summer m Japan and have at least a 3.0 GPA, you may apply. Applications must be postmarked by Novem 15. 1996. I'.ach scholarship recipient is required to pay a expenses including domestic travel. See Mrs. Graves. November $500 program contnbution. You must also pay some other FBLA: Attention any member who did not get the 1996-97 calendar of activities and Fall Conference infonnation this m Room 325A or from your business teacher. The next meeting will be Thursday, October 10. may get GUIDANCE: Ihe University of /Vkansas at Fayetteville will have Multi-Cultural Day for Seniors on Monday October 14th. II you are interested in attending call 1-8(10-377-8632.  ATTENTION SENIOR REPRESENTATIVES: There will be a meeting of the Senior Council on Friday in Ms Cobbs room (room 337) dunng both lunch periods. Please attend as plans for the Senior Picnic will be finalized. If attendance is sparse at these meeting, the Senior Picnic will be canceled. JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: Applications for the National Beta Club are available in the Library and Room 239 To be eligible lor membership, you must have a cumulative grade point average (including 9th grade) of at least 3 0 and ha\\ e good citizenship grades, the application deadline is Friday, October 11, 4:00p.m Please join YOUNG DEMOCRATS/TEENAGE REPUBLICANS: If you are 18 before Nov. 5, you are eligible to vote in this years election. You can register by the library during both lunches. Its simple, easy \u0026amp; worthwhile. Remember\n Ihe only wrong choice is no choice.  JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: If you would like to be nominated for the National Youth Leadership Forum on Defense Intelligence and Diplomacy to be held in Washington D.C. in February, please see Mrs. Graves. You must have a B average. Ihe cost to you is $890 plus transportation to Washington. SENIORS: You may order your caps \u0026amp; gowns \u0026amp; announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30th 8 30 1:30 pm. am -DAILY BULL ETIN CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL OCTOBER 11,1996 FRIDAY DO NOT ADMIT LIST: Robert Daniels Adrin Shorter ITT Richard Boyd ITT Jabari Cummins Expul Demingo Johnson l/f Patrick Tillery Expul Jonathan Van Buren L/T Vincent Williams Expul Earl Westbrook Expul Erica Singlclon-I/f Edmar Higgins Expul. Antimoore Jackson Expul Quentin Davis I/f Danny Brown LT Rashaad Profit L/T James Hubbard Expul Rec. Nicole Breedlove L/T Fabrian Bridgewater Expul Deon Earnest Expul Ryan Goins 10/9-10/23 Kissy Russell L/T Cedric Jones 9/9 to end of 1 st Acie Cummins jAntonio Maxwell Expul Alan Rowe Expul Andre Harris IZT Sem John Roberts LT Rec. Archie Howard L/T Korey Williams Nakita Smith 10/10-10/17 Carl Ragland 10/9-10/23 Anton (jrant 9/9 lo End 1 st Sem Rashee Barnett Expul Rec. Elisa Brown 10/2-10/17 Elijah Johnson Expul Fred Williams 10/3-10/17 Phillip Hatton L7T Shurrod Smith 10/8-10/15 lechers meeting (district dialogue) with Dr. Don Roberts set for October 9 has been rescheduled for Ihursday, October 17, at 4:30 p.m. The meeting will be held m the Central High Schooi Auditorium. FACULTY \u0026amp; STAFF: The University of Arkansas has a limited number of South End zone tickets for Saturdays came ayatnst LoilHiianfl I t^rn in war Mptnnrial StnHinm Ifintomriorl i\n lU., __________r*!______ .2-1- -P against Louisiana I ech in War Memorial Stadium. If interest^ , sign the list on the counter of the main officeprint IcPlhlv nv nn Infpr than 1 1 00A Vn fzYrl A vvM .r**... * 1 UI II u I \u0026lt; Al \u0026lt; i ^7 .. ** ***''**'*^ '*****-vli iiiv wjuiiivi UI uic indin oHicepnni legibly! !-by no later 11:00 a.m. today(Fnday). You must sign in ink so it will be legible on a Fax machine Tickets may be picked up before the 6:00 p.m. kickoff Saturday at Gate 4, War Memorial Stadium. AND^STTJDENTS: Ihe Central High School library is now exhibiting the original art . A A .  .   . Lawrence. i works of many prominent African American artists including Romare Bearden and Jacob Lawrence These works on paper arc from the Arkansas Arts Centers permanent collection and will be on display through October 30th This show is .sponsored by the Central High School P.T.S.A. STUDENTS: THE PIX: Students, we need a Central logo for the 1997 Pix. Please turn in your entries to room 103 bv (kt 21 If we use your entry, you will receive a free yearbook! SPANISH CLASSES: All Spanish Classes will meet in the auditorium Monday, Cktobcr 14 to hear a guest speaker Please be prompt. FUTURE 51)0\nIhe first future 500's meeting will be this Saturday (kt. 12 at the Carver YMCA on 1116 West 14th Street Ihe meeting will be from 10 am. to 12 a.m. and ID. cards will be made for $3.00. If you have not yet turned in vour information sheets, please do so to the guidance office by Friday. THE PIX\nSeniors: Reserve space for your senior before Oct. 15! Bring a down payment, pictures \u0026amp; words to room 103. ATTENTION SENIOR: Senior Picnic tickets will be on sale Thursday, Friday and Monday during both lunch periods in f ill* hcUTK ^t(YrP Tn A pzret IC tA nnzl it inAlnr^oe all tlin Pnbi\u0026lt;i\u0026gt; \u0026gt;\u0026lt;\u0026gt; a.\u0026gt;..\u0026gt;. A -at..Jal__Jll LLI i  .\u0026lt; . - I Tl_  d* A--.-.---.---A .,Fxaaa^ 9 * * J MISU 1 U UI u 9^ Will lUilCll Lz^l iklClo j the bookstore. Jhe cost is $6.00 and it includes all the Corkys Barbeque you can cat. Activities will be held durina the Senior Picnic which is on October 22nd from 2:35pm to 5:00 pm. BLACK CULTURAL SOCIETY: There will be a meeting for the Black Cultural Society, Friday (kt 11 1996 during both lunches in Mrs. Blevins room (122). ORCHESTRA: Please excuse these Orchestra students 5th \u0026amp; 6th period Fri. (kt. 11 th. Ibey will be attending Southern Region Orchestra Clinic in Conway: Jeremy Antipolo, David Beuerman, Maributh Mock. BO(}KSTORE\nStudents please be remind^ that the parking lot across from the library is reserved for those who have Please do not park in that lot if you did not purchase a space. And if you did purchase a space. purchased those spaces. 1_________................... please make sure you park in your assigned space. ATTN.. NATIONAL MERIT SEMIFINALIST\nThursday at the beginning of 1st lunch, meet on the front steps to take a picture for Ihe yearbook. It wont take long dont miss out. VOLLEYBALL TOURNAMENT: Please excuse the following students on Thursday, October 10 al 10:20 a m. to go to the Volleyball Tournament at Mountain Home: Samatha Jones, Anne Davis, Holly Edmonds, Judith Batson. Jill ..... . i.a,vui.,uui I.'III... a,u,i,auia rUUlC l..avtS, iUJliy r.UULOllUS. juuiui naison. J III Watson, Anita Bunch, Hillary Anderson, Haley Walker, Courtney Hager, Katara Nowden. Blair Wallace, Cordelia Bohlar, Heather Alverson, Breanna Brakhop, Misty Lewis.JUNIORS \u0026amp; SENIORS: Representatives from the following colleges will be in the Guidance Conference Room next wee.. lo la... to prospectiyc applirants II/pu arc interested and meet the colleges admission requirements, you may sign the list on the back bulletin board m Ihe Guidance Office BEFORE the day of Sie visit.  * week Io lalk lo Mon.. (X't. 14:11:00 a m. Rice University, Houston, Texas I hurs.. Oct. 17: 2:45 p m. Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. i. IV,. 1 u. Q.ss Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. I ri.. Oct. 18: 9:55 a.m. Middlcbi 11:00 a.m. COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS AND SENIORS: fhe Guidance Department has arranged a program on the College Admission I roccss lor parents and students to be held in Centrals auditorium al 2:00 p.m. this* Sunday. Panelists wall '^'^^representatiyes Irom the University of Arkansas, Hendrix, several other in-state institutions, and Rice University I he Riee representatives will speak alrout the college admission process as it applies to highly-selective colleges We hope the attendance will be such that we will be able to make this an annual program. wueges. we nope ATTENTION COLLEGE-BOUND STUDENTS: COLLEGE NIGHT IS HERE! You and vour narents are cordiallv in\\ ited to the 1 -itlle Rock School District College Night at the Convention Center, lower Icve/of the ! xcelsior 1 liilel Xm l'evening. Financial aid workshop starts promptly at 6:00 p.m., with browsing at 6:30. l/vJll I IvHgvl lU CXIlTiV, ACCEPT NO BOUNDARIES: Applications Reduction Retreat. Hie Retreat is a day long seminar are now available for the Accept No Boundaries Prejudice Identification and xiiiik k liXv YzA W resigned to promote friendship, learning ana harmony llie Retreat 33g members. Pick up applications from Mrs. MclXinJlott in 3.^8 or Irom an ANB Steering Committee member. room THE LADI^ES CLUB: Hie I\u0026gt;adics Club will meet during both lunch periods Thursday, Oct. 10th in room 220 Please bnng your $3.00 dues. Do not bnng any food ro drinks lo the meeting. You will have plenty of time to eat lunch. is the COLLEGE-BOUND JUNIORS: Have you brought your money and registered for he PSAT? Friday morning is the onite'hv !\" pCTSonal check made out to LR Central High. to the (Juidanee OllKL h) lO.OO am. 1 nday. Students who registered after this time will goon the sophomore waiting list. S 1\"ANYOW^lJw SM high SCHOOL OR MR. CEWfRAL HIGH o fh,.* i. A or while or color photograph to room 134. The cost photographCTs will be displayed in the 1997 school yearbook. Troubadours lasts from Monday October 7 to October 25, 1996. For more details see Mrs of the competition is $ 10.00 per photo. Ibe are the sponsors of the contest. Ilie contest Holladay. a|V..7iIh f Applications for the National Beta Club are available in Ihe Library and Room 239 To be , must have a cumulative grade point average (including 9lh grade) of al least 3 0 and have good citizenship grades. Ilic application deadline is Friday, (Xitober 11, 4:00p.m. Please join. ?'30 pm*^' gowns \u0026amp; announcements from Jostens in the bookstore Oct 29th \u0026amp; 30lh 8:30 am -P E C I A L To: \"Th Molt B*utiful High School m Central High School 1500 Park Straat Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Phone (501) 324-2300 October 7, 1996 P.S.A.T. BULLETIN READ NOW, THEN KEEP UMTlZ. Staff directly affected by PSAT testing on Tuesday, October 15: otr. I Alve son, Becker, Brandon, Caldwell, Caruth, N. Callaway, Cobb, Colburn, Col Cox, Daniel, Deitz, Dixon, Dumas, Futrell, Gadberry, J. Gray, Hammons, Hardin, Hargis, Holladay, Jernigan, Ligon, McDermott, McDonald, McLendo Hammons, Moore, A.Nash, Pedigo, Pierce, Pittman, Rosenberger, Rutledge, L.Thomps Watson, Williamson From: Rudolph Howard, Principal Copies: Counselors and Assistant Principals\nMr. Givens\nC. Williams The PSAT will be administered to about 375 juniors and sophomores Oct. 15, periods 1-3 and possibly into 1st lunch.  ' on Tuesd This undertaking can be managed only with the cooperation and flexibility of EVERYBODY involved, logistics are complex due to our limited space, inconveniences. P\"l ease read t'h i s master plan carefully. There will be unavoidable Note how it will affect you and your students. Let Mr. Blair or me know IMMEDIATELY if you see something that won't workDON'T WAIT UNTIL THE DAY OF THE TEST. I. 100 desks to be moved to Library to supplement the 90 stations available there now. Total capacity: 190. (All Library testers^jrs. NEEDS: 190. II . III. 2 classrooms to test junior overflow: 4 classrooms to test sophomores: Rooms 214 and 216 58 maximum Rooms 333, 336, 338, and 339--120 max IMPLEMENTATION, SOPHOMORE TESTING: ROOM 333 - will test 30. Ms. Thompson and her students will meet in Ms. D. McDonald's Room 236 on Tuesday, pds. 2 \u0026amp; 3. advance and post a reminder on the door. ROOM 336 - will test 30. rooms. Tell students in Ms. Becker and her students will meet in the Tell students and post a reminder on the door: Pd. 1 - to Room 248 (Hammons) Pd. 2 - to Room 342 (Cole) Pd. 3 - to Room 335 (Caldwell) ROOM 338 rooms. will test 30. Ms. McDermott's classes will meet in these Tell students and post a reminder on the door: Pd. 1 - to Room 251 (Dixon) Pd. 2 - to Room 246 (Deitz) Pd. 3 - to Room 250 (A. Nash) ROOM 339 will test 30. Ms. Hargis's students should all be testing. If any are not, send them to Ms. McDermott in the roomS listed above IMPLEMENTATION, JUNIOR TESTING: A. CUSTODIANS will move 40 desks with smooth. large-surface tops from Room 125 to the Library at the beginning of 5th period on MONDAY AFTERNOON, OCT. 14. (Mr. Givens, please have custodians at Room 12! junior testing (continued) 96/page 2 ready to begin as soon as halls clear at 1:40 p.m.) crew will move the desks back to the study hall (125) 1:40 p.m.--on Wednesday. The same custodian at the same time- B. C. D. E. During the last 10 minutes of 5th period on Tuesday, period students will move desks to the Library, period on Monday, Ms. Caruth's students will move her desks to the Lib- , then meet the remainder of 6th period in Ms. rary Note: Ms . Pedigo's 5th At the BEGINNING of 6t Jernigan's room 237 If it is important to you to get your ov/n desks back instead of someone else's, you may want to supervise ycur students' moving of the desks back to your classroom right after the test (4th pd.) on Tuesday. ROOM 143 day. Pd. 1 Pd. 2 Pd. 3 Pd . 4 Ms . Pedigo and her students will meet in these rooms Please tell them and post a reminder on the door: on Tues - to Room 147 (Mr. Moore) - to Room 134 (Ms. Holladay) - to Room 148 (Mr. Watson) - Students report to Library to move desks back to room ROOM 145 - Ms. Caruth's students will move 30 desks to the Library duri\nthe first 5 minutes of 6th period on Monday, theJt meet in Room 237. Caruth and her students will meet in these rooms Pd. Pd. Pd. Pd. 1 to Room. 235 (Ms. Williamson) 2 - to Room 239 (Ms. Hardin) 3 - to Room 151 (Ms. Rutl6:dge) 4 Students Ms on Tuesday: report, to Library to move desks b^l( k to ROOM 214 - Ms. Pittman and her students will meet in these rooms on Tuesday. Please announce and post a reminder: Pd. 1 - to Room 113 (Ms. Colburn) Pd. 3 - to Room 104a (Mr. Gray) ROOM 216 - Ms. Gadberry's students should all be taking it. them to Coach Cox in 218. If any are not, send Final notes: The PSAT last year ran right up to 12:00. We did not run over into first lunch, but if it should happen this year, students whose 4th period classrooms are in xise will need to eat 1st lunch on Tuesday. STUDY HALL TEACHERS: Study halls will meet in the study hall teacher's own classon Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning. Please tell students and post a reminder on the door of 125. Also, detention halls will have to meet elsewhere Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning (Auditorium?) room Period 4 study hall students should be instructed to eat 1st lunch Tuesday , then assist custodians in moving chairs back to Room 125 soon as the halls clear at 12:35 p.m. on as THANKS FOR YOUR COOPERATIONSpage 1 of 5 Monday, Oct. lA, 1996 TEACHERS: SPECIAL BULLETIN The following students (juniors) are to report directly to the rooms indicated on Tuesday, October 15, 1996, at 8:40 a.m. to take the PSAT/NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP QUALIFYING TEST. three hours. The testing session will last a little over Students are to report promptly at 8:40 with two (2) sharpened pencils with erasers, f '  . . ... of the test. Please remind your students of the date, time, and place REPORT TO LIBRARY pCiAci Is. skccr loe-Torg- Abson , Adams, Alverson, Alverson, Anderson, Anderson, Anderson, Anderson Antipolo, (A - P) Brian Chris Heather Ryan Hillary Julie Quincy Tamara Jeremy Armstrong, Clifton Bailey , Sherrhonda Ball, John Bailey, Whitney Baldwin, Cassie Batson, Judith Bauman, Katie Beasley, Demeatrice Binz, Kristen Blackmon, Ro mar Blann, Barbara Carpenter, Olivia Blanchard, Nick Block, Michael Chester, Daniel Bohanan, Donald Cleveland, Lawrence Bonner, Marlon Cole, Tekima Boyette, Chris Bradley, Lacey Brainard, Branch, Brewer, Brown, Brown, Brown, Anne Eunice Anthony Carrie LaTonya Tony Buchanan, April Buck, Buen, Call, David Kristina Seth Collins, Cook, Corbin, Cowart, Dang, Darnell, Davidson, Davis, Davis, Tina Timothy Tanya Lauren Minh Scott Darren Anne Arica Dayananda, Dedner, Denman, Dowell, Nilu Cynthia Monica KatiePSAT - JUNIORS (continued I page 2 of 5 Library: Mon.. Oct. (4-, 1996 Downing, Whitney Guy, Clarence Houston, Randall Earlywlne, Ashley Hall, Jesse Irving, Stewart Edmonds, Holly Hall, Kathryn Ismael, Brooke Elmore, Leah Hampton, Herlanda Jackson, Ralph Hardy, Kumari Ely, Jessica Hayes, Christie Jarsma, Kim Enoch, Kim Hayes, Nicole Jenkins, Elizabeth Farrell, Tim Hearon, Tom Jennings, Laura Faulkner, Adam Fergurson, Kelly Heister, David Johnson, Britt Finn, Flick, Katrina Michael Hester , John Johnson, Camela Flowers, Kristi Hicks, Chastity Johnson, Ceaser Flullen, Larry Flye, Henson Hicks, Lindsey Hildebrande, Natalie Johnson, Christopher C. Fox, Allen Hines, Megan Johnson, Josh Franke, Christen Hintergardt, Jared Johnson, Katie Freeland, Michael Hoffman, Patrick Jones, Jones, Carletta Christina Gardner, Freeman Holden, Laura Beth Jones, Crystal Ghori, Safiya Holland, Emily Jones, Harold Glasier, Evan Holloway, Tywana Jones, John P. Gray, Amanda Holmes, Margaret Keen, April Grimmett, Jeff House, Erin Kilgore, CollinsPSAT JUNIORS (continued) page 3 of LIBRARY: Korte, Leslie Miller, Emmett Oct. , 1996 Passini, Rusty Krupitsky, Eugene Mitchell, Jay Perry, SuLauren Langford, Laura Mitchell, Maury Peters, Jessica Latch, Ashley Moore, Angela Pettus, Todd Lilly, Keith Morrison, Alicia Powell, Jennifer Lipsmeyer, Kara Morton, Kelly Prewitt, Jennifer Ludwig, Stefan Mosley, Nikki Purvis, Benjamin Malvin, Katrina Neal, Josh Putterman, J Ames Mapili, Gazele Nguyen, Freddy REPORT TO ROOM\n216 (Jt - S) M]^', GADBERRY Martinez, Andrea Nicks, Lyncola Ray, Rimmer, Cora Virginia Massie, James Nugent, Courtney Norman, Varnell Robinson, Marie Mezza, McCoy, Leslie Norris, Tiffany '' Lydia Obiaga, Genese Rose, Meghan McCullum, Prentice McElderry, Jacob Oden, Cassie Sampson, Aaron McCulen, McJunkin, Crystal Jeremy Owens, Erin Saviers, Marshall McGrew, Justin McMullen, Ahmad Packard, Clay Schiller, Lauren McKindra, Fatima Padgett, Sara Schmalz, Lea Mehlin, Wayne Pan, Dan Schmidt. Geoffrey Miller, Ashley Pasha, Khaleelah Sevier, SharondaPSAT - JUNIORS (continued) page A of 5 Scott, Mark REPORT TO ROOM: 214 Washington, LaTasha (T - Z ) Sclvally, Robyn Tappin, Jacqueline Webb, Josh Shaw , Tashia Taylor, Elliott Wilson, Jamie Sheth , Seema Thomas, Brian Wirth-Jones, Sasha Shaffer, Zarinah Thomas, Jenny Anne Wittenberg, Justin Simmons, Kerri Thomas, Katrina Wright, Sarah Sims, Corakeita Thompson, Jeffrey Yarbrough, Elizabeth Slaughter, Maribeth Thompson, Jill Smith, Jake Thrist, Andrea Smith, Sam Tiner, Natalie Spann, Jeremy Toombs, Michael Torrence, Vincent Sparks, Tava Trice, Trent Stacey, LaTlsha Tucker, Courtney Stanley, Rebecca Tucker, Justin Steadman, Zach Turner, Levy Steelman, Amanda Vickers, Leigh Stefanova, Boriana Wage, Aaron Steward, Doug Walters, Ben Sullivan, Jessica Warriner, Prenticepage of 5 5 Monday, Oct. 14, 1996 SPECIAL BULLETIN TEACHERS: The following students (sophomores) are to report directly to the rooms indicated below on TUESDAY, October 15, 1996, at 8:40 a.m. to take the PSAT/NATIONAI MERIT SCHOLARSHIP QUALIFYING TEST. three (3) hours. The testing session will last a little over Students report promptly at 8:40 with two (2) sharpened pe\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":"aarl_andrewyoung-oh_aarl-young-710","title":"Video Recording of a meeting for the Alexander Proudfoot Foundation with Paula Hawkins,1991","collection_id":"aarl_andrewyoung-oh","collection_title":"Andrew J. Young Oral Histories","dcterms_contributor":["Young, Andrew, 1932-"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Andrew J. Young papers"],"dcterms_subject":["Atlanta (Ga.)","Business","Student","Education","Non profit"],"dcterms_title":["Video Recording of a meeting for the Alexander Proudfoot Foundation with Paula Hawkins,1991"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Auburn Avenue Research Library on African-American Culture and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://youtu.be/7xz0HLDkEJQ"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/aarl_andrewyoung-oh_aarl-young-710"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)"],"dcterms_extent":["34 min, 04 sec."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aarl_andrewyoung-oh_aarl-young-728","title":"Video Recording of Andrew J. Young in Jacksonville, Florida, 1991","collection_id":"aarl_andrewyoung-oh","collection_title":"Andrew J. Young Oral Histories","dcterms_contributor":["Young, Andrew, 1932-"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Young, Andrew, 1932-"],"dc_date":["1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Andrew J. Young papers"],"dcterms_subject":["Legislators--United States","Atlanta (Ga.)","African American civil rights workers","Civil rights","African American","United Nations","Mayors"],"dcterms_title":["Video Recording of Andrew J. Young in Jacksonville, Florida, 1991"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Auburn Avenue Research Library on African-American Culture and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://youtu.be/-YR-k3zMsvA"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/aarl_andrewyoung-oh_aarl-young-728"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["video recordings (physical artifacts)"],"dcterms_extent":["24 min, 54 sec."],"dlg_subject_personal":["Young, Andrew, 1932-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":723,"next_page":724,"prev_page":722,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":8664,"total_count":81557,"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":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"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":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"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":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"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":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"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":1915},{"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":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"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":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"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":2771},{"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":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"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":145},{"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":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"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":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}