{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"tmll_hpcrc_69174278","title":"Implementation in Arizona of the Immigration Reform and Control Act","collection_id":"tmll_hpcrc","collection_title":"Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Arizona, 34.5003, -111.50098"],"dcterms_creator":["United States Commission on Civil Rights. Arizona Advisory Committee"],"dc_date":["1990"],"dcterms_description":["A digital version of the report published by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["Forms part of online collection: Historical Publications of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.","Requires Acrobat plug-in to view files."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Arizona--Emigration and immigration--Government policy","Illegal immigration--Arizona","Noncitizen labor--Government policy--Arizona"],"dcterms_title":["Implementation in Arizona of the Immigration Reform and Control Act"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Thurgood Marshall Law Library"],"edm_is_shown_by":["http://www2.law.umaryland.edu/Marshall/usccr/documents/cr12im72z.pdf"],"edm_is_shown_at":["http://crdl.usg.edu/id:tmll_hpcrc_69174278"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports","records"],"dcterms_extent":["16 p. ; 28 cm."],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_462","title":"Incentive Schools","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":["1990/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools"],"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/462"],"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\n1 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS CHECKLIST SCHOOL CRITICAL TASKS IMPLEMENTED YES NO COMMENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. *7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Parent Council Speakers Bureau Science Labs Computer Labs School Themes IEPs/ SEP'S Specialized state and federal mandated programs are available during the core instructional day, with reinforcement activities available through the extended day, week, or year programs. Incentive Programs to recognize student excellence. Effective Schools Model African Alnerican History Subject Area Emphasis Reading Components 1. Learning to Read Through Literature (K-6) 2. Classics used to augment basic textbooks (K-6) 3. Emphasis on critical reading skills (4-6) 4. Use of oral expression through reading (K-6) English/Literature Arts 1. Writing to Read (K-2) 2. Writing Across Curriculum (K-6, 3. Latin Program (5-6) 4. Oral Language Expression (K-6) 5. Penmanship (K-6) 6. Language Modeling (K-6) Social Studies 1. Emphasis on World, American and Ark. History (4-6) 2. Emphasis on introductory concepts in history, geography, civics (K-3) 3. Geography through active learning 4. Multi-ethnic curriculum (K-6) * remedial, special ed., gifted and talented) Page 2 CRITICAL TASKS IMPLEMENTED COMMENTS YES NO 5. Promote living social studies(K-6) 6. Emphasis on American \u0026amp; Arkansas history (4-5) 7. Emphasis on World History (6) 8. Celebrations/Ceremonies Mathematics 1. Emphasis on word or story problems (2-6) 2. Basic geometry and algebra (2-6) 3. Extensive use of manipulation (PreK-3) 4. Use of computers (5-6) 5. Critical thinking, methodology and results (K-6) Science 1. Hands-on discovery and exploration (K-3) 2. Demonstrations and experiments 3. Emphasis on life and physical sciences (4-6) 4. Culminate with annual projects 5. Information packets for students/parents Fine Arts 1. Basic concepts music and art 2. Instruction will be sequential and cumulative 3. Emphasis on enjoyment in music, painting and crafts(Pre K-3) 4. Understand cultural differences (4-6) 5. Performances, exhibits, field trips Foreign Language 1. Study foreign language 2. Total physical response approach 3. Basic vocabulary, conversational, cultural (K-3) 4. Foreign language laboratory 5. Transcribing and translating (4-6) 6. Interactions with native language user 7. Emphasis on vocabulary, grammar, reading, writing, cultural (4-6)Page 3 CRITICAL TASKS c IMPLEMENTED COMMENTS YES NO Physical Education/Health 1. Family Life Education (1-6) 2. Nifty Nutrition (1-6) 3. Emphasis on wellness - 4. Understanding and respect of the handicapped (5-6) 5. Team sports, leisure skills (K-6) Social Skill Development (Taught through Core Curriculum) 1. Family Folklore 2. Positive Imaging 3. Interpersonal Skills 4. Rites of Passage 5. Role Models Programs 6. Mentoring Programi Page 4 CRITICAL TASKS IMPLEMENTED COMMENTS YES NO SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION A B C D E F G H I J Homework Centers Homework Hotline Peer Tutoring Retired Teacher Mentors Instructional Aide Career Skills Development Program Year Round School Community Access/Field Trips a. local b. state c. national Community Involvement Special Skills Programs SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION A B C D Staff Recruitment 1. Nationwide search 2. Staff hired on one year basis Special Training Parental Involvement: sign daily homework Learning Time Schedulesm (Extended Day) E Home/School Communication: Monthly Interims F Extra Curricular Programs (at lunch or recess) G Attendance and Behavior Guidelines H Subject Related Extra Curricular Activities COUNSELING/SdCIAL WORK A Community Services Access B College/Post Graduation Awareness (mentoring) C Study Skills/ Test Taking/ Listening D Home/Neighborhood Meetings (partnership) E Individual and Group Counseling F Incentive/Recognition Programs G Wellness Program H Camp PfeiferHfiSiSS IlM! Op^WlCAL TASKS ' -r'^i a\n^-  I 1 't! ! lb IMPLEMENTED YES NO COMMENTS r EVALUATION 7^ Student Growth  S fV (lestitig dept) I) . 1* Regular TraCkiiig of Student Attendance, ^^Discipline/Behayior and Achievement f 5^ (class profiles) I S af\u0026gt; ' h '. . s -\u0026gt; d Involve Parents in the development of Student Educational Excellence Plans s^-r's i  Vi 3' i i c . !i' s b Quarterly Reports and Visitations E Student Evaluators .jfo Computerized Data Access I's,01 School Site Teams (program modification) SCHOOL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES A Flexible Programs (individualized instruction) 'Additional Items Recommended: ' \u0026lt; \"Is-  i .Permanent substitute r.'s  ji- 1 I:,4' J tH*. I X - . ^.Assistant principal 3. Uniforms 4. Staff dress code 5 i Required PTA 6. Student handbooks 7. Science lab 8. Computer lab 9. PE playground * r ^S\nWii p ^k'slf: *' ! ^\nv' ! Oil  t ? tV 1, J!\" lOi p * i' 1 fc ii\n?:} ! 'i: 1.1 S MI S sl y i'  iM. y 'i. L V li 1 ? i? ': 1 li'l ^1. \nill ( r ,ijr OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 23, 1990 Ruth Ragsdale 515 Beckwood Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Ms. Ragsdale: I am in receipt of your May 15, 1990, communication regarding your comments on the Incentive School submission of May 8, 1990, to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. As I expressed to you over the phone, the ideas and comments of all parents, either individually or collectively. are valued. appreciated, and will be carefully reviewed before this office makes final recommendations to the Court. Your deep interest and hard work in assisting in the work of the committee regarding what you think is best for the students of this district is commendable. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Arma Hart Associate Metropolitan Supervisor AH:par cc: Kenyon Lowe Dr. Doris Gardner James Jennings'T' JI (2 i't /^o /ii ' /-//^h/ /^- /A^ iJ.!, ILITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 TO: Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Magnet Incentive School Programs The attached document is a joint submission from the Little Rock School District, Joshua Intervenors, and Knight Intervenors. This submission should be regarded as a supplementary document to the incentive school plan included in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, January 2, 1990. The parties reached consensus in all areas except the scholarship program and staffing. Please note that the Little Rock School District provided separate recommendations for the areas of scholarships and staffing. The parties look forward to meeting with the Metropolitan Supervisor's office in order to discuss and resolve the areas of disagreement. OBJECTIVES AND GOALS The schools referred to heretofore as \"Incentive Schools\" shall be referred to and known as Magnet Incentive Schools. 1 They shall have two (2) primary objectives: 1) to effectively eliminate academic achievement disparities which exist between pupils who attend these schools as compared to those pupils whose academic achievement is the highest in the school system's \"best\" school\nand, 2) to be established simply as schools which are racially integrated and racially non-identifiable. IDENTIFICATION OF MAGNET INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The district presently operates six schools which, by court definition, must be classified as \"racially identifiable\". These schools are attended almost entirely by pupils of African American descent. Those schools and their respective locations and pupil capacities are as follows: SCHOOL ADDRESS CAPACITY 1. Garland 3615 W. 25th, LR, AR 300 2. Ish 3001 Pulaski, LR, AR 200 3. Mitchell 2410 Battery, LR, AR 280 4. Rightsell 911 W. 19th, LR, AR 240 5. Rockefeller 700 E. 17th, LR, AR 340 6. Stephens 3700 W. 185th, LR, AR 260 1,620 1 The term \"Magnet Incentive Schools\" was introduced by the Metropolitan Supervisor. office of Metropolitan Supervisor. The term is subject to change by the the jurisdiction of the Magnet Review Committee. These schools will not be underBASIC CONCEPT The children who attend the Magnet Incentive Schools have been, are being and are likely to be deprived of equal educational and other expected advantage due to the racial isolation of these schools. These schools are likely to remain one race schools until the Court approved plan herein has had a reasonable opportunity to work, i.e., to assist in relieving their \"one race\" character. This is expected to be achieved under the plan within six years. The pupils who attend these schools in the meantime must have basic, compensatory and other need related educational and support programs which exceed those available in other schools of the district if their chances for equal academic opportunity are to be maximized. Major incentives within these schools are therefore required. The objective is to provide the best basic skills programs and enrichment available as well as a full range extended day and Saturday programs which address individual needs and interests. The school district shall rely upon the strength of the core curriculum, strong teachers and administrators. enhanced programs and post high school graduation scholarship opportunities as factors through which to promote racial integration or desegregation of these schools. The school district shall also promote desegregation in these schools by establishing early childhood centers in each of them. Four (4) early childhood centers will be operative by August of 1990. The other two (2) will operative by August, 1991. The premise of these centers is that they can be racially integratedfrom the outset and that the students who begin their education therein will continue thereafter due to the strength of the varied programs offered. THE BASIC PROGRAMS OF THE MAGNET INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The Magnet Incentive Schools shall operate basic skills programs. The design of the Williams Magnet School curriculum shall be the model used. All classes of the school shall be inclusive and all pupils therein shall be mainstreamed. The special needs of pupils shall be addressed, pursuant to Student Education Plans (SEPs) for each pupil, both during the regular school day. in the time following the regular school day. on Saturdays and, if necessary, subsequent to the end of the regular school year. A major objective of the basic skills programs shall be to insure exposure of all children to the same course materials and instruction on an equal basis. Pupils shall not be assigned to classes or to groups within classes on the basis either of purported ability or race. The practice known as \"tracking\" shall have no place in these schools. Special attention to pupils with special needs either for remedial or advanced study - shall be addressed after the period of basic course instruction. There shall be no \"pull-out\" programs for individuals or small groups of students during the regular school day. Formative as well as summutive data will be gathered in order to determine: (1) effectiveness of the SEP\n(2) uniform implementation of magnet incentive curriculum\n(3) effectiveness ofoverall programs\nand (4) secure data for revision/expansions of the SEPs and magnet incentive school programs. DOUBLE FUNDING The Magnet Incentive Schools shall operate pursuant to a budget which is based upon \"double funding\". Double funding as used herein is a per pupil cost for Little Rock Pupils which is twice the per pupil costs for other non Magnet School pupils in the district. EXTENDED DAY PROGRAMS These schools shall operate extended day programs. Extended Day Programs are supplemental but essential to achievement of the primary objectives of the Magnet Incentive Schools. They shall operate from the end of the school day until 5:30 p.m., half days on Saturdays and for at least one and a half (1 1/2) months after the regular school year ends. The primary objectives of the extended day programs, as set for in respective SEP'S, are: (a) to promote interest in the concept of learning\n(b) to provide enrichment and remediation experiences\n(c) to improve and enhance the self esteem of all pupils\n(d) to improve the verbal, problem identification and problem solving skills of pupils\n(e) to improve the conflict resolution skills of pupils\n(f) to improve the social skills of pupils\nand (g) to enlarge their experiences within and outside the community by extensive, education related programs. personalities and field trips.AFTER CARE Any elementary school age pupil who would normally otherwise be within the attendance zone of a magnet incentive school or who has previously been assigned to a magent incentive school shall be eligible for the extended day, weekend and extended year programs offered at their incentive zone school. The Scholarship Trust Committee shall be authorized to consider these pupils for scholarship awards pursuant to funds available and other criteria approved by the Court. SCHOIiARSHIP PROGRAMS The Little Rock School District recommends approval of the scholarship program proposal submitted by the Trust Fund Committee. The Joshua and Knight Intervenors recommend approval of the following: a The Magnet Incentive Schools shall provide college scholarship program which shall be available to all pupils therein. Each minority student assigned thereto as of the 1989-90 school term and thereafter, who remains in and graduates from Little Rock School District schools, shall have an entitlement to receive such assistance for college as determined by the Scholarship Trust Committee. The Scholarship Trust Committee Was recommended by the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Non-minority and other pupils shall also be entitled to the same benefits as minority pupils. provided they are currently enrolled (as of 1989-90) ^For purposes of this provision, LRSD schools shall include County or NLR schools if a minority magnet incentive school pupil graduates therefrom as a part of the M to M program.therein or provided they live within the shadow of a Magnet Incentive School and elect to attend that school. Non-minority pupil shall be eligible to participate in the school's scholarship programs provided they meet the requirements otherwise set out below by the Scholarship Trust Committee. The scholarship fund shall be constituted by the allocation of twenty percent (20%) of the total budget for the magnet incentive schools each year for a period of six years. The scholarship program is intended to encourage minority students to complete high school and to enroll in and complete a regular 4 year college curriculum. It is also intended to increase the enrollment in the magnet incentive schools of a representative number of non-minority pupils and to promote their interest in completing high school and college as well. The exact scholarship amount per pupil shall be determined on the basis of the funds available and the demands thereon at the time the student qualifies. It is to be determined by the Scholarship Trust Committee upon notice to the parties. The scholarship funds shall be invested, with court approval, in interest bearing securities. The court approved Scholarship Trust Committee will administer the fund. The scholarships will be paid out beginning with the 1996-97 school term and will continue thereafter until either the funds are depleted or until the court establishes other requirements. It is anticipated that the interest yield of the scholarship fund will be sufficient to allow approximately one million dollars per year to be devoted to scholarships for pupils from the magnetincentive schools thereafter. This amount is sufficient to provide each student with scholarship funds of $4,000.00 per student. At the point that these schools become racially non identifiable, a report of same will be made to the court by the parties along with a recommendation regarding the disposition of any remaining funds in the scholarship trust fund. STAFFING The magnet incentive schools shall be staffed by the district with those administrators and teachers who are committed to the goals approved by the Court herein both in general and specifically. LRSD RECOMMENDATION: The incumbent teaching staff shall be vacated. The selection criteria, in addition to the appropriate certification or licensing requirements, are as follows: JOSHUA AND KNIGHT INTERVENORS RECOMMENDATION: The incumbent professional staff in those schools shall be vacated within one week of the Court's approval of this plan and placed into a general pool with other professional staff members.^ The district shall select from that pool, pursuant to court approved criteria. new staff to fill the magnet incentive school vacancies. The recommended criteria in addition to appropriate certification or licensure requirements submitted for approval by ^Support staff shall be afforded an option to remain at their present school assignment. They shall agree, however, to undertake the necessary training which is required for all staff to be successful in these schools. the court for the selection of magnet school professional staff are as follows: (a) racial balance\n(b) successful past experience in working with minority children and parents\n(c) sensitivity to cultural and racial differences between minority and majority pre-school and elementary pupils\nand (d) willingness to work in the communities where the magnet incentive schools are located at times other than during regular school hours. Staff members who are not selected or decline to participate in the program shall be transferred into comparable positions for which they qualify on the basis of the contract provisions, Articles XVI, XVIII. and XXXVIII. of the Professional Negotiating Agreement between Little Rock and the Little Rock Classroom Teacher's Association. The teachers who are selected to work in the magnet incentive schools shall be entitled to additional pay for the additional work and responsibilities they will have with the magnet incentive schools. A pay schedule for the additional work for teachers in the magnet incentive schools which is supplemental to the existing pay schedule. It shall be based upon a figure of not less than 20% of the base pay which each teacher earns pursuant to the regular salary schedule. This is consistent with present practice for additional time during the regular school day for which some teachers are presently paid. The contracts of magnet incentive school teachers during the 1990-91 school term shall be for ten and three fourths months withthe understanding that, by mutual agreement of the teacher and the district, the contract may be extended to the extent necessary for a period up to an additional one month. The reason for the contract period being ten and three fourths month for the 1990-91 school year is explained as follows. The district presently extends to all teachers a contract for nine and one fourth months or 192 days. The additional one and one half month takes into account approximately four weeks for magnet incentive school staff development and approximately two weeks for preparation of SEPs and for extended year programs which are not available in the other schools. It is not expected that all teachers will be employed on supplemental contracts during the 1991-92 and subsequent school years. The number of teachers necessary for the supplemental time requirements of the magnet incentive schools shall be determined by the district at the end of each school year beginning in June of 1991 and continuing each year thereafter at approximately that time. The district shall, of course, have the authority to extend contracts as necessary, on an objective, impartial basis, in order to meet the expectations of the court. For 1991-92 and thereafter the district shall be authorized to vary the length of contracts in *Each magnet incentive school teacher shall be required to spend at least seven (7) additional hours per week. While these seven (7) hours are fixed they are expected to be arranged to accommodate the individualized needs of the students to the extent necessary. It is expected, however, that absent compelling circumstances, each teacher shall spend two hours for each of three days and one Saturday per month for four hours. 4 Days deemed undesirable shall be adjusted so that they can be equitably distributed among staff by the associate superintendent. Fridays and Mondays shall be rotated among all staff.accordance with objectively determined needs and expectations. There shall also be an extensive teacher aide program. It's purposes shall be two fold: (1) to assist the teachers and the administrators in the classroom, with the extended day, Saturday and year programs\n(2) to supervise children in the lunch room, the playground and on field trips as necessary\nand (3) to help develop minority teachers for possible future placement in the district. There shall be at least one teacher aide for each teacher. There shall also be at least one person employed in a professional capacity to coordinate field trips so that there will be a correlation between those learning experiences and the expected learning experiences which occur within the classroom in particular and the school in general. An adequate number of student aides will be selected to perform this function. They will be paid as part time employees on an hourly basis which is commensurate with the local rate of pay for comparable work. In keeping with the recommendations of the Metropolitan Supervisor and for otherwise independent good reasons, the district shall arrange and pay for educational courses which facilitate the objectives herein for the teacher aides at any teacher training institution in Central Arkansas that is accredited by North Central Association. The courses shall be college degree oriented with an emphasis upon teacher preparation.TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools'^^^ Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools Building Plan for Incentive Schools Please find attached the proposed plan for expanding the capacities of th  incentive schools.k. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREETS LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS April 2, 1990 TO: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring Tj'S and Program Development SUBJECT: Building Plan for Incentive Schools According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District must submit a detailed plan for closing incentive schools with small capacities and enrollments and building larger schools in the approximate vicinity for the purpose of integregation. The plan must be submitted to the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor by April 1, 1990. The District has discussed this matter with the Metropolitan Supervisor's office on several It is the Districts understanding that certain ice occasions. parameters must be followed in developing plans to close and rebuild incentive schools. First, the purpose of this plan is to increase the elementary building capacity in central and east Little Rock. Any school closings must be accompanied by a building expansion at some other school(s) and/or the construction of a new school building. The increase in building capacity will eventually help reduce the burden o busing on black elementary students. Second, in a case of a building expansion, the new capacity must yield enough seats to enable the school to meet desegregation requirements. The incentive schools must have enough space to obtain a racial balance of approximately 60-70% black. The same requirement applies to the construction of a new school building. Closing a school also involves reassigning students to either a new building, an expanded facility, or an existing school outside of the target area. Whatever the case, the reassignment process must comply with desegregation requirements. Another parameter involves the number of classes at each grade in a particular school. Each grade must have enough seats to accommodate the total capacity at the preceding grade. This factor is often overlooked in preparing for future capacity needs. For instance, some schools have three classes feeding into two classes at the next grade level. The only way to correct this problem without reassigning students is to move a teacher to the problem grade level, factor must be considered in developing plans to expand school buildings. This (1)The last factor for consideration relates to physical limitations at the school site and/or in the target community. In considering building expansions, attention must be given to the space limitations at the school site. Some of the incentive schools do not have enough space for extensive expansions. The District has observed these factors as an extensive search for a new school site in the target area has been underway since 1988. Real estate agencies and others who are familiar with availability of properties that might be suitable for a new school site have been engaged to assist in the identi- fication of potential sites. The old King School is the only site east of University Avenue that the District has been able to identify for new construction. I In addition to the mandate to close and rebuild/expand incentive schools, the Tri-District Desegregation Plan also directs the Little Rock School District to place four-year old programs in all incentive schools. The following is a plan which addresses the need to provide an early childhood education program in each incentive school as well as the closing and rebuilding/expansion of exist- ing incentive schools. The plan is based on the following assumptions: a. All sixth graders enrolled at the incentive schools in the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school year will be promoted. b. All K-5 students currently enrolled at the incentive schools will remain at these schools for the 1990-91 school year, in 1990-91 will remain at these schools in 1991-92. included for magnet transfers The K-5 students No projections are c. All K-5 incentive school students will be promoted in 1990-91 and 1991-92 to the next grade level at the end of the respective school year. d. Kindergarten seats in the incentive schools will be filled using a 60% black and 40% white ratio. ensure a 60/40 racial balance. If necessary, seats will be reserved to e. All assignments (including sibling preference transfers) to the incen- tive schools are subject to desegregation requirements. Seats will be reserved for white students to ensure compliance with desegregation requirements. f. All building expansions, if necessary, and construction will be com-^ pl eted before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year if the Little Rock School District is able to obtain long-term financing for construction costs. g. Meetings will be scheduled with parents and other community representatives to discuss plans for closing and/or expanding schools in their neighborhoods. (2)5' t T - h  /-I. t Ish Ish school will be closed at the end of the 1990-91 school year. Approximately 146 black students in grades 1-6 will be enrolled at Ish at the time of the school closing. The students at Ish will be reassigned to Rightsell and Mitchell for the 1991-92 school year. A site selection committee will be appointed to identify a site for a new school in the general proximity of Ish, Mitchell, and Rightsell. Within the allowable time frame, the District will use every legal means to acquire adequate property for a new school in this proximity (including the right of eminent domain) and will engage the assistance of professional real estate agents in its search. The committee will submit its findings to the Metropolitan Supervisor's office by May 15, 1990. If the District is unable to acquire a site for a new building, the District will proceed with the following plan to expand Mitchell and Rightsell. Mitchell Seven classrooms will be added to Mitchell: - one first grade - one second grade - one third grade - one fourth grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade - one four-year old class The first through sixth grade additions will change Mitchell's capacity from 280 to 400 students. The addition of 75 students from Ish will still enable Mitchell to obtain a 68/32 black/white racial balance if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. Rightsell The classroom presently in use for Rightsell's mass media specialty will become a fourth grade classroom. Also, six classrooms will be added to Rightsell: - one first grade - one second grade - one third grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade - one four-year old class The first through sixth grade additions will change Rightsell's capacity from 260 to 380 students. The addition of 71 students from Ish will still enable Rightsell to obtain a 70/30 black/white ratio if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. These plans are contingent upon adequate space at Rightsell to complete the proposed classroom additions. Rockefeller The CARE activity room will be used for an additional kindergarten class. will give Rockefeller a total of three kindergarten classes and will allow the This 60 four-year old students currently at Rockefeller to be able to remain for kindergarten. The G/T class will be moved to another area of the building. A new second grade class will be assigned to the room formerly used by G/T. At least four classrooms will be added to Rockefeller: - one third grade - one fourth grade - one fifth grade - one sixth grade (3)The classroom changes and additions will change Rockefeller's capacity from 300 to 420 students. The new capacity will allow Rockefeller to obtain a 53/47 black/white ratio if all of the remaining seats are filled by white students. (NOTE: Consideration will be given to adding a total of six new classrooms to Rockefeller to accommodate the relocation of the G/T class.) 01d King Site A new school will be constructed on the old King site. The school will offer the incentive school program and will have a capacity of approximately 700 students. The District will initiate discussions with city officials relative to improvement of street access to the old King site. Garland and Stephens will be reassigned to the new school, open in the 1991-92 school year. All students enrolled at The new school will Careful attention will be given to alternative educational/service uses for Ish, Garland, and Stephens. Contact has already been made with an agency that is interested using Ish. These closings will also require that the District give prompt attention to a new site for the IRC. In addition, the District will give special attention to maintaining the names o*' King, Ish, and Stephens. The individuals for whom these schools were named have made important contributions to the black community, and the District should continue to honor them with school names. Funding The District will use proceeds from the 8 mill tax increase to fund the incen- tive school building plan if approved by the voters. If the tax increase is not approved, the District will ask the Metropolitan Supervisor's Finance Committee to make the incentive school building plan a high priority from desegregation funds. If the Finance Committee disallows funds for the incentive school building plan, then the District will ask the Court for funding. (4)- 515 Beckwood Little Rock, AR May 15, 1990 72205 Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 To Whom it May Concern: Your office called together the original Incentive Schools parent committee for the purpose of reviewing and commenting the proposed Incentive School plan. on We met several times and generated reports which were given to your office. Your office then sent copies of this final report to the committee members. Our work (we thought) had been completed. We listened to Mr. Walker and Mr. Jennings speak Then your office called and summoned us for one more meeting, where we learned that the final report was supposedly just a draft. speak, then reaffirmed our support for the original recommendations that we had agreed upon. I have learned that another \"final\" report has been issued that purports to contain the recommendations of our committee. It claims that the Incentive School committee supports the closing of Stephens and Garland, and thus basically supports the LRSD proposed building plan. This is absolutely untrue! It was the concensus of the committee that all incentive schools should remain open and that a new King Elementary should also be built if there is a need for more capacity. We believed that the smaller schools served the needs of these children better, and that parents would be attracted to the smallness of the schools if the District would properly advertise their benefits. We were well aware that our recommendations would probably not get written into the plan, but we wanted to go on record that PARENTS disagreed with the closing of these three neighfc)orhood Now that the final report of our committee has been schools. LRSD's plan. altered, it gives a false impression that parents agree with the Tr\u0026gt;or-,i_ Mr. Jennings told me that there was no need to go into the affected community for a public debate because \"your committee represents the parents in that area and your committee endorsed our building plan.\"I request that you disallow the second \"final the first report be made the official one. report and that It is the responsibility of your office to be sure that what is released to the press and school officials is accurate. The final report should not have been released to anyone until the committee had seen and approved it. I haven't even received a copy of the second \"final\" report, and I suspect that others on the committee haven't, either. The greater questions are these: Who is trying to squelch the voices that cry out for fairness and equality for ALL of the children in Little Rock? valued equally by the LRSD? Are \"black\" and H white\" children How successful can a plan be when it is built on an unconstitutional elementary student assignment plan? (Just because it is \"popular\" doesn't make it right). there really any willingness on the part of administrators to allow community members to participate in meaningful decision Is making? What is the purpose of attracting more students to our district when we can barely afford to educate the ones we already have? When are we going to stop blaming others for our problems and recognize that the solutions are in our own hearts? If you don't stand up for the principles of fairness, honesty and equality, who will? Is your commitment simply to desegregate the schools or to stand uncompromisingly firm on ) I believe that if you do the latter, the former principles? will take care of itself. Sincerely,RECE5V^D Co P ? 2 WO BiU2cMKw'ttanS3sw-9P 515 Beckwood Little Rock, AR May 21, 1990 72205 Mr. James Jennings 8^0 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Jennings, Although you have included two parents (Mr. Lowe and me) on the Site Selection Committee for the Incentive Schools, I want to make it very clear that we have had no input whatsoever into your plans for the incentive schools. It appears that the only reason we were put on the committee is so that you can say you had parent involvement. I am fundamentally opposed to large elementary schools, especially in areas that have a large population of lower income families. I am strongly opposed to closing smaller schools within neighborhoods and funnelling those students into larger schools on the outer fringes of the neighborhoods. The parents on the Incentive School Committee (metropolitan supervisor's office) agreed with this and thought that school capacity should be kept at 350 or below for incentive schools, and building additional schools as necessary to increase capacity. (A second, false report was generated after our final report, original building subcommittee recommendations were the ones which the full committee supported). The I plead with you once again to go into the affected neighborhoods and have a public debate on where schools will be located and how large they will be. Give people in those areas the power to decide these issues that affect them. Did you read the article by Tom Peters in yesterday's Democrat? He stressed the importance of shrinking school size to improve the quality of education and discipline in the schools, recommends that schools have less than 250 students each! He If you generate any reports or summaries concerning the Site Selection committee, you do not have permission to include my name on them. If you are required to include my name, then you must attach a copy of this letter disclaiming my support for your decisions. Sincerely, Ruth Steele Judge Henry Woods Metropolitan Supervisor's Office Kenyon Lowe Willis Walker Bill Hamilton cc\nLittle Rock School District June 5, 1990 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Arma Hart, Associate Metropolitan Superintendent James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH:^! Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Site Selection for Incentive Schools The Little Rock School District submitted a building plan to your office on April 2. The plan included recommendations for closing and rebuilding (or expanding) certain incentive schools. In addition to possible building expansions, the District also decided to look for a new school site in the area of Rightsell, Mitchell, and Ish schools. The purpose of this report is to share the District's findings and make additional recommendations concerning Rightsell, Mitchell, and Ish Schools. The Little Rock School district recently entered into discussions with Philander Smith College concerning approximately six (6) acres of space on the west side of the campus. The site is between 13th Street, Chester Street, Interstate 630, and Izard Street. There are several collaborative efforts that can be developed between the District and Philander if this idea becomes a reality. The District will propose that the collaboration with Philander become a part of the overall University Lab School Program described in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan. The laboratory school arrangement is expected to have tremendous benefits for Philander's teacher education program, as well as for the District's efforts in the area of recruitment of minority teachers. Likewise, the District will benefit from the staff development opportunities that are expected to develop from this partnership. Please find attached several worksheets that have been developed to explain the plans and ramifications of the proposed project. It should be noted that this proposal is still at the point of mere discussion between the two parties. However, the District hopes to hear from Philander in the very near future concerning the likelihood of this proposal. It is possible that Philander may elect to consider a lease arrangement rather than the actual sale of the property. The building plan for the incentive schools is based on the following assumptions: a. All sixth graders enrolled at the incentive schools in the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school year will be promoted. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361Site Selection page two b. All K-5 students currently enrolled at the incentive schools will remain at these schools for the 1990-91 school year. The K-5 students in 1990-91 will remain at these schools in 1991-92. projections are included for magnet transfers. No c. All K-5 incentive school students will be promoted in 1990-91 and 1991-92 to the next grade level at the end of the respective school year. d. Kindergarten seats in the incentive schools will be filled using a 60% black and 40% white ratio. reserved to ensure a 60/40 racial balance. If necessary, seats will be e. All assignments (including sibling preference transfers) to the incentive schools are subject to desegregation requirements. Seats will be reserved for white students to ensure compliance with desegregation requirements. f. All expansion and construction work will be completed before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year if the Little Rock School District is able to obtain long-term financing for construction costs. The Little Rock School District proposes the following: 1. Build a new school at the old King School site. This school will accommodate approximately 700 students. Students enrolled at Stephens and Garland during the 1990-91 school year will be reassigned to the new school at the old King School site. The attendance zones for Stephens and Garland will be combined to form the attendance zone for the new school. The District will initiate discussions with city officials relative to improvement of street access to the old King site. Careful attention will be given to alternative educational/service uses for Ish, Garland, and Stephens. Contact has already been made with an agency that is interested in using one of these school sites. These closings will also require that the District give prompt atten- tion to a new site for the IRC. The District also will give special attention to maintaining the names of King, Ish, and Stephens. The individuals for whom these schools were named have made important contributions to the black community, and the District should continue to honor these individuals with school names.Site Selection page three 2. Expand Mitchell School by adding seven classrooms. This expansion will allow Mitchell to comply with desegregation requirements, have a four-year old class, and enroll some students from Ish School (see worksheet 2). -one 1st grade -one 2nd grade -one 3rd grade -one 4th grade -one 5th grade -one 6th grade -one 4-yr. old Ihe first through sixth grade additions will change Mitchell's capacity from 280 to 400 students. 3. Expand Rockefeller School by adding at least four classrooms. This expansion will allow Rockefeller to comply with desegregation requirements. Hie CARE activity room will be used for an additional kindergarten class. This will give Rockefeller a total of three kindergarten classes and will allow the 60 four-year old students currently at Rockefeller to be able to remain for kindergarten. ' The G/T class will be moved to another area of the building. A new second grade class will be assigned to the room formerly used by G/T (Gifted and Talented). At least four classrooms will be added to Rockefeller: -one 3rd grade -one 4th grade -one Sth grade -one 6th grade The classroom changes and additions will change Rockefeller's capacity from 300 to 420 students. (NOTE: Consideration will be given to adding a total of six new classrooms to Rockefeller to accommodate the relocation of the G/T class.) 4. Build a new school at the Philander Smith College site. Students will be reassigned to this school from parts of the Rightsell, Mitchell, and Ish attendance zones. Students also will be reassigned to this school from part of the Jefferson satellite zone (see Worksheet 2). The school will accommodate at least 560 students. If the District is unable to secure an agreement with Philander, Rightsell School will be expanded. 5. Close Stephens, Garland, and Ish at the end of the 1990-91 school year. This proposal is referred to as \"Plan B\" on Worksheet 1. Plan A is the same proposal described in the April 2 submission to your office. Plan B does not include an expansion of Rightsell School. The adjustment of attendance zones and reassignment of students will create enough vacancies at Rightsell to comply with desegregation requirements. The adjustment of attendance zones and reassignment of students also will allow some students who currently attend school in west or southwest Little Rock to attend school in central Little Rock (new school at Philander). The transfer of students to the new school at Philander will create additional vacancies in other schools.WORKSHEET 1 SCHOOL Current Capacity 1989-90 Enrollment Plan A Capacity Plan B Capacity Garland 300 251 Stephens 260 212 700^ 700\u0026gt;' Ish 200 156 560^ Mitchell 280 222 400 400 Rightsell 240 206 380 240 Rockefeller 340 245 420 420 Total 1620 1292 1900 2320 Plan A - New school at old King site - Expand Mitchell - Expand Rightsell - Expand Rockefeller - Close Stephens, Garland, and Ish Plan B - New school at old King site - Expand Mitchell - Expand Rockefeller - New school at Philander site - Close Stephens, Garland, and Ish - Reassign all students in specified zone blocks to Philander site. -\u0026gt; New schoolWORKSHEET 2 Specified Zone Blocks 1. Move from Rightsell attendance zone to Philander site: 0439 0448 Total 71 students 68 students 139 (13 students currently at Rightsell) (24 students currently at Rightsell) 37 2. Move from Jefferson satellite to Philander site: 0434 0435 Total 31 students 20 students 51 3. Move from Ish attendance zone to Philander site: 0477 0485 0480 Total 32 students 54 students 42 students 128 (12 students currently at Ish) (17 students currently at Ish) (11 students currently at Ish) 40 4. Move from Mitchell attendance zone to Philander site: 0445 0446 Total 28 students 14 students 42 (5 students at Mitchell) (3 students at Mitchell) Other Changes 1. Move Ish attendance zone to Mitchell: 0476 0479 0473 38 students 29 students 54 students (9 students at Ish) (7 students at Ish) 0-6 students at Ish)School Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Garland Stephens New School Ish New School School Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Garland Stephens New School Ish New School -A^ith Expansion WORKSHEET 3 Kindergarten Capacity 40 40 60 100 80 Building Capacity 400'\" 240 420* 700 560 1st Grade Capacity 60 40 60 100 80 Kindergarten Atten. Zone Students 37 23 47 34 37 71 54 Atten. Zone Students 296 161 304 322 309 631 360EXPLANATION OF WORKSHEET 3 Ihe March 5 court order from Judge Woods raises concern about overcrowding in the Incentive Schools. The court's concern is related to the fact that the attendance zones developed by the Little Rock School District in March 1989 were based on a 1:25 teacher/pupil ratio. Ihe court noted that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals mandated a ratio of 1:20 in the virtually all-black schools. However, the attendance zones for the Incentive Schools have not been changed since March 1989. Worksheet 3 compares the total number of kindergarten attendance zone students to the kindergarten and first grade capacities for each Incentive School. Worksheet 3 also compares the total number of K-6 attendance zone students to the building capacity for each Incentive School. In both cases, the capacities are based on a teacher/pupil ratio of 1:20. The capacity figures listed on Worksheet 3 reflect the proposed expansions and new construction. The kindergarten comparison is important because the attendance zones only apply to kindergarten students. The 1989-90 kindergarten class will be in the sixth grade in 1995-96. Each kindergarten class between 1989-90 and 1995-96, inclusive, will be assigned by attendance zones. As a result, the attendance zone plan will be in full operation after the 1995-96 school year. Worksheet 3 clearly indicates that each Incentive School has enough capacity to accotimodate all kindergarten attendance zone students. Of course, it is possible that some kindergarten attendance zone students may not be able to attend a particular incentive school because of the desegregation requirements. If the desegregation requirements are not enforced, some of the kindergarten classes will exceed the desegregation requirements. The attendance zone figures listed on Worksheet 3 do not represent the actual number of students currently enrolled in the incentive schools, most cases, students who reside in the attendance zones of incentive In schools currently attend other schools. If these figures give any idea of the number of students in these zones by 1996-97, it is conceivable that the incentive schools will have adequate capacities to accommodate their attendance zone students. As stated in the District's April 2 report on attendance zones, additional information is needed to make student projections for the 1995-96 school year. Ihe construction of a new school at Philander will allow a large number of black students to be able to attend school in their neighborhood. The reassignment of these students also will help reduce the burden of busing on black students.WORKSHEET 4 Attendance Zone Students 1. Move from Rightsell attendance zone to Philander site: 0439 71 students  Bale (3) Badgett (2) Chicot (2) Dodd (8) (Boundaries: 12th, State, 16th, and High Streets) Fair Park (1) Forest Park (6) Franklin (1) Fulbright (3) Geyer Springs (1) Ish (4) Jefferson (1) Mabelvale (2) Meadowcliff (4) Mitchell (5) Otter Creek (1) Rightsell (13) Rockefeller (2) Romine (3) Stephens (1) Wakefield (1) Washington (3) Western Hills (3) Woodruff (1) 0448 68 students  Bale (1) Brady (2) Chicot (1) Cloverdale (2) (Boundaries: 16th, High, Wright Ave., State Streets) Dodd (1) Fair Park (1) Garland (1) Geyer Springs (6) Mabelvale (8) McDermott (1) Meadowcliff (4) Mitchell (8) Otter Creek (1) Pulaski Hgts. (1) Rightsell (24) Stephens (1) Wakefield (1) Washington (4)2. Move from Jefferson satellite to Philander site: 0434 31 students  Dodd (1) Fair Park (1) (Boundaries: State, Broad- way, 17th Streets, and Forest Park (2) 1630) Jefferson (1) McDermott (5) Meadowcliff (4) Otter Creek (1) Pulaski Hgts. (3) Rightsell (7) Rockefeller (2) Romine (1) Stephens (1) Washington (1) Western Hills (1) 0435 20 students  Badgett (2) Brady (1) Chicot (1) Dodd (1) Jefferson (3) Rightsell (3) Rockefeller (4) Stephens (1) Terry (2) Western Hills (2) (Boundaries: Broadway, Main, 17th Streets, and 1630) 3. Move from Ish attendance zone to Philander site: 0477 32 students  Bale (1) Dodd (1) Forest Park (1) (Boundaries: 28th, Ringo, 33rd, and High Streets) Geyer Springs (1) Ish r Sra (12) McDermott (4) Otter Creek (2) Pulaski Hgts. (2) Romine Hg (1) Washington (6) Wilson (1)0485 54 students  Badgett (1) Chicot (12) Dodd (1) Fair Park (1) Ish (17) Jefferson (5) McDermott (3) Otter Creek (3) Wakefield (1) Washington (4) Wilson (5) Woodruff (1) (Boundaries: Ringo, 28th, State, and 33rd Streets) 0480 42 students  Badgett (1) Chicot (2) Cloverdale (5) Dodd (1) Forest Park (1) (Boundaries: 33rd, State, High Streets, and 130) Geyer Springs (2) Ish r Spj (11) Mabeivale (8) McDermott (1) Meadowcliff (3) Mitchell (2) Rightsell (2) Washington (2) Wilson (1) 4. Move from Mitchell attendance zone to Philander site: 0445 28 students  Bale (2) Baseline (1) Dodd (1) (Boundaries: High, 16th, 18th, and Battery Streets) Fair Park (2) Forest Park (1) Fulbright (1) Geyer Springs (1) Jefferson (6) Mabeivale (1) Meadowcliff (2) Mitchell (5) Terry (1) Washington (1) Western Hills (1) Wilson (2)0446 14 students  Brady (5) Ish (1) Jefferson (1) Mitchell (3) Pulaski Hgts. (1) Rightsell (2) Romine (1) (Boundaries: Battery, 18th, High Streets, and Wright Avenue)LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS August 7, 1990 TO: FROM: Incentive School Principals and Teachers QzRuth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: CONTRACTS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL TEACHERS In recent days there has been considerable comment concerning incentive school teacher contracts and pay for the 1990-91 school year. Allegations that the District has \"reneged\" on its promise to incentive school teachers have been made. I have investigated these allegations and have held extensive conversations with all the administrators on my staff who were involved in the discussions of the incentive school programs. Based on my investigation, I have determined the following: 1) Earlier discussion that all teachers would receive a ten and three-fourths (10 3/4) month contract and 20 percent additional pay was based upon the supposition that all children in all incentive schools would participate fully in the Extended Day Program and the It has since been determined that Saturday program. not every child in every school will participate every The agreement day and every Saturday in this program, submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor's Office on April 2 states that a contract and pay schedule for additional work for teachers will be developed that is supplemental to the existing pay schedule and 9.25 contract. It shall be based upon a figure of not less than 20 percent of the teacher's base pay-. The 20 percent figure was used because that is the amount paid to teachers under present practice who work additional time during the regular school day (e.g., teach an This represents the equivalent of additional class). one extra day per week. Incentive school teachers will receive the 20 percent pay supplement for each additional O seven hours they work. If these additional hours are worked each week, the teacher will receive what amounts to pay for an extra day of work that week. That amount is 20 percent In fact, over what is normally earned is a week's time. whenever seven hours of additional work are completed, the teachers will receive the equivalent of an extra day's pay. This is how the 20 percent additional pay will be calculated.a Principals and Incentive School Teahcers August 7, 1990 Page Two 2) Teachers will receive their supplemental pay for an additional 20 days of work in two checks, one to be distributed around August 15 and the other to be distributed around September 15. S' worked the additional twenty days, teachers will Since not every teacher receive pay for the total number of days worked. Their compensation will be determined by multiplying the 1990-91 daily rate of pay times 20 days  or the number of days worked by the individual teacher. 3) The additional pay for incentive school teachers has been characterized by some as \"incentive pay, tl would receive additional pay simply because they i.e., teachers decided to work in an II incentive\" school. The language of the original statement reads, \"The teachers who are selected to work in the magnet incentive schools shall be entitled to additional pay for the additional work and responsibilities they will have with the magnet Nowhere has the additional pay incentive schools. II been based upon anything other than additional work and responsibilities. A few other points need to be made. First, District administrators and incentive school principals did not inform the incentive school teachers of exactly what they would be making when they were interviewed because we were not sure what the Court might ultimately approve. In fact, we were criticized We explained that we could not make for not being more specific. a firm commitment until we had a final ruling from the Court. We did tell teachers they would need to be prepared to work additional days and longer days although we could not be specific as to the precise amounts of time. We had been told, following the January 2 submission of our desegregation plan to the Court, that we needed to do more work At the Court's direction, we on the Incentive School Program. submitted a more detailed document to the Office of the As late as Metropolitan Supervisor's Office on April 2. June 12, 1990, revisions were still being made in the document, and as of this date, there is still no Court-approved Incentive School Plan, and we do not believe there will an approved plan until after the Eighth Circuit Court's final ruling. Second, rumors notwithstanding, teachers who work in the incentive schools will be compensated at a rate of pay based upon their contractual amount, not a stipend. cc: Board of Directors Dr. Herb Cleek Ms. Estelle Matthis Mr. James Jennings Mr. Chip Jones Ms. Margaret Greraillion Ms. Pat PriceI I TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 8)0 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 October 2, 1990 RE OCT 2 1990 Office of Mefpopaiifjn Sojisryfsop Arma Hart. Associate Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development TS-THR0U6H: T^'Or. Herb Cleek. Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: October 1 Request for Information In our phone conversation on October 1 , you requested the following information: A. The number of M-M students enrolled in incentive schools. B. The recruitment efforts at the incentive schools (Reference: Tri- District Desegregation Plan, Incentive School Section, pp.28-29). C. Bimonthly reports on recruitment. The information on Item A was given to you over the phone. Item B, please note the following: In regard to 1 . Place informat ion booths at prominent shopping centers and malls throughout Pulaski County. Information was distributed at Southwest City Mall and Park Plaza Mall. 2. Develop highlight sheets about the Incentive School Program to be displayed in local businesses inserted in utility bills . and distributed in ail RvIftaLA County elementary students. Incentive school highlight sheets were sent to students throughout Pulaski County. Incentive school brochure has been distributed through individual contacts and at Park Plaza Mall. sheets have not been inserted in utility bills, consideration for the future. Highlight This is under .X sga^ I I Memo to Arma Hart page two I 3. Conduct information sessions with special audiences such as the PTA Council . Junior League Commerce and Realtors Association League of Uomen iloters Chamber of Information sessions have been held with realtors, Chamber of Commerce, PTA Council, Southwestern Bell employees, and all LRSD principals, assistant principals, counselors, and secretaries. 4. Develop public service announcements (PSAs) for all media. along with billboards signs an EUiailS. benches  and other public adver- tlsements as part oX an ongoing media blitz to heighten public awareness of. and provide general information about the incentive schools Activities that have been done to date: Television interviews by Channels 4 and ?, Seven On Your Side program on incentive schools and back to school activities! promotion on district's cable channel, special articles in newspapers. 5. Produce short videocassette recordings for use at public presentations such as PTA meetings, realtor groups, and community organizations. To be developed in consultation with marketing expert. 6. Seek incentive school endorsements from local celebrities. To be developed in consultation with marketing expert. 7. Meet individually and in small groups with parents. Several individual and informal small group meetings have already occurred with parents. Building tours are ongoing. 8. Hire a marketing expert to develop and implement multi-year market inq cewpeiign- All interviews have been completed and a marketing team has been selected. of October 8. Contract negotiations will be conducted during the week 9. Conduct an ongoing media blitz that focuses on the positive aspects of the incentive school program. See Item 4. Also, a special issue of FOCUS (district newsletter) was sent to all parents in the Little Rock School District. News- letter sent during spring 1990. incentive schools. A special page was devoted to theMemo to Arma Hart page three 10. Highlight incentive schools in all district publications. See Item S. In regard to targeting specific neighborhoods throughout Pulaski County, Items 1,2.4. and 5 are underway. A meeting with NLRSD and PCSSD administrators was delayed because the incentive school plan had not been approved by May 1990. In regard to Item C, bimonthly reports on recruitment, please note the monthly updates on desegregation that are enclosed for your review. Recruitment reports from the school-based biracial committees will be included in the November update on desegregation. cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Chris HellerTO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS February 27, 1991 Board of Directors ^Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Incentive Schools - Update In order to provide you with information concerning efforts made by the administration to address issues related to incentive schools, the following report is provided. A Board of Directors' meeting was held on October 3, 1990, to share concerns from incentive school teachers and other staff members. The Board directed the adminis- tration to conduct similar meetings with individual schools and to work cooperatively to resolve issues that could negatively impact the implementation of our Incentive School Program. were recorded at each meeting. Meetings were held with each school and concerns and accomplishments Members of my senior management team shared these con- cerns with the deputy superintendent, other staff members, and with me. issues were resolved after our meetings with the incentive school staffs. A number of I have met with incentive school principals several times to secure their perspective of the operation of these programs. Joshua and Knight Intervenors to resolve these issues. As directed by you, we have tried to meet with the Chris Heller has scheduled several meetings with only the Knight Intervenors and district personnel attending such meetings. In December, we received the Eighth Circuit Court order approving the settlement plan. The order directed that all new and unresolved issues be referred to the parties for discussion and approval. We have indicated to the parties our need to quickly resolve some issues, both verbally and in several written requests through our attorney, Mr. Hei 1 er. Based on input from our incentive school teachers and principals, central office staff made written recommendations which have been submitted to the Joshua Intervenors. stating that Mr. Walker Chris Heller sent a written message via FAX cover page on February 18 11 called and approved the change. II On February 25, 1991, he stated in our desegregation planning meeting that the Joshua Intervenors had given verbal approval to our latest recommendations (see attachments) and advised us to move forward with the changes. To date, we have not received written approval but do pTan to advise staff of the verbal agreement that will provide more meaningful activities for extended day and week as well as some relief for our staff and students. Several of my senior staff members visited similar programs in Dallas, Texas, on February 12, 1991. The Charles Rice Learning Center was designed to accomplish the same type of goals as those of our incentive schools. John Walker visit this school with me in early March. be asked to join us on this trip. The team recommended that The Knight Intervenors will The information gained from one year of program implementation and on-site visits to the Charles Rice Learning Center in Dallas will assist us in revising our incentive school program. Provided is a chronology of activities, events, and communications that have taken place since our last meeting.DATE TIME SITE 10/3/90 5 p.m. INCENTIVE SCHOOLS CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS Board Room TYPE OF MEETING fWriCIPANTS Incentive School Staff Board, Administrators, Teachers 10/16/90 8:30 a.m. Board Room Incentive School Principals Principals, Dr. Steele, Administrators 10/22/90 10/30/90 11/1/90 11/5/90 11/8/90 All day 5:30 p.m. 7 p.m. 3:30 p.m. 5 p.m. 5:30 p.m. 1 :30 p.m. Ish Inservice Instructional aides 11/13/90 3:30 p.m. Board Room Board Room Curr. Center Curr. Center Rockefeller Board Room Frankli n Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Incentive Schools Intervenors and LRSD Inservice 11/29/90 12/13/90 All day 1:45 p.m. Schools Conference Rm. Deseg Inservice Stephens 12/14/90 12/18/90 2:15 p.m. 3 p.m. 2:15 p.m. 3 p.m. 4 p.m. 1 p.m. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Conference Rm. Board Room Garland Mitchel 1 Rockefel1 er Rightsell Ish Intervenors and LRSD Garland Stephens Ish and Rightsell Mi tchel1 Rockefeller LRSD and Knight/ Joshua Intervenors Pre-school Teachers Incentive Schools Principal, Dr. Steele, Admi ni strators II 11 II II II II II II II 11 11 It II II II LRSD, Joshua/Knight Intervenors 1/8-10/91 1/29/91 2/12/91 2/14/91 2/25/91 Transition Parties All day 8 a.m. Schools 2:30 p.m. 8 a.m. Dallas, TX Supt's Office Schools Rockefeller Deseg/Staff Development Charles Rice Learning Ctr. Report on Dallas trip Deseg/Staff Development Inservice Incentive Schools Administrators Administrators Incentive Schools Pre-school Teachers and Aides (HIPPY Staff invited)DATE 12/5/90 12/11/90 1/17/91 1/22/91 1/22/91 2/8/91 2/18/91 CHRONOLOGY OF COMMUNICATIONS FROM Chris Chris Chris TO SUBJECT Heller Heller Heller Dr. Steele John Walker Chris Heller Chris Heller John John John Walker Walker Walker Chris Heller Chris Heller John Walker John Walker Requested meeting Announced meeting Proposed Extended Proposed Extended dates dates/times Day change Day chang Request for discussion Clarification of 1/22 letter Seeking responseHERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. B. S. CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, PA. WILLIAM H . SUTTON, P. A. GEORGE E. PIKE, JR.. P.A. JAMESW. MOORE Byron m. eiSCman, jr,, p. a. JOED. BELL, P. A. MICHAEL G. Thompson, p.a. JOHN c. ECHOLS, P A. JAMES A, BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. M T. LARZELERE, P. OSCAR E. OAVIS, J* R JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P Thomas p lCOOCTt, t. JOhM OCWCT WATSON, PAUL a. aCNHAM III, LARRTW. 8URKS, P. A. wvckliff Nisan J ft., P. JAMES COWARD HARRIS, P.A J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH p. Catlett, p.a. JAMES M, SAXTON, p.a. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL HI DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone 501-376-2011 December 5, 1990 ATTACHMENT 1 BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD O. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P. 4 Elizabeth j. robben, p./ CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M, GRIFFIN III. P. J THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. Michael a. hoore oiAN E S. MACKEY Cltoe 'tab' C A LVI N J. H, URNCR SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE M. OAYLE CORLEY ROBERT a. BEACH, JR. S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER, JR. M. CHARLES aSCHWENO, JR MARRY A. LIGHT SCOTT M. TUCKER JOHN Clayton Randolph MARY L. WISEMAN Guy ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. M I Ch a el PICK E N S WILLIAM A. ELOREOGE, JR., P L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR, P.A, telecopier (SOU 37a-2l4T TELECOPIER ISOU 37O-O3C Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Wiley Branton JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 370-1056 Re: Incentive School Program Dear John and Wiley: We would like to schedule a meeting as soon as possible among representatives of the Joshua Intervenors, the Knight Intervenors snd the Little Rock School District to resolve a number of issues concerning the Incentive Schools. Please provide a list of dates when you could be available for such meeting. meet at your office. We will be happy to Yours very truly, Christopher Heller CJH/k cc: Grainger Ledbetter Frank Martin James JenningsIK C'CC 11 '90 It': 45 FRi EJLO CLhRK (501 \u0026gt; H. FRIDAY, .A ROaCRT y. LIOMT, A A. WILLIAM W. BUTTON, R A OCORBK C. A.m, JR., 0.^ JAMra w MOORS BTRON M. BiBSmaN, JR  A JOB 0- BELL. MA. hiChabl 0. tmOmabon, ma. JOHNO. CChOlB, MA. JAMBB A. ButtAY, Ma. PRBOBRiCM a. URBBRY, R.A. N. T. LARBClBRS, ma. OBCaR (. BAVIB, JP. Z. CLARK, JR., 0 A. t**0mab m LtaafTT, r,a. f/OxN Otwev WATfiON, M. PAUL a. 9CNHAM III, Ma. 4- wvcruiff Niaacr, ., JAMtl BOWARO NARRIB, J- WALCOM, MA. JAMia H. fllUP^ON, P.A, mbrbbith m catlstt, ma. JAMBB M. Saxton, J- BHKPMCRO RUSfitLL III OONALO H. BACON, MA. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTCfl, MA. WALTBr a. PAULSON \u0026lt;1, MA. b-cl47 fhiday, eldhedoe a OLAHK A PARTNERSHIP OP INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONa ATTORNKYI at UAW lOOq FIRST commcrciau UlLOINa 400 W\u0026lt;T CAPITOL I.ITTLC ROCK, ARKANSAS 7iaorA34i Tclcrhonc 9Cl*37aOi| December 11, isgo P-.2 ATTACHMENT 2 lARRY c. corliN, a a  iCnarb d. Taylor, b,a. JOaiRH a. Hurst, jr., a CLIBAaCTM ROaiBN, R A A. CMRiarOBMfR HCUUtR, ha LAURA Ur^ai _________ ' * LAURA W^NBtCy A|4(TM Ma MSHPBT* WILLIAM M, ORif'PIN III ThOmaB N. Rose, MA. miChakl a. moorc O\u0026gt;ANC B. MACrky III, MA. WaLTBR M. Kcl III. MA MBVINA. CRABB WILLIAM A. WAOOILL. JR.. __________ * CuroB -tab- turnkr CALVIN 4. mall aCOTT J. LANOABTIR J BRRY L. MALONB M. CATLB eORLSr ROBBRT a. aCACH, JR. . RAHOOlRM LOONCY J. LCC BROWN jAMca c. iakba, UR. \u0026gt;*. CMARLta pscmwbno, HARRY A. LICmT . JR. aCOTT M. TUCKCR JOHN CLAYTON RANOOLRH L. WitCMAN OUT ALTON WAOI pRiei e. oaronbr THOMAS M MCSxa J. MICHASl pickkni eevMAek WILLIAM smith William a. l6rco, jr.. ma WILLIAU , ' WILLIAM L. TCRRY WILLIAM L. RATTON, JR. MA. TBlBCOPIBR (BOn BtcpBiat TCLCCOPIER IBOtl a7B\u0026gt;B Mr. John W. Walker Mr. Wiley Branton JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 370-1506 Re: Incentive School Program Dear John and Wiley\nRepresentatives of the Little Rock Knight Intervenors will meet at issues at 1:00 School District and the LRSD to discuss Incentive School , , , P'l\"* on Tuesday, December is, 1990. know if either or both of  . - - . meeting. that will be ,,, , . -------- Please let me  ,,, will be available to attend this We will be happy to move the meeting to your be more convenient for you. offices if CJH/k Yours very truly ChristopTCT Mileru u IJ i i\n0 U'OUi tKiUAl LAU l-iK.'ll L K bChOvi Dibt ua U U 2 \u0026gt; 1,11.1 ATTACHMENT 3 January 17, 1991 Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Re: 370-1506 Incentive School Extended Day Program Dear John: I am writing to follow up on our discussion yesterday concerning the extended day program at the Incentive Schools, The extended day program is presently operated from 2:30 p.m. to 5:05 p.m. Monday through Friday at each of the Incentive Schools. This schedule does not leave time for regular staff meetings and extends the school day beyond the point which is productive for the students, The desegregation team at the Little Rock School District recommends that the schedule of the extended day program be changed to 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, beginning with the second semester of this school year. I believe that the LRSD desegregation plan is flexible enough to allow this change (see Volume II, p. 67, paragraph J.) Please let me know whether the ..Joshua Intervenors would have any objection to the described change of extended day program hours for the remainder of the 1990-91 school year. Yours very truly, Christopher Heller CJH/k cc: James Jenning:JhM 24 'SI 10:0'3 P.2 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. *Alu id.nlttai u PncdM In Gtoiili A the Oliulct cl Columbit. JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (601) 374-3768 FAX (501) 374-4187 ATTACHMENT 4 January 22, 1991 LAZAR M. PALNICK LAW a FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PTTIBBURGH, PA 16219 (412} 2S8-9220 Mr. Chris Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little. Rock, AR 72201 Re: Incentive School Extended Day Program! Dear Chris\nIn reference to your letter of January 17 above, 7 ........................ uanuatj 1, 1991 regarding the I dont believe the Joshua Intervenors would have c objection to the change, however, I do suggest that we have comprehensive discussion about this matter. any Best regards, John W. Walker a JWW:lpTO: Chris Heller FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District January 22, 1991 Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Proposed Incentive School Revisions ATTACHMENT 5 The incentive schools have been in operation using the new plan for one semester. We have experienced some success\nhowever, a review of the programs indicates a need to provide more time for teachers to plan instructional programs that are of high quality and reflect an integrated basic skills curriculum. The extended day and extended week activities are to be an integral part of daily instruction. The existing daily schedule does not contain adequate time to plan and implement these activities. more linkage between daily instruction and field trips. There must be These trips are an important component of the incentive schools. Students and parents are experiencing some difficulty in adjusting to such a lengthy school day and week. Parents are picking their children up from school before extended day activities are completed. Saturday is not encouraging at this time. After lengthy discussions with the principals, teachers, and some parents, we propose the following revisions be approved and become effective by the beginning of the second semester, February 4, 1991. Attendance on Proposed Schedule Changes 1. Extended Day - Time for Students and Teachers Currently - 2:35 - 5:05 p.m. Proposed - 2:35 - 4:30 p.m. (for students only) One day per month students will be dismissed at 2:35 p.m. Staff would remain until 5:05 p.m. This additional time would be used for staff development activities and faculty meetings. The district's CARE Program is open until 5:30 p.m. so parents and students would not be negatively impacted by this change. 2. Extended Day - Number of Days (for the remainder of the 1990-91 school year only. This will be reassessed before the beginning of the 1991-92 school year.) Currently - Five (5) days weekly Proposed - Four (4) days weekly The CARE Program will still be available for our students. 010 West NarRlmin Street I.illle (tock, Ark.Ttisns 72201 (Sn 1)574 \u0026lt;530 I Proposed Incentive School Revisions Page 2 3. Extended Week - Saturday Program Currently - All six schools now operate Saturday programs Proposed - The Saturday program will be on a bt-monthly basis at each school and one district-wide Saturday program that would include involvement of parents NOTE: 1. 2. Teachers would still v/ork two extended days a week. Before this goes into effect, time will be needed to coordinate activities with the Transportation Department and CARE. 3. Compensation to teachers and aides will be adjusted in accordance with the proposed changes in work schedules. Most of the proposed changes are listed or implied in the Incentive Section of the Settlement Plan. RSS/lksHERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. B 9. CLARK ROBERT V. LIGHT, P A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P A. GEORGE E. PIKE, JR., P.a. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW ATTACHMENT 6 J am c 3 W. M oo A C BYRON M. CISCMA JOE O. BELL, P.A. N. JR.. P. MICHACLO. THOMPSON, P. JOHN c. ECHOLS, P A. JAMES A. BU TTRY, P. A. FREDERICK S. URSERy, P.A OSC a E. OAVlS, JR. JAMES C. CLARK, JR.. C Thomas P. LEGGETT, P. JOHN OtWET WATSON, MES COWAAO H ARIS, J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MtRCOiTH P. CATLETT, P. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL II OONA .O H. BACON, P A. M THOMAS BAXTER, P. R A. PAULSON II, P.A. 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telcphone 501-376 2011 February 8, 1991 BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. OlCHAOa.O. TAYLOR, P. \u0026lt; JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN, CHRISTOPHER HELLER, LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, ROBERT 9. SHAFER, P.A THOMAS N. ROSE, P. MICHAELS. MOORE DIAN e S. MACKEY KEVIN CLYDE \" C A LVI N SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONE M, OAYLE CORLEY ROBERT a. BEACH, JR. S. RANDOLPH LOONEY J. LEE BROWN JAMES C. BAKER, JR. M. CH. RLCS O9CHWCNO, JA. MARRY A. LIGHT SCOTT H. TUCKER JOHN CLAXXON RANDOLPH MARY L. WISEMAN OUT ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER THOMAS F. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS eouNicL Mr. John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 WILLI. WILLI. Wl M A. ELOREOOE, jn., p a M L. TERRY JAM U. PATTON, JR. P. TELECOPIER \u0026lt;SOI\u0026gt; 370*21X7 TELECOPIER \u0026lt;SOl\u0026gt; 370-0309 RE: Incentive School Extended Day Program wMtTCP's oecr .o. 370-1506 Dear John: I wrote you on January 17, 1991 to seek your approval of certain proposed changes to the Extended Day Program at the Incentive Schools. Your response on January 22 was that you did not believe the Joshua Intervenors would object to the change but you suggested a comprehensive discussion about the matter. Copies of both letters are enclosed for your convenience. My understanding of your position, which is based on our discussions as well as the letters is that you do not oppose implementation of the proposed change immediately, but that you intend at some point to have a comprehensive discussion with LRSD about all Incentive School issues. Please let me know whether I am correct so that I can advise LRSD whether or not to implement the proposed change. Your ry truly\nristopher Heller CJH/k cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Mr. James Jennings bcc: Enc.-o CCOAG o uO nJ- i$ /iH U'Ch OOAC xACL a. THOMPSON, N c. CCHQta. \" A. iA eeAiC* ahCS C. CI.A-P Oma6 p. VCG Omn OGWKt * AH III, r. \u0026lt;VA RO n A R R I d , MAVCOM, R A. JAMC6 M. S'HPaoi MCRteiTH P. CATt JAHCa M. SamTOn, J. BHCPRCRO HU3 \u0026lt;O I. BACO HOHAS ill AXTC 16:11 'fi'SiU 37621-17 FRIDAY L.-V'V FIRM L R .School Dl.st FRIDAY. ELDREDGE fi: CLAEK A RARTNenSHlA OF INOiVlOUAUS ANO PftOFeSSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS attohneys at Law 2OOq FIR3T COMweRCIAL BUILDING *OO V/C3T CAPITOu LITTUE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722QI-i Teucpkonc 501-376.2011 Fax No. 501-376.2|A7 03  @.00 2/Uij.3 ATTACHMENT 7a o TmO M M. GPirT. Ka H. rOSC. H(CHACL S. MOO*: CU III) P ru AN c A M. OaVV AoaeA '.NCAiTi A : cop'.ct a. B CaCh, jA . RahOOuPh uooncv I.CC BBQWN AMCS C. BakCA, jA. c vv XUTQN *A0C AICC C. OaAOnCR kOhaS i. h Cixb TONIA P. JONES Oavi  wiuaoN lANOaUPH dAAR AlCii\u0026lt; joae RO O. TAT1.QR. P. A. K B. HURBT, JR., P. \u0026gt;CTH J. ROBfiCN, P. lAM A. ELOACOOC, TELECOPY TO FOLLOWING NUMBER: 374-7609 THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR: TO: Or. Ruth Steele FIRM NAI4E: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM: Chris Heller MESSAGE: This letter was sent to John Walker today. He called and approved the change. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES\n2 THIS INFORMATION SHEET PLUS 1 PAGES DATE: February 18, 1991 TIME: A.M./P.M. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL 501/376-2011 ASAP  TRA.NSMITTING FROM: AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200 - 501/376-2147 TELECOPY OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LT23_0________ CLIENT NUMBER 90_________ MATTER NUMBER NOTE' Th\u0026amp; infonj\\(i!ioi} jzi f/i/j Jiicsirnile trans/niiial is legally privileged confideadcil intended only Jor ihe use of ihe individual or entity named above. If the reader of fids message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby tiotified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transniiiial in eiror. pleivte imtnedialely notify us by telephone, and return A A ii'll 2  i S / II1 16 : l.'l 'Q'.'jlii .'(762 1.17 I'RID.AV LAW FIRM L R .School Dl.sc f2) 001/00.3 o. 6. Cl.*\"rt R06CRTV. 1. .ICh T, B. SUTTON, fElDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A Partnership of inoiviouals ano phofessionau associations ATTORN SYS AT LAW ATTACHMENT 7b UAVftA ncnGLCt aWIT-H,-** aqbcrts. awAreo, p. a OCOaOC C. PixC. . JAMCaV*. MOQXC R., P. A. riRST COWMeRClAL aUlUOiNO BTRON M. CiaCMAN, Jp., P.A ^OE a. BELL, p A. miCmaClO. TMOMPaoN, p, a JOHN C. ECHOlS, P. a, JAMES A. auTTRY, P, A. rpcoERiCK a. unsERT, p.a. M. T. LAREELCRE. A. 400 WEST CAPITOu LITTUE rock. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TcuCPhonc SOI-376\u0026gt;2OIi OSCAR C. OAW(8. . ^AMCS C. ClaAh, F^'ax No. 501-376.2147 A. THOMAS liooktt, p A. JOHN DEWEY WAl LCWlS MATHIS, P. On. P.a. LAOAV w. BUPK?. P.A. A. WVCXl.l^* NHOCT, JR.. P.A. JAMS 9 COWaBO HARRIS, RA. J. PKIUUIP MALCOM, P.A. JAHeS M. SIMPSON, P.A. MCRcoiTri p. Catlett, p.a. JAM C9 M. SAXTON, P A. J. 5MCPMCRO RU66CLL hl OOhALO N. BACON, R. A. william TmOmaS OaaTCA, P.a. WALTER A. RAULBON II, P.A. BAORV c. CORLIN. p.a, RIChASO O. TAYLON, p.a. JOGSPM a. HURST, JR., R.A. CUUHTM J, RQgaCN, P.A. CHRISTOPHCR HEULCR, P.A. TELECOPY TO FOLLOWING NUMBER\n374-7609 THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE FOR: TO: James Jennincrs FIRM NAI-IE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM: Chris Heller MESSAGE: This letter was sent to John Walker today. He called and approved the change. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES: THIS INFORMATION SHEET PLUS DATE: February 18, 1991 TIME\nWILVIAM M. OPiPTIH III, THOMAS N. flOJH, P.A. \u0026amp;. MOORE oiANc a. hacxct WALTER M. CBCUiil, P.A 6S Cut or -t\u0026gt; Calvin .j, . WAOOELL, JP.. t kb TU R N E H SCOTT J. LANCASTER JERRY L. MALONC M. QAYUE CORLEY ROBERT B. BCACh, JN. S. RANOOLRM LOONEY J. LE C BROW N JAMES C. aAKCA. jA. H. CHARLES OSChwend, j. HARRY A. LIOkT aCOTT H. TUCKER JOmn,ClaytOn Randolph Out ALTON WAOC PRICE C. OARONER TMOMAS P. MEEKS J. MICHAEL PICKENS TO NIA P. J O N CS DAVID D. WILSON JCPFRET M. MOORE iduDttb WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. CLOREOqC. JR., WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTOn. JR., p.,1 PAGES A.M./P.M. \u0026lt;\u0026gt;AWt. . 9CHH 2 1 a A IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES PLEASE CALL 501/376-2 011 -ASAP TRANSMITTING FROM: AUTOMATIC FAX RAPICOM 200 501/376-2147 telecopy OPERATOR: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: LI230________ CLIENT NUMBER 90__________ MATTER NUMBER CONPIDENTJ.ALITY f^OTE: The in/onnaiion in this facsimile transmittal is legally privileged and confidential U\u0026gt;filiri7ia!ion intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Jfthe reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmittal is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmittal in error, please immediately notify us by telephone, and return02 - lS/91 16:11 mOl 3762147 FRIDAY LAW FIRM L R School Diet @003/063 FKIDAY, ELDREDGE it CLARK mCOSChCL rl. r Nl DAY, P. A. AOBChT V. LIOrtT, P, A. WILLIAM M. SUTTON, P, A. Oioncc C. |NC, JR., J A hi C 6 w. hOOnc A pabtnership of individuals ano pbofcssional ASSOCIATIONS ATTACHMENT^c BYRON M. C\u0026gt;6Cm. JOe O. BCLL, P.A M, JR., / miCmaCu Q. tmOmb\njOinn c. eci\u0026gt;ioi.s, p. A. aUTTftV. P. coEniCKa. unsc ON, A. ATTORNEYS AT UAW 3000 FIRST COmMCIAL SUIUQinG *OO WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3^33 Tclcphone axnqy RICUARQ 0. TaVLOP, p.. JOSEPH B. hUHBt, JR.. CUIZAflCTH J. ROaaCN, Christopher heller, OaCAA C. SAVIS, JR. J AM C SOI 37S.2OII LAURA mcnslCt Smith, p nOBCRT 5. ShaFCR, r.A. WILUIAH M. GRirriN III, p. ThOmaM N. AOQC, p,x, KICMACL S. MOORE OiANC MACHCT WALTER M. EBEL \u0026lt;11, P.A. N. KEVIM Thomas r. lcOO in, b JOHN DESwCT WATSON, CRABfr CLYOC 'TAS TURNCR LAHHTW. aUPKS, P.A, A. WVCHLirr NISBET, JR,, JAMC5 EOWARQ HARRIS. A. A. J- PHILLIP MALCOM. H.A. JAMES M. SImPSOm. .a. MCRt^DlTH P. CaTlCTT, p a. JAMES M. SaXTON, P. a. J. JWKPhCRO HUaaCLL III OONALO H. raCOn. p a. February 18, 1991 WILLIAM TnOUAS SAXT WAlTtA A. PAULSON II, CALVIN J. HALL SCOTT J. LANCASTER JCAi^T L. HALONC M. OATLC CORLCT HOOCRT B. BSACH, JA. a. ranoolRH LOONk:T \u0026gt;\u0026gt;* 1-CC BROWN JAHC\u0026amp; C. SAKCR, JO. H. Charles oscnweno, ja HaRRT a. LIGHT SCOTT M. TUCACO JOHN CLAYTON RANOOlI'H MARV L. WI9CMAN GUT ALTON WAOC RHICE C. OAROnCR THOMAS F. MCCHS J- MICHAEL R-ICKENS eojNXt WILLIAM J. dMITM WILLIAM A. CI.CDOC,vH., B FAX L. RATTO M, J e. TCIECOPICB TCLECOPICA I69M ^\u0026gt;6*0303 Mr, John Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 370-1056 Re: Incentive School Extended Day Program Dear John\nSeveral LRSD administrators , . - visited and were impressed bv the Rice Learning Center -   4* ^earning center at Dallas, Texas. Certain aspects of the Extended Day Program particularly interested the LRSD group. We would like for you to visit the school with you to visit the school with us to determine whether certain successful components of the extended day and other programs at the Charles L. Rice Learnino Center ran ho . X..,. .  Learning Center can be adopted for use in the Little Rock School District. ~ scheduled to be in Dallas on March 67, convenient time for us to visit the school. ,Dr. Steele and others are 1991, and that might be a me ome dates which would be convenient for If not, please provide you. other issue requires our immediate attention. My clients need to know as soon as possible your position concerning the Extended Day Program schedule proposed in my February 8, 1991 letter. Thank you for vour consideratinn. Incentive School our Thank you for your consideration. Yours very trul Christophe Halier CJH/k cc: Dr. Ruth Steele c5.!-03/06/91 16:02 501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 002/002 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 6, 1991 TO: Chris Heller, Attorney FROM: ^^Zchip Jones, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: Incentive School Facility Improvements The following j during the last three summarizes renovations at the incentive schools years\nMitchell $115,000 Renovations including air conditioning, carpeting, and playground equipment Franklin 1,330,000 Classroom addition, cafeteria remodeling, and furniture Rockefeller 176,000 Re-roofing, minor renovation Richtsell 178,000 Air conditioning, re-roofing, classroom conversion, painting Stephens 63,000 Air conditioning, painting, carpeting Ish 135,000 Renovation, re-roofing, playground equipment addition. 5\" currently, budgeted for additional renovations at the inventive schools in the amount of $180,000. funds are currently budgeted for cc: James Jennings^i. TRANSACTION REPORT \u0026gt; r * : * * P.Ol AUG-13-91 TUE I6:O7 DATE -START SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE AUG-13 16:05-.. 501 374 7609 V 42\" 2 RECEIVE OK * * * * * * * . [k- ' ?-'.A' . .'  Jfei.\nJ * '4^. . 1\u0026gt;S'.pa \u0026gt; 1- 081391 16:11 0301 374 7609 L R School Dlst OBM @001 Little Rock School District . . August 13, 1991 Mrs. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Building 201 East'Markham, Suite 510 Little AR 72201 Post-It'* brand fax transmittal memo 7671 [ Prem COJ Co. # Bl pages e DDeepstt.. * ^'^7PQI06 Phone # J Dear Ann: I have met with Donita Hudspeth, one of the Incentive School principals', to review a student_ daily schedule and see what impact the increase in instructional aides would have on adult-student interaction. What follows is an attempt to show the effect of one aide per classroom 'teacher -as well as our proposal to' have two aides for every three classroom teachers and a contingent of supervision aides to provide supervision at lunch, recess, and before school. ' As you probably are aware, there are 14 classroom teachers at Mitchell. aides. Underthe -1989 plan, there would be 14 instructional Under our proposed change, Ms, Hudspeth would have nine. .A school, day, for children, is 6 1/2 hours long. hour is spent for- lunch and recess, Of that time, one instructional time per day. leaving 5 1/2 hours of Of those hours, one hour per day is spent for special classes in art, music., computer lab, gifted and talented, and physical education. Thus, 41/2 hours of time remain each day -for regular classroom instruction in reading, language arts, math, social studies, and science. -Under the plan calling for-one aide -per classroom teacher, students would have two adults in their classroom every day but wo d still have only 4 1/2 hours of daily classroom instm- ion. rider this plan a student would interact with the following adults in a week's time. I Regular classroom teacher Instructional aide Art specialist Counselor Music specialist Nurse Computer lab attendant Gifted/talented specialist* (for those in the program) Physical education specialist I fl -a 810 West Markham Street  Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)524''2000 !set?T I 9 OS/13 '91 16:12 esoi 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 002 Mrs. Ann Brown August 13, 1991 Page 2 Including the auxiliary teachers in the list, as well as the principal and secretary, it is entirely conceivable, if not probable, that a youngster will.interact with up to twelve adults during a typical school week- Under our proposal of two aides tor every-three teachers, adultstudent interaction would not change significantly since all the specialists would continue to interact in the students. same way with slightly less. However, timeallocation for aides per student would be Assuming again that the amount of instructional time per teacher is 4 1/2 hours a day, the time needing to be covered for three teachers is 13 1/2 hours. Assuming that two aides work 4 1/2 hours each, the time they can \"contribute\" toward the 13 1/2 hours is 9 hours.\nThat-means that 4 1/2 hours will not be covered by instructional aides. However, that time, when spread among three teachers, amounts to only 1 1/2 hours per day. Given the level of services available to students in the incentive schools and the small-class size, T believe students^ educational needs can certainly be met in the \"2 for 3\" arrangement. 1 hope this explanation illustrates that we are not shortchanging the needs of students, nor would we ever do so.  Our proposal represents a thoughtful new analysis of this aspect of the incentive school prograTns and a better utilization of resources, our children's days in school are greatly enriched by specialists and instructional-aides. .It certainly does not seem unreasonable to have classroom teachers spend 1 1/2 hours per day alone with their.children. In fact, it is quite important that they do so. Thank you for considering this issue with us. if I can be of further assistance- Please let me know- .Sincerely, Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools bjf TO: FROM: THROUGH: lUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 September 13, 1991 Horace Smith, Associate Monitor CU'Ca Si? James, Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Instructional Aides in Incentive Schools Please find listed below the information you requested concerning the number of instructional aides in the incentive schools. In addition to the number of aides currently assigned to each incentive school, I have also included the number of positions that we of filling. are in the process SCHOOL NUMBER OF AIDES POSITIONS BEING FILLED \\ 5 W* C\\ 0^' Franklin 11 3 Garland 9 0 Ish 6 0 Mitchell 8 1 Rightsell 8 1 Rockefeller 8 2 Stephens 8 0 cc: Arma Hart Larry Robertson OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM STREET, SUITE 510 heritage west building LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 To: From: James Jennings, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation Desegregation Monitoring Team: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Connie Hickman, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Date: October 28, 1991 Subject: Additional Incentive School Documentation Needed Thank you for agreeing to meet with our staff on November 4, 1991. During further review of the Incentive School Monitoring Guide, it became evident that additional data would be needed to complete our reports. As we indicated during our conversation on October 28, 1991, obtaining this information will require the expertise of several of the district's central administrative staff. We will need the following information: - Incentive School Program Committee- membership list and minutes #2 - Incentive School Parent Council- membership list and minutes #3 - LRSD Definition of Criterion-Reference Testing #21 - Copy of District homework policy #20 - Homework Hotline- staff Ust, example of materials #32 - Update on year-round school #37, #92 - Staff recruitment procedures #40, #68 - Staff development records of training in the Incentive Schools #41 - Camp Pfeifer referral guidelines and procedures #55 - Procedure for monitoring SEP's - team list #56-59 i - Copy of Incentive School Staffing Needs Assessment/Recommendations #66 - Guidelines for Incentive School staff evaluation #70 - Staff Development Planning Committee - procedures/membership Ust #71 - Copy of Staff Development Needs Assessment - results /recommendations #72 - Status of the Incentive Schools Instructional Specialist #79 - Teacher Demonstration Committee - membership and current status #77 - Master Teacher Program Committee - membership and current status #78 - Copy of the Teacher Assistance Program Plan #80 - Copy and status of the reserved kindergarten seat poUcy #82 - Status of Adult/Parent/Community Education #64,83,92 - Status of Parent Intern Program #84 - Parent Workshops - Ust of dates/locations, topics, participants #87 - Copy of Parent Recruitment Plan, materials, current status #96 If you have any questions and/or concerns, please do not hesitate to call on us. cc: Dr. Ruth SteeleTO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS November 6, 1991 ^2 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs SUBJECT: ODOM 1. Sue Corker is the assigned specialist for our incentive schools\nJudy Milam helps in case of an emergency. Sue has spent and will continue to spend many hours in these schools. 2. Enclosed are the forms used by the reading specialists when providing technical assistance to teachers. If additional information is needed, please contact me. /IksLittle Rock School District Instructional Resource Center (IRC) TEACHER ASSISTANCE PLAN (TAP) SCHOOL READING SPECIALIST{S) PRINCIPAL TEACHER(S) DATE OF REQUEST DATE OF PLANNING VISIT Suggest!ons/P1anni ng IRC Staff Will Provide Assistance in Reading/Language Related To: Reading/Learning Activities Centers: Whole Language - Strategies: Use of Reading Materials/Records: Flexible Grouping: Special Testing/Assessment: Using Reading Multicultural Guide and Core Literature List: Reading/Writing Connection: Demonstration Teaching: Other: Comments: (Continue on back if needed.) SIGNATURES: Principal Date IRC Director/Reading Supervisor Date Reading Specialist Date Reading Specialist Date Date Assistance Begins LRSD Revised 10/89Little KOCK dcnooi L) I Str ICC Instructional Resource Canter (IRC) COMPLETION OF TEACHER ASSISTANCE SCHOOL SPECIALIST(S) PRINCIPAL TEACHER(S) DATE ASSISTANCE BEGAN DATE ASSISTANCE COMPLETED The following sarvices/assistance were provided. Date Assistance Comments (Continue on attachments if needed.) RECOMMENDATIONS: SIGNATURES: Specialist Data IRC Qi rector/Supervisor Data Specialist Date Principal Date LRSD 10/89623 Legato Drive Little Rock, Ar. 72205 December 12, 1991 Dear Ann, This is a follow-up to my concerns about the necessity for homework hotline for incentive schools. The following is an account of the calls received at the hotline during the four weeks that Rockefeller teachers were manning the phones. Oct. 28 Nov 29 30 456 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 1200 16 (Mrs. Mangan made every student 66 62 3 0 0 1 1 write the phone number and take it home that day!) There were no books for the teachers to use as referenceJust the phones. On most nights there were seven teachers assigned to answer phones. I have no idea what salaries were paid, but my guess is that each phone call was very expensive. I have read that a new will begin January 6. community/business sponsored hotline That coupled with the homework center offered eachday in extended day should give each student adequate help with dally homework. Cancellation of the incentive school homework hotline looks like an opportunity to save money. We would like this money to be applied to the establishment of an alternative classroom in each building. I hope all is well with you and that you and yours have joyous holiday. a Sincerely, V -t- TEL : Dec 17,91 11 28 No.002 P.Ol I' KtCBBS^ Little Rock School District ( 1 t DcceiiibeX' 13, I'* 91 TO: Rnn Brown Office ot DbKPfii'cgation Moniior.i \u0026gt;if\nFROM: uci.ne. kesooiate superintendent for Uecegregat ion Moul tor i ng und Ooimmunity ,.\u0026gt;6 \u0026gt; James Jonninc c. THROUGH: 01'. Ruth StBwle, Superintendent of School sA] .SUBJECT: Homework Hotline Log T find attachod the homework hotline loc for October. have the log for November to you before the end of ot Please hope to next week.I J V.'  1 ' S KdCDI'^'D ')CiiC^^S J { /\ne/C.^ZA5 1 STHK/i^'/G D-\u0026gt;lCrL!^ Fa t mr fn uHif Xs// f ' r FAiVK/.^// I! I -.J i / nOTLIWt pl Ifll \u0026amp; f I U/ ) '\\ ' / ki/ t /D I {D Hn nii U- IHi ff juti K /nr 11 ZTrJDtyyG S^ Srujjks l/rrHll \u0026amp; I'D -  // / Z7^ /^n nf/ W /I HI/ H} f It i! 1 i I D I II //fl U! 3 i J U^r f /? i G' \u0026lt;x ID ID HD 1^ ^7 G^. \u0026lt;) r^DDec 17,91 12:26 No .001 P.01 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 FAX (501) 324-2281 DATE TO 4tz FROM \u0026lt;? SENDERS PHONE # 324-2271 SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Paget (include cover pa,\n- j  Fax Phone Number TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas December 16, 1991 72201 DEC 1 0 by I Office of Desegregakn Monitoring Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for W Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Jlecruitment in Incentive Schools I am providing my latest update on recruitment for the incentive schools. It should be noted, however, that most of the recruitment activities listed on the incentive school timelines (Re: or March. 02327-02333) are scheduled to begin in January, February, It would be counterproductive to implement all of these activities during the first quarter of school even if the recruitment timelines did not exist. recruitment is from January through April. The peak period for I will continue to keep you apprised of recruitment activities in the incentive schools by sending you a copy of my monthly updates on desegregation. Highlight Sheets The highlight sheets have been revised and reprinted. distributed as part of the KIDSFAIR activities. They will They were continue to be used on a routine basis as handouts or special mailouts. They are included in all packages sent to parents who request information about our schools. Incentive chool Video Our eight-week production schedule for completion of an incentive school video is on target. Video footage research is one-fourth complete and script development, tape logging, script writing and research is one-third complete. and assistance is being contributed by AP\u0026amp;L. Four days of editing facility completion date is still projected for January 10. Anticipated Incentive School Brochures Copy is due to the Communications Department from each incentive school January 10 for preparation of the individual school If cards.\" These will be prepared to supplement the overall incentive program brochure on which final artwork is being Recruitment page two completed presently. Each school will have the opportunity to offer its brochure with the overall brochure to provide the overview and specific information about incentive programs. At the end of the school term, an updated, expanded version of these individual materials can be produced that will further enhance the recruiting/awareness effort. Incentive school brochures will be distributed to target audiences including realtors, businesses, neighborhood areas, etc. KIDSF.AIR Over 500 parents visited the Little Rock School District incentive schools booth during KIDSFAIR at Barton Colieseum, November 1-3, 1991. The'booth was attractively set up with information about incentive schools' offerings, and students' work was neatly displayed. The art teachers, media specialists and regular classroom teachers did an outstanding job in helping to plan and set up the booth. Flyers and bookmarks with the incentive school logo were given to prospective parents. displayed was a bicycle which had been donated for a prize, bicycle was awarded to one of the parents that registered. Also This The parent recruiters will put the names and addresses of the parents on a database, set up parent meetings, and provide appropriate follow-up as indicated on the parent sign-up forms. . Neighborhood Blitz The Student Assignment Office is in the process of updating its database of private school students. This information will be used to send printed information to targeted neighborhoods. The speaker's bureaus in the incentive schools will also have access to mailing labels for targeted neighborhoods. In addition to the database for private school students, we will also use the names that were acquired at KIDSFAIR. Finally, we are in the process of attempting to purchase a pre-kindergarten database of white students in Pulaski County. Speaker's Bureau A speaker's bureau has been formed for each incentive school. A list of the members was sent to your office on an earlier date by Arma Hart. Inservice training for the speaker bureau members was provided by Julie Wiedower and Dianne Woodruff (11/25/91). members will be available to assist with school tours, help arrange recruitment meetings, and be involved in meetings in targeted recruitment areas. TheRecruitment page three Special Media Coverage Special public service announcements will coincide with the announcement of pre-registration for the 1992-93 school year. The State Press, the radio stations in the black community, the Quapaw Chronicle, the Maumelle Monitor, and others will also be asked to publicize the incentive school program. These announcements will be a part of an ongoing media blitz. Telephone Hotline The District expects to have a hotline for incentive and interdistrict schools operative by the end of January. ' The hotline will have a recorded message about the special programs offered in these schools. Tours The parent recruiters will schedule ongoing parent tours in the incentive schools cc: Arma HartTO : Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District Board of Directors J- ' RECEIVED MAR 3 0 1992 FROM: Office of Desegrsgaicn .Mchiicring Little Rock School District Biracial Advisory Conimlttee RE : Incentive Schools In the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Desegregation Plan the Biracial Advisory Committee Is charged with the task of quarterly monitoring each Incentive School. (pp. 371 \u0026amp; 373) Incentive Schools have been called the most important element of the LRSD Desegregation Plan (p. 260), and the Biracial Advisory Committee is very concerned that the plan for the Incentive Schools is not being fully implemented, being changed, and is achievement. not resulting in improved student is continually We are Impressed administrators In the with Che dedication of the teachers and Incentive Schools. However, failure to Implement the entire Incentive School plan Is causing disappointment, - - - frustration and low morale of staff members. The Biracial Advisory Committee has compiled thl outlining concerns about the Incentive Schools. our follows the format of the monitoring Instrument used the Incentive Schools. Desegregation Plan.) (Page numbers refer to the LRSD s report The report to evaluate 1 . STAFFING-: A . B . C . D . E . More male teachers Better racial balance of support staff One instructional aide per classroom (p. 297E) Supervisory aides for playground/cafeteria (p. 293F) Fulltime *  ' 2 . F . H . students Full c Ime Full time Assistant NOTE: social worker (p. 323) counselor (p. 322) nurse (p. 304G) -- principal (pp. 307 \u0026amp; 323) one per 250  one per 250 students one per 250 students C thru H are in the LRSD Desegregation Plan, aren't these staff members in each school? Why CURRICULUM: A . (pp. 265-294) B . Teachers are concerned about the many pull out programs which interfere with classroom instruction. Multicultural curriculum -- 1 . 2 . 3 . visuals are good infusion Into instruction seems to be limited 4 . teachers often ask fo-.r more training on how to implement the multicultural curriculum. the public should be more Informed about multicultural curriculum to allay misgivings misunderstandings. and3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . C . D . E. F . More hands on equipment Is needed (p. 269) Special activities such as field trips seem to be available on a limited basis rather than as a supplement to enrich academics as specified in the LRSD Desegregation Plan (pp. 272 \u0026amp; 299) Very little evidence of peer tutoring (pp. 272 \u0026amp; 297C) Only one school has a science lab. equipment seen at other schools. Very little science (pp. 267 \u0026amp; 307) No evidence of foreign language program (p. 270) EXTENDED DAY: A . B. C . (Falls very short of Desegregation Plan) Needs more special skills offered (pp. 300 \u0026amp; 302) Bring In community people and karate, drama, etc. (p. 302) prog rams, I.e. dance , Programs are now based on talents of teachers In the schools but should be based available In the community. on the variety of activities STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: We are concerned that student achieve-' ment Is not Improving and cite these factors as possibly contributing to the the lack of Improvement: A. B . C. D. E . F. Teacher/pupil ratio is too large, originally set at 1/18, now 1/25 is acceptable, (p. 322) Instructional aides (2 per 3 classrooms) have very little time In the classroom because they are being used as supervisory aides. They have only a minimum amount of training, (p. 297E) Larger classroom sizes impede individualized instruction and cause more discipline problems Physical plant not stimulating Social problems -- (social worker will help) Too many pull-out programs Teachers express need for more training In different strategies to enhance achievement of diverse student populations. STAFF DEVELOPMENT: A . B . C . Bring In outside experts Offer professional training a s Is being done for staff In the New Futures junior high schools. New teachers In the Incentive Schools need additional assistance and support. (p 378) PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT: According to the Incentive School Plan (p. 263) \"The specific details and concerns for each Individual Incentive School must be developed by the local practltlone practitioners are the principals, r s . The local teachers, parents and community representatives In each Incentive School area. District firmly believes that the success of any program depends the opportunity for the practitioners to make The on o certain decisions at the local level.\" A . B , Very limited participation at most schools Need a full time social worker and a full time assistantC . D . 7 . 8 . the principal to help ensure who have been difficult to reach. more participation by parents (p. 307) Very little evidence of small group meetings with parents at community sites. (p. 303) Need more involvement of parents on school-based comm 1t tee s . DISCIPLINE: A . B . C . D . (pp. 263, 305, 329) Need alternative classroom with certified instructor in each school. Need strong mentoring programs such as retired teachers program (pp. 271 \u0026amp; 279 D) Need smaller classes to allow more Individualized attention. More community based programs, i.e. Boy and Girl Scouts, (pp. 299 \u0026amp; 300) BUILDINGS AND CAMPUSES: A . B . C . Incentive Schools should have extensive renovation or be replaced with new buildings, with exception of Rockefeller. New buildings should be built in the same areas of the community and should be state-of-the-art facilities. Playgrounds should be Improved and we 11-equ 1 pped. of the present playgrounds are unsafe. Franklin, Ish, and Stephens) (Mitchell, Some According to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, \"The purpose of Incentive School program Is to promote and ensure academic excellence In schools that have been difficult to desegregate.\" (p. 260) Members of the Biracial Advisory committee are very concerned that Che Incentive Schools are not accomplishing this purpose. If the Incentive Schools do not succeed, the LRSD Desegregation Plan will fall causing this district to continue to spend large amounts of time and resources in court. The possibility also exists that the State will have to be repaid millions of dollars in desegregation money. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE STUDENTS IN THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS WILL NOT HAVE BEEN THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES PROMISED BY THIS DISTRICT. IVEN cc : The Honorable Susan Weber-Wright Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joshua IntervenorsLittle Rock School District March 31, 1992 1 i\u0026gt;y2 n: TO: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Joy Springer, Joshua Intervenors Bennie Smith, LRSD Biracial Advisory Committee Sterling Ingram, LRSD Planning, Research and Evaluation Department FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for \"^5^ Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services SUBJECT: Incentive School Parent Council The Incentive School Parent Council would like for one or two representatives from your office/organization to attend their next meeting on Monday, April 13, at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the employee lounge of the LRSD Administration Building, Markham and Izard Streets. The Parent Council would like to hear about your monitoring visits to the incentive schools. not be able to send a representative, end at 7 p.m. Please let me know if you will The meeting is expected to cc: Dr. Ruth Steele Arma Hart Catherine Gill Roxanne Hefley, Parent Council Chair 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 APa JI  Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 To: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Incentive School Principals From: ODM Monitors: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Connie Hickman, Bob Morgan, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Subject: Review of the Incentive School Monitoring Guides Date: May 29, 1992 I Attached you will find your advance copies of the Incentive School Monitoring Guides. These are being provided to allow you to review the information, alert our office if an error exists, and incorporate corrections. As you review the document, remember that the Guides reflect the situation that existed at each school at the time of our initial visit. Updates have been included at the end of each report. This updated information reflects our communications with you during the entire school year. Any corrections must be submitted in writing to our office no later than 5:00 p.m. Monday, June 1, 1992. If no corrections are needed, you may retain your copies of the documents. . Reports which have been changed will be reprinted and the corrected version furnished to you by Friday, June 5, 1992. We look forward to your reactions. Please remember that the deadline for changes is 5:00 p.m. Monday.INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING REPORT Timeline - Task Deadline Monitoring 5-28-93 Gathering information 5-28-93 School Reports completed 6-04-93 Intro/Summary/Conclusion/Recommendations (1st Draft completed) 6-11-93 Begin Edit 6-14-93 Principals Breakfast 6-15-93 Edit completed 6-16-93 To Dr. Steve 6-21-93 From Dr. Steve 6-24-93 To Ann 6-26-93 Publication 7-02-93 Incentive Schools and Their Sending Schools Count of Studio Name Name Badgett____________ Bale_______________ Baseline____________ Brady______________ Chicot_____________ Cloverdale Elementary Dodd______________ Fair Park___________ Forest Park_________ Franklin____________ Fullbright___________ Garland____________ Geyer Springs_______ Jefferson___________ Legal Transfer______ M.L King___________ Mablevale Elementary McDermott__________ Meadowcliff_________ Mitchell____________ North Little Rock_____ Otter Creek_________ Pulaski County______ Pulaski Heights Int Rightsell____________ Rockefeller_________ Romine____________ Stephens___________ Terry______________ Wakefield__________ Washington_________ Watson____________ Western Hills________ Wilson_____________ Woodruff Grand total .c c J 0 14 5 6 3 1 1 9 2 194 5 7 3 1 0 3 0 7 20 5 0 6 1 4 0 4 3 3 9 2 9 3 2 3 0 335 o c C (0 CD 0 6 0 4 1 1 3 1 0 10 0 136 0 1 0 0 0 8 6 1 0 2 0 0 1 4 0 9 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 201 - 0) -c  0 1 0 3 3 0 4 2 3 5 2 6 1 6 0 1 1 3 3 109 0 20 0 1 8 3 2 1 0 0 11 3 0 4 2 2201 186 (1) c .D) (2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 4 0 1 4 3 1 1 0 8 2 6 0 1 2 0 129 4 3 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 0 5 o o q\n8 14 9 1 12 6 3 2 8 4 12 1 6 39 7 2 2 6 7 7 7 6 13 6 7 118 3 1 8 4 31 5 1 4 10 380 w c (I) c 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 10 3 19 1 1 0 0 0 6 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 82 1 0 5 0 0 0 4 142 S a O c 2 (0 9 41 14 15 19 11 13 15 14 227 22 170 15 51 8 19 3 38 39 131 8 35 17 11 145 133 12 96 18 6 63 12 4 14 16 1464Incentive School Attendence Zones and Actual Schools Attended / 7^x3. Attending Incentive School School .c 5 c T3 c c Name Badgett_____________ Bale Baseline____________ Booker Brady______________ Carver______________ Central_____________ Chicot______________ Cloverdale Elementary Dodd_______________ Fair________________ Fair Park Forest Park_________ Franklin_____________ Fullbright___________ Garland_____________ Geyer Springs_______ Gibbs______________ Jefferson____________ M.L King___________ Mablevale Elementary McDermott__________ Meadowcliff Mitchell_____________ Otter Creek_________ Parkview Pulaski Heights Int Rightsell____________ Rockerfeller_________ Romine Stephens___________ Terry_______________ Wakefield___________ Washington_________ Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Grand total 2 26 3 10 15 4 1 5 0 0 1 14 18 194 16 10 8 1 20 1 2 35 30 5 1 2 18 4 4 7 10 12 1 3 0 11 12 11 10 539 (D 0 0 4 3 0 4 2 1 3 0 4 1 6 1 7 1 136 1 4 14 5 0 8 18 6 4 0 1 1 1 2 19 14 1 7 1 14 3 4 5 312 \"S c  3 6 4 7 8 6 11 9 3 5 0 3 10 5 5 1 4 9 6 12 5 15 14 109 1 1 7 6 1 0 3 2 4 0 0 2 9 1 318 0) 42 c .O) ( 0 3 2 8 3 6 3 6 1 3 0 1 5 0 2 1 6 31 13 4 2 3 11 8 3 0 9 129 7 0 0 6 6 29 1 2 1 1 4 320 \u0026gt;2 o o q: 4 4 2 8 4 3 6 6 3 6 2 0 1 4 0 4 6 7 1 2 2 4 3 3 1 1 3 4 118 1 0 6 3 20 0 1 1 3 4 251 C (1) c Q. -2 00 w o o c m k. O 0 1 0 0 9 0 3 2 1 1 0 8 5 3 2 9 0 2 15 5 0 11 7 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 82 12 2 3 0 5 3 1 5 200 9 44 14 33 43 21 25 31 8 19 4 32 52 213 26 161 25 60 69 35 11 76 83 132 16 4 39 144 138 10 114 53 15 66 2 33 22 29 35 1946Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE March 31,1993 For more information Jeanette Wagner, 324-2020 INCENTIVE SCHOOL HOTLINE-QUTCK AND EASY INFORMATION. FOR PARENTS A hotline telephone number, 688-3085^1 Y school-age children with information assists parents/guardians of elemen school-\nabout Little Rock School DistricrT'seveirincentive schools. The hodine provides at taped message about special incentive school programs an benefits- A LRSD representative returns a call to those who leave their name and phone number requesting additional information. Incentive schools promote academic excellence in basic skills and provide enriched activities allowing children to receive unique opportunities to learn. Special incentive school benefits include: individual learning plans to meet each student's learning style, \"take home\" laptop computers, weekday and Saturday field trips, art and music theme specialists and full-time physical education. Incentive schools maintain the best pupil-to- staff ratio in the district and offer special parenting mareTiaLs and courses designed to assist parents in helping their children learn. The seven incentive schools are Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Stephens. ### 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 OftCQ o' CAREER AWARENESS AND MASS MEDIA PROGRAM \"Reaching Out to Reach Our Children\" Tenative Implementation Plan (Rough Draft) a Our mission here at Rightsell Incentive School is to provide educational expenences that will help each child reach his/her potential. The development of i career awareness education proyam as an integral part of the social studies and lan^age arts curriculum will help today's student face the occupational choices and challenges of the future. Now,more than at any other time we must assist students in learning about these choices. Parent, teachers, administrator, and community volunteers selected the Career Awareness/ Mass Media theme to provide learning opp^nities that would foster positive social growth and produce responsible and productive citizens. The prog-am specialist will assist classroom teachers in infreg-ating Mass Media technology ^d Career Awareness Intruction through the language arts and social Studies curriculum by\nweekly planning session with classroom teachers, staff development /inservice training, developing a professional library focusing on personal and ^ofessional gowth, providing technical/instructional support, through the formation of a Parent Ai^isory Council and Parent Career Assistance Progams, provide detailed learning style invetories (CITE) to the student-parent-teacher, and by scheduling special events/site visits that reinforce student learning. Grade Level Career Awareness Clusters- Occupational Groups Kindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade Sth Grade 6th Grade Community Helpers Occupations Around the World (U.S,/ Africa/ Japan/Europe) Human/Public Service Occupations Enviromental, Science, \u0026amp; Agiculture Technolgy Cereer Occupation Exploration/Research Health Professions/ Arkansas Employment Opportunities Communication and Media Technology / Employability Skills EducationStudent at all grade levels will: Identify responsible and successful work behaviors. Acquire knowledge of economic/free enterprise principles. Acquire knowledge of diverse occupations. Apply basic skills to career decisions. Through involvement of the business community in provicfing students with practical experience, exposure, and information. Develop positive attitudes toward\nseif and others, learning, work, leisure, and indvidual and cultural cfifferences. Acquire knowledge about one's self: physical characteristics, interests, aptitudes abilities, and attitudes. Recognize that all educational experiences ere integ-ated with total career development and preparation. Develop an early and continuing awareness of career options and opportunities and explore them in relation to maturing personal values, interests, and aptitudes. Acquire decision making skills and apply them to personal career development. Become aware of competencies needed for entry into the next educational or occupational level. We hope that student will develop work attitude competencies that will: Encourage students to set personal, educational, and community goals. Demonstrate promptness by coming to school and class each day. Demonstrate responsibility by completing ther assignments. Strive to do their best. Demonstrate cooperation by participating in crouD tasks. Keep their work areas clean. Link basic skills to occupational areas(Rd, Math,SS,Sc). Ust education requirements for entry level employment. Identify social requirements to for employment. Define work ethic.Suggested Career Theme Club/ Activities Cereer Mentors Entreprenuership Club Young Pilots Club Just Say No Student Council or Cities in Schools Clubs 4-H Career Clubs Newspaper Staff Spanish Club Teacher Development Club Rightsell Young Broadcast Journalist Staff Planning Guide Week 1 I Introduction, orientation, and class visits. PTA Council Meeting - Theme Specials Meeting - Gibbs International Magnet School. Information Revest were mailed to institution/ agencies The respondents are listed below: ADVONET electronic mail network that the National Center for Research in Vocational Education and runs on VOCNET, which is an Internet Discussion Group - David Carlson John L Leinhardt, Extension Specialist-Com. Dr... Cooperative Extension Serv. Barbara Baer, Project Administrator, Project CERES, Ceres, CA Karen P. Heath, Asst. Dir., Career Planning, Transition and Intervention. Ohio Department of Education. Richard D. Pfister, Director of Magnet Schools, Utica City School District, NY Janice Hanlon, Proyam Manager, Career Orientation, AR Voc \u0026amp; Tech Educ Div Robert C. Sherer, Executive Coordinator, Michigan Occupational Information Coacfinating Committee Jo Cheek, State Coordinator, National Diffusion Network J.B. Robertson, Cereer Guidance Supervisor, State Department of Education Donna Grady Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Pat Nellor Wickwire, American Association for Career Education a Prog-am Theme Leadership Team Meeting- Davis, Williams, Blacknail met on week 2 to establish a working structure, articulate the desired proyam outcomes and a tenative staff involvement schedule. An invitation has been extended to each certified staff member to serve on the curriculum inflations committee. On June 15-30,1993 the curriculum committee workshop will begin on June 15 and end on June 30,1993. h/ks. Karen Campbell, Carver Magnet School Curriculum Specialist will serve as our^oject consultant. The Rightsell staff will return one week earlier in the fall to complete the project and participate in special staff inservices. The committee hopes to develop a proyam that will: Identify student goals and outcomes Develop career exploration concepts for youth. Provide Quality Career Counseling. Engage students in a process that will heighten their self-worth, self- awareness, and self-worth. Allow students to learn how their interests, educational goals and favorite subjects relate to career goals. Provide staff visits and summer experiences at local businesses and companies to help broaden teacher awareness of local industry needs. Assist in directing student thinking toward high school and higher education course offerings. EQUIPMENT The Mass Media component of the prog-am will place emphasis on written, oral, and communication skills through computer assisted instruction, video productions, student publications, creative hands-on activities, and public performances. Equipment assessments determined condtion, program application and replacement schedule of exsisting equipment. Faculty and staff inservices should be provided to ensure proper usage of available technololgical resources. They should include: Available Community Resources Instructional Television Cable In the Classroom Comf^er Data Bases Timelines of History and Science Library of Print, Media, and Film Higher Education Databases Recommended Program Improvements Equipment Storer Cable to install a closed-circuit system in Cable in 17 classrooms, the library and the office.  19 Video cassette recorders with locking wall mounts. 19 Color Televisions with locking wall mounts. F^toVix with 3x convertor - A High resolution Microscope with VH conversion capibility. IBM 386 Computer with HD, 14.4 modem installed, and laser printer to be linked with Fred-Mail and the cable system to recieve daily lesson plans to support Instruction TV and Cable in the classroom.Resource Materials Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Newspaper in Education Progam which will provide 2 copies of the newspaper per class at the rate of $.13 each on school calendar days. Expected Outcomes: Increased knowledge of current events... Enhanced student vacabulary, word recognition, and reading comprehension skills... A positive attitude toward readng among students. Cable in the Classroom Expected outcomes: Quality commercial-free educational progamming that includes news, documentaries, performing arts, and programs of educational value in math, English, the sciences, foreigi languages, health and technical studies........ Curriculum-based support materials at low-cost or free.. Copyright clearences so that progams can be taped and used later.... USA Today Visions of Exploration - Explorers Journal - Science and Space Exploration. Connect Reading, social studes, science, mathematics, and I language arts curricula. USA Today Careers Progam - CLASSLINE Today coffers free daily satelitte-transmitted teaming plans offering tips and classroom acitvities for social sciences, sdencehiealth, math, economics/business and language arts. 1. 2, 3. 4. E valuation/l mprovement Is the prog'am achieving the stated goals? Is the prog-am being implemented in accordance with LRSD and state guidelines. Are the students benefiting from the prog-am in terms of content, quality, and performance. Evaluations should be conducted to determine the level of impact of action to mission acco\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_476","title":"Incentive Schools: Budget and correspondence","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":["1990/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School improvement programs","School management and organization","Education--Finance"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Budget and correspondence"],"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/476"],"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\nJohn w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE 'WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. *Admitted to Practice in Georgia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia only. March 13, 1,990 LAZAR M. PALNICK LAW \u0026amp; FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 (412) 288-9220 Ms. Arma Hart Assistant Metropolitan Supervisor Pulaski County School Systems Little Rock, AR Dear Ms. Hart: Enclosed is a copy of the letter which was sent to Beth Deere explaining the incentive school idea and proposed budget. I am still working on the draft which you and I discussed yesterday regarding refinement to the incentive school program. I appreciate our meetingj^ I feel that it was highly productive and that your insight was most helpful. Sincerely, Ji . Walker JWW:Ip Enclosure JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. Admitted to Practice in Georgia A the District of Columbia only. May 2, 1989 \\.KLKV. M. PALNICK LAW \u0026amp; FINANCE BLDG. SUITE 1002 429 FOURTH AVENUE PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 (412) 288-9220 Ms. Beth Deere United States District Court U.S. Post Office \u0026amp; Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Deere: Special Master Aubrey McCutcheon has indicated that he intends to recommend the funding of the incentive schools as proposed by the parties and to recommend the appointment of a consultant or other person to develop the programs and incentives for those schools. The purpose of this letter is to: (1) request the Court to allow Little Rock and Joshua to have input into that process\nand (2) to suggest certain considerations that have been shared with our clients about what they may expect from those schools over the next five to seven years. The proposals that were submitted for the incentive schools were not completed as Mr. McCutcheon observed. Our expert witnesses advise us that many of the ideas that Mr. James Jennings and Ms. Beverly White shared verbally about the workings of the incentive programs appeared to be useful in achieving the objective of remediating achievement disparities. The district staff did not address the specifics of the incentive school program fully, in part, because of the extensive amount of lawyer time spent in negotiating and otherwise securing the parties' approval of the settlement with the State of Arkansas. I was, during that time, somewhat unaccessible to the district staff so that they did not secure my specific input into their planning. The incentive school program, while presented by me, was developed in consultation with black community leaders who were concerned about the disparate transportation burdens imposed upon black youngsters, the relative shortage of classroom space east of University Avenue, and the fact that black young people simply were not learning in the schools. The incentive school programPage Two Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 was designed to provide regular education from 8:00 until 3:00. During that time, there would be only limited attention given to the segregating programs such as gifted and special education classes. The 8:00 until 3:00 classes would be as rigorous as any in the school district. The special needs of the pupils in the incentive schools would be identified in the form of individual education plans similar to those developed for special students and would be addressed in the after school programs. The second part of the incentive school program would begin at 3:00 and extend at least until 5:30 each day, and would also continue on Saturdays as well. This part of the program would be devoted to the remediation and enhancement needs of each child and would be conducted in such a way as to promote each child's interest in being comfortable with a school setting most of the time. The third key part of the incentive school program would be the special role of the staff. Staff members would be expected to work approximately twenty percent more time than regular staff members. These staff members would have a specific commitment to the goals and objectives herein and would be capable of empathetic relationships with the students of these schools, their parents and the surrounding community. The fourth key part of the incentive school program would be the employment and utilization of aides and others who would supplement the teaching and professional certified staff. The aides would be recruited from parents and students in the higher grades and would work with the teachers, parents and professional staff to achieve the objectives of the plan. The aides would be selected in part because of their interest in education and in furthering their own education. The idea would be to develop, with district sponsorship, over a period of five to seven years, a number of aides as teachers or professionals who would be available for employment with in the district. The fifth part of the incentive school program provides scholarship assistance to the youngsters who are assigned or who choose to remain in those schools. The amount and terms of the scholarships have not been established, but it was contemplated by us that approximately twenty percent of the double funding would be placed into a trust fund for these youngsters. The total number of students assigned to the incentive schools or who remain there after having had a choice option for the next and succeeding years. The scholarship amounts contemplated would be set to ensure that between one and four years college tuition and costs would be made available to these students based upon the average cost of public higher education in Arkansas at this time.Page Three Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 The enhancement programs would be numerous and would require specially trained persons to develop and implement them. We have many ideas that we would share with the district or with such other person(s) that the Master may designate. These schools should logically begin by July 15 with summer enrichment programs which would continue through September 1 or thereabout. Regular School Programs would begin about September 5 and end as scheduled except that educational continuation programs would be extended as need until July 1 of the next school term. Moreover, assuming an approximately one to fifteen teacher pupil ratio for approximately 2,500 pupils, the minimum incentive staff would be: Regular Year Programs Total Assistant Superintendent and Staff Teachers Counselors Principals Teacher Aides Student Assistants (Part-time High School Students) Drama Specialists Music Specialists Drama \u0026amp; Music Aides Art Specialists Art Aides Grammar Specialists Field Trip Coordinator Field Trip Staff (Aides and Teachers) 4 166 8 8 166 83 3 6 12 6 12 12 18 1 The budget would be set and generally as follows: Total available revenue for the schools, not transportation and other special funding sources including 2,500 pupils X $6,000 per pupil = $15,000,000 Expenses Certified Staff 220 X average $24,000 = $5,280,000 Benefits $ 530,000Page Four Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 Aides (Full-time) 211 X $10,000 including benefits $2,111,000 $ Administrative Staff 100,000 Part-time Student Assistants 83 X $4,000 Continuation - 332,000 Summer School (extra staff?) 250,000 Programs Field Trips $100 per child 250,000 Activities in school $200 per child 500,000 Equipment, Instruments, Mise. $200 per child 500,000 Aide College Tuition 166 X $1,300 216,000 Parent Programs 1,000 - 1,500 parents at $100 per parent 125,000 Scholarships $600 X 2,500 (escrowed) $1,500,000 Materials and Supplies $50 per pupil 125,000 Testing and Evaluation $100 per pupil 250,000 Meals $250 per pupil 513,000 = $ $ $ $ $ = $ $ $ $ $Page Five Ms. Beth Deere May 2, 1989 Miscellaneous $ 418,000 Total $15,000,000 Staffing Monitoring and general oversight would be at the top administrative level. These costs would be absorbed by the district's budget for administrative and evaluation. Staff criteria and the section process should be developed cooperatively with the parties, especially the teacher groups. This should be put into place at once if the incentive programs have a chance to effectively work this year, as it must in face of the recent MPT results.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) 3744187 RECEIVED OCT 2 6 1993 OHica of Desegregation Monitoring October 25, 1993 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 ttle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am advised that your office recently completed an analysis of the Incentive School budgets for the past several years, writing to request a copy of the same. I am Thank you for your attention to this request. Sjmcerely\nprin* er / JCS/ Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District ot Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 October 27, 1993 Ms. Joy C. Springer 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Joy: I received your letter yesterday in which you stated that you had been advised that ODM recently completed an analysis of the incentive school budgets for the past several years. You also asked for a copy of such an analysis. Although we are certainly femiliar with the incentive school budgets, ODM has not done a written analysis of those budgets independent of the information we published in our 1992 monitoring report on the incentive schools. We are presently completing our 1993 report on the incentive schools which will include the same type of budgetary monitoring information that was in our last report. When we file that report with the Court, we will certainly forward a copy to your office. If you should need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely yours. in S. Brownirm ''G f J ' vjTJ FEB 1 1994 Office of Desegregation Moriitoii'tg January 27, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Larry Robertson and Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendents for the Little Rock School District, requesting explanation of the Budgeting process. This information is being forwarded to you at the suggestion of the Judge during yesterdays court hearing of the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. The questions concerning double funding was a coordinated effort with other Incentive School Principals (Encl. 2) and forwarded to Mr. Robertson's Office in October. Numerous phone calls were also made to both the Superintendent's Office and Financial Services Office with no answers. Any assistance provided reference the Incentive School's budgeting process will be appreciated. Sincerely, Robert L. Brown Principal RLBJ/dlj Enclosures:TO: October 12, 1993 Incentive School Principals FROM?^ Robert L. Brown, Jr. \u0026amp; Ann Mangan SUB J: Incentive School Double Funding Process We are questioning how the budget is determined for Incentive Schools. We would like to sit down with all Incentive School Principals on Monday, October 18, 1993 at 3.:30 p.m. We are asking you to complete the budget ledger enclosed for the last four years. An example budget is being provided for your review. Additionally, a copy of the ODM \"Incentive School Double Funding\" document Is enclosed. Your student enrollment for each year will be beneficial in helping us decipher some aspects of the budgeting process. We plan to ask Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Gremillion to meet with us to discuss our findings and concerns. Remember, we agreed to meet as a group on a regular basis to discuss common elements of operating Incentive Schools. We need to establish Monday's meeting will be held at regular meeting sites and dates. We look forward to your attendance at 3:30 p.m., October Rockefeller. 18, 1993. fOctober 19, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJ: Larry S. Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Margaret Gremlllion, Assistant Superintendent Incentive School Principals Budgeting Process - Explanation Request We are requesting your assistance in arranging a meeting with Mr. Mllhollen for Incentive School Principals. After discussing our present budgets, budget history, and documented guidelines for the budget process, we were left with more questions than answers, are some of the questions and concerns: These 1. What formula has been used for the last four years in developing the operating and desegregation budget? 2. How has the process met the guidelines established by the District in its oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21, 1990? 3. What are the reasons for multiple changes in budget codes and line items from year to year? 4. With a 6% Inflationary rate computed from the base funding year (1990-91), what factors have led to budget decreases for three consecutive years? 5. What Is the basis for the similarity in desegregation funding amounts among schools with significant enrollment differences? 6. What process was used to determine the Extended Year and Inservice allocations for the 1993-94 school year? 7. In the 02 account, the addition of custodial and library funds has Increased our overall allocation of resources. However, there has been a comparative decrease in the general amount of funds at our disposal. What variables are responsible for this decrease? Enclosed you will find a copy of the \"Incentive School Double Funding\" guidelines and a copy of a four year budgetary document as shown on business office forms. Please examine the documents and if you have any questions, please contact Robert Brown or Anne Mangan. A timely response Is requested.To: From: Incentive School Principals Robert L. Brown, Jr. Date: November 3, 1993 Subject: Incentive School Budgets The following table of figures represent past, current and proposed budgets for all incentive schools over a six year period starting with the 91-92 school year. 149 OlTice of Incentive Schools 91-92 261,482 '2-93 63,147 93-94 65,041 94-95 95-96 96-97 66,993 69,002 71,072 152 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 13,000 15,450 15,914 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program E.xtended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 1,096,148 172 Extended Year 176 190 193 194 153 Incentlve/R ecognition Starring StafT Development Teacher Stipends Other Academic Programs 1,291,786 Total - Incentives 2,649,416 CC: 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,391 16,883 16,883 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,600 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,765 7,725 3,150 888,890 38,625 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 61,285 231,750 56,650 7,957 5,305 915,557 39,784 21,218 583,171 275,834 22,809 970,535 63,124  \" 238,703 58,350 3,220,464 3,317,082 8,195 5,464 943,023 40,977 21,855 600,666 284,109 23,494 999,651 65,017 245,864 60,100 3,416,590 8,441 5,628 971,314 42,207 22,510 618,686 292,632 24,198 1,029,641 66,968 253,239 61,903 3,519,088BUDGEDS1.XLS Desegragatlon Budget (13) [student Enrollment Control Account 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 TOTAL 1101 -OOXX_____________ 410|Hm wrk/Tutorlal 1120-00XX 326 331 410 421 540 57-0380 65-0300 65-0300 75-0300 Repair Equip Transportation Supplies Textbook - Local Personal Prop/Eq Extended Wk/Food Extended Year Incentive Recog Other Activities 1129-OOXX____________ 1171 Food Services 1550-00XX 41O[ELE Supplies 3500-00XX 313[Pupll Supplies 1105-00XX 410 540 4 Yr-Old Supplies Equip Per Prog Teacher Expenses 1120-00XX 57-0300 73-0300 74-0300 1129-OOXX Extended Day Stall Development Inservice $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $42,000.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000^00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0^00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $400.00 $400.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,900.00 $0.00 $6.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0.00 $26,730.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $12,150.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $400.00 $100.00 $27,230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $92,500.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $6.66 $36,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,266.60 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,055.38 $2,060.35 $5,150.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $343.39 $343.39 $0.00 $25,609.99 $104,054.14 $7,463.85 * $11,189.38 Sr I 117 117 Stipends______ Additional Spent $88,000 00 $100,000.00 $188,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 _____^.00 $0.00 $130,000.00 _____^.00 $0.00 $122,707,37 fn 0 C\u0026gt;M other Expenses PJ 300 92-93 POs Theme Funds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,190.44 $45,000.00 $53,190.44 Grand Total I $253,900.00 Pago 1 $27,230.00 $187,500.00 $148,317.36I Sheet 1 Operating Budget (02) Klndergarden 1110-0026 410 412 Elementary 1120-0026 326 342 360 410 421 300 300 Repair Equip Postage________ Printing-Binding Supplies_______ Textbooks - Local Custodial General 2222-0026 410 2410-0026 410 90-91 $250.00 $150.00 $100.00 $4,044.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $3,450.00 $294.00 91-92 $400.00 $200.00 $200.00 $6,913.00 $446^00 $223.00 $223.00 $5,352.00 $669.00 92-93 $10,927.32 $1,743.00 $9,184.32 TOTAL Library Supplies Office of Principal 93-94 $360.00 $6,215.57 $2,000.00 $4,215.57 $2,242.00 $2,242.00 $2,237.00 $2,237.00 $2,246.00 $2,246.00 $100.00 $100.00 $223.00 $223.00 $6,636.00 $9,773.00 $10,927.32 $8,821.57 Page 1INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to \"double fund\" each of the incentive schools. The commitment to this enhanced financial support is made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans: Tunding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 4.) and \"...[T]he Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to...[i]mproving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified io the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/incentive schools.\" (Little Rock School District Desegregation Plarf, Ajiril 29, 1992, Page 1.) Neither plan specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, the LRSD lawyer explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per pupil expenditure in the district s area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD lawyer was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the district s average per pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts per pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the \"base year\" of 1989-90. The base year average per pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1,1989 total enrollment. This process yielded a base year per pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the actual previous years per pupil expenditure is multiplied by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous years October 1 enrollment data (not including the infant through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. I Page 44The LRSD double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October 1 data used by the LRSD in the calculation of double funding, there were 976 more students in the Incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year than the previous year. (This number includes the 507 students at Franklin, which became an incentive school in 1991-92, plus the increased enrollment at the other six Incentive schools.) Consequently, spending for the incentive schools has soared because the funding obligation of the district is based on those schools enrollment. Increasing enrollment at the incentive schools not only impacts education and desegregation at these schools, it also pumps more double-funded dollars into the schools than may be necessary to adequately meet the children's needs and the provisions of the desegregation plan. It may be difficult to spend that additional money prudently and it will surely mean that less money will be available for the area schools. At the same time, there are many incentive school classrooms with very low enrollment, resulting in a per pupil cost that is higher than necessary. Adding students up to a regular classroom capacity does not tend to raise the actual cost of the classroom because a schools fixed costs are based on a standard class size. Using the formula devised by the LRSD, the district is meeting its obligations to double fund the incentive schools. However, since most of that money is spent on staff salaries, there is little physical evidence that the incentive school facilities have special attention because capital improvements and maintenance are not included in the provisions for the additional incentive school funds. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1992-93. Note that the obligation is based upon the previous years student enrollment because the budgeting process is completed before it is known how many students will actually be enrolled during the academic year the new budget will fund. Page 45LRSD PROCESS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 Area School Actual Per Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) $1,887.46 $2:24924 (Projected) $2,449.08 Inflationary Adjustment X 6% X 5.8% X 6%  Projected Area School Per Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation Incentive School Per Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Minimum $ Amount to be Expended for Double Funding Incentive Schools Actual Expenditure in the Incentive Schools Over or Below LRSDs Minimum Incentive School Obligation $2,000.71 + $1,887.46 $3,888.17 X 1375 $5346233.75 $6,833,005.68 Over $1,486,771.93 $2379.70 $2,596.02  4- $1,887.46 $4267.16 X 1259 $5372354.44 (budgeted) $8223,093.15 -- $1,887.46 $4,483.48 X 2235 $10,020377.80 Page 46Recommendations 1. When making student assignments, keep in mind that there is a relationship between double funding and enrollment figures that represents the greatest return on investment. Class enrollment that Is below the fixed cost amount results in wasted dollars\nenrollment above that amount can result In exorbitant spending. The district courts May 1,1992 ruling regarding the relationship of class size to instructional aides at the Incentive schools has given the district a further incentive to contain class size to no more than 20 students in any classroom. The district is bound to keep its pledge to double fund each incentive school for six years or a long aj the ichool maintains an enrollment above 80% black. But the district must also keep in mind that the Incentive schools educate only a small portion of the class that prevailed in the desegregation law suit. (FuUy 80% of the districts black elementary students are educated In area schools, not incentive schools.) An overriding goal of the desegregation plan to is close the gap in academic achievement between black and white children. If the district fails to prudently manage student placement at the incentive schools, especially in relationship to the double funding obligation, there will be far fewer dollars to spend on the programs and strategies that target achievement in the area schools, thus jeopardizing the equity the desegregation plan is designed to achieve. Conceivably, in order to contain the base per pupil expenditure in the area schools upon which double funding is figured, the district could cut area school programs, personnel, materials, and facilities to the detriment of the majority of black students the settlement was designed to compensate. This possibility could become reality in the current financial deficit situation. Ultimately, the concerns the circuit court judges expressed in 1990 about the district's ability to afford double funding may have been tragically prophetic. 2. Ensure that a portion of the Incentive school funding fulfills the plan s commitment that \"the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" Field trips taken during this school year coincidentally may have resulted in desegregated experiences, but there has been no evidence that incentive school staff planned trips to serve this function. Nor has there been any evidence of pairing incentive school student bodies with those of desegregated schools for racially integrated activities or special events. The best way to provide desegregated experiences for incentive school children is to racially desegregate their schools. 3. Give the Incentive schools priority in the district's sequencing of capital improvement projects since double funding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. If student enrollment at the incentive schools is to become desegregated, the buildings must be sound, attractive, and well-maintained. Page 47rrxa January 27, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: FEB 1 1994 Office of Desegregation Munibiitg Enclosed is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Larry Robertson and Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendents for the Little Rock School District, requesting explanation of the Budgeting process. This information is being forwarded to you at the suggestion of the Judge during yesterdays court hearing of the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. The questions concerning double funding was a coordinated effort with other Incentive School Principals (Encl. 2) and forwarded to Mr. Robertson's Office in October. Numerous phone calls were also made to both the Superintendent's Office and Financial Services Office with no answers. Any assistance provided reference the Incentive School's budgeting process will be appreciated. Sincerely, Principal RLBJ/dlj Enclosures: October 12, 1993 TO: Incentive School Principals FROMRobert L. Brown, Jr. \u0026amp; Ann Mangan SUBJ: Incentive School Double Funding Process We are questioning how the budget is determined for Incentive Schools. We would like to sit down with all Incentive School Principals on Monday, October 18, 1993 at 3:30 p.m. We are asking you to complete the budget ledger enclosed for the last four years. An example budget is being provided for your review. Additionally, a copy of the ODM \"Incentive School Double Funding\" document is enclosed. Your student enrollment for each year will be beneficial in helping us decipher some aspects of the budgeting process. We plan to ask Mr. Robertson and Mrs. Gremillion to meet with us to discuss our findings and concerns. Remember, we agreed to meet as a group on a regular basis to discuss common elements of operating Incentive Schools. We need to establish regular meeting sites and dates. Monday's meeting will be held at Rockefeller. 18, 1993. We look forward to your attendance at 3:30 p.m., October fTO\nFROM: SUBJ: October 19, 1993 Larry S. Robertson, Assistant Superintendent Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent Incentive School Principals Budgeting Process - Explanation Request We are requesting your assistance in arranging a meeting with Mr. Mllhollen for Incentive School Principals. After discussing our present budgets, budget history, and documented guidelines for the budget process, we were left with more questions than answers, are some of the questions and concerns: These 1. What formula has been used for the last four years in developing the operating and desegregation budget? 2. How has the process met the guidelines established by the District in its oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21, 1990? 3. What are the reasons for multiple changes in budget codes and line items from year to year? 4. With a 6% inflationary rate computed from the base funding year (1990-91), what factors have led to budget decreases for three consecutive years? 5. What is the basis for the similarity in desegregation funding amounts among schools with significant enrollment differences? 6. What process was used to determine the Extended Year and Inservice allocations for the 1993-94 school year? 7. In the 02 account, the addition of custodial and library funds has Increased our overall allocation of resources. However, there has been a comparative decrease in the general amount of funds at our disposal. What variables are responsible for this decrease? Enclosed you will find a copy of the \"Incentive School Double Funding\" guidelines and a copy of a four year budgetary document as shown on business office forms. Please examine the documents and if you have any questions, please contact Robert Brown or Anne Mangan. A timely response Is requested.To: From: Date: Subject: Incentive School Principals Robert L. Brown, Jr. .November 3, 1993 Incentive School Budgets The following table of figures represent past, cunent and proposed budgets for all incentive schools over a six year period starting with the 91-92 school year. 149 Office of Incentive Schools 91-92 261,482 2-93 63,147 93-94 65,041 94-95 95-96 96-97 66,993 69,002 71,072 152 153 Writing To Read Science Labs 15,000 15,450 15,914 153 153 153 154 158 171 172 Computer Labs Foreign Language Computer Loan Program Extended Day/Week Field Trips Transportation Instructional Aides 1,096,148 172 Extended Year 176 190 193 194 153 Incenlive/Recognition Staffing Staff Development Teacher Stipends Other Academic Programs 1,291,786 Total - Incentives 2,649,416 CC: 15,000 15,000 7,500 5,000 863,000 37,500 20,000 549,695 260,000 21,600 914,823 59,500 225,000 55,000 3,126,765 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,391 16,883 16,883 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 7,725 5,150 7,957 5,305 8,195 5,464 8,441 5,628 888,890 915,557 943,023 38,625 39,784 40,977 971,314 42,207 20,600 566,186 267,800 22,145 942,267 21,218 21,855 22,510 61,285 231,750 56,650 583,171 275,834 600,666 284,109 618,686 292,632 22,809 970,535 23,494 999,651 24,198 1,029,641 63,124   238,703 65,017 66,968 58,350 245,864 60,100 253,239 61,903 3,220,464 3317,082 3,416,590 3,519,088BUDGEDS1.XLS n Desegragatlon Budget (13) [student Enrollment Control Account 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 TOTAL 1101 -OOXX_____________ 4101 Hm wrkZT utorial 1120-00XX ______326 331 410 421 540 57-0380 65-0300 65-0300 75-0300 Repair Equip Transportation Supplies Textbook - Local Personal Prop/Eq Extended Wk/Food Extended Year Incentive Recog Other Activities 1129-OOXX 117|Food Services 1550-00XX 41O[ELE Supplies 3500-00XX 313 Pupil Supplies 1105-00XX 410 540 4 Yr-Old Supplies Equip Per Prog Teacher Expenses 1120-00XX 57-0300 73-0300 74-0300 1129-OOXX Extended Day Staff Development Inservice J- 117 117 Stipends______ Additional Spent Other Expenses 300 92-93 POs Theme Funds Grand Total $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $42,000.00 $2,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $6.00 $0.00 $0^00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $400.00 $400.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $65,900.00 $6.00 $0.00 $6.66 $88.000 00 $100,000.00 $188,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 I $253,900.00 Page 1 $0.00 $0.00 $26,730.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $12,150.00 $0.00 $7,290.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $400.00 $100.00 $27,230.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $0.00 $5,00000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 $0,00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $57,500.00 $92,500.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $6.66 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $27,230.00 $30,000.66 _____$0.00 $0.00 $130,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $187,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,266.60 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $13,055.38 $2,060.35 $5,150.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $343.39 $343.39 $0.00 $25,609.99 $104.054J4 $7,463.85 * $11,189.38 _____^.00 $0.00 $122,707.37 $8,190'44 $45,000.00 $53,190.44 $148,317.36 tn 0 bM C-\"'I- -PJSheetl I Operating Budget 02) 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 Klndergarden 1110-0026 410 412 Elementary 1120-0026 326 342 360 410 421 300 300 Repair Equip Postage________ Printing-Binding Supplies Textbooks - Local Custodial General 2222-0026 410 Library Supplies TOTAL 2410-0026 410 Office of Principal $250.00 $150.00 $100.00 $4,044.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $3,450.00 $294.00 $2,242.00 $2,242.00 $100.00 $100.00 $6,636.00 $400.00 $200.00 $200.00 $6,913.00 $446.00 $223.00 $223.00 $5,352.00 $669.00 $2,237.00 $2,237.00 $223.00 $223.00 $9,773.00 Page 1 $360.00 $10,927.32 $1,743.00 $9,184.32 $10,927.32 $6,215.57 $2,000.00 $4,215.57 $2,246.00 $2,246.00 $8,821.57INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to \"double fund\" each of the incentive schools. The commitment to this enhanced financial support is made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans: Tunding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 4.) (Interdistrict and \"...[T]he Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to...[i]mproving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/incentive schools.\" (Little Rock School District Desegregation Plar#, ApJril 29, 1992, Page 1.) Neither plan specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, the LRSD lawyer explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per pupil expenditure in the district's area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD lawyer was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the district s average per pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts per pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the \"base year\" of 1989-90. The base year average per pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1,1989 total enrollment. This process yielded a base year per pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the actual previous years per pupil expenditure is multiplied by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous year's October 1 enrollment data (not including the infant through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. Page 44The LRSD double funds the Incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October I data used by the LRSD in the calculation of double funding, there were 976 more students in the Incentive schools during the 1991-92 school year than the previous year. (This number includes the 507 students at Franklin, which became an Incentive school in 1991-92, plus the Increased enrollment at the other six incentive schools.) Consequently, spending for the Incentive schools has soared because the funding obligation of the district Is based on those schools enrollment. Increasing enrollment at the incentive schools not only impacts education and desegregation at these schools, it also pumps more double-funded dollars into the schools than may be necessary to adequately meet the childrens needs and the provisions of the desegregation plan. It may be difficult to spend that additional money prudently and it will surely mean that less money will be available for the area schools. At the same time, there are many incentive school classrooms with very low enrollment, resulting in a per pupil cost that is higher than necessary. Adding students up to a regular classroom capacity does not tend to raise the actual cost of the classroom because a schools fixed costs are based on a standard class size. Using the formula devised by the LRSD, the district is meeting its obligations to double fund the incentive schools. However, since most of that money is spent on staff salaries, there Is little physical evidence that the incentive school facilities have special attention because capital improvements and maintenance are not included in the provisions for the additional incentive school funds. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1992-93. Note that the obligation is based upon the previous years student enrollment because the budgeting process is completed before it is known how many students will actually be enrolled during the academic year the new budget will fund. Page 45LRSD PROCESS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 Area School Actual Per Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment Projected Area School I Per Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation  $1,887.46 X 6% $2,000.71 + $1,887.46 $274924 (Projected) $2,449.08 Incentive School Per Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Minimum $ Amount to be Expended for Double Funding Incentive Schools Actual Expenditure in the Incentive Schools Over or Below LRSD's Minimum Incentive School Obligation $3,888.17 X 1375 $5346733.75 $6,833,005.68 Over $1,486,771.93 X 5.8% $2379.70  + $1,887.46 $4767.16 X 1759 $5372354.44 (budgeted) $8723,093.15 X 6% $2,596.02 -I- $1,887.46 $4,483.48 X 2735 $10,020377,80 Page 46Recommendations 1. When making student assignments, keep in mind that there is a relationship between double funding and enrollment figures that represents the greatest return on investment. Class enrollment that is below the fixed cost amount results in wasted dollars\nenrollment above that amount can result In exorbitant spending. The district courts May 1,1992 ruling regarding the relationship of class size to Instructional aides at the Incentive schools has given the district a further Incentive to contain class size to no more than 20 students in any classroom. The district is bound to keep Its pledge to double fund each incentive school for six years or B long as the ichool maintains an enrollment above 80% black. But the district must also keep in mind that the incentive schools educate only a small portion of the class that prevailed In the desegregation law suit. (Fully 80% of the districts black elementary students are educated In area schools, not incentive schools.) An overriding goal of the desegregation plan to Is close the gap In academic achievement between black and white children. If the district fails to prudently manage student placement at the incentive schools, especially in relationship to the double funding obligation, there will be far fewer dollars to spend on the programs and strategies that target achievement in the area schools, thus jeopardizing the equity the desegregation plan is designed to achieve. Conceivably, in order to contain the base per pupil expenditure in the area schools upon which double funding Is figured, the district could cut area school programs, personnel, materials, and facilities to the detriment of the majority of black students the settlement was designed to compensate. This possibility could become reality in the current financial deficit situation. Ultimately, the concerns the circuit court judges expressed in 1990 about the districts ability to afford double funding may have been tragically prophetic. 2. Ensure that a portion of the Incentive school funding fulfills the plan s commitment that \"the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities.\" Field trips taken during this school year coincidentally may have resulted in desegregated experiences, but there has been no evidence that incentive school staff planned trips to serve this function. Nor has there been any evidence of pairing incentive school student bodies with those of desegregated schools for racially integrated activities or special events. The best way to provide desegregated experiences for incentive school children is to racially desegregate their schools. 3. Give the incentive schools priority in the districts sequencing of capital improvement projects since double funding does not cover capital improvements and maintenance. If student enrollment at the incentive schools is to become desegregated, the buildings must be sound, attractive, and well-maintained. Page 471 Incentive Schools Function 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $155,681.30 $84,758.85 $739,301.19 $30,434.21 $11,998.11 $35,479.57 $31,239.85 $0.00 $22,356.95 $23,490.61 $55,371.92 $27,795.75 $38,829.74 $131,589.47 $110,460.34 $1,000.00 $33,000.00 YTD TOTAL $165,106.19 $143,234.58 $588,438.05 $29,180.28 $114,394.57 $29,909.45 $42,861.14 $29,191.42 $37,641.16 $19,757.64 $74,882.01 $23,159.83 $36,767.92 $122,008.25 $91,332.91 $2,715.57 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,532,787.86 $1,550,580.97 $1,838,099.03 $1,838,099.03 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1230 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Special Class Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget $57,293.21 $40,892.74 $638,535.22 $14,702.75 $37,907.57 $18,331.68 $0.00 $77,847.35 $0.00 $10,005.99 $11,745.30 $38,923.68 $30,378.83 $48,765.33 $79,196.54 $76,996.09 $2,000.00 $15,000.00 $29,666.62 $55,139.77 $647,434.04 $24,042.48 $26,995.30 $15,417.73 $7,744.09 $34,176.15 $4,652.46 $8,231.58 $19,757.64 $32,825.57 $24,882.64 $25,416.68 $95,276.18 $65,539.54 $759.47 $0.00 1105 Four Year Old Program $1,198,522.28 $1,117,957.94 $1,246,992.88 $1,246,992.88 $41,192.09 $17,356.882 Incentive Schools Function 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1240 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Homebound and Hospital Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $69,030.78 $608,632.57 $17,336.16 $12,295.12 $16,878.76 $21,887.04 $30,313.41 $17,067.64 $16,564.23 $33,757.52 $31,239.85 $47,306.77 $72,301.56 $93,305.91 $3,000.00 $25,000.00 YTD TOTAL $77,541.37 $560,197.42 $22,613.79 $5,489.64 $14,219.43 $0.00 $25,520.77 $2,900.03 $13,560.44 $0.00 $26,090.21 $43,789.31 $70,920.21 $75,225.16 $2,463.71 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,157,109.41 $957,888.37 $1,242,718.82 $1,242,718.82 1105 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 Four Year Old Program Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child $295,636.85 $80,577.35 $909,370.19 $34,511.32 $22,060.42 $19,848.40 $21,887.04 $25,601.45 $26,870.38 $35,479.57 $32,358.22 $55,929.17 $126,518.33 $176,906.14 $3,000.00 $49,000.00 $1,915,554.83 $229,172.73 $70,145.53 $907,920.51 $26,143.08 $23,659.30 $16,901.39 $26,982.55 $12,452.46 $22,338.39 $30,786.14 $27,043.83 $51,325.48 $106,635.37 $124,068.94 $3,991.72 $0.00 $1,679,617.42 9999 1995-96 Budget $1,955,387.43 $1,955,387.43 1105 Four Year Old Program $45,360.01 $37,254.453 Incentive Schools Function 1110 1120 1124 1195 1210 1220 1910 2113 2120 2134 2222 2410 2542 2590 3500 9999 Description Kindergarten Elementary Elementary Music Accelerated Learning Itinerant Instruction Resource Room Gifted and Talented Social Work Services Guidance Services Nursing Services School Library Services Office of the Principal Upkeep of Buildings Other Support Services -B Custody \u0026amp; Care of Child 1995-96 Budget 1994-95 Budget $44,002.09 $593,342.61 $17,336.16 $66,208.50 $13,048.10 $19,612.50 $22,909.45 $17,771.95 $39,784.70 $46,600.48 $51,998.97 $80,710.54 $74,944.04 $2,500.00 $13,000.00 YTD TOTAL $55,142.42 $449,552.99 $30,752.92 $40,614.34 $10,806.25 $16,483.39 $13,751.20 $9,040.51 $33,516.85 $29,923.17 $42,022.29 $74,697.95 $57,832.46 $1,973.86 $0.00 1995-96 Budget $1,149,130.10 $903,365.05 $1,029,819.64 $1,029,819.64 $6,953,104.48 $6,209,409.75 $7,313,017.80 Prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring based upon information supplied by the LRSD 6/22/95\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_479","title":"Incentive Schools: Court filings","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":["1990/1997"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School integration","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Court filings"],"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/479"],"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\n1 FILED .. ,lis DISTRICT COURT -aSi-:RN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JUL 2 \"I J990 CARL H. bhhj^TS/CLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR-Sv: ' 1 - f Z  f\nEASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEP. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. 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 ORDER Pending before the Court is a motion from Knight Intervenors seeking court approval of employmen' compensation and duration provisions of an agreement regarding incentive schools. This case is currently on appeal. Until the Court of Appeals issues its decision. this Court will not either approve or disapprove programs regarding incentive schools. Unless so ordered by the Court of Appeals, this Court will not approve or disapprove a school district's employment contracts. The Court denies the motion. DATED this 27th day of July, 1990. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN compliance with rule 33 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP OW BY i I FILE COPY I United States District Court for the Eastern District Arkansas July 27, 1990  mtmp * MAILING CERTIFICATE OF CLERK * * Re: 4:82-CV-00866 True and correct copies of the attached were mailed by the clerk to the following: Cliristopher J. Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Walter A. Paulson II, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 M. Samuel Jones III, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Philip K. Lyon, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Tcby Tower, Suite 3400 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201-3401 Stephen W. Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. Tcby Tower, Suite 3400 425 W. Capitol Ave. Little Rock, AR 72201-3401 Tim C. Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 H. William Allen, Esq. H. William Allen, P.C. 1200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201-3617 Stephen L. Curry, Esq. Ivester, Skinner \u0026amp; CampSuite 1200 111 Center Stree- Little Rock, AR ) 72201-2413 ) Samuel A. Perroni, Esq. Perroni, Rauls \u0026amp; Looney The Koger Center Drive, Ste. 215 10810 Executive Center Drive Little Rock, AR 72211-4354 William H. Trice III, Esq. Howell, Price, Trice, Basham \u0026amp; Hope 211 Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72201-2405 Robert C. Lowry, Esq. Mitchell \u0026amp; Lowry 905 Boyle Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201-3799 Richard W. Roachell, Esq. Mitchell \u0026amp; Roachell 1014 W. Third St. P.O. Box 1510 Little Rock, AR 72203-1510 John W. Walker, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Otis H. Storey III, Esq. Hoover, Jacobs \u0026amp; Storey 111 Center Street Suite 1100 Little Rock, AR 72201-3521 John T. Lavey, Esq. Lavey, Harmon \u0026amp; Burnett 904 W. Second St. P.O. Box 2657 Little Rock, AR 72203-2657 9 t Carl R. Brents, Clerk Date: BY: \"cto (as in the case intervenors. ''J F./t-d Jtc. ZZ^ of other districts' plans) by the Joshua The plan was submitted in two volumes, one on January 31, 1989, 7 App. 1514-1703, and one on March 23, 1989, 10 App. 2196-2343. We confine our description of the plan to those features most relevant to the issues on appeal. Eight of the district's 31 non-magnet elementary schools, would be designated \"Incentive Schools. II They would be, at least initially, all black. or virtually so. These schools would receive special compensatory- education programs and markedly increased amounts of money. In fact, they would receive \"two times the level [of funding] for the Elementary Academies\" in LRSD. 8 App. 1722. The reference to II Elementary Academies\" describes 22 of the remaining 23^ elementary schools. These schools would have projected student ratios of between 50 and 62 per cent, black. Any white student could elect to attend an Incentive School, 10 App. 2199-200, and any student (and the reference here is principally to black students) living in an Incentive School attendance area could opt to attend one of the Elementary Academies, id. at 2199. The plan included a detailed and voluminous description of the kind of programs that would take place at the Incentive Schools. 10 App. 2233-334. A salient feature of these schools would be a maximum effective student-teacher ratio of twenty to one. Id. at 2230. In addition to the individual desegregation plans submitted for each of the three districts. the parties submitted, on February 15, 1989, an II Inbsrdistrict Desegregation Plan.\" 8 App. 1716-1805. Again, we state those provisions of the Plan with particular relevance to the issues presently on appeal. Students were given the option to transfer from one district to another, with transportation at the expense of the State, if the transfers would promote desegregation. 8 App. 1735. Following our en banc decision in 1985, the parties had by stipulation established six school. ^One elementary school. 10 App. 2229. Romine, would be an interdistrict -26-I Jpvw LRSD to diminish efforts to recruit students into grades one through six and the four-year-old program in the incentive schools. Such a restriction would place a heavy burden for desegregating an entire school upon only one grade level. Given the plan's emphasis upon desegregating the incentive schools and the parties' representations to the Eighth Circuit of the plan's automatic\" desegregation features, the Court does not approve restricting recruitment to potential kindergarten students. The Court IS mindful that all parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregation of the incentive schools. Although the Court will carefully monitor interdistrict collaboration in support of desegregation of all schools, it will pay close attention to the efforts directed toward the incentive schools and particularly scrutinize the LRSD's efforts to carry out diligently the incentive school recruitment activities as outlined in the plan and detailed in the LRSD Incentive School Marketing Plan, a strategic plan referred to by Mr. James Jennings at the hearing. The Court encourages the parties to implement any additional recruitment measures that will aid desegregation of the incentive schools as a whole. The Court is pleased to note that marked progress is being made in desegregating Rockefeller where the school's overall student enrollment is 31% white for the current year. Also encouraging is the present racial balance of the four- H year-old classes (48% white) at Franklin. Progress at these two schools holds forth promise that desegregation of the incentive -29-J: JUL OHfes De\n.' pTI\nn5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER filed U S. OISTRfCT COURT -----------vwuni eastern DISTRW ARKANSAS JUL 10 1992 CARL By--J. ' Sf^NTS, CLERK DEP PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On June 5, 1992, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring [ODM] filed its 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. The parties filed no objections, and on June 3 0 and July 1, 1992, the Court held hearings to discuss the report. No objections to the report were raised in the hearings. The Court hereby adopts the recommendations of the ODM contained in the Incentive Schools Monitoring Report. These recommendations, which are made in a spirit of support, should help the Little Rock School District achieve the goals of the desegregation plan. fZ- DATED this /() day of July, 1992. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUD( JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP N___7:^ BY Br 1 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Vvsd  f AUG 4 1593 IN THE UNITED STATES .DISTRICT.. COURT EASTERN DISTRICT''OF' ARKANSAS-  Office Ct Desegrega'Jon Monitcti:!'?. WESTERN Diy.ISION 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 MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF FINDING OF FACT OR CONCLUSION OF LAW AND MOTION FOR RULING ON REQUEST THAT INCENTIVE SCHOOL BENEFITS INCLUDING SCHOLARSHIP BENEFITS FOLLOW THE INCENTIVE SCHOOL CHILDREN The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for correction of finding of fact or conclusion of law and for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship commitments to incentive school children follow the incentive school children upon their reassignment to another virtually all black, school, to wit, the new King Elementary School. 1. The Court indicates that Joshua did not object to the Little Rock survey on a timely basis, i.e., within five days, and therefore, Joshua cannot complain about the manner in which the survey was carried out and/or interpreted and implemented. Joshua did not object to the survey at all before the fact. It only objected after the fact to the good faith of the defendants in the manner in which they conducted the survey and to the conclusion that students who did not affirmatively respond to attend Ish were to be regarded as affirmatively choosing or electing to attend King. Our position was that it was just as likely that the non-respondents would attend Ish in the same proportion as the respondents as it was for the district to conclude that all of the non-respondents would elect to attend King. We respectfully submit that no citation of authority is needed for that proposition. 2 . The Status Report of the district could not have been objected to until it was issued. The Status Report was filed on July 16, 1993. Our objection was to the manner in which the survey was conducted. We note that in the Affidavit from Ms. Marie Parker the district sets forth five separate events for which there are no dates other than June, 1993 and four separate dates for which there are no dates other than July, 1993. The absence of dates by the district is an indication that the district did not know when it did certain things or perhaps that it did not do them. It is for this reason. inter alia. that we requested a hearing. Our objection was not ripe until after the survey results were in and after the district submitted its Status Report if we had no objection to the announced process. What the Court appears to be saying is that if we do not object to the process on the front end, we cannot complain about the results on the back end. Denial of equal protection is the effect of the result of the process. 3. The Court has yet to rule upon our repeated requests for settlement plan implementation of the special benefits which were designed to flow to the Ish children because of its segregated character. The Court still does not rule. The Court has consistently ruled, however, and the evidence shows that the Little Rock School District has been absolutely derelict in seeking tochildren with benefits promised by the plan. The Court's ruling in closing Ish and in assigning the Ish children to another racially identifiable school, King, albeit a new school, is contrary to the settlement plan. . 4. The authority for the motions in this case is the Desegregation Plan itself and the various rulings of the Court of Appeals herein. 949 F.2d. 253 (Sth Cir. 1991). The fine tuning suggestions of the plan or of the Court of Appeals ruling are inapposite under the circumstances herein because the district itself IS responsible for the failure of desegregation and integration of Ish by its utter failure to enhance Ish and to provide it with the necessary \"incentives.\" The Court thus appears to reward the wrongdoer and to punish the children by the challenged school closure. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the district court to modify its opinion herein by rescinding its order to close the Ish incentive school. In the absence of modification. the Court is requested to issue an Order requiring that all incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits, follow the incentive school children wherever they may be assigned. Moreover, in the event that King opens as a racially identifiable school, Joshua further requests that it become an incentive school so that all children therein will have the benefit of incentive school programs including the promised scholarships. Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORSBy: I ^ohn W. Walker, Bar #64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record by U.S. Mail on this 2nd day of August, 1993. / C (. V. Ac/. John W. Walker / / t. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlICT? COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS'  WESTERN DIVISION'.- ... LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. a I 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 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY The authorities for the motion filed herewith are: The Desegregation Plans of the district\n2. The Court of Appeals opinions approving the settlement plans herein. See 949 F.2d. 253 (8th Cir. 1991)\nand The various Opinions and Orders of this Court finding the Little Rock. School District to be out of compliance with the Desegregation Plan. The proceeding before the court is an implementation one. We submit that no separate authority is required in implementation - the plan itself is the authority. Where the distric defaults in 1. 3 . its duty, the court is required to act to the benefit of the black. children herein. These children are not being benefitted by having their incentive school benefits withdrawn on the one hand and by their concomitant assignment to another virtually all black school on the other hand. (King will probably open as an eighty per cent or more black school\nit will thus be racially identifiable) Respectfully submitted. JOSHUA INTERVENORSL By: John W. Walker, Bar #64046 (JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon all counsel of record by U.S. Mail on this 2nd, .day of August, 1993. John'W. Walker IMAR-21-94 MON 15:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 19 (995 G. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS n V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. defendants i JOSHUA REQUESTS OF THE COURT REGARDING THE BUDGET PROCESS OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request to address the following issues as it proceeds to consider the budget process before the Court. 1. Joshua requests that the Court specifically determine that the District is required to double fund the incentive schools\nthat pursuant to the double funding the Dstrict is required to provide scholarship incentives and awards to students who attend or have attended those schools since the settlement plan\nand to provide training and educational opportunities related to potential placement in teaching positions in the District to black parents and others who are placed as aides. 2. Joshua requests that the Court specifically determine whether Joshua counsel are . entitled to . be compensated for participating in the various proceedings required by the Court in the same manner as counsel for the respective districts are compensated. 3. Joshua requests that the Court specifically determine whether incentive school personnel who are required to work extended day and extended year programs are entitled to extra 4MAR-21-94 MON 15:45 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P.03 compensation for that extra work. 4 . Joshua specifically requests that the Court determine whether the ish children are entitled to receive all their promised incentive school benefits when they attend King Elementary School. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Ar (501) 374-3759 72206 of of )(X John W. Walker CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker,hereby certify that a true and correctjcopy foregoing document has been hand-delivered on this /^:?dav C\u0026amp;'f- . 1993. the foregoi ---1 John W. WalkerDate:  Ann [St Bill 'Ob Connie Horace inda Melissa Margie  Polly Return to:  RECEIVED DC 2 0 1993 OKico oi Du:3grsyation fZonionAa IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER  } ,'y PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On December 9, 1993, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring filed a report on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") incentive schools. A hearing on the incentive schools is hereby-scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Friday, January 14, 1994, and continuing on Tuesday, January 18, 1994 if necessary. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearing. and incentive school principals are encouraged to attend. If parties wish to present any written materials that they anticipate the Court will have read prior to the hearing, they must be delivered to the Court no later than January 7, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this of December 1993. JUDGE . HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON obcKET SHEET UN GOiMFLIANCE WITH RULE 53 AND/OR 7C{a) FRCP BY 2 0 4 8 aS T X. FBIDAY, ELDBEDGE \u0026amp; CLABK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P. A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P. A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P. A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P. A. JOE D. BELL. P. A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P. A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P. A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P. A. H. T. LARZELERE. P. A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P. A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P. A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P. A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P. A. PAUL 8. BENHAM III. P. A. LARRY W. BURKS. P. A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P, A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P. A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P. A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P. A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P. A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P. A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P. A. DONALD M. BACON, P. A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P. A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P. A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P. A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P. A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P. A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P. A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P- P- LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P. A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P. A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P. A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P. A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL little rock, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone 501-376-2011 Fax No. 5OI-376-2ia7 December 21, 1993 is ci !. .J*-.-.. is- DEC 2 2 1993 MICHAEL S. MOORE. P. A. DIANE $. MACKEY, P. A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P. A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P. A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P. A. CLVDE -TAB\" TURNER. P. A. CALVIN J. MALL. P. A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P. A. JERRV L. MALONE. P. A. M. OAYLE CORLEY. P. A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P. A. J. LEE BROWN. P. A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P. A. M. CHARLES OSCHWEND. JR.. P.  HARRY A. LIOMT. P. A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P. A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P. A GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEPFREY M. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. QAAF PAMELA D. PERCEFULL CARLA a. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. PENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES aA22:EL R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN Ofic3 of Cessgregation Monitoring COUNSeL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P. B. S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P. A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P. A. wwRrrews oircct no. Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 370-1553 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD/Incentive School Hearings Dear Dr. Williams: Enclosed please find a file-marked copy of an Order entered by Judge Wright on Friday, December 17, 1993. Please take notice that this Order sets a hearing regarding the LRSD Incentive Schools for Friday, January 14 and Tuesday, January 18, 1994. this on your schedule to be in attendance. Please place By copy of this letter, I am requesting that all members of the LRSD Board of Directors make the necessary arrangements to be present on both days. I am also sending a copy of this letter and Order to the principals of Stephens, Garland, Franklin, Rightsell, Rockefeller and Mitchell Incentive Schools. It is my request that they also make the necessary arrangements to be available to attend this hearing. However, I do hereby request that they make contact with you and me to deteirmine whether or not they should actually attend. It is my request that each incentive school principal and each LRSD administrator receiving this letter review the incentive school report to determine their various areas of responsibility. Those problems identified by the monitors should be considered and any documentation or explanation available should be pulled wil-pcM.UDr. Henry Williams, Superintendent December 21, 1993 Page 2 together for review prior to court. It is my suggestion that we hold a meeting no later than Thursday, January 6, 1994, for purposes of determining our course of action and preparing for the hearing. Thereafter, we should then have sufficient time to pull the necessary information together and meet again on Wednesday, January 12, 1994. I have reserved the entire day on both days. Please let me know what time is most convenient. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely. Jerry L. Malone JLM/mr enc. cc: LRSD Board of Directors Estelle Mathis Sterling Ingram Dr. RUss Mayo Mark Milhollen Brady Gadberry wU-pCM.It p IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF / vs. No. LR-C-82-866 7^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On December 9, 1993, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring filed a report on the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") incentive schools. A hearing on the incentive schools is hereby scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Friday, January 14, 1994, and continuing on Tuesday, January 18, 1994 if necessary. Members of the LRSD Board of Directors are required to attend the hearing, and incentive school principals are encouraged to attend. If parties wish to present any written materials that they anticipate the Court will have read prior to the hearing, they must be delivered to the Court no later than January 7, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this ay of December 1993. ED STATES DIST :t judge . HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON obCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 7C(a) FRCP OS' J 0-17-$3 BY IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER The hearing on the incentive schools that scheduled for January 14, 1994, immediately following the FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS JAN 0 4 1994 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK Qy:__ts PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS is currently is hereby rescheduled to begin conclusion of the racial balance hearings, which are scheduled for January 25 and 26, 1994. IT IS SO ORDERED this '/ day of January 1994. TATES CT JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEBT IN OOMPIIWCE WIT! I RULE 53 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP TN JAf'ICEWr BY 2 0 6 2 E received JAN 5 1 1994 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegrogation Monitoring 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 KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS JOINT NOTICE OF STIPULATION The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\" or \"District\"), and the Joshua Intervenors for their Joint Notice of Stipulation, state: 1. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a stipulation agreed upon by the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. 2. Joshua Intervenors, through their counsel, have joined in the filing of this stipulation. WHEREFORE, Little Rock School District and Joshua Intervenors submit this Joint Notice of Stipulation and request all other legal and proper relief to which they may be entitled.Joint Notice of Stipulation January 31, 1994 Page 2 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 By\nJerry L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Stipulation has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on January otherwise indicated: 31, 1994, upon the following, except as Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone STIPULATION The LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors stipulate that some black students who live in Incentive School Attendance Zones were not allowed to attend Incentive Schools by the LRSD during the past school year and this year. The parents of some of those black students were advised that because the LRSD was holding seats for white students, the LRSD could not allow them to enroll in an Incentive School program that was above the racial balance goal established in the Court-approved desegregation plans. However, all of these seats were not filled by white students and have not yet been offered to these black children. The LRSD has been made aware of the problem and, as of August 1993, has taken, or will hereafter take, steps to correct it in the manner contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. Further the LRSD will otherwise continue to comply with its obligations as set out in that Agreement. The LRSD is mindful of the Court's requirement that it will require the LRSD to establish that its vigorous recruitment efforts have failed before those seats can be released in pre-kindergarten and kindergarten. Exhibit 1Stipulation Page 2 The parties, LRSD and Joshua, also stipulate the admission into evidence the following exhibits: 1. Addendum to Exhibit Number 208, Joshua's LRSD Elementary Schools (Incentive Schools) Monitoring Report, 1990-91\n2. Exhibit Number 209, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity, June 23, 1993, with Addendum pages 214 through 243\n3. Exhibit Number 210, Joshua's Preliminary Educational Equity Monitoring Report, May 28, 1992, with Addendum pages 000161 through 000189\n4. Exhibit Number 234, letter from Joy Springer to Bennie Smith dated April 17, 1992, with attached memo to Dr. Ruth Steele from LRSD Bi-Racial Advisory Committee. The LRSD does not, by agreeing to the admission of these documents into evidence, waive its right to challenge or otherwise contest the factual findings or assertions contained in the Joshua Monitoring Reports or other documents being admitted hereby\nthose rights are specifically and expressly reserved.Stipulation Page 3 Dated this 7^ day of January, 1994. Ji W. Walker orney for Joshua Intervenors Jerry L. Malone Attorney for LRSD \\ \u0026lt; 1 - f 3-96 MOH-.I3:54 r fe-. I I I. li h F t' R- SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 ntcD PASTERN Y.l%TaicV may 5 I 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DlSTRUA'WESm?cCORMACK CLERK eastern district of ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ARf\u0026lt;^5AS DE?CLt-'r, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS MOTION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS FOR RELIEF CONCERNING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of - regarding ths Incentive Schools, which among other things de for the designation of a well-qualified educate. independent of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), to direct the effort of employees of the LRSD to comply with* the provisions ci the settlement concerning the incentive schools. The orders ought by Joshua are described in full at the end of this motion. This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum\nthe allegatfbns set forth in the motion.\nmonitoring reports prepared . and disseminated by the Joshua Intervenors and the office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)\nstatement by this court evidencing the LRSDa-inadequate implementation of the relevant portions of the plan\nand other aspects of the record of th\n\u0026gt;*1 a?. 3-96 MON 13:55 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 02 case. Joshua makes the following allegations\n1) LRSD voluntarily agreed in the court-approved settlement in this case to provide well-funded, exemi^ary educational programs at seven schools located in the black community in the LRSD, to be know as the \"incentive schools. \u0026gt;1 This element of the agreement, bottomed upon the commitment to \"double funding: of these schools, had (and has) multiple purposes: first, to attract white students to these schools voluntarily\nsecond, to promote academic excellence and to help compensate the victims of segregation\nand third, to promote equity and equality by increasing the number of instances in which desegregation occurs by white students attending schools in the African American community. See LRSD Plan, April 29, 1992, at 149. 2) As shown in detail in paragraph (4) of this motion. officials and employees of the LRSD have continued to implement a large number of the features of their own plan regarding the incentive schools in a grossly inadequate manner. Indeed, there is evidence that the quality of implementation declined in more recent times. See ODM, 5/l\"//95, at 33-36, 45-48. 3) The incentive schools are (and have been) racially segregated (e.g., ODM, 5/17/95, at 45), an entirely preoictaole result given the overall deficient implementation of the plan and There are now five incentive schools, following the closing of the Ish and Stephens schools. 2 1 I jI J!!N- 3-96 MON 13:55 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 03 the nature of the deficiencies (e.g., deficient staff and staff desegregation\ndeficient upkeep of facilities\ndeficient recruitment\ndeficient activation of programs\ndeficient activation of themes and approach to multicultural education\ndeficient parental involvement). 4) The elements of the plan which the LRSD defendants have implemented in a grossly inadequate manner include, hut are not limited to, the following: a) the provisions on upkeep of facilities\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, surom, at 40-43\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 35-38\nODM report a 12/21/94, at 35-36\nODM report 5/17/95, at 13-17\nJoshua Report, ii! s 6/5/92 at 174, 177-78\nI I i 1 'J I i= I It b) the provisions on steps to recruit desegregated student bodies\nsee ODM report 3/11/94, at 11\nODM report 12/21/94 at 91- 92\nODM report 5/17/95, at 67-68\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1 (Recruitment)\nJoshua report 6/5/92 at 166, 171, 174, 177, 181, 183, 198\nJoshua report 6/27/93 at 233, 236, 242\nc) the provisions for staff desegregation\nsee ODM report 6/5/92, surom. at 6\nODM report 12/9/93, at 11-12\nODM report I 12/21/94, at 12-13\nODM report, 5/10/96, at 11-12 (including fact that four of five schools had one race staff at early childhood level)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 162,185\nd) the provisions for selecting and retaining high quarity faculties\nsee ODM report, 5/10/92, at 6-8\nsee also id., at 9-10 (selection of inexperienced principals and turnover of principals 3 ao JUN- 3-96 MON 13:56 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 04 in incsntive schools)\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2 (Staffing)\nJoshua report, 6/27/93 at 216\ne) the provisions for integrating of themes in school programs\nsee ODM report, 12/9/93, at 47\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 4 6\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 35\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 164, 182\nI I f) the provisions for multicultural education\nsee ODM report, 6/25/92, s'jrun at 12\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 64\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 39-40, 41-47\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1 (curriculum)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 214,222\n6/27/93 at 214, 226, 231, 235, 237, 240\noshua report. g) the provisions on the foreign language program\nreport, 6/5/92, summ at 18\nODM report, 12/9/93 at 50\nsee ODM (\"deplorable state\")\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 48\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 22-23\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 164,172,175,179,182,187\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 229\nh) the provisions on science education\nsee ODM report. 6/5/92, summ. at 14 (equipment availability varies)\nODM, 12/9/93, at 46, 49\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 21-22, 34\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 168, 172, 187\nsumm. i) the provisions for field trips\nsee ODM report, 6/4/92, at 19\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 34 (number diminished)\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\n4  1 JB JUN- 3-96 MON 13:56 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 05 j) the provisions for the extended day prograin\nsee ODM report, 12/21/94, at 56 (documentation)\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 27-28\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92,, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\nk) the provisions for the Saturday program\nsee ODM report. 12/21/94, at 57-60\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 29-30, 34 (\"The extended week program has evolved to little more than a monthly field trip...)\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\n1) the provisions of the extended year program\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, sumiti at 24-25\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 67-68\nODM, 12/21/94, at 61-62, 64-65 (\"The district treats the incentive schools summer program like a necessary evil rather than a wonderful opportunity.\")\nODM, 12/1/95, at 11-12\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1-2 (General Concerns), 2-3 (Staffing)\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 226\nm) the provisions for individual student profiles\nsee ODM report, 12/9/93, 68-89, 80-85\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 69-70\nODM, 5/17/95, 30-31\nsee also re SEPs, ODM report, 12/21/94, at 64\nODM, 12/1/95, at 4\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2 (SEPs)\nJoshua report. 6/5/92, at 162, 173, 176, 180, 183, 187-88\nJoshua report. 6/27/93, at 216, 224\nn) the provisions on student and parent involvement in 5JUN- 3-96 HON 13:57 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 06 developing discipline policies\nsee ODM report, 12/21/94, at 25- 29\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 17, 11\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 169, 173, 179\no) the provisions on parent centers\nsumm. see ODMrepcrt, 6/5/92, at 37\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 95\nODM, 12/21/94, at 74-77\nODM, 5/17/5, at 59-60\nJoshua report, 6/91, at 1 (Parent Involvement)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 170-71\np) the provision on parents' signing homework\nsee ODM report, r) 6/5/92, summ. at 35\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 82 the provisions on the use of social workers\nsee ODM report 12/21/94, at 72\nODM report 5/17/95, at 31-32\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 162, 171, 174, 177, 184\ns) The provisions on home visits\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 34\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 102\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 80-81\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 60. 5) Representatives of the LRSD have been informed of these shortcomings, repeatedly, by Joshua intervenors, the ODM, and this court. Their continuing deficient perforrrtance demonstrates that they are either unwilling or unable to implement the features of the plan concerning the Incentive Schools in a satisfactory manner. See, for example, citations to Joshua and ODM reports set forth above and the statement of the court dated March 19, 1993. 6) In approving the settlement, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote as follows regarding the Incentive 6 9ERJUN- 3-96 MON 13:57 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576  P. 07 Schools and the authority and the responsibility of this court: It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to  and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools and it will be the job -of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties [Little do not live up to their commitments. 7) Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District, 921 f.2d 1371, 1386 (1990)\nsee also id., 921 F.2d at 1394, para. 8.]. In view of the relevant circumstances, this court has the responsibility and the authority to enter an order providing for the designation of a well-qualified educator, independent of the LRSD/ to direct the Incentive School program. This court also had the responsibility and the authority to enter the additional related relief requested in this motion. 6) Excerpts from the ODM Report regarding the Incentive Schools, dated May 17, 1995, provide clear evidence of the need for the relief sought in this motion by the Joshua. Intervenors. This year, we found none of the programs that we monitored being fully implemented at all five schools. Beginning with the first ODM Incentive Schools report in 1991-92, we have pointed to the glaring inconsistencies among the schools. As the number of Incentive schools has dwindled from seven to five, the inconsistencies have grown rather than diminished. With four of the five principals being newly assigned this year, and two of them being brand- new principals, it is no wonder that some programmatic offerings have been slighted as the new principals tried to deal with the challenges posed by incentive schools, while while adjusting to new jobs as well. In many areas, we were disheartened to see a retreat from the prior level of program implementation... [details re particular prograir.s omitted] [At 34] 7JUN- 3-96 MON 13:58 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 08 In many ways our fourth annual visit to the incentive schools was the discouraging review we have conducted. While we saw many positive and commendable aspects, we also saw problems and deficiencies that were entirely avoidable and correctable. The LRSD has had a sufficient amount of time to successfully implement the promised programs. These schools were designed co serve as models of instructional excellence, but that level of quality has not been realized throughout, Instead, too many aspects of these schools serve as an object lesson that promises made, but not kept. are meaningless. Successfully implementing the incentive School programs is not an impossible task by any means. With solid leadership, competent staff, consistent support, and the will and determination to 'be the best,' all these schools can be the high-quality centers of learning they i^re pledged to be? [At 36\nemphasis added] 9) The Incentive School portion of the court-approved settlement can not be deemed a failure\nits implementation in a meaningful manner has never been attempted. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court enter orders providing relief regarding the Incentive Schools portion of the court-approved settlement consistent with the following principles\na) there shall be a director of the Incentive Schools program, independent of the LRSD, who has final authority for (i) the adoption of any subsidiary policies necessary to implement the remedy, and (ii) the oversight, including the direction, of all district employees and agents engaged in the implementation of the incentive school remedies\nb) the director shall be selected by ODM in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors\nc) the director shall be paid by the LRSD at a rate 85 JUN- 3-96 NON 13:58 SUSAN U WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576  P. 09 suggested by ODM, subject to the approval of the court\nd) the LRSD shall provide the director an office and necessary support as designated by the director\ne) all officials, employees, and agents of the LRSD shall cooperate with the director in the fulfillment of his/her responsibilities\nf) the director shall have the right to communicate with and call any problem to the attention of ODM, the Joshua Intervenors, and/or the court (with notice to the parties)\nwhile the director shall be encouraged to attempt to resolve any problem(s) with officials or employees of the LRSD before such communication, the taking of this step shall be in his/her discretion\ng) the director shall make periodic reports regarding I implementation of the Incentive Schools features of the settlement, and any barriers to strong implementation\nh) the court acting sua sponte, at the request of the director, or on the motion of a party, not including NLRSD or PCSSD, may address any problems raised, and may amend or supplement its special orders regarding the Incentive Schools, including by terminating the position of director when there are grounds to find that the position is no longer needed\nprovided that the court shall provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard prior to any such amendment or supplementation of its orders\nand 9BH JUN- 3-96 MON 13:59 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 10 i) the entry of such other and further relief as the needs of justice may require. Respectfully submitted, J '. 5 John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway  Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3738 i By:__ Jb W. Walker - #64046 iiI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this 31st day of May, 1996. 7 1 10 :w2^*iZii2js2sfflSS2SaSMHH '1 JUN- 3-96 MON 13:59 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 11 ,T usdieo fb]y I 1996 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUHT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS In! CL WESTERN DIVISION CE? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, PLAIxN'TiFFS y. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFExNDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W, KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR motion for relief REGARDING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS This memorandum supports the accompanying motion of the Joshua Intervenors for relief concerning the Incentive Schools. The LRSD defendants have had a full opportunity to implement the court-approved provisions concerning the Incentive Schools in a reasonable competent and adequate manner\nthey have failed miserably, patient. The Court and the Joshua Intervenors have .been The time has come when other approaches must be tried. Joshua's motion, including its record references established, inter alia, the following: i) are The incentive school provisions of the settlement a critically important element of the court-ordered agreement. ii) The LRSD defendants have for a lengthy period implemented the incentive school features of the settlement in a grossly inadequate manner, despite repeated notice of the shortcomings in their performances, and many recommendations for curative actions. iii) Ths LRSD defendants are in default with regard to their obligations to implement the incentive school remedies in a proper manner\nand there is no reasonable prospect of the.ir curing that default absent extra-JUN- 3-96 MON 14:00 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 12 ordinary intervention by the court. The authorities set forth in this memorandum establish that the court has the responsibility to approve steps reasonable likely to sure LRSD defendants' default\nand that the Joshua Intervenors seek, in their motion, appropriate relief. The time to implement these important remedies in a meaningful manner has arrived. The relief sought is supported by the following precedents. a) See Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special gchool District. 921 F,2d 1371, 1386 (8th Cir. 1990) (\"It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to- - and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schoolsand it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties o not live up to their commitments.\")\nid., at 1394 (\"The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require,\") b) See Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15, 16 (1971) (: \"if school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations under these holdings, judicial authority may be invoked. Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a districtJUN- 3-96 NON 14:00 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 13 court's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies In default by the school authorities of their obligation to proffer acceptable, remedies, a district court had broad power to fashion ! a remedy that will assure a unitary school 71 system. c) See Local 28, .ee 473 U.S. 421 (1986) (after finding that the union and the joint apprenticeship committee had engaged in a widespread pattern of racial discrimination in employment which a number of prior court decrees had failed to abate, the district court entered remedial orders, including appointment of an If administrator\"\nsee 401 F. Supp,. 467, 489-92 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)\nthe Supreme Court upheld this remedy \"in light of the difficult inherent in monitoring compliance with the court's orders, established record of resistance to especially petitioners' prior state and federal orders...\nit characterized the administrator as having \"broad powers to oversee petitioners' membership practices,\" which \"may substantially Interfere with petitioners' membership as a 11 necessary [step] to put an end to s I 1 i petitioners' discriminatory ways\", see 478 U.S. at 481-82\nan operations.. ., \" earlier Court of Appeals opinion noted that the administrator \"will serve as the superior of the [Joint Apprenticeship Committee] representatives\" I) i on the committee concerning apprenticeship\nsee 532 F.2d at 830), d) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Local 542, 619 F. Supp., 1273, 127Z-80 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (where union has failed after five IJUN- 3-96 NON 14:01 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P, 14 I purpose of [the] Order'\nthe membership was to be court-approved, after comment by the United States\nspecific functions to be fulfilled by the FHC included: developing advertising and I I I I I i educational programs, drafting a fair housing resolution, developing an outreach program, establishing within the city government a Housing Information and Referral Service, developing a program designed to foster an interest among housing developers in bringing low-income housing to Parma, and conducting a survey of vacant land suitable for low-income housing development. f) Turner v Goolsby. 225 F. Supp 724 (S.D. Ga. 196S) (3- I I judge court) (after a small majority black school system agreed to implement a desegregation plan, its officials assisted its white pupils to attend schools in neighboring districts, including by providing of bus transportation and then closed the one formerly white school as unneeded\nthis left the 87 black pupils who has chosen to attend the school without a desegregated i I I 355 S 3* option\nthe court placed the system in receivership, designated the Georgia State Superintendent of Schools as receiver \"operate the schools...,\" and charged him with the obligation \"to submit a plan..., whereunder the illegal expenditure of funds will be discontinued and the right of the 87 applicants for transfer will be accorded\" (at 730)\nthereafter, the receiver arranged for the interested black pupils to attend the schools of the adjoining counties\nand investigated why some black pupils were not accorded their first choices of schools, whether black pupils were subject to in-school segregation, and the need for remedial instruction\nthe receiver was discharged when the initial system IJUN- 3-96 MON 14:01 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P, 15 years to operate hiring hall in a racially nondiscriminatory manner, and is in contempt of orders re \"work levels for minorities\" court appoints \"Hiring Hall Monitor,\" pursuant to Rule 53, Fed. R. Civ. Procedure, , \"directly responsible to the court, who will be given the full authority to operate and oversee all features of the hiring hall\"\nthe monitor may \"appoint hiring hall leaders to run the day-to-day operations in the hiring halls d *  *\" in which the monitor will not be located\nwhere union is in contempt of orders that it \"present to the court for approval\" valid, job-related criteria for admission to the union for each method of entry through which membership can be attained...,\" court appoints an expert to do this work, with his fee to be paid by the union). e) United States v city of arma .OhiO/ 504 F. Supp. 913, 921-22 (N.D. Ohio 1980), affirmed, 661 F.2d. 562,577 (6th Cir. 1981) (after concluding that Parma officials had followed racially exclusionary policies and practices and had a reputation and image of being the Cleveland suburb most hostile to blacks, the district court entered a comprehensive order including in psrt the establishment of a \"Fair Housing Committee:\" \"within [the] city government\"\nthi.s fhc was to 11 to operate as the primary governmental agency in Parma responsible for developing remedial plan... [and} to ensure that, the provisions of [the} order [were] fully complied with...\", \"[membership on the FHC] shall consist of Parma citizens who are collectively knowledgeable in the fields of fair housing programs and other citizens who are sincerely interested in working to promote the aJUN- 3-96 HON 14:02 SUSAN M WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576 P. 16 agreed to operate in a desegregated manner in 1966-67). s' 9) M,Ogg,an V McDonough, 540 F. 2d 527 (1st Cir. 1976), denied, 429 U.S, cert. 1042 (1977) (one Boston high school placed in receivership during the course of Boston school desegregation case as a result of extreme breakdown in implementation of desegregation plan there, lack of leadership by the principal, hostility by school's staff, and overall pattern of resistance by school board\ninitial receiver was area superintendent of Boston system in which th^j school w\u0026amp;s loc3ts\u0026lt;i/ thGircaftGir, th distirict^s supfiX'intsnd.siit wss the x'ccsivGx*\nthe receiver's duties included the replacement of the school's administrative staff and a review of \"all faculty and educational personnel\" to select a staff \"fit for the purposes of desegregation\"\nthe receiver reported directly to the district court). h) Perez y. Boston Housing Authority. 400 N.E. 2d. 1231 I I I J I I (Mass. 1980) (case involving unsanitary and otherwise unsatisfactory conditions in public housing\ncourt placed the Boston housing Authority in receivership\nthe orders appointing the receiver stated that he/she \"shall have the authority, to administer, manage, and operate the BHA\nhe/she shall have the powers of the Board of the BHA (including control of funds and revenues) and any additional powers that any be necessary or appropriate\nupon his/her appointment, the Board's powers shall be superseded\" [at 1245].). i! JS i) The Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit has twice cited wirh approval the opinion in Morgan v McDonough. S supra in jsubJissBm1 juN- 36 NON 14:02  SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO. 5013246576  P. 17 which the creation of a receivership to operate a high school wa approved. See Uttle , Rpck_scho.ol District v Pulaski\nounty 5 .Sp,eciai-^s^hooi pi^rlct, sii t.2d 1295, 1319 (3th cir. 1983) cited in support of authority of district court to create 1 a citizen monitoring committee)\nOmaha. Indemnity Co^y_.Wining, 949 F.2d 235, 239 (Sth Cir. 1991) (cited in upholding district court's creation of a receivership in a business case). CONCLUS.XON As the foregoing case summaries show, the court has more than ample authority to enter the relief sought by the Joshua Intervenors, Moreover, any suggestion by the Little Rock School District that these principles do not apply because of th settlement must be rejected. As our citations to ths opinion j Si approving ths settlement demonstrate, the Court of Appeals st expressly that this court retained authority with the settLex^nt. - to insure compliance Respectfully submitted, John W.-Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 501-374-3758 -^1 By: 72206 ^^^/^ohn W. Walker #6404$ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a  via t.s, mail to all counsel of record 1996. Copy of the foregoing was sent on this 31st day of'May, 1: i . /' \u0026gt; . i  J 1 FILED east'^eb^n aaassAs 0, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTy - EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WflI J-ifi ]996 Ottice WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. By\n, PLAINTIFFS utF cllh: V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET TkL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS FOR RELIEF CONCERNING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of orders regarding the Incentive Schools, which among other things provide for the designation of a well-qualified educator. independent of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), to direct the effort of employees of the LRSD to comply with the provisions of the settlement concerning the incentive schools. The orders sought by Joshua are described in full at the end of this motion. This motion is based upon the accompanying memorandum\nthe allegations set forth in the motion\nmonitoring reports prepared and disseminated by the Joshua Intervenors and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)\nstatement by this court evidencing the LRSD's inadequate implementation of the relevant portions of the plan\nand other aspects of the record of this 1 case. Joshua makes the following allegations: 1) LRSD voluntarily agreed in the court-approved settlement in this case to provide well-funded, exemplary educational programs at seven schools located in the black community in the LRSD, to be know as the \"incentive schools. 111 This element of the agreement, bottomed upon the commitment to \"double funding: of these schools, had (and has) multiple purposes: first, to attract white students to these schools voluntarily\nsecond, to promote academic excellence and to help compensate the victims of segregation\nand third, to promote equity and equality by increasing the number of instances in which desegregation occurs by white students attending schools in the African 7\\merican community. See LRSD Plan, April 29, 1992, at 149. 2) As shown in detail in paragraph (4) of this motion, officials and employees of the LRSD have continued to implement a large number of the features of their own plan regarding the incentive schools in a grossly inadequate manner. Indeed, there is evidence that the quality of implementation declined in more recent times. See ODM, 5/17/95, at 33-36, 45-48. 3) The incentive schools are (and have been) racially segregated (e.g., ODM, 5/17/95, at 4-5), an entirely predictable result given the overall deficient implementation of the plan and There are now five incentive schools, following the closing of the Ish and Stephens schools. 1 2the nature of the deficiencies (e.g., deficient staff and staff desegregation\ndeficient upkeep of facilities\ndeficient recruitment\ndeficient activation of programs\ndeficient activation of themes and approach to multicultural education\ndeficient parental involvement). 4) The elements of the plan which the LRSD defendants have implemented in a grossly inadequate manner include, but are not limited to, the following: a) the provisions on upkeep of facilities\nsee ODM report. 6/5/92, summ. at 40-43\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 35-38\nODM report 12/21/94, at 35-36\nODM report 5/17/95, at 13-17\nJoshua Report, 6/5/92 at 174, 177-78\nb) the provisions on steps to recruit desegregated student bodies\nsee ODM report 3/11/94, at 11\nODM report 12/21/94 at 91- 92\nODM report 5/17/95, at 67-68\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1 (Recruitment)\nJoshua report 6/5/92 at 166, 171, 174, 177, 181, 183, 188\nJoshua report 6/27/93 at 233, 236, 242\nc) the provisions for staff desegregation\nsee ODM report 6/5/92, summ. at 6\nODM report 12/9/93, at 11-12\nODM report 12/21/94, at 12-13\nODM report, 5/10/96, at 11-12 (including fact that four of five schools had one race staff at early childhood level)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 162,185\nd) the provisions for selecting and retaining high quality faculties\nsee ODM report, 5/10/92, at 6-8\nsee also ^., at 9-10 (selection of inexperienced principals and turnover of principals 3in incentive schools)\nJoshua report/ 6/91 at 2 (Staffing)\nJoshua report, 6/27/93 at 216\ne) the provisions for integrating of themes in school programs\nsee ODM report, 12/9/93, at 47\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 46\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 35\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 164, 182\nf) the provisions for multicultural education\nsee ODM report, 6/25/92, summ at 12\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 64\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 39-40, 41-47\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1 (curriculum)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 214,222\nJoshua report. 6/27/93 at 214, 226, 231, 235, 237, 240\ng) the provisions on the foreign language program\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ at 18\nODM report, 12/9/93 at 50\n(\"deplorable state\")\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 48\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 22-23\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 164,172,175,179,182,187\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 229\nh) the provisions on science education\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 14 (equipment availability varies)\nODM, 12/9/93, at 46, 49\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 21-22, 34\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 168, 172, 187\nsumm. i) the provisions for field trips\nsee ODM report, 6/4/92, at 19\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 34 (number diminished)\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\n4j) the provisions for the extended day program\nsee ODM report, 12/21/94, at 56 (documentation)\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 27-28\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\nk) the provisions for the Saturday program\nsee ODM report, 12/21/94, at 57-60\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 29-30, 34 (\"The extended week program has evolved to little more than a monthly field trip...\")\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2-3, (extended day), 1-2 (General Concerns)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 161, 169, 176, 183, 188\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 215, 228\n1) the provisions of the extended year program\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ at 24-25\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 67-68\nODM, 12/21/94, at 61-62, 64-65 (\"The district treats the incentive schools summer program like a necessary evil rather than a wonderful opportunity.\")\nODM, 12/1/95, at 11-12\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 1-2 (General Concerns), 2-3 (Staffing)\nJoshua report, 6/27/93, at 214, 226\nm) the provisions for individual student profiles\nsee ODM report, 12/9/93, 68-89, 80-85\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 69-70\nODM, 5/17/95, 30-31\nsee also re SEPs, ODM report, 12/21/94, at 64\nODM, 12/1/95, at 4\nJoshua report, 6/91 at 2 (SEPs)\nJoshua report. 6/5/92, at 162, 173, 176, 180, 183, 187-88\nJoshua report. 6/27/93, at 216, 224\nn) the provisions on student and parent involvement in 5developing discipline policies\nsee ODM report, 12/21/94, at 25- 29\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 17, 11\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 169, 173, 179\no) the provisions on parent centers\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 37\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 95\nODM, 12/21/94, at 74-77\nODM, 5/17/5, at 59-60\nJoshua report, 6/91, at 1 (Parent Involvement)\nJoshua report, 6/5/92 at 170-71\np) the provision on parents' signing homework\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 35\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 82 r) the provisions on the use of social workers\nsee ODM report 12/21/94, at 72\nODM report 5/17/95, at 31-32\nJoshua report, 6/5/92, at 162, 171, 174, 177, 184\ns) The provisions on home visits\nsee ODM report, 6/5/92, summ. at 34\nODM report, 12/9/93, at 102\nODM report, 12/21/94, at 80-81\nODM report, 5/17/95, at 60. 5) Representatives of the LRSD have been informed of these shortcomings, repeatedly, by Joshua Intervenors, the ODM, and this court. Their continuing deficient performance demonstrates that they are either unwilling or unable to implement the features of the plan concerning the Incentive Schools in a satisfactory manner. See, for example, citations to Joshua and ODM reports set forth above and the statement of the court dated March 19, 1993. 6) In approving the settlement, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit wrote as follows regarding the Incentive 6Schools and the authority and the responsibility of this court: 7) It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to  and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the incentive schools and it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties do not live up to their commitments. [Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (1990)\nsee also id., 921 F.2d at 1394, para. 8.]. In view of the relevant circumstances, this court has the responsibility and the authority to enter an order providing for the designation of a well-qualified educator, independent of the LRSD, to direct the Incentive School program. This court also had the responsibility and the authority to enter the additional related relief requested in this motion. 8) Excerpts from the ODM Report regarding the Incentive Schools, dated May 17, 1995, provide clear evidence of the need for the relief sought in this motion by the Joshua Intervenors. This year, we found none of the programs that we monitored being fully implemented at all five schools. Beginning with the first ODM Incentive Schools report in 1991-92, we have pointed to the glaring inconsistencies among the schools. As the number of Incentive schools has dwindled from seven to five, the inconsistencies have grown rather than diminished. With four of the five principals being newly assigned this year, and two of them being brand- new principals, it is no wonder that some programmatic offerings have been slighted as the new principals tried to deal with the challenges posed by incentive schools, while adjusting to new jobs as well. In many areas, we were disheartened to see a retreat from the prior level of program implementation... [details re particular programs omitted] [At 34] 7In many ways our fourth annual visit to the incentive schools was the discouraging review we have conducted. While we saw many positive and commendable aspects, we also saw problems and deficiencies that were entirely avoidable The LRSD has had a sufficient amount of and correctable. time to successfully implement the promised programs. These schools were designed to serve as models of instructional excellence, but that level of quality has not been realized throughout. serve as an Instead, too many aspects of these schools are meaningless. object lesson that promises made, but not kept. Successfully implementing the incentive School programs is not an impossible task by any means. With solid leadership, competent staff, consistent support, and the will and determination to 'be the best,' all these schools can be the high-quality centers of learning they were pledged to be. [At 36\nemphasis added] 9) The Incentive School portion of the court-approved settlement can not be deemed a failure\nits implementation in a meaningful manner has never been attempted. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request that the court enter orders providing relief regarding the Incentive Schools portion of the court-approved settlement consistent with the following principles: a) there shall be a director of the Incentive Schools program, independent of the LRSD, who has final authority for (i) the adoption of any subsidiary policies necessary to implement the remedy, and (ii) the oversight, including the direction, of all district employees and agents engaged in the implementation of the incentive school remedies\nb) the director shall be selected by ODM in consultation with the Joshua Intervenors\nc) the director shall be paid by the LRSD at a rate 8.Wb\n- .! suggested by ODM, subject to the approval of the court\nd) the LRSD shall provide the director an office and necessary support as designated by the director\ne) all officials, employees, and agents of the LRSD shall cooperate with the director in the fulfillment of his/her responsibilities\nf) the director shall have the right to communicate with and call any problem to the attention of ODM, the Joshua Intervenors, and/or the court (with notice to the parties)\nwhile the director shall be encouraged to attempt to resolve any problem(s) with officials or employees of the LRSD before such communication, the taking of this step shall be in his/her discretion\ng) the director shall make periodic reports regarding implementation of the Incentive Schools features of the settlement, and any barriers to strong implementation\nh) the court acting sua sponte, at the request of the director, or on the motion of a party, not including NLRSD or PCSSD, may address any problems raised, and may amend or supplement its special orders regarding the Incentive Schools, including by terminating the position of director when there are grounds to find that the position is no longer needed\nprovided that the court shall provide an opportunity for the parties to be heard prior to any such amendment or supplementation of its orders\nand 9i) the entry of such other and further relief as the needs of justice may require. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 501-374-3758 72206 By:_ Jd I. W. Walker - #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail to all counsel of record on this 31st day of May, 1996. 10  ' -RECBVESS UUN 5 1996 uspLED Office of Desegregation Monitoring ^4? J JLiQQ/ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAMSAS EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS'S W WESTERN DIVISION ''''^COR.VACK, CLERK 8w. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS^s- 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 MEMORANDUM OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR RELIEF REGARDING THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS This memorandum supports the accompanying motion of the Joshua Intervenors for relief concerning the Incentive Schools, The LRSD defendants have had a full opportunity to implement the court-approved provisions concerning the Incentive Schools in a reasonable competent and adequate manner\nthey have failed miserably. patient. The Court and the Joshua Intervenors have been The time has come when other approaches must be tried. Joshua's motion, including its record references established, inter alia, the following: i) are The incentive school provisions of the settlement a critically important element of the court-ordered agreement. ii) The LRSD defendants have for a lengthy period implemented the incentive school features of the settlement in a grossly inadequate manner, despite repeated notice of the shortcomings in their performances, many recommendations for curative actions. and iii) The LRSD defendants are in default with regard to their obligations to implement the incentive school remedies in a proper manner\nand there is no reasonable prospect of their curing that default absent extra-ordinary intervention by the court. The authorities set forth in this memorandum establish that the court has the responsibility to approve steps reasonable likely to sure LRSD defendants' default\nand that the Joshua Intervenors seek, in their motion, appropriate relief. The time to implement these important remedies in a meaningful manner has arrived. The relief sought is supported by the following precedents. a) See Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1386 (Sth Cir. 1990) (\"It is important for the settlement plans to be scrupulously adhered to- - and here we have in mind especially the kinds of programs that the plan contemplates for the Incentive Schoolsand it will be the job of the District Court to see that this monitoring is done effectively, and that appropriate action is taken if the parties o not live up to their commitments.\")\nid., at 1394 (\"The District Court is instructed to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate. in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require.\") b) See Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. 402 U.S. 1, 15, 16 (1971) (: \"if school authorities fail in their affirmative obligations under these holdings, judicial authority may be invoked. Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a districtcourt's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies ....[]....In default by the school authorities of their obligation to proffer acceptable remedies, a district court had broad power to fashion a remedy that will assure system....\"). a unitary school c) See Local 28, Sheet Metal Workers v E.E.O.C.. 478 U.S. 421 (1986) (after finding that the union and the joint apprenticeship committee had engaged in a widespread pattern of racial discrimination in employment which a number of prior court decrees had failed to abate, the district court entered remedial orders, including appointment of an \"administrator\"\nsee 401 F. Supp.. 467, 489-92 (S.D.N.Y. 1975)\nthe Supreme Court upheld this remedy \"in light of the difficult inherent in monitoring compliance with the court's orders, especially petitioners' established record of resistance to prior state and federal orders...\"\nit characterized the administrator as having \"broad powers to oversee petitioners' membership practices, substantially interfere with petitioners' membership operations...,\" which \"may II as a II necessary [step] to put an end to petitioners' discriminatory ways\". see 478 U.S. at 481-82\nan eai^lier Court of Appeals opinion noted that the administrator \"will serve as the superior of the [Joint Apprenticeship Committee] representatives\" on the committee concerning apprenticeship\nsee 532 F.2d at 830). d) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v Local 542. 619 F. Supp. 1273, 1277-80 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (where union has failed after fivepurpose of [the] Order'\nthe membership was to be court-approved, after comment by the United States\nspecific functions to be fulfilled by the FHC included: developing advertising and educational programs, drafting a fair housing resolution, developing an outreach program, establishing within the city government a Housing Information and Referral Service, developing a program designed to foster an interest among housing developers in bringing low-income housing to Parma, and conducting a survey of vacant land suitable for lowincome housing development. f) Turner v Goolsby. 225 F. Supp 724 (S.D. Ga. 1966) (3- judge court) (after a small majority black school system agreed to implement a desegregation plan, its officials assisted its white pupils to attend schools in neighboring districts, including by providing of bus transportation and then closed the one formerly white school as unneeded\nthis left the 87 black pupils who has chosen to attend the school without a desegregated option\nthe court placed the system in receivership, designated the Georgia State Superintendent of Schools as receiver \"operate the schools...,\" and charged him with the obligation \"to submit a plan..., whereunder the illegal expenditure of funds will be discontinued and the right of the 87 applicants for transfer will be accorded\" (at 730)\nthereafter, the receiver arranged for the black pupils to attend the schools of the adjoining counties\nand investigated why some black pupils were not accorded their first choices of schools, whether black pupils were subject to in-school segregation, and the need for remedial instruction\nthe receiver was discharged when the initial systemyears to operate hiring hall in a racially nondiscriminatory manner, and is in contempt of orders re tl work levels for minorities\" court appoints \"Hiring Hall Monitor,\" pursuant to Rule 53, Fed. R. Civ. Procedure, fl directly responsible to the court, who will be given the full authority to operate and oversee all features of the hiring hall\"\nthe monitor may II appoint hiring hall leaders to run the daytoday operations in the hiring halls...,\" in which the monitor will not be located\nwhere union is in contempt of orders that it \"present to the court for approval\" valid, job-related criteria for admission to the union for each method of entry through which mAmh^T-ghip can be attained...,\" court appoints an expert to do this work, with his fee to be paid by the union). e) United States v City of Parma, Ohio. 504 F. Supp. 913, 921-22 (N.D. Ohio 1980), affirmed, 661 F.2d. 562,577 (6th Cir. 1981) (after concluding that Parma officials had followed racially exclusionary policies and practices and had a reputation and image of being the Cleveland suburb most hostile to blacks, the district court entered a comprehensive order including in part the establishment of a \"Fair Housing Committee:\" \"within [the] city government\"\nthis FHC was to II to operate as the primary governmental agency in Parma responsible for developing remedial plan...[and} to ensure that the provisions of [the} order [were] fully complied with...\", \"[membership on the FHC] shall consist of Parma citizens who are collectively knowledgeable in the fields of fair housing programs and other citizens who are sincerely interested in working to promote the aagreed to operate in a desegregated manner in 1966-67). g) Morgan v McDonough. 540 F. 2d 527 (1st Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1042 (1977) (one Boston high school placed in receivership during the course of Boston school desegregation case as a result of extreme breakdown in implementation of desegregation plan there, lack of leadership by the principal, hostility by school's staff, and overall pattern of resistance by school board\ninitial receiver was area superintendent of Boston system in which the school was located\nthereafter, the district's superintendent was designated the receiver\n' the receiver's duties included the replacement of the school's administrative staff and a review of It all faculty and educational personnel II to select a staff II fit for the purposes of desegregation\"\nthe receiver reported directly to the district court). h) Perez v Boston Housing Authority. 400 N.E. 2d. 1231 (Mass. 1980) (case involving unsanitary and otherwise unsatisfactory conditions in public housing\ncourt placed the Boston housing Authority in receivership\nthe orders appointing the receiver stated that he/she II shall have the authority to administer, manage, and operate the BHA\nhe/she shall have the powers of the Board of the BHA (including control of funds and revenues) and any additional powers that any be necessary or appropriate\nupon his/her appointment, the Board's powers shall be superseded\" [at 1245].). i) The Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit has twice cited with approval the opinion in Morgan v McDonough. supra inwhich the creation of a receivership to operate a high school was approved. See Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District. 839 F.2d 1296, 1319 (Sth Cir. 1988) cited in support of authority of district court to create a citizen monitoring committee)\nOmaha Indemnity Co. V Wining. 949 F.2d 235, 239 (Sth Cir. 1991) (cited in upholding district court's creation of a receivership in a business case). CONCLUSION As the foregoing case summaries show, the court has more than ample authority to enter the relief sought by the Joshua Intervenors. Moreover, any suggestion by the Little Rock School District that these principles do not apply because of the settlement must be rejected. As our citations to the opinion approving the settlement demonstrate, the Court of Appeals stated expressly that this court retained authority to insure compliance with the settlement. Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 501-374-3758 By 72206 Walker #64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1I adoo Hheerreebbyy cceerrttiiffyy tthhaatt a copy of the foregoing was sent via U.S. mail to all counsel of record 1996. on this 31st day of May, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL : RECEIVED MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL t UUN.2 4 1996 FSLSD u s DISTRICT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS JUN 2 0 1996 JAMES W. McGQi By\nrmack, clerk V OEP cYerk PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICESQffice of Desegregation Monitoring A Limited Partnership INTERVENORS ORDER Upon motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD), the time within which the LRSD must respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for relief concerning the incen-tive schools is hereby extended to and including August 9, 1996. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of June 1996. UNI TED STA/TES DI STRI'CT^JUDGE ON rHIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPUANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BY 2 6 9' G.- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (ia22-iee4J WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL e. BENHAM III, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL 111. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 July 19, 1996 RECEIVED SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS. P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID O. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BOND DANIEL L. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL Jill 1 9 1996 Of COUNSCl WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. Office of Desegregation Monitoring WRITER'* DIRECT NO. (501) 370-3323 A Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the Little Rock School District's (1) Motion to Shorten Time to Respond to Discovery and (2) Motion for Extension of Time with regard to the abovecaptioned matter. Please file same and return a file marked copy of each to us. By copy of this letter we are serving all counsel of record. Sincerely, John C. Pendley, Jr. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. John Walker (w/encls.) Sam Jones (w/encls.) Steve Jones (w/encls.) Richard Roachell )(w/encls.) Ann Brown (w/encls.) Timothy G. Gauger (w/encls.)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for its Motion for Extension of Time states: 1. On July 2, 1996, LRSD was served with a Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). This motion overlaps substantially with the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools. 2. This Court has granted LRSD an extension of time until August 9, 1996, to respond to the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Relief Concerning the Incentive Schools. Because of the related nature of the two motions, LRSD request that it also be granted until August 9, 1996, to respond to the Motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that it be granted an extension of time until August 9, 1996, to respond to the Motion of the JoshuaIntervenors for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD Christopher ^f\u0026amp;ll^r Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the following peo States mail on this i e ay depositing copy of same in the United ay of July, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr, Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 2Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 , istopher Heller, 3IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-'^6 RECEIVED PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) LRSD for its Response states: 1. LRSD admits that it agreed to undertake many actions for the benefit of the class of African-American students represented by Joshua as part of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. LRSD further admits that the LRSD Desegregation Plan was intended to promote desegregation, to strengthen the educational opportunities of all students, and to complete the transition to a system of public education free from racial discrimination. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (1) of Joshua's motion to the extent they are inconsistent with the above. 2. LRSD admits that quoted language set forth in paragraph (2) of Joshua's motion is from the opinions of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case found at 921 F.2d 1371 and 949 F.2d 253. 3. With regard to paragraph (3) of Joshua's motion, LRSD admits that the Eighth Circuit required creation of an Office ofDesegregation Monitoring (\"ODM\") and that ODM was created to monitor LRSD's compliance with the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. LRSD denies that this Court may rely on the findings of ODM to take remedial action. 4. LRSD admits that ODM has criticized LRSD's implementation of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and that ODM has included recommendations in its reports. LRSD denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph (4) of Joshua's motion. 5. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (5) of Joshua's motion. 6. LRSD admits this Court adopted the recommendations of ODM set forth in its June 5, 1992, Monitoring Report. LRSD denies the remaining allegations set forth in paragraph (6) of Joshua's motion. 7. LRSD denies that it should be ordered to implement any ODM recommendation and/or that LRSD bears the burden of making a particularized showing of impropriety as to specific a recommendation. LRSD further denies that it should be required to implement any of the recommendations referenced in subparagraphs (a) through (1) of paragraph (7) of Joshua's motion. 8. LRSD hereby incorporates by reference its Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). 9. LRSD affirmatively asserts that this Court has no 2jurisdiction to grant Joshua's Motion because the term of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan has expired. 10. LRSD affirmatively asserts that Joshua's Motion is untimely resulting in substantial prejudic^e to LRSD, and therefore, barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and estoppel and by the applicable statute of limitations. 11. LRSD requests a hearing on Joshua's motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that Joshua's motion be denied\nthat LRSD be granted it costs and attorneys' fees expended herein\nand that it be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD An Christopher Helper fj J Nn. Rinfi'i Bar No. 81083 3CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following peop]^ by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this _7^^ay of August, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 :f^^stopher Heller (j C. 4FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1 922-1 984) WILLIAM H. SUTTON, P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR., P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W.BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 August 9, 1996 Received SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER, P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS, P.A. TONIA P. JONES, P.A. DAVID 0. WILSON, P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G . SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BONO DANIEL L. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL Of COUNtCl WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY, P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. 4UG 9 1996  RlTEH'S OlAC T NO. (5011 370-3323 Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 Office of Ossogregafion MonHowg Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the following pleadings which we would appreciate you filing of record and returning a file-marked copy of each pleading to us: (1) (2) LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)\nLRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools\nand (3) Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). By copy of this letter we are serving same on all counsel of record.Hon. James W. McCormack August 9, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, ohn C. Fendley John Fendley, Jr. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker (w/encls.) Mr. Sam Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Steve Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Richard Roachell and Mr. Travis Creed (w/encls.) Ms. Ann Brown (w/encls.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encls.)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Monuonny INTERVENORS Office 01 00369'69^^\" LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUAS-MOTION* FOR RELIEF CONCERNING INCENTIVE SCHOOLS LRSD for its Response states: 1. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The Little Rock School District will have seven (7) schools providing the incentive school program. Rockefeller may become an interdistrict school, but would continue to provide the incentive school program. The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. a LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 149. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (1) of Joshua's motion to the extent they are inconsistent with the express language of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. 2. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (2) of Joshua's motion. 3. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (3) of Joshua's motion. 4. LRSD denies that it has implemented any aspect of the LRSD Desegregation Plan in a grossly inadequate manner. LRSD will address each subparagraph of paragraph (4) of Joshua's motion below. 5. Upkeep of Facilities. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The District will provide clean and safe facilities and make all schools, condition. repairs fundamental magnet schools. To this end. and to maintain area schools roofing repairs, incentive in good painting. plastering, recarpeting, and other needed repairs will be made. repair. Concrete walks and macadam drives will be in good LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 129. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 6. Recruit Deseqreqated Student Bodies. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district. a LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 149. LRSD denies that this provision obligated LRSD to achieve specific racial balance at the incentive schools. LRSD admits that it was obligated to recruit both black and white students to attend incentive schools and affirmatively asserts that it has substantially complied with this obligation. Staff Desegregation. As ODM has recognized, \"The LRSD plan . . . makes only a philosophical commitment to 'equity' in 7. a 2staffing and reviewing staffing patterns. ODM Report dated H September 15, 1995, P. 9. Similarly, in the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (\"Interdistrict Plan\"), LRSD committed itself to the \"principle\" that \"[sjtaffing and staff recruitment will reflect student needs for contact with minority teachers and a diversity in the racial makeup of support staffs consistent with applicable law. II Interdistrict Plan, p. 23. See also Interdistrict Plan, p. 25 (\"Goal II: To develop mutually supportive and equitable personnel and placement procedures. . . . The principals will be accountable to ensure equitable distribution of teachers by grade level and subject area.\")(emphasis supplied). In light of its commitment to this principle. LRSD agreed \"[t]o monitor distribution of staff across grade levels and support areas. tl Interdistrict Plan, p. 25. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 8. Selecting and Retaining a High Quality Faculty. As a part of opening the incentive schools. LRSD was obligated to \"establish a committee to assess staffing needs for Incentive Schools, to set criteria for staffing, to recruit quality staff members, and determine procedures for staffing.\" LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 190. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. Integration of Themes into School Programs. The LRSD Plan provides, \"School Themes will be developed at the local school level by parents and staff and are recommended to be integrated 9. into the total curriculum.\" LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 153. LRSD 3has substantially complied with this obligation. See ODM Report dated July 12, 1996, P- 25 (\"[W]e were gratified to see the coordination and vigor with which all five school worked to implement their themes.\"). 10. Multicultural Education. The LRSD Desegregation Plan requires that a \"multicultural approach\" be integrated into its curriculum and the total school environment. See LRSD Desegregation Plan, pp. 63-80. In February of this year, LRSD, Joshua and ODM agreed that LRSD had complied with the provisions of its desegregation plan relating to multicultural education and that LRSD should be released from Court supervision and monitoring related to those provisions. See Stipulation for Order filed February 9, 1996, p. 1-2 (Docket No. 2626) and Order dated March 27, 1996 (Docket No. 2648). Joshua alleges no facts which would support setting aside the Court's March 27, 1996, Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 11. Foreign Language Program. LRSD admits that it has not fully implemented the provisions of its desegregation plan related to foreign language program. LRSD Desegregation Plan, pp. 153 and 156. A business case was submitted as a part of the LRSD FY 1995- 96 budget setting forth an evaluation of the foreign language program and concluding that the program should be discontinued. During the hearings on the FY 1995-96 budget. testimony was presented to support that business case. It was made known at the hearing that LRSD did not intend to fund the foreign language program in the future. Joshua has failed to raise a timely 4objection to LRSD discontinuation of the program, and accordingly, their motion should be denied based on the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and estoppel. 12. Science Education. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: General Areas for Implementation - (subject to an annual assessment of the effectiveness thereof) *   10. Science Laboratories equipped with adequate equipment and materials and supplies, either mobile or permanent, will be available for students. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 153. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 13. Field Trips. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: Field Trips Field trips will be used to enhance learning, to broaden cultural experiences, to provide hands-on experiences for knowledge of the world, and to assist in the development of coping skills for students. Local field trips (see Support Programs) supplemented with a state or national trip. may be LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 158. See also LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 173. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 14. Extended Day Program. The LRSD Desegregation Plan requires extended day activities designed \"to provide enhanced n educational opportunities for all students. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 181. See also LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 173-74. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 15. Saturday Program. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: A. Additional Items It is recommended that each incentive school have:  * * Saturday programs will be developed to enhance learning. 5These programs will include but shall not be limited to: - field trips - enrichment activities - tutoring - parent/child \"make \u0026amp; take\" sessions - book fairs - physical education activities LRSD Desegregation Plan, P- 179 (emphasis supplied). This \"recommendation\" does not constitute an obligation on the part of LRSD. Even so, LRSD has implemented a Saturday program consistent with this recommendation. 16. Extended Year Program. LRSD denies that it has failed to substantially comply with its obligations related to the extended year program. See LRSD Desegregation Plan, pp. 172-73 and 180. Incentive school students are offered summer program for a remediation and enrichment free of charge. The program has been advertised and promoted at the incentive schools to encourage participation, and students who decided to participate have been instructed at their own academic levels rather than by means of a specifically identified grade designation. 17. Individual Student Profiles. A goal of the LRSD Desegregation Plan is \"[t]o more closely and thoroughly monitor Incentive Schools in order to develop a clearer picture of student achievement . . LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 186. Toward this H goal, LRSD is obligated to develop Student Education Plans (\"SEPs\") for incentive school students. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 186. LRSD has substantially complied with this obligation. 18. Discipline Policies. With regard to discipline at the incentive schools, the LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: 6Attendance and Behavior Guidelines Attendance and behavior guidelines will provide unique opportunities to assist students and keep them in school. Time out areas staffed with trained personnel will help students with problem solving. Students will participate in the process of developing school-based management rules. Students and parents will sign a contractual agreement to be at school and on time each day. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 175. See also LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 182. LRSD has substantially complied with these provisions. The Interdistrict Plan contains similar requirements related to the goal of \"establish[ing] student discipline and attendance policies which address student needs as well as school climate concerns. II Interdistrict Plan, p. 27. LRSD has also substantially complied with these requirements. 19. Parent Centers. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: We are only beginning to understand which types, formats, frequencies and locations of parent involvement lead to specific student. parent. and teacher attitudes and behaviors. achievements, Principals can help teachers to successfully involve parents by coordinating, managing, supporting, funding, recognizing, and rewarding parent involvement, and by planning programs to strengthen that involvement. We expect the process of developing parental involvement activities to be on-going. suggested activities are listed below: Some * *  5. Establish a Parent Center in each school. * *  LRSD Desegregation Plan, P. 206 (emphasis supplied). This II suggestion\" does not constitute an obligation on the part of LRSD. Even so, LRSD has established a parent center at each school as suggested by the plan. 720. Signing Homework. As means to increase parent involvement, the LRSD Desegregation Plan provides that II [p]arents will sign homework. II LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 183. LRSD has a substantially complied with this obligation. 21. Use of Social Workers. There are no II provisions on the use of social workers II in the LRSD Desegregation Plan or the Interdistrict Plan. To be sure, LRSD has used social workers to meet certain obligations under the plans. If Joshua seeks to challenge LRSD's compliance with these obligations, it should raise them specifically. It is unclear from the citations in Joshua's Motion what obligations, if any, are at issue. 22 . Home Visits. As with parent centers, the LRSD Desegregation Plan merely suggests home visits as a means to develop parent involvement. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 206. This \"suggestion\" does not constitute an obligation on the part of LRSD. Even so, LRSD conducts home visits as circumstances permit. 23 . LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (5) of Joshua's Motion. 24. LRSD admits that the language quoted by Joshua in paragraph (6) of its Motion is from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion in this case found at 921 F.2d 1371. 25. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (7) of Joshua's Motion. 26. LRSD denies the allegations set forth in paragraph (8) of Joshua's Motion. 27 . LRSD admits that the incentive school portion of the LRSD 8Desegregation Plan cannot be deemed a failure. LRSD denies that it has not implemented the incentive school portion of the plan in a meaningful manner. 28. LRSD hereby incorporates by reference its Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). 29. LRSD affirmatively asserts that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant Joshua's Motion because the term of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan has expired. 30. LRSD affirmatively asserts that Joshua's Motion IS untimely resulting in substantial prejudice to LRSD, and therefore, barred by the equitable doctrines of waiver, laches and estoppel and by the applicable statute of limitations. 31. LRSD requests a hearing on Joshua's motion. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that Joshua's motion be denied\nthat LRSD be granted it costs and attorneys' fees expended herein\nand 9that it be granted all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD C. Christopher Heller/ Bar No. 81083 10CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 9^ day of August, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A, 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-8^ PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Deseflfegalion Monitoring INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR RELIEF CONCERNING INCENTIVE SCHOOLS AND TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) I. Jurisdiction. The LRSD Desegregation Plan and Interdistrict Desegregation Plan (the \"Plans\") have expired by their own terms. See LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. Pursuant to the 1989 settlement agreement (\"Settlement Agreement\"), this Court's jurisdiction was limited to \"address[ing] issues regarding implementation of the Plans. If Since the term of the Plans has expired, this Court no longer has jurisdiction based on the Plans. See E.E.O.C. v. Local 40, 76 F.3d 76, 80 (2nd Cir. 1996) (\"A court does not have inherent power to enforce an order that has expired.\"). Accordingly, this Court has no jurisdiction to order the relief sought by Joshua. II. Burden on Joshua to Establish Noncompliance. Even assuming Joshua's motions were timely filed, Joshua bears the burden of establishing LRSD's noncompliance with the Plansregardless of how the motions are characterized. Joshua's motions could be construed one of three ways. First, the motions sound in the nature of motions for contempt. A party seeking a finding of contempt \"has the burden of proving a violation of the consent decree by clear and convincing evidence.\" Hazen v. Reagan, 16 F. 3d 921, 925 (Sth Cir. 1994). In addition, to support a finding of contempt, Joshua must establish that LRSD knowingly violated the Plans, see Mahers v. Hedgepeth, 32 F.3d 1273, 1275 (Sth Cir. 1994), and that LRSD is not acting with reasonable diligence to bring itself into compliance with the Plans. See Dunn v. New York Dept. of Labor, 47 F.3d 4S5, 490 (2nd Cir. 1995). The allegations set forth in Joshua's motions fail to establish the necessary elements for contempt. Second, the motions could be considered motions to modify the Plans. The Supreme Court has outlined the following process for modification of consent decrees: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. moving party meets this standard, the court If the should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Rufo V. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992) . In addition. \"[m]edification of a consent decree requires a complete hearing and findings of fact. tl Akers V. Ohio Dep't of Liguor Control. 902 F.2d 477, 479 (6 th Cir. 1990). Joshua's motions fail to allege facts sufficient to justify modification of the Plans. Finally, because \"consent decrees and orders have many of the 2attributes of ordinary contracts . . II Mahers, 32 F.3d at 1275- 76, Joshua's allegations of noncompliance could be construed as a claim for breach of contract. It is well established that a party alleging breach of contract bears the burden of proof. See Rabalaias v. Barnett, 284 Ark. 527, 683 S.W.2d 919 (1985)\nand Williams V. Fletcher. 267 Ark. 961, 644 S.W.2d 946 (Ark. App. 1980). Therefore, regardless of how Joshua's motions are construed, Joshua bears the burden of establishing LRSD's alleged noncompliance. To escape this burden, Joshua argues that ODM's monitoring reports establish \"a prima facie case\" of noncompliance. This argument is without merit. ODM's findings and recommendations are advisory in nature and not binding on LRSD or this Court. While Joshua is free to make ODM's reports a part of the record, due process requires that LRSD be given notice of the specific obligations that Joshua alleges LRSD has failed to comply. See Ferrell v. Pierce. 785 F.2d 1372, 1383 (7th Cir. 1986)(trial court abused its discretion in basing contempt finding on issues not raised in petition for contempt). Due process further requires that a full adversarial hearing be conducted before this Court makes findings of fact. See Akers, 902 F.2d at 479. Until LRSD has the opportunity to contest ODM's findings, this Court cannot enter further remedial order's based on those findings. Cf. Juan F. V. Weicker, 37 F.3d 874, 880 (2nd Cir. 1994)(court may accept monitor's findings of fact made after It lengthy evidentiary hearing\"). 3Joshua's argument should also be rejected because the assumption underlying its argument are false. Joshua's argument assumes that every ODM recommendation is based on a finding of noncompliance. This assumption is absolutely wrong. Many of ODM's recommendations are unrelated to any of LRSD's obligations under the Plans. For example, LRSD has recently implemented the phonics based \"Great Expectations\" instructional approach at two incentive schools. Although there is no requirement in the Plans related to Great Expectations, ODM in its most recent report recommended that LRSD tl [bjetter define the role of phonics instruction in the incentive schools and convene a meeting of those administrators in charge of the incentive schools and the reading supervisor and his staff to communicate that role to all teachers so that phonics instruction will conform to the board-adopted LRSD curriculum. II ODM Monitoring Report dated July 12, 1996, p. 27-28. Similarly, ODM has recommended that LRSD II [t]earn with community organizations (such as churches and civic clubs) and other programs (such as HIPPY and New Futures) to explore ways to cooperate in offering parent training. It ODM Monitoring Report dated July 12, 1996, p. 79. The merits of this recommendation aside, it has no relationship to any of LRSD's obligations' under 'plan obligations must be distinguished from plan goals. LRSD agreed to undertake certain limited obligations designed to achieve certain goals. every means to achieve a goal. LRSD did not agree to undertake any and Therefore, while ODM's recommendation may be a means to achieve a plan goal (strengthening parental involvement), it has no relationship to 4the Plans. To order LRSD to implement this recommendation (and many others like it) would impermissibly expand LRSD's obligations under the Plans. See Crumpton v. Bridgeport Educ. Ass'n, 993 F.2d 1023, 1028 (2nd Cir. 1993)(\"[A] court construing [a consent decree] is not entitled to expand or contract the agreement of the parties as set forth in the consent decree.\"). Thus, one cannot assume ODM's recommendations are based on a finding of noncompliance. As in any other case, Joshua bears the burden of proving in an adversarial hearing the allegations set forth in their motions. III. Least Intrusive Means to Ensure Compliance. Even assuming Joshua can establish LRSD's noncompliance, Joshua's motions should be denied. While this Court may order reasonable measures to ensure compliance with the Plans, considerations of comity and federalism require this Court to use the least intrusive means to bring about compliance. See U.S. V. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 167 (6th Cir. 1991) (\"[I]t was incumbent upon the district court in the action sub judice to impose the least intrusive remedies available in resolving the issues reviewed on appeal.\")\nMorgan v. McDonough, 540 F.2d 527, 533 (1st Cir. 1976) (\"To be sure, direct judicial intervention in the operation of a school system is not to be welcomed. and it should not be continued longer than necessary. But if in extraordinary circumstances it is the only reasonable alternative to noncompliance with the court's plan of desegregation, it may, with LRSD obligations under the Plans to achieve that goal. 5appropriate restraint, be ordered.\")(emphasis supplied). See also Kendrick v. Bland, 740 F.2d 432, 439 (1984)(\"[T]he district court breached fundamental principles of federalism and exceeded its authority by enjoining Hendricks, Henderson and Ashley from performing certain responsibilities of employment which had been delegated to them by the state.\"). Moreover, upon a finding of noncompliance, LRSD should be given the opportunity to \"show that compliance with the full terms of the plan should not be required. If U.S. V. Michigan. 18 F.3d 348, 353 (6th Cir. 1994). Joshua's motions do not even allege facts sufficient for this Court to grant Joshua the relief it requests. As discussed above. the fact that ODM has made a recommendation provides no basis for ordering LRSD to implement the recommendation. Moreover, Joshua's allegations fall far short of establishing that receivership is the least intrusive means of ensuring LRSD's compliance with the Plans. See Glover V. Johnson, 855 F. 2d 277, 286 (6th Cir. 1988)(Appointment of administrator vacated where there was no evidence that II the defendants willfully disobeyed the court's order, violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, and forfeited to the federal judiciary the defendants' constitutional authority to continue to administer all aspects of the Michigan correctional system.\"). The time has come for this Court's involvement with the operations of LRSD to end, not expand. See LRSD's Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. In addressing Joshua's motions, this Court's inquiry is limited: 6[F]ederal-court decrees must directly address and relate to the constitutional violation itself. Because of this inherent limitation upon federal judiciary authority, federal-court decrees exceed appropriate limits if they are aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate the Constitution or does not flow from such a violation .... Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II), 433 U.S. 267, 282 (1977). The Supreme Court in Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1991), stated that: From the very first federal supervision of local school systems was intended as a temporary measure to remedy past discrimination. Brown considered the arising from the transition to a \"complexities education freed from racial discrimination system of public tl in holding that the implementation of desegregation was to proceed with all deliberate speed. Ct. , at 755-57 (emphasis added) . 349 U.S., at 299-301, 75 S. Green also spoke of the \"transition to a unitary nonracial system of public education. It 391 (emphasis added). U.S. , at 436, 88 S. Ct. , at 1693 Id., 498 U.S. at 247-48. After declaring that judicial supervision of local school systems was not intended to operate in perpetuity. the Court in Dowell recognized that: Local control over education of children allows citizens to participate in decisionmaking, and allows innovation so that school programs can fit local needs. omitted] . . [citations Dissolving a desegregation decree after the local authorities have operated in compliance with it for a reasonable period of time properly recognizes that II necessary concern for important values of local control of public school systems dictates that a federal court's regulatory control of such systems not extend beyond the time required to discrimination. remedy the effects of past See Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken III, 433 U.S., at 280-82, 97 S.Ct., at 2757-58.\" Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education. 611 F.2d at 1245, (Kennedy, J., concurring). n. 5 Dowell. 498 U.S. at 248. In permitting district courts to return control to school districts in incremental stages, the Supreme Court in Freeman v. 7Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 489 (1992), stated: Partial relinquishment of judicial control, where justified by the facts of the case, can be an important and significant step in fulfilling the district court's duty to return the operations and control of the schools to local authorities. In Dowell, we emphasized that federal judicial supervision of local school systems was intended to be a \"temporary measure. II S.Ct. , at 636. -498 U.S. ___, 111 Although this temporary measure has lasted decades, the ultimate objective has not changed  to return school districts authorities. to the control of local Id., 503 U.S. at 489 (emphasis supplied). The court further noted, \"A court's discretion to order incremental withdrawal of its supervision in a school desegregation case must be exercised in a manner consistent with the purposes and objectives of its equitable power. II Id., 503 U.S. at 491. Therefore, this Court's consideration of Joshua's motions should by guided by its ultimate objective\" to return Little Rock's public schools to the control of local authorities. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489. Joshua admits that the Plans were intended II to complete 'the transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination. III Joshua Motion Regarding ODM Recommendations, 5 1, quoting Brown v. Board of Education. 349 U.S. 294, 299 (1955). With the term of the Plans concluded, that transition is now complete. See LRSD Motion to End Federal Court Jurisdiction. Accordingly, Joshua's motions should 8be denied, and this Court's jurisdiction over this case should be terminated. Respectfully Submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Fendley Jr. Friday Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3407 Attorneys For LRSD By: Christopher Bar No. 81083 H^l^ / 33 V 9CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of August, 1996. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 W. Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Cnr.istopher Heller j' H 10FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY (1822-1 9841 WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES w. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR., P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P. A . FREDERICK S. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A, OSCAR E. OAVIS. JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN OEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. OONALO H.'-BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH a. HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH ROBBEN MURRAY, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. OIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR.. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUAUS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL little ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501 -376-20 1 1 FAX NO. 501 -376-2 1 47 August 9/ 1996 SCOTT J. UAMCA8TCR. P.A. M. CAYLC CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT 8. BEACH, JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LICHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER, P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. CUY ALTON WAOE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER. P.A. J. MICHAEL PICKENS. P.A. TONIA P. JONES. P.A. OaVIO 0. WILSON. P.A. JEFFREY H. MOORE. P.A. ANDREW T. TURNER OAVIO M. GRAF CARLA 0*. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY. JR . ALLISON CRAVES JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY BARBARA J. RAND JAMES W. SMITH CLIFFORD W. PLUNKETT WILL BONO DANIEL L. HERRINGTON ALLISON J. CORNWELL Of COUNCEL WILLIAM J. SMITH B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY. P.A. WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. due 9 ?996  HI TEA'S OIAECT tO. (5011 370-3323 Hon. James W. McCormack Clerk of Court United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 W. Capitol, Suite 402 Little Rock, AR 72201-3325 OWcs cf MonHcriiig Re: Little Rock School District, et al vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. McCormack Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the following pleadings which we would appreciate you filing of record and returning a file-marked copy of each pleading to us: (1) LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM)\n(2) LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools\nand (3) Memorandum Brief in Support of LRSD's Response to Joshua's Motion for Relief Concerning Incentive Schools and to Joshua's Motion for Implementation of Recommendations of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM). ^sscgregsiion By copy of this letter we are serving same on all counsel of record.Hon. James W. McCormack August 9, 1996 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, John y, Jr. JCFjr/cf Enclosures cc: Mr. John Walker (w/encls.) Mr. Sam Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Steve Jones (w/encls.) Mr. Richard Roachell and Mr. Travis Creed (w/encls.) Ms. Ann Brown (w/encls.) Mr. Timothy G. Gauger (w/encls.)IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-TS6 RECEIWD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL AUG 9 1996 DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Monitcnng INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO JOSHUA'S MOTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING (ODM) LRSD for its Response states: 1. LRSD admits that it agreed to undertake many actions for the benefit of the class of African-American students represented by Joshua as part of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. LRSD further admits that the LRSD De\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_477","title":"Incentive Schools: Double funding","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":["1990/2001"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Double funding"],"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/477"],"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\nHaney Before you start on that brief I understandings in respect to the ^4^ io f 9.^ would like incentive schools. my My understanding is that you have chose that there will be doublefunding for the incentive schools. Under the settlement agreement, is that four schools, six schools, or eight schools? That's my first question, mean by double funding? My second question is, what do we How much per pupil would that have been had that been in effect for the school year 1989? Heller The double funding provision applies to eight schools and the amount would be determined instruction... by the amounts spent for Haney ...There are two different statements in the briefs that reflect the average cost ...in the LRSD... thirty one hundred dollars and one was thirty six hundred dollars. assume that it IS three thousand dollars Let's just for easy multiplication and with eight schools there will be thirty eight hundred students under this figure you committed to. Heller There could be Haney Yes Heller At a maximum Haney Yes So that would mean that if that were the case in 1990 that these eight schools would receive an additional an additional sum of money. that double Now, what did you mean by double funding? the average cost of administrative Is and transportation costs or is it double the cost of other ... Heller Right. We are still Intervenors. discussing that with the Joshua At a minimum it is the instructional cost doubled without duplicating the administrative and transportation cost. Haney ...doubling instructional funds, using for that amount? What figures have you been Heller We have been using figures of approximately $2,000 per student. Haney $2,000 per student times 3,800 is 7 million 6 hundred thousand dollars a year. But yet in your budget that Little Rock School tentative budget they have two million dollars a year for the incentive schools. Now with 7 million its going to take approximately every dime that is available from the state. Inot objecting in the least about ... they get $2,000 per pupil additional if it really gives them an opportunity to really do something very significate ... but is the Little Rock Board of Education prepared to put $2,000 per pupil extra into those schools or are they going to be coming back and saying money. we would love to do but there just isn't the Heller During the settlement negotiations. Judge Haney, we recognized that we would be incurring an obligation of LRSD significantly in excess of the amount for which we were willing to settle with the state and we knew and we told the district court and all the parties from the beginning that it would require an increase in obligation. every millage rate in order to meet that And we have since increased the millage rate sufficiently to carry out the promise of the plans. Haney Who do you represent? Heller The Little Rock School District Haney And you're saying that you have enough money in your budget to reach that $2,000 per pupil extra for the eight incentive schools. Heller That's correct. Arnold If the budget only comes two million, how can that be enough? Heller Judge Arnold, I can't believe that a budget projection which included double funding which for our plan would do that. The budget projections before double funding for major enhancement schools could show something like that. Arnold Maybe that's the answer to that Haney That may be the answer Arnold ...the paper we have shows 2 million dollars. You're saying that you recognize that it can fulfill the legal obligations. Heller Yes sirArnold Two thousand dollar extra per pupil in the incentive schools Heller Yes sir. The only budget that I am aware on the record is a budget that was submitted by the LRSD to the Metropolitan Supervisor in furtherance of our requirement to cooperate with that planning process. And that was for the Tri-district plan. Haney And that shows that (inaudible)... Heller Right. That's the budget that was submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor for the Tri-district Plan. It showed that we could not afford the Tri-district Plan primarily because of the expenses associated with the construction of seven new magnet schools further down the line, to the desegregation of the incentive schools. With respect there is specific plan to market those attributes that are going to be in place as result of the increased funding and that marketing plan includes the use brochures. announcements, pursuant to i , billboards, this plan. public service two parent recruiters were hired There were celebrity announcements. going to be tours, a Speakers Bureau, and a general concentrated effort which is set out in our plan and timelines to market the incentive schools and the Washington School now. One of the reasons we didn't seek a stay for planning that was being done by the Metropolitan Supervisor's office is because a continuing planning process was contemplated by our plans. We were going to get the concerned patrons together with community leaders and the parents and develop themes for those schools. example. That process has continued at Washington School, for and as of June 18th the recruitment effort was resulted in the addition of 250 new white students to that school, so that... a a Haney I understand that even though you haven't completed that process by September of this year that these incentive schools if this court approves the settlement agreement would each receive $2,000... Heller That whatever the instructional amount is and my recollection is that... Haney ...yes, I understand that. Heller That's correct (32.16) There is also a plan to systematically assure that there is going to be space in those schools for any white students whomay choose to attend them. seats initially for each incoming class. By that plan reserves 50% of the And in each of these schools there is going to be an early childhood component. So for each pre-kindergarten and kindergarten class, seats will be reserved for white students. And as that class moves forward, a certain number of seats will continue to be reserved so that if no white students. for example in a worse case situation. have attended a school four years from now, there will be at least the district average of white students as a percentage of seats reserved in that school. So if a group can be convinced to choose an incentive school at that point there will be seats available. Of course, at the end of the six year period there should be seats available for white students by at least the average representation of white students in the elementary grades in each of the incentive schools. Results of the plan for recruiting Little Rock black students to interdistrict schools in Pulaski County and the plan particularly targets Little Rock black students who reside in incentive school zones or satellite zones for which they would otherwise be bused to schools in western Little Rock. And immediately available at the institution of the settlement plans there would be 200 seats at Harris Elementary which is in PCSSD and the Little Rock incentive school zone students would be targeted. Pulaski County is committed to provide an enhanced compensatory education at Harris. program and The theme as with all the incentive schools was left to be determined by the parties. Now the difference between our approach to interdistrict schools and the approach to magnet schools is we make an effort in the plans to specifically target the group who we want to move, whose moving encourages and ask them what programs would make them want to move to a school in the other district. And as Mr. Chachkin pointed out there is no reason to believe that the plans wouldn't be successful significant interdistrict movement to magnets. because we already have These schools would be special but in a way selected by the targeted people and Pulaski County has already posting 321 Little Rock black students on an M-to-M transfer basis without any specialized programs. can be successful. So there is no reason to believe that type of movingk /01Z92 16:33 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 002-006 Process A nnTTnr.p FUNDING FOR LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOLS: I. Commitment to double fund  Explanation of terms A. Double fund - a process by which incentive schools are funded in an amount that shall be two times the instructional costs per student in the area schools of the Little Rock School District for the previous school year. B. Instructional costs ~ these expenses are identified as instructional costs and are listed as follows: Regular Certificated Stipends Regular Non-Certificated Social Security Tax Public Employees Retirement Hospitalization Life Insurance Long Term Disability Dental Hospital Indemnity Short Term Disability Instructional Program Improvement Repairs-Equipment Pupil Transportation Travel Postage Printing \u0026amp; Binding-Internal Copier Lease Food Services Supplies Textbooks Library Equipment-Personal Property Dues and Fees\u0026gt;-01/92 16:53 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @003-006 Double Funding Page 2 C. Enrollment Data - It is imperative that one consistent date be used from year to year so that a valid comparison can be made. The reason that October 1 of the previous year has been chosen is that this is the actual date used by the State Department of Education for certifying enrollment of all Arkansas school districts for accreditation purposes. D. Base Year 1989-90 shall be the base year for computation of cost per student in the area schools. E. Consumer Price Index - measure of change in consumer price, determined by monthly survey of U- S- Bureau of Labor Statistics, many pension and employment contracts are tied to changes in consumer prices. Application to double funding is to see that prior school year costs are increased in an amount equal to inflation- F. Spread Amount - the spread is a specific dollar amount that was established in 1989-90. This amount is the dollar figure that was required to achieve doubling of the amount per child in the area schools for that year. The amount will be a constant for all computation of double funding. The dollar amount is $1,887.46. II. Double Funding Process - 1990-91 School Year The criteria applied for determining that double funding is occurring in the incentive schools of the Little Rock School District shall be as follows\n(1) The comparison will be made to the area schools, of Little Rock School District that were operating in the 1989-90 school year on a per student expenditure basis (instructional expenditure). (2) For the 1990-91 school year, the amount of expenditure per child that is to be doubled is computed by taking the October 1, 1989 (10,752) enrollment of each area school of LRSD. The next step is to compute the actual expenditure for the 1989-90 school year in each area school. After computation of expenses (instruc- tional related) for each area school, these schools will have expenditures totaled and divided by total enrollment. expenditure. The process will yield a per pupil\n/01.'92 16:34 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 121004/006 Double Funding Page 3 The next step is to compute the inflationary adjustment to the prior year instructional related costs per child in the area schools by application of the Consumer Price Index. After this computation, the inflationary adjustment (dollar amount) will be added to the prior year area school expenditure. The total will then be added to the spread amount that was computed in the 1989-90 Base Year computation. The total will be the required expenditure per child that doubled. is to be The next step is to take this dollar amount and double it, then the doubled amount is multiplied by the October 1 child count of the preceding school year. (3) Example of process for 1990-91: October 1, 1989 enrollment - area schools - 10,752 Total expenditure 1989-90 school year area schools $20,293,917.95. $20,293,917.95 10,752 = $1,887.46 $1,887.46 X 6% = $113.25 Inflationary Adjustment Consumer Price Index - July 1, 1989 July 1, 1990 124.4 130.4 6% increase through this time period. $1,887.46 amount per child in area school - 1989-90 +$113.25 Inflationary Adjustment $2,000.71 Total amount required to be doubled. $2,000.71 X 2 = $4,001.42 The $4001.42 amount is then multiplied by the October 1, 1989 child count in the incentive school. October 1, 1989 - 1,461 studentsJ/01/92 16:33 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM 003 '006 Double Funding Page 4 4 I $4,001.42 X 1,461 = $5,846,074.62 minimum amount that must be expended for double funding for 1990-91 school year. The actual expenditure in the incentive schools for the 1990-91 school year was $6,833,005.68 - please see attached pacXet for year ended June 30, 1991. 4. Example of process for 1991-92 October 1, 1990 enrollment - incentive schools 1,366 1989-90 Base Year Spread = $1,887.46 1990-91 expenditure per/pupil in the area schools - $2,249.24 Consumer Price Index adjustment from July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1991 equal 5.8% July 1, 1990 - 130.4 July 1, 1991 i 5.8% increase 136.2 The computation is as follows: $2,249.24 exp. per Child 90-91 in the area schools x5.8% C.P.I. adjustment factor $ 130.46 inflationary adjustment dollar amount $2,249.24 +S130.46 $2,379.70 Total $2,379.70 luA8.1--4.6. spread amount from 1989-90 Base Year $4,267.16 amount per pupil $4,267.16 ---Xl,366 (Oct. 1, 1990 child count) $5,328,940.56 minimum amount that must be expended for double funding. The actual budgeted expenditure in the incentive schools for the 1991-92 school year *$8,223,093.15. school is * Note this amount must be corrected to revision of budget or to actual year end expenditure 6-30-92 in the incentive schools.4 J/01/92 16:33 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM @006/006 Double Funding Page 5 5. Example of process for 1992-93 October 1, 1991 enrollment - Incentive Schools 2,235 1989-90 Base Year spread = $1,887.46 1991-92 expenditure per pupil in the schools = $2,449.08 area Consumer Price Index adjustment from July 1, 1991 to July 1, 1992 equals 6% (this is estimate since July 1992 Consumer Price Index figures are not yet available). July 1, 1991 136.2 July 1, 1992 The computation is as follows: $2,449.08 exp. per child 1991-92 in the area schools $ x6% CPI adjusted factor 146.84 inflationary adjusted dollar amount $2,449.08 4-146.94 $2,596.02 Total $2,596.02 $1,887.46 spread amount from 1989-90 base year $4,483.48 Amount per pupil $4,483.48 1/ jc---2,235 (Oct. 1, 1991 child count) $10,020,577.80 minimum amount that must be expended for double funding-^.-01/92 16:32 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM  001. -006 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324 - 2032 DAl E b-l'^iS-TO FROM 9 SENDERS 'IONE # SUBJECT Trsrjtr.i-cd 5y (tneJtiLde cc\\r. rOR DATA RROCDSSJSG CFRJCE USE ONLY .Dc:e S^iiiwr, i xsL ^/g//=o'x\u0026gt;zi'z\u0026gt;=\u0026gt;\u0026lt;s -f INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to double fund each incentive school. The commitment to this enhanced financial support was made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans. The explanation of incentive school double finding below is taken from the 1992 ODM Incentive School Monitoring Report with current year findings added. REQUIREMENTS Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences and activities. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 4) The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the Court-approved desegregation plan as incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 1) BACKGROUND None of the desegregation plans nor the financial settlement agreement specifically define double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, counsel for LRSD explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per-pupil expenditure in the districts area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD attorney was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the districts average per-pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts basic per-pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely from the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the \"base year\" of 1989-90. The base year average per-pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1, 1989 total enrollment. This calculation yielded a base year per-pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the district multiplies the actual previous years per-pupil expenditure by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per-pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous years October 1 enrollment data (not including the children enrolled in classes for infants through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend. This section of the monitoring report was finalized after the LRSD finalized its 1993-1994 budget, so we used the actual budgeted area school per-pupil expenditure instead of a projected expenditure in determining the districts 1993-94 double funding obligation. FINDINGS LRSD double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October 1 data used by the LRSD in calculating double funding, there were 298 fewer students in the incentive schools during the 1992-93 school year than the previous year. Despite the reduced enrollment, the actual total 1992-93 expenditures for all the incentive schools increased from 1991-92 expenditures by $176,517.94. This increase can be attributed to several factors: maintaining essentially the same number of classes in each school despite lower enrollment, a student-teacher ratio that was lower than that which is required, additional staff placed in support of the desegregation plan, and the normal inflationary or incremental costs of school operation. The most significant factor affecting incentive school costs during 1992-93 was the loss of students that left the schools underenrolled, with many classes falling far below the maximum allowable class size. This underenrollment resulted in increased costs for educating each child in the incentive schools for this reason: Every school has fixed costs that represent a sizable overhead, but at the incentive schools, desegregation plan staffing and program requirements impose an exceptionally high overhead burden that is not directly proportional to enrollment. If an incentive school operates at 75% of capacity, for example, the cost to the district is essentially the same as operating that school at 100% of capacity. This means that, by diligently recruiting eligible children to each incentive school up to the maximum permissable class size, there basically would be no increased cost to the system to have a fully populated school rather than one only three-quarters enrolled. Yet the LRSD has consistently failed to aggressively recruit to the incentive schools those children who are eligible for M-to-M or intradistrict transfers. Moreover, the district has also failed to made the hard decisions about whether to release or otherwise handle seats reserved for white children that remain empty after school is well underway each fall. As a result, hundreds of children are missing the special advantages that await them at the incentive schools at essentially no additional cost to the district.__Ajkansas Democrat ^C^azettc LRSD poured $2 million Schoois extra into incentive schools P,^CEMBER 22, 1994 e monitors noted that in  Continued from Page 1A BY CYNTHIA HOWELL emocrat-Gazatta Education Wntar during which enrollment i regular schools. attendance-zone ' In 1993-94. the district spent proved at the schools by 320 S5,918.55 per incentive-school The office of Desegregati child, 29 percent more than the The Little Rock School Dis- Office trict. in a time of budget prob- Monitoring submitted its th double-funding obligation. The annual report and recommi schools total cost was S8.6 mil- dations on the incentive scho fion. lems. spent S2 million more in 1993-94 than it was obligated to to U.S. District Judge Suj on its six double-funded incen- U,,,\\nn Brown, the federal de- tive schools at least partly be- 'Webber Wright, who is pres segregation monitor, said cause enrollment fell at each ing in the districts 12-year- Wednesday that while the six inschool, desegregation lawsuit, centive schools offer many good The incentive schools : programs, the report focuses on monitor, \"reui jary the district published its first districtwide recruitment plan, which should enable the district to better determi.ne recruitment strategies. The incentive schools are Rockefeller, Garland, Mitchell. Rightsell, Stephens and Franklin elementaries, all in east or central Little Rock. Enrollment at the incentive schools has fluctuated over the past five years. Only Rockefeller and Garland reported increases in white enrollment. In a 104-page report released The incentive schools : repon Wednesday, the federal Office of considered a key componeni problem areas. Desegregation Monitoring the districts desegregat When we visited the schools blamed the enrollment decline plan. The schools, five with f ^e saw bright buildings, happy, on the districts failure to re- dominantly black enrollmei well-adjusted children and car- cruit children, offer special pro^ams to Enrollment at the six schools ing staffs, Brown said. Garlands white enrollment fell by 483 pupils, from 1,937 to 1,454, between October 1992 and October 1993, Part of the drop stemmed from closing Ish School, which had 187 pupils. The report does not deal with Lsie 1994-95 school year. prove student achievement  attract white pupils to the ha there also is work to be done, to-desegregate buildings. The desegregation plan There are successes, but The district is not living up to all of its obligations, ligates the district to spe ___________________ _ twice as much per Jncenl centive schools results from school student as for childrei fixed costs that remain the The excess funding at the fn- . See SCHOOLS, Page same regardless of the enrollment size. The report criticizes the district for failing to evalu- inability grew by 41 percent over five years. Rockefellers grew by 186 percent between 1989-90 and 1993-94. Overall enrollment at all si.x schools dropped by 20 percent. At ail the schools but Rockefeller, black enrollment ranges from 87 percent to 97 percent of the student populations. At Rockefeller, its 71 percent. Fluctuating enrollment has created other problems for incentive schools, including the ate educational programs so those that don't help pupils can be eliminated. The district did not fill the to track student schools to capacity, neglected to demonstrated achievement over several years. Results on the Stanford Achievement Test showed that 1992 first-graders on average improved evaluate programs and adjust achievement levels as third- them accordingly, and failed to graders last year in all the incentive schools but Mitchell exercise stringent administrative oversight to contain costs, the report said. and Stevens. In all six schools, the 1992 Consequently, during a time fourth-graders showed higher of severe budget constraints, the district spent far more money in the incentive schools than it was obligated to invest The district had to cut S7 million in overall expenses, in- achievement levels as sixthgraders in 1993-94. The report included 65 recommendations for improvement. Other points in the monitor- eluding up to S2 million for the ing report included: incentive schools, this year and .  All six schools used theme is anticipating similar cutbacks specialists this year to imple- for the next school year, ment special academic emes, When the LRSD overspends such as computer science or ca- in the incentive schools, less money is available for other schools which serve the majorreer awareness.  Five of the six school buildings are more than 40 ity of LRSD black students, the years old and need mainte- class for whom the desegrega- nance programs.  Spanish instruction at the tion settlements were to specifically benefit, the report said. Desegregation monitors said incentive schools did not comply with the districts desegre- district officials did more re- gation plan.  At no time did monitors at cruiting for 1993-94 than in pre- ____ ___ vious years. But the recruiting the schools observe unruly or was inadequate. disruptive student behavior.* school to be constructed by a date approved by the Court at a site mutually agreed to by aU of the parties. Any school constructed in Chenal Valley will also be an Interdistrict School. The Interdistrict Schools shall be populated primarily by black students from LRSD and by white students from PCSSD or beyond Pulaski County. PCSSD and LRSD wiU engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts designed to maximize participation in all Interdistrict Schools. ni. Incentive Schools There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years. sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, RightseU, Rockefeller, and Stephens. The incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. As new Interdistrict Schools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school\nany recruitment and/or any assignment shall be in accordance with each districts student assignment plan. Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities. To meet that goal, the parties shall utilize the services of a consultant who has demonstrable experience in developing and csuccessfully implementing such programs in a majority-black educational setting. IV. Magnet Schools The Little Rock District shall continue to operate the interdistrict magnet schools established in 1987-88. Those schools shall be raciaUy balanced to a point of between 50 percent and 55 percent black. They shall continue to be open to students of the three districts. PCSSD, NLRSD, and LRSD will engage in recruitment efforts designed to maximize participation in magnet schools up to the levels set forth in the Courts February 27, 1987 Order. Page 4 Field Trips - Field trips will be used to enhance learning, to broaaaOoTein cultural experiences, to provide hands-on experiences for knowledge of the world, and to assist in the development of coping skills for students. Local field trips (see Support Programs) may be supplemented with a state or national trip. Examples include the following: '4 Houston Space Center (Houston, Texas) Smithsonian Institute (Washington, D.C.) Martin Luther King Center (Atlanta, Georgia) George Washington Carver Museum (Tuskegee, Alabama) Gulf Shores (Gulfport, Mississippi) Each school will incorporate special activities into the total school program. Choices for each school will be determined by the needs/ interests at the building level. Staff and parents will determine when and how activities will be implemented. However, School Program Plans must be submitted to the Board and administration for approval on an annual basis. Documented school-based involvement in the needs/ interest assessment and planning process must accompany each School Program Plan. A projected budget must accompany each plan. * * Page 158 level but may also study at the fifth grade level in summer reading programs, regardless of his/ her actual designated grade level. 1. Community Access/Field Trips - A plan wiU be developed and implemented at each incentive school which provides for field trips and community access for students together with students from other LRSD schools. Field trips and access will include the opportunity for student experiences with: i events and displays  cultural events and exhibits  scientific/ mathematical events and exhibits to include both child-oriented activities such as the Arkansas Arts Center Children s Theater and also the opportunity to attend cultural events such as Arkansas Symphony Orchestra performances. Exhibits and performances will also be brought to the schools. Students will have the opportunity to visit industrial complexes to view the actual manufactunng process and to gain information relative to the world of work by means of visits to actual work sites and some shadowing experiences in the intermediate grades, i.e., fifth and sixth. Among opportunities in the community which exist are\n several major manufacturing corporations  a symphony  a repertory theater  an arts center  a ballet company  a museum of nature science and history  three previous state/ territorial capitols  a planetarium at UALR  a zoo  a lock and dam (part of the McCleUan-Kerr river project)  an inland sea port  a major research/ teaching medical center Among other opportunities for students including, but are stock/bond houses, hospitals and a law school. I not limited to, banks, tn K. Community Involvement - Opportunities to participate in both Boy Scouting and I Girl Scouting will exist at each incentive school with existing troops at each building.^ Special Skills Programs - During the 3:00 - 5:30 p.m. time period (or whatever the I designated time for extended day activities), scheduling should be provided not only for the Homework Center and Peer Tutoring activities but also for student to receive special skills training. Students finishing activities early shall report either to the Homework Center, to CARE or leave the campus at the request of a parent or guardian. Page 173INCENTIVE SCHOOL DOUBLE FUNDING The following explanation of incentive school double funding is taken from the 1992 incentive school report with current year comments added. As a part of the 1989 settlement agreement, the Little Rock School District agreed to \"double fund\" each of the incentive schools. The commitment to this enhanced financial support is made in both the Interdistrict and Little Rock School District Desegregation Plans: \"Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/ activities.\" (Interdistrict Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 4.) and \"...[T]he Little Rock School District Board of Directors is committed to ... [ijmproving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources in schools identified in the court-approved desegregation plan as enhanced/ incentive schools.' (Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan, April 29, 1992, Page 1.) II Neither plan specifically defines double funding, but in oral arguments before the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on June 21,1990, counsel for LRSD explained double funding as a dollar amount twice the average per pupil expenditure in the districts area schools, not including transportation and administrative costs. The lawyer cited $2000 as the approximate extra amount that would be spent on each incentive school student above what is spent for each area school student. During those June 1990 oral arguments, the judges expressed pointed concern about the great amount of money such a double funding obligation would represent, but the LRSD attorney was firm in the districts commitment and ability to double fund the incentive schools. However, there was no discussion of what effects any increases in the districts average per pupil expenditure in area schools might have upon double funding the incentive schools. Since that time, there has been a substantial rise in the districts per pupil expenditure because of increases resulting largely If om the successful millage campaign in 1990 and Arkansas Act 10. In order to control incentive school costs, the LRSD has tied its double funding obligation to the Ml 'base year\" of 1989-90. The base year average per pupil expenditure was established by dividing the total 1989-90 instructional expenses for all area schools by the October 1, 1989 total enrollment. This process yielded a base year per pupil expenditure of $1,887.46, the amount the district uses as the fixed double funding obligation. For each year thereafter, the actual previous years per pupil expenditure is multiplied by an inflation factor. This amount then becomes a projected per pupil expenditure to which the double funding obligation is added. The sum is then multiplied by the number of incentive school students according to the previous years October 1 enrollment data (not including the children enrolled in classes for infants through three-year-olds at Rockefeller), resulting in the floor amount the district is obligated to spend This years report was prepared after the submission of the 1993-1994 budget so the Page cxxxiii budgeted area school per pupil expenditure is used instead of a projected expenditure in determining the obligation for 1993-94. The LR5D double funds the incentive schools through implementation of the settlement plan features. Many, but not all, of the special programs, personnel, and equipment described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan have been put in place, costing the district the amount of the double funding obligation. According to the October 1 data used by the LR5D in the calculation of double funding, there were 298 fewer students in the incentive schools during the 1992-93 school year than the previous year. Despite the reduced enrollment the actual expenditure for 1992-93 increased by $176,517.94. This can be attributed to the inability to reduce the number of classes based upon enrollment, the already low student teacher ratios, additional staff added in support of the desegregation plan and the normal inflationary or incremental costs of school operation. The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1993-94. 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 Area 5chool Actual Per Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 1993-94 (Budgeted) *$2,678.60 X 6% X 5.8% X 6% Projected Area 5chool Per Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation $2,000.71 + $1,887.46 $2,379.70 + $1,887.46 $2,758.82 4- $1,887.46 $2,678.60 + $1,887.46 Incentive 5chool Projected Per Pupil Expenditure $3,888.17 $4,267.16 $4,646.28 $4,566.06 Incentive 5chool Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment X 1,375 X 1,259 X 2,235 X 1,750 Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based upon Oct. 1 Enrollment $5,346,233.7 5 $5,372,354.4 4 $10,384,435.8 0 $7,990,605.00 1,259 2,235 1,937 $4,895,206.0 3 $9,537,102.6 0 $8,999,844.36 Page cxxxiv Actual Expenditure $6,833,005.6 8 $9,242,255.9 6 $9,418,773.90 Budgeted Amt: $8,767,378.79 Over or Under $1,937,799.6 5 ($294,846.64 $418,929.54 Based upon area school budget 1992-93 area school enrollment Per pupil expenditure (area school) * 1992-93 incentive school enrollment Ish enrollment Anticipated enrollment $27,394,050.32 10,227 $2,678.60 1,937 187 1,750 The interdistrict plan states \"There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a maximum percentage of 60 percent (Interdistrict Plan page 4)\". The assumption of the above concept is that there are enough white students to fill the area schools and \"surplus\" black students would no longer be bussed out of the inner city but would attend their neighborhood schools which would be enhanced. By achieving these ratios the district would have achieved its desegregation goal and could seek unitary status. The plan would indicate that the outflow of white enrollment to private and out of county schools would be reversed by the attraction of desegregated area schools and double funded incentive schools and that there would be sufficient non-black enrollment to meet the maximum 60%-40% ratios in the plan. When blacks are the majority, in order to meet the ratios, a greater movement of blacks out of area schools is required. For example, if a school has 100 students balanced at 60% black and 40% white and ten white students leave, fifteen black students must be transferred to incentive schools in order to maintain the ratio. At this area school the instruction costs would remain the same but the enrollment would have dropped from 100 to 75\nthus raising the per pupil cost. Additionally possibly increasing the cost at the receiving incentive school. On June 23, 1992 a suit alleging voting rights violations by the LRSD for not reforming the composition of the electoral zones was filed on behalf of black citizens. The filing of the suit claimed correctly that zones one and two which are the inner city zones had lost 12,848 residents between the 1980 to 1990 census The loss represents twenty-five percent of the total zone population The incentive schools all are located in zones one and two so the natural population for those schools has decreased. The most western zones of the city (zones three, four and five) experienced the only growth in population. Forty percent of that growth was black indicating more black children Page cxxxv for the area schools in those zones. The southwest zones (six and seven) lost a total population of 4,013, however, the black population increased by 5,552 indicating a white loss of 9,565. With the exception of Mablevale which had a black student percentage of 56% in the 1992-1993 year, all the other schools in the two zones had black percentages between 62 and 74. To achieve the plan ratios, black students would have to be transported back to the inner city incentive schools. Many of these children would be from families that had moved out of those zones to get into what they thought were more desegregated area schools. The following are excerpts from the Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock, prepared by Tischler \u0026amp; Associates ,lnc February 1992 page 11-18 3. Projected Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity only the far west, west, and northwest areas are anticipated as having a positive population change between now and 2010, with all other areas of the Little Rock vicinity losing population. The balance of the county, comprising mainly the rural west and the \"north-of-river\" portions, is expected to increase by 21,154 persons between 1990 and 2010. The eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity are, shown actually losing population from 192,192 in 1990 to 184,542 by 2000 but recovering slightly to 186,042 by 2010. page 11-26 II.C. RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Beyond the quantities of population and households are primary descriptive characteristics, including consideration of age, sex, racial distribution. The following data reviews changes which have occurred in these characteristics over the 1980-1990 decade. 1. Age and Sex Characteristics These data indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the \"baby boom\" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35-59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher than average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population. Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children (and their families) from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast. Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of Page cxxxvi1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. This may be seen as another indication of the out-migration trends discussed earlier for the population as a whole. It is probably also indicative of the perception of lower quality of schools in Pulaski County and Little Rock, as white families with school age children have moved to other jurisdictions. 2. Racial Distribution As of the 1990 census, just over one-third of the entire Little Rock Area population was non-white. All but two of the analysis areas were at least 31 percent non-white, and four of the eight analysis areas had non-white majority populations. This comparison of 1980 and 1990 census data shows that non-white population has increased significantly in the southwest and western sectors, with the percent of non-white population increasing by over 18 percentage points in both of these areas. As of 1990, the midtown and central areas had 68.4 and 80.2 percent non-white population respectively. The lowest non-white population was just over seven percent in the northwest and far west areas. In both the far west and the eastern areas, the proportion of non-white population actually declined slightly, while increasing in all other areas. Of further note is the dramatic contrast between the areas of lowest concentration (northwest and far west) and all other areas which have at least 31 percent non-white population. These maps and data indicate that non-white population is also following the general east- to-west movement of general population, although to date it is primarily focussed towards the west and southwest sectors rather than the far west. As with total population, non- white population is declining and vacating the, eastern portions of the Little Rock vicinity, including the east, central, midtown and downtown sectors, and moving into the west and southwest sectors. The result has been a marked increase in the proportion of non-white population in the west and southwest areas. The northwest and far west areas remain predominantly oriented to white population. The document from which these comments were excerpted has many maps, charts and tables to support the narrative. It serves to illustrate the demographic changes that affect the schools and the difficulty of using the incentive schools as the vehicle to achieve racial balance in the area schools. Another major factor that has exacerbated the difficulty of achieving racial balance has been the increase in classroom seating capacity in the school district. Since 1988-1989 the LRSD has added 939 seats at Washington and 728 seats at King while taking 265 seats at Ish out of the total capacity. Both of the new schools are in the inner city area and have attendance zones for black students that would have been assigned to incentive schools. Both schools operate at below their capacity. The district also has seats built for black students at the PCSSD Crystal Hill School and at the Clinton School now under construction. The incentive school plan requires additional staff and programs to insure that children in \"racially isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities\". If a school is out of the agreed racial balance are those children also Page cxxxvii in a racially isolated setting, and how much opportunity is there for \"meaningful\" desegregated experiences? The desegregation plan says the district is \"committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources\" in incentive schools. If the financial resources of the district are put into the incentive schools and there is no discernable improvement in education quality and student academic performance, how can improvement be expected in the schools that do not have the advantage of the programs or even the minimum extras(academic achievement grants). In order to fully fund the incentive school financial obligation the promised $25,000 grants to area schools were cut to $10,000, and not all the schools received even that amount. The excess capacity in the system is reflected in the low incentive school enrollment. If there were seats taken out of the system the remaining schools would operate more cost effectively by reducing program and administrative staff, increasing individual class sizes and spreading program costs. The enrollment is not directly proportional to costs because of the plan staffing and program requirements that impose a tremendous overhead burden. If, for example, an incentive school operates at 50% of capacity the cost is the same as operating at 100% capacity. If children are added to the school there is no additional cost to the system. There is a potential savings if the seats the additional children gave up are taken out of the system. Page cxxxviiiRecommendations 1. Reduce the excess capacity in the system either by school closing or recruitment of private school students. The district could also encourage parents to keep their children in the public school system by stressing safety features of the elementary schools, the strong academic programs and the value received for their tax expenditures. 2. Develop a comprehensive plan for meeting childrens needs at all school locations instead of giving preference to schools in the inner city. 3. Encourage all parents in the district to take advantage of opportunities in desegregated schools. That would include attracting white patrons to King School remembering that for every two white children, three black children can be enrolled. Page cxxxix1 The following table shows the history of double funding and the double funding projection for 1993-94, all based on figures supplied by the LRSD. 199041 1991-92 1992-93 Area School Actual Per-Pupil Expenditure (Previous Year) Inflationary Adjustment $1,887.46 $2,249.24 $2,602.66 1993-94 (Budgeted) $2,678.60 X 6% X 5.8% X 6% Projected Area School Per-Pupil Expenditure Double Funding Obligation $2,000.71 $2,379.70 $2,758.82 $2,678.60 + $1,887.46 -F $1,887.46 -F $1,887.46 $1,887.46 Incentive School Projected Per-Pupil Expenditure Incentive School Enrollment (Previous Year) Projected Obligation Based Upon Prior Year Enrollment $3,888.17 X 1,375 $4,267.16 X 1,259 $4,646.28 X 2,235 $4,566.06 X 1,750 Actual Enrollment Actual Obligation Based upon Oct. 1 Enrollment $5,346,233.75 1,259 $4,895,206.03 $5,372,354.44 2,235 $9,537,102.60 $10,384,435.80 1,937 $8,999,844.36 $7,990,605.00 Actual Expenditure $6,833,005.68 $9,242,255.96 $9,418,773.90 Budgeted Amt: $8,767,378.79 Over or Under $1,937,799.65 ($294,846.64) $418,929.54 Based upon area school budget 1992-93 area school enrollment Per-pupil expenditure (area school) 1992-93 incentive school enrollment Ish enrollment Anticipated enrollment $27,394,050.32 10,227 $2,678.60 1,937 187 1,750 RECOMMENDATIONS ODM makes no new recommendations\nthe district remains obligated to follow all court orders and to fulfill the commitments in its desegregation plans.The interdistrict plan states \"There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a maximum percentage of 60 percent\" (Interdis. Plan, pg. 4). The assumption of the above concept is that there are enough white students to fill the area schools and \"surplus\" black students would no longer be bussed out of the inner city but would attend their neighborhood schools which would be enhanced. By achieving these ratios the district would have achieved its desegregation goal and could seek unitary status. The plan would indicate that the outflow of white enrollment to private and out of county schools would be reversed by the attraction of desegregated area schools and double funded incentive schools and that there would be sufficient non-black enrollment to meet the maximum 60%-40% ratios in the plan. When blacks are the majority, in order to meet the ratios, a greater movement of blacks out of area schools is required. For example, if a school has 100 students balanced at 60% black and 40% white and ten white students leave, fifteen black students must be transferred to incentive schools in order to maintain the ratio. At this area school the instruction costs would remain the same but the enrollment would have dropped from 100 to 75\nthus raising the per pupil cost. Additionally possibly increasing the cost at the receiving incentive school. On June 23, 1992 a suit alleging voting rights violations by the LRSD for not reforming the composition of the electoral zones was filed on behalf of black citizens. The filing of the suit claimed correctly that zones one and two which are the inner city zones had lost 12,848 residents between the 1980 to 1990 census The loss represents twenty-five percent of the total zone population The incentive schools all are located in zones one and two so the natural population for those schools has decreased. The most western zones of the city (zones three, four and five) experienced the only growth in population. Forty percent of that growth was black indicating more black children for the area schools in those zones. The southwest zones (six and seven) lost a total population of 4,013, however, the black population increased by 5,552 indicating a white loss of 9,565. With the exception of Mablevale which had a black student percentage of 56% in the 1992-1993 year, all the other schools in the two zones had black percentages between 62 and 74. To achieve the plan ratios, black students would have to be transported back to the inner city incentive schools. Many of these children would be from families that had moved out of those zones to get into what they thought were more desegregated area schools. The following are excerpts from the Economic and Market Assessment for the Goals Policy Program for the City of Little Rock, prepared by Tischler \u0026amp; Associates Jnc February 1992 page 11-183. Projected Population Changes for Little Rock Vicinity only the far west, west, and northwest areas are anticipated as having a positive population change between now and 2010, with all other areas of the Little Rock vicinity losing population. The balance of the county, comprising mainly the rural west and the \"north-of-river\" portions, is expected to increase by 21,154 persons between 1990 and 2010. The eight analysis areas comprising the immediate Little Rock vicinity are, shown actually losing population from 192,192 in 1990 to 184,542 by 2000 but recovering slightly to 186,042 by 2010. page 11-26 ILC. RACE, AGE, AND SEX CHARACTERISTICS Beyond the quantities of population and households are primary descriptive characteristics, including consideration of age, sex, racial distribution. The following data reviews changes which have occurred in these characteristics over the 1980-1990 decade. 1. Age and Sex Characteristics These data indicate that the population as a whole is aging. This is consistent with national trends as the \"baby boom\" generation advances into middle age. In 1980, Pulaski County population between the ages of 35-59 years, and 60 years and above comprised 25 percent and 13.7 percent of the population respectively. By 1990, the 35- 59 age group had grown to 30 percent, and the 60 and over group had increased to 15.3 percent of total county population. As of 1990, Black children and teenagers comprised a higher than average percentage of these age groups in Pulaski County compared to the total population. While the county as a whole has approximately 35% Black population, Black female children and teenagers through age 19 comprise 37.4 percent, and Black male children and teenagers comprise 44.1 percent of this age bracket. Of particular note has been the apparent out-migration of younger white children (and their families) from Pulaski County. As of 1980, Pulaski County had 36,253 white children of 0 to 9 years of age. However, ten years later in 1990, this same population group, now aged 10-19 years, was only 29,359, a decline of 6,894, or about 19 percent of the corresponding 1980 population group. By contrast. Black children have maintained their relative total between 1980 and 1990. As of 1980, Black children aged 0-9 years were 19,237. As of 1990, the corresponding age group, now 10-19 years old, was nearly the same at 19,034. This maybe seen as another indication of the out-migration trends discussed earlier for the population as a whole. It is probably also indicative of the perception of lower quality of schools in Pulaski County and Little Rock, as white families with school age children have moved to other jurisdictions.2. Racial Distribution As of the 1990 census, just over one-third of the entire Little Rock Area population was non-white. All but two of the analysis areas were at least 31 percent non-white, and four of the eight analysis areas had non-white majority populations. This comparison of 1980 and 1990 census data shows that non-white population has increased significantly in the southwest and western sectors, with the percent of non-white population increasing by over 18 percentage points in both of these areas. As of 1990, the midtown and central areas had 68.4 and 80.2 percent non-white population respectively. The lowest non-white population was just over seven percent in the northwest and far west areas. In both the far west and the eastern areas, the proportion of non-white population actually declined slightly, while increasing in all other areas. Of further note is the dramatic contrast between the areas of lowest concentration (northwest and far west) and all other areas which have at least 31 percent non-white population. These maps and data indicate that non-white population is also following the general east-to-west movement of general population, although to date it is primarily focussed towards the west and southwest sectors rather than the far west. As with total population, non-white population is declining and vacating the, eastern portions of the Little Rock vicinity, including the east, central, midtown and downtown sectors, and moving into the west and southwest sectors. The result has been a marked increase in the proportion of non-white population in the west and southwest areas. The northwest and far west areas remain predominantly oriented to white population. The document from which these comments were excerpted has many maps, charts and tables to support the narrative. It serves to illustrate the demographic changes that affect the schools and the difficulty of using the incentive schools as the vehicle to achieve racial balance in the area schools. Another major factor that has exacerbated the difficulty of achieving racial balance has been the increase in classroom seating capacity in the school district. Since 1988-1989 the LRSD has added 939 seats at Washington and 728 seats at King while taking 265 seats at Ish out of the total capacity. Both of the new schools are in the inner city area and have attendance zones for black students that would have been assigned to incentive schools. Both schools operate at below their capacity. The district also has seats built for black students at the PCSSD Crystal Hill School and at the Clinton School now under construction. The incentive school plan requires additional staff and programs to insure that children in \"racially isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities\". If a school is out of the agreed racial balance are those children also in a racially isolated setting, and how much opportunity is there for \"meaningful\" desegregated experiences? The desegregation plan says the district is \"committed to improving educational quality and student academic performance in all schools and doubling the financial resources\" in ( incentive schools. If the financial resources of the district are put into the incentive schools and there is no discernable improvement in education quality and student academic performance, how can improvement be expected in the schools that do not have the advantage of the programs or even the minimum extras(academic achievement grants). In order to fully fund the incentive school financial obligation the promised $25,000 grants to area schools were cut to $10,000, and not all the schools received even that amount. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Reduce the excess capacity in the system either by school closing or recruitment of private school students. The district could also encourage parents to keep their children in the public school system by stressing safety features of the elementary schools, the strong academic programs and the value received for their tax expenditures. 2. Develop a comprehensive plan for meeting childrens needs at all school locations instead of giving preference to schools in the inner city. 3. Encourage all parents in the district to take advantage of opportunities in desegregated schools. That would include attracting white patrons to King School remembering that for every two white children, three black children can be enrolled.fl J ?- US FEB 1 1994 Office of Desegregation Mofiiieiitg January 27, 1994 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann\nEnclosed is a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Larry Robertson and Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendents for the Little Rock School District, requesting explanation of the Budgeting process. This information is being forwarded to you at the suggestion of the Judge during yesterdays court hearing of the Little Rock School District's Desegregation Plan. The questions concerning double funding was a coordinated effort with other Incentive School Principals (Encl. 2) and forwarded to Mr. Robertson's Office in October. Numerous phone calls were also made to both the Superintendent's Office and Financial Services Office with no answers. Any assistance provided reference the Incentive School's budgeting process will be appreciated. Sincerely, Robert L. Brown Principal RLBJ/dlj Enclosures\n04-04-1994 11:16AM FROM TO I - 3 / - fy 3710100 P.02 I i i I i I BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY I - INCENTIVE SCHOOLS t (Required - Double Funding) I i 1 I I i ! ! ! i I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. SCHOOL Franklin Rockefeller Rightsell Mitchell Garland Stephens ITEM AMOUNT Theme 1.0 Spanish teacher ' $40,000 25,000 1.0 Aide - Alternative Classroom Specialist 1.0 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation .5 Spanish teacher No impact on Incentive School Budget. 12,000 25,000 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 12,500 I I io y IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES IV ^Pf^ 05 ]39i ^KANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER 'CJ clerk /ToeF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions which the Court now addresses: (1) motion by the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children clerk [doc.#1929]\n(2) motion by Joshua requesting the Court to address certain issues regarding the budget process of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") [doc.#1949]\n(3) motion by Joshua to require the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules [doc.#2051]\nand (4) motion by the LRSD for approval of Jefferson Elementary [doc.#2090]. I. Joshua moves for a ruling on their school construction at request that incentive school benefits. including scholarship benefits, follow the incentive school children [doc.#1929]. Joshua also requests the Court to address the following issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD [doc.#1949]: (1) whether the LRSD is required to double fund the incentive schools\n(2) whether, pursuant to the double funding, the LRSD is required to provide scholarship incentives and awards to students who attend or have attended those schools since the settlement plan\n(3) whether the LRSD is required to provide training and educational opportunities related to potential placement in teaching positions in the LRSD to black parents and others who are placed as aides\n(4) whether incentive school personnel who are required to work extended day and extended year programs are entitled to extra compensation for that extra work\nand (5) whether the Ish children are entitled to receive all of their promised incentive school benefits when they attend King Elementary School. The Court denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits. follow the incentive school children. Joshua's motion was filed on August 2, 1993. Ten days after filing the motion, at the August 12, 1993 hearing on the LRSD budget. counsel for Joshua requested that instead of a hearing on this matter, the parties should first be \"directed to sit and try to work this out. It Transcript, at 10. Joshua went on to state that it is important for Joshua to sit with the school district and in good faith try to resolve these issues without judicial intervention. Id. at 11. The Court agrees and will defer addressing the matters raised in Joshua's motion until such time as -2-the record reflects that the parties have unsuccessfully attempted to resolve the matter without court intervention. The Court likewise denies without prejudice Joshua's motion that the Court address certain issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD. The Court is currently addressing the budget process of the LRSD in an ongoing manner and will continue to do so on its own terms or that of the Eighth Circuit. Moreover, Joshua's motion consists of mere one and a quarter pages (four complete a sentences) and simply does not set forth sufficient grounds for granting the requested relief. II. Joshua moves for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules [doc.#2051]. Joshua states that the LRSD \"did not give the parents of the students recommended for expulsion either notice by certified U.S. mail or by hand delivery of the recommendation for expulsion and the reasons for it. Nor did the district give these parents the date, hour and place that the school board would consider and act upon the recommendation. Nor did the school district conduct a hearing within ten days of the suspension of the students\nnor was a list of witnesses who would furnish information supporting the principal's recommendation made available to the students at least forty-eight days before the ten day hearing period.\" Joshua contends that the LRSD has failed to follow its own rules regarding due process and that because of that -3-fact, the students are entitled to readmission immediately. As authority for this motion, Joshua cites this Court's previous orders and the desegregation plan. The LRSD has responded to this motion by asserting that the matter is now moot. Specifically, the LRSD states that on December 16, 1993, representatives of the LRSD and counsel for Joshua reached a negotiated settlement and all issues were resolved in accordance with the agreement among and between the parties. In this regard, the LRSD states that \"the students were not expelled from the LRSD\nany alleged rule violations were either waived or cured\nit was agreed that the students would remain suspended through the end of the first semester, but would be allowed to take semester examinations and return to school at the beginning of the second semester. H The LRSD states that the motion now before the Court apparently was filed prior to the settlement agreement. In light of the settlement agreement apparently reached between the parties, the Court finds that Joshua's motion for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD in violation of the LRSD's own rules should be and hereby is denied as moot. Joshua may refile the motion if the matter is not moot, or if new and relevant circumstances have arisen that would give rise to any relief. III. The LRSD has filed motion for approval of school a construction at Jefferson Elementary [doc.#2090]. By order dated -4-April 29, 1993, the Court denied the request for approval of construction at Jefferson, stating that the LRSD may repetition the Court for approval of the Jefferson construction after the attendance zones for the King Interdistrict school are finn and court-approved. In addition, the Court requested the following information: the current capacity of Jefferson\nany changes in school capacity that will result from the proposed construction\nand the precise number of portable buildings that will remain at the school as a result of the proposed construction. The LRSD has provided the requested information in the motion now before the Court, Having carefully reviewed the information. the Court finds that LRSD's motion for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary should be and hereby is granted. However, any new space generated by the construction must be dedicated to the use described in LRSD's motion. Any alternative use would have to be approved by the Court. IV. In sum, the Court denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for a ruling on their request that incentive school benefits, including scholarship benefits, follow the incentive school children, denies without prejudice Joshua's motion that the Court address certain issues regarding the budget process of the LRSD, denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for an order requiring the readmission of class members who have been expelled from the LRSD, and grants the -5-LRSD's motion for approval of school construction at Jefferson Elementary. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of April 1994. UTTITED states DISTBttCT JUDGE PHIS DOCUMEMT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE V/ITH RULE 50 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY -6- 4Rirs''S -A JUL 2 5 1994 Oifico of Dcssgregaiiori IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of its business case for Incentive School Plan Double Funding. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 isaa  'J . illUlli By:( Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 21st day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher Heller LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING July 18, 1994 BUSINESS CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District remains committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. This commitment includes the elimination of racially-isolated schools. One purpose of the incentive schools was to create schools that were comparable to the best in the District and the state. time, as well as today, At that Carver and Williams Magnet Schools and Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry Area Schools were/are viewed by their patrons as the premier schools that have established high academic standards and high expectations for students, staff, and parents, academic Incentive schools were designed to promote and excellence in ensure schools that have desegregate. The Incentive School Program been difficult is to not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. classes. The district committed to double funding of these schools in order to provide the enriched program. At the time the settlement plan was finalized, \"double-funding\" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. The district developed a plan without regard to cost a factor which was to be considered at a later point. time, the district has developed a formula and funds the schools Since that according to this established criteria. \"Many, but not all of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive School section of the Desegregation Plan have been put in place, costing the District the amount of the double funding obligations\" (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report). obligations A. Background The racially identifiable schools have evolved from major and minor enhancement schools to Incentive Schools. The purpose of each change was to improve the quality of education. However, the shift in instructional emphasis upon becoming Incentive Schools has had limited success in reducing the academic disparities between black and white students in test scores. Further, no significant number of white students has enrolled in the Incentive Schools despite efforts, although limited, to recruit and serve them in the Incentive Schools.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 2 The district continues to cope with problems that are common to urban school districts. The severity of our financial problems has caused the district to focus its energies and resources on establishing a balanced budget each year. Greater emphasis must be placed implementing and evaluating quality integrated education for our community. on The District must operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of its' annual recurring revenues. Short-term remedies have only delayed the financial crises that we now face. B. Problem Definition programming has C. Current not resulted in either improved achievement or desegregated schools. A number of programs do have defined levels of focus and integration of content needed to optimize teaching and learning. Instructional time is Each facet of this district must assist in resolving its' financial problems. Over the years, the cost of funding incentive schools has more than tripled and current programming has not in improved achievement or desegregated schools. The District must now decide if it will continue to limited. resulted Instructional time triple fund Incentive School programs, while reducing the funding for Area Schools. Such reduced funding of Area Schools will have a negative impact and we run the risk of continued urban flight and aging buildings that need attention. are fifty schools There in the district and the children that populate all of these schools must be provided equitable opportunities and resources. Analysis of Alternatives Teaching and learning have not yielded the expected academic growth. Recruitment of white students to the Incentive Schools has resulted in little or no increase District is now asking the following questions: in enrollment. The  Are there programs currently being implemented in the District (or elsewhere) which could better ensure that the Incentive Schools' original goals are achieved?  Are there obligations that are questionable educational or some other standpoint? are from an  Should funding the Incentive School Program be brought in line with dollars generated through double-funding?Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 3  Can we demonstrate logically that the current program is not making the best use of time, effort, and money?  Are there relevant programs within the District that are achieving the objectives desired for the Incentive Schools? The alternatives at this time are:  Keep doing what we are doing.  Analyze current funding of Incentive Schools and double fund as previously committed.  Modify the Incentive School Program The most reasonable short term alternative is to double fund Incentive Schools without damaging the integrity and quality of programs committed to by the District. * '  Care must be taken to surgically reduce triple funding of the Incentive Schools, these schools remain an important and relevant component of Court approved desegregation plan. as our Minimum modification of extended day can provide a more focused school day, time for staff to focus, assess and plan more meaningful extended day activities. D. Recommendations The District recommends that it maintain its commitment as outlined in the settlement plan, to double fund the incentive schools. Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of District schools. Past and recent annual evaluation reports for the six stipulated magnets suggest that the students attending are achieving academically as well as or better than other students at the state level. The evaluation data for several area schools indicate our students are progressing academically. Achievement disparity still exists\nhowever, data show that African-American students in these schools achieve at a higher academic level than African-American students in non-magnet schools in the district and across the state. that The student enrollments at these schools have been stable over a period of time. There are waitino lists for oarents who wish to pnmi i their waiting parents enroll Financial excellence. students where resources educational alone will not excellence ensure prevails, educational There must be on-going monitoring of programs to ensure double funding is providing for the needs of the children attending these schools. ISIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 4 E. The^ District further recommends that extended day/week activities would be staffed in accordance with programmatic need. A review of current enrollment figures indicates that we need. may be able to eliminate some small classes. Although we are aware that students may enroll late, should the district staff these classes today, we could eliminate eight positions at cost savings of approximately $280,000.00 (eight teachers average salary of $35,000 = $280,000). Objectives a X The objective of this recommendation is to offer a quality Incentive School program at all incentive schools by utilizing the established double funding formula. Evaluation Criteria I The incentive evidenced by: school will be successfully operating as  Increased student achievement. Teaching and learning will improve as measured by projects, portfolio assessments, teacher-made tests. and  Improvement in standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from the bottom quartile to the next quartile and increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile.  Increased interest in the Incentive Schools by white families evidenced by more white students enrolling in these schools. Incentive  Grade distribution reports (by semester) ] SL 1 increase in letter grades of \"C\" or better in the core reflecting an for each student. areas  Increased activities. student participation in extended day/week Expected Benefits students. The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity between black and white students. Quality programs will be used as a recruitment tool to assist the District in desegregating the Incentive Schools. The District will operate and implement an effective and efficient incentive The District school program.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 5 P. Impact Analysis Quality desegregated education will be provided in environment that is attractive and conducive to learning, desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted. an The This recommendation will have a positive impact on the plan as teaching learning will be enhanced. Successful and implementation of this program will allow the District to replicate those factors that enhance and promote student learning and parent involvement. The District plans to provide early release time, one day each month for nine months, to provide quality staff development for all of its teachers including Incentive School teachers. Quality staff development will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers and support staff. Using early release time is an effective and extremely cost saving means of providing support for staff. Double funding of the Incentive Schools will provide for potential dollars for Area Schools. More than 80 percent of the district's students attend Area Schools. to \"doing more with less.\" Double funding of Incentive Schools will shift the emphasis ..J _ ,___Testimonies have suggested that the \"double funding\" intent has created a financial illusion of a \"cure all\" panacea for these schools. The district's program planning and budgeting document will allow us to monitor the impact of \"double funding\" on Incentive School programs on a regular basis, monitoring can ensure that the Incentive Schools do not Such suffer irreparable harm as we shift from triple funding to double funding. Start-up costs should decrease and/or be eliminated after several years of program implementation. Maintenance of programs is not as costly as start-up costs for Incentive School Programs. G. Resource Analysis Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way. Staff and students will benefit as we shift our priorities from implementing a multitude of independent activities to implementation of a more focused program\none that places high emphasis on maximizing people power in schools rather than dollar power.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 6 See attachments Incentive Schools. for analysis of current spending in the An analysis and comparison of 1992-93 and 1993-94 indicate substantial increase in spending, yet the budgets student enrollment was reduced and little, if any academic increases were noted by these schools, decreased. The number of white students  The projected reductions will bring Incentive School budgets in line with the established double funding formula.  Utilization of human resources will be emphasized as opposed to spending because there is a perceived \"pot of money.\" Staff would carefully scrutinize spending of fewer dollars.  The district needs to develop a technology plan to determine equipment needs. Such a plan will also include providing high quality hardware and software Incentive Schools. for the its'  Quality staff development will be provided during newly established early release days at no cost for stipends.  Stipends will be attached to meaningful activities rather than providing staff/utilities/transportation/services students. extended day too for much phantom  Staff would spend more time planning for quality integration of services to be more comprehensive and get the most for dollars expended.  Principals of Incentive Schools will have some flexibility in reallocating their budgets. Requests for budget increases will be handled through the use of business cases.  More students will engage in meaningful extended day/week activities.  Staff would have additional time to reflect and current program offerings. assess staff activities. to plan more Time would be available for effectively for extended day/week # Teachers would have an incentive to do a better job over a shorter period of time. Projected savings as we shift from triple funding to double funding is\nIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 7 SCHOOL FRANKLIN (25) BUDGET ITEM/ FUNCTION Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Music / 1124 Food Service / 0380 AMOUNT 70,657.00 10,272.00 72,615.35 TOTAL 6,965.97 $ 160,510.32 GARLAND (26) Stipends / 0117 Equipment / 0540 Music .05 / 1124 20,000.00 25,000.00 14,262.55 MITCHELL (34) RIGHTSELL (39) ROCKEFELLER (36) Art .05 / 0110 17,500.00 P. E. .05 / 0110 17,500.00 Social Work / 2113) Food Service / 0380 11,887.04 TOTAL 4,000.00 $110,149.59 Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 58,464.45 8,211.00 Music Art .05 / 1124 .05 / 0110 P. E. .05 / 0110 Social Work .05 / 0110 Food Service / 0380 TOTAL $ Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Food Service / 0380 Music .05 / 1124 TOTAL Stipends / 0117 20,864.18 17,500.00 17,500.00 17,500.00 4,000.00 144,039.63 $ $ $ Transportation / 0331 Supplies / 0410 TOTAL $ 57,336.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 17,500.00 80,836.00 40,044.28 7,500.00 2,500.00 50,044.28Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 8 START UP COSTS: PROGRAM AMOUNT Writing to Read Science Labs $ 6,000.00 12,000.00 Computer Labs 6,000.00 Computer Loan Program TOTAL 2,500.00 $ 26,500.00 Business Case Spanish Program $ 149,000.00 H. Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools SUMMARY SCHOOL/PROGRAM Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Start-Up Costs Spanish Program* Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools Staffing Efficiency TOTAL I $ 21,450.00 65,000.00 SAVINGS $ 160,510.32 110,149.59 144,039.63 80,836.00 50,044.38 26,500.00 149,000.00 21,450.00 65,000.00 280,000.00 $ 1/087,529.82 * See July 18, 1994 Court submission for business case. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be - - ------------ ---  Area School staffs, students, parents, community. Board of Directors, central office staff. The recommendation provides for the needs of students who will attend all of our schools and allows us to double fund our Incentive Schools. staffs. and parents. office staff. BoardIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 9 The primary detractors will be persons who believe that Incentive Schools should be triple funded regardless of the negative impact on teaching and learning in Area Schools in the District. Given the concerns expressed by a large number of our patrons and educators regarding the excessive funding of many programs in the Incentive Schools, the list of detractors should be small. These concerns can be eliminated by providing information to them regarding our emphasis on educational excellence and the need to implement quality programs within the established double funding formula. BUDGET IMPACT\nDepartment Function Obj ect 25, 26, I 1120, 0110, 0117, 0331, 0380, 34, 36, 39 1124, 2113 0410, 0540IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION c- '-^1 Z LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS NOTICE OF FILING The Little Rock School District (LRSD) hereby gives notice of the filing of its business case for Incentive School Plan Double Funding. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 I Byd Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 ' RECEIVED JUL 25 1994 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 21st day of July, 1994. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Ar-kansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Christopher HellerLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING July 18, 1994 BDSINES8 CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District remains committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all This students. commitment includes the elimination of racially-isolated schools. One purpose of the incentive schools was to create schools that were comoarable to the best in the District and the state. At that time. comparable as well as today. Carver and Williams Magnet Schools and Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry Area Schools were/are viewed by their patrons as the premier schools that have established high academic standards and high expectations for students, staff, and parents. academic Incentive schools were designed to promote and ensure excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The Incentive School Program is not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. The district committed to double funding of these schools in order to provide the enriched program. At the time the settlement plan was finalized, \"double-funding\" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. The district developed a plan without regard to cost a factor which was to be considered at a later point. Since that time, the district has developed a formula and funds the schools according to this established criteria. tl Many, but not all of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive School section of the Desegregation Plan have been put in place, costing the District the amount of the double funding obligations\" (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report). A. Background The racially identifiable schools have evolved from major and minor enhancement schools to Incentive Schools. each change was to improve the quality of education. The purpose of However, the shift in instructional emphasis upon becoming Incentive Schools has had limited success in reducing the academic disparities between black and white students in test scores. Further, no significant number of white students has enrolled in the Incentive Schools despite efforts, although limited, to recruit and serve them in the Incentive Schools.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 2 The district continues to cope with problems that are common to urban school districts. The severity of our financial problems has caused the district to focus its energies and resources on establishing a balanced budget each year. must be placed Greater emphasis on integrated education for our community. implementing and evaluating quality The District must operate an efficient school district within the boundaries of its' annual recurring revenues. delayed the financial crises that we now face. Short-term remedies have only B. Problem Definition Current programming has not resulted in C. achievement or desegregated schools. either improved A number of programs do have defined levels of focus and integration of content needed to optimize teaching and learning. limited. Instructional time is Each facet of this district must assist in resolving its' financial problems. Over the years, the cost of funding incentive schools has more than tripled and current programming has not resulted in improved achievement or desegregated schools. The District must now decide if it will continue to triple fund Incentive School programs, funding for Area Schools. while reducing the Such reduced funding of Area Schools will have a negative impact and we run the risk of continued urban flight and aging buildings that need attention. are fifty schools in There the district and the children that populate all of these schools must be provided equitable opportunities and resources. Analysis of Alternatives Teaching and learning have not yielded the expected academic growth. Recruitment of white students to the Incentive Schools has resulted in little or no increase in enrollment. District is now asking the following questions: The Are there programs currently being implemented in the District (or elsewhere) which could better ensure that the Incentive Schools' original goals are achieved? Are there obligations that are educational or some other standpoint? questionable from an Should funding the Incentive School Program be brought in line with dollars generated through double-funding?Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 3  Can we demonstrate logically that the current program is not making the best use of time, effort, and money?  Are there relevant programs within the District that are achieving the objectives desired for the Incentive Schools? The alternatives at this time are: Keep doing what we are doing. Analyze current funding of Incentive Schools and double fund as previously committed. Modify the Incentive School Program The most reasonable short term alternative is to double fund Incentive Schools without damaging the integrity and quality of programs committed to by the District. Care must be taken to surgically reduce triple funding of the Incentive Schools, as these schools remain an important and relevant component of our Court approved desegregation plan. Minimum modification of extended day can provide a more focused school day, time for staff to focus, assess and plan more meaningful extended day activities. D. Recommendations The District recommends that it maintain its commitment as outlined in the settlement plan, to double fund the incentive schools. Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of District schools. Past and recent annual evaluation reports for the six stipulated magnets suggest that the students attending are achieving academically as well as or better than other students at the state level. The evaluation data for several area schools indicate that our students are progressing academically. Achievement disparity still exists\nhowever, data show that African-American students in these schools achieve at a higher academic level than African-American students in non-magnet schools in the district and across the state. The student enrollments at these schools have been stable over a period of time, their There are waiting lists for parents who wish to enroll Financial excellence. students where resources ensure double funding educational alone will not excellence ensure prevails, educational There must be on-going monitoring of programs to children attending these schools. is providing for the needs of theIncentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 4 The District further recommends that extended day/week activities would be staffed in accordance with programmatic need. A review of current enrollment figures indicates that we may be able to eliminate some small classes. Although we are aware that students may enroll late, should the district staff these classes today, we could eliminate eight positions at a cost savings of approximately $280,000.00 (eight teachers average salary of $35,000 = $280,000). E. Objectives X The objective of this recommendation is to offer a quality Incentive School program at all incentive schools by utilizing the established double funding formula. Evaluation Criteria The incentive school evidenced by: will be successfully operating as  Increased student achievement. Teaching and learning will improve as measured by projects, portfolio assessments, and teacher-made tests.  Improvement in standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from the bottom quartile to the next quartile and increased numbers of students moving above the 50th percentile.  Increased interest in the Incentive Schools by white families evidenced by more white students enrolling in these schools.  Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C or better in the core areas for each student.  Increased activities. student participation in extended day/week Expected Benefits The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction students. of disparity between black and white students. Quality programs will be used as a recruitment tool to assist the District in desegregating the Incentive Schools. The District will operate and implement an effective and efficient incentive school program.I Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 5 P. Impact Analysis Quality desegregated education will be provided in environment that is attractive and conducive to learning, desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted. recommendation will have a positive impact on the plan an The This teaching and learning will be enhanced. as Successful implementation of this program will allow the District to replicate those factors that enhance and promote student learning and parent involvement. months, The District plans to provide early release time, one day each month for nine to provide quality staff development for all of its teachers including Incentive School teachers. Quality staff development will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers and support staff. Using early release time is an effective and extremely cost saving means of providing support for staff. Double funding of the Incentive Schools will provide for potential dollars for Area Schools. More than 80 percent of the district's students attend Area Schools. to \"doing more with less.\" Double funding of Incentive Schools will shift the emphasis Testimonies have suggested that the \"double funding\" intent has created a financial illusion of a \"cure all\" panacea for these schools. The district's program planning and budgeting document will allow us Incentive to monitor the impact of School programs on \"double funding\" regular basis. on Such monitoring can ensure that the Incentive Schools do not suffer irreparable harm as we shift from triple funding to double funding. a Start-up costs should decrease and/or be eliminated after several years of program implementation. Maintenance of programs is not as costly as start-up costs for Incentive School Programs. 6. Resource Analysis Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way. Staff and students will benefit as we shift our priorities from implementing a multitude of independent activities to implementation of a more focused program\none that places high emphasis on maximizing people power in schools rather than dollar power.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 6 See attachments Incentive Schools. for analysis of current spending in the An analysis and comparison of 1992-93 and 1993-94 indicate substantial increase in spending, yet the budgets student enrollment was reduced and little, if any academic increases were noted by these schools, decreased. The number of white students The projected reductions will bring Incentive School budgets in line with the established double funding formula. Utilization of human resources will be emphasized as opposed to spending because there is a perceived \"pot of money.\" Staff would carefully scrutinize spending of fewer dollars. The district needs to develop a technology plan to determine its' equipment needs. Such a plan will also providing high quality hardware and software Incentive Schools. include for the Quality staff development will be provided during newly established early release days at no cost for stipends. Stipends will activities be rather attached to meaningful than providing extended day staff/utilities/transportation/services students. too for much phantom Staff would spend more time planning for quality integration of services to be more comprehensive and get the most for dollars expended. Principals of Incentive Schools will have some flexibility in reallocating their budgets. Requests for budget increases will be handled through the use of business cases. More students will engage in meaningful extended day/week activities. Staff would have additional time to reflect and current program offerings. assess staff activities. to plan more Time would be available for effectively for extended day/week Teachers would have an incentive to do a better job over a shorter period of time. Projected savings as we shift from triple funding to double funding is\n) Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 7 SCHOOL FRANKLIN (25) BUDGET ITEM/ FUNCTION Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Music / 1124 Food Service / 0380 AMOUNT 70,657.00 10,272.00 72,615.35 TOTAL 6,965.97 $ 160,510.32 GARLAND (26) Stipends / 0117 Equipment / 0540 Music .05 / 1124 20,000.00 25,000.00 14,262.55 MITCHELL (34) RIGHTSELL (39) ROCKEFELLER (36) Art .05 / 0110 17,500.00 P. E. .05 / 0110 Social Work / 2113) Food Service / 0380 TOTAL Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Music Art 17,500.00 11,887.04 4,000.00 $110,149.59 58,464.45 8,211.00 .05 / 1124 .05 / 0110 P. E. .05 / 0110 Social Work .05 / 0110 Food Service / 0380 TOTAL $ Stipends / 0117 Supplies / 0410 Food Service / 0380 Music .05 / 1124 TOTAL Stipends / 0117 20,864.18 17,500.00 17,500.00 17,500.00 4,000.00 144,039.63 $ $ $ Transportation / 0331 Supplies / 0410 TOTAL $ 57,336.00 2,000.00 4,000.00 17,500.00 80,836.00 40,044.28 7,500.00 2,500.00 50,044.28Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 8 START UP COSTS: PROGRAM AMOUNT Business Case Writing to Read Science Labs Computer Labs Computer Loan Program TOTAL Spanish Program Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools SUMMARY SCHOOL/PROGRAM Franklin Garland Mitchell Rightsell Rockefeller Start-Up Costs Spanish Program* Field Trips Office of Incentive Schools Staffing Efficiency $ $ $ $ 6,000.00 12,000.00 6,000.00 2,500.00 26,500.00 149,000.00 21,450.00 65,000.00 SAVINGS $ 160,510.32 110,149.59 144,039.63 80,836.00 50,044.38 26,500.00 149,000.00 21,450.00 65,000.00 280,000.00 TOTAL $ 1/087/529.82 * See July 18/ 1994 court submission for business case. H. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be Area School Directors, staffs. students. and central office parents. staff. community. Board of The recommendation provides for the needs of students who will attend all of schools and allows us to double fund our Incentive Schools. our1 Incentive School Plan - Double Funding July 19, 1994 Page 9 The primary detractors will be persons who believe that Incentive Schools should be triple funded regardless of the negative impact on teaching and learning in Area Schools in the District. Given the concerns expressed by a large number of our patrons and educators regarding the excessive funding of many programs in the Incentive Schools, the list of detractors should be small. These concerns can be eliminated by providing information to them regarding our emphasis on educational excellence and the need to implement quality programs within the established double funding formula. BUDGET IMPACT\nDepartment Function 25, 26, Object 1120, 0110, 0117, 0331, 0380, 34, 36, 39 1124, 2113 0410, 0540LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING REVISED - AUGUST 4,1994 BUSINESS CASE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PLAN DOUBLE FUNDING EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Little Rock School District remains committed to the implementation of a comprehensive desegregation plan which focuses on the total learning environment for all students. This commitment includes the elimination of racially-isolated schools. One purpose of the incentive schools was to create schools that were comparable to the best in die District and the state. At that time, as well as today. Carver and Williams Magnet Schools and Forest Park, Jefferson, and Terry Area Schools were/are viewed by their patrons as the premier schools that have established high academic standards and high expectations for students, staff, and parents. Incentive schools were designed to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. The Incentive School Program is not only to compensate the victims of segregation but also to serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in the Incentive Schools and in the three districts as a whole. The Incentive Schools were to be substantially enriched for seven years through the addition of expert faculty and administrators, innovative programs, small classes, remodeled facilities, and improved equipment and materials. The district committed to double funding of these schools in order to provide the enriched program. At the time the settlement plan was finalized, \"double-funding\" was not clearly defined nor had the cost for implementing the plan been determined. The district developed a plan without regard to cost-a factor which was to be considered at a later point Since that time, the district has developed a formula and funds the schools according to this established criteria. \"Many, but not all of the special programs, activities, personnel, and equipment described in the Incentive School section of the Desegregation Plan have been put in place, costing the District the amount of the double funding obligations\" (ODM 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report). A. Background The racially identifiable schools have evolved from major and minor enhancement schools to Incentive Schools. The purpose of each change was to improve the quality of education. However, the shift in instructional emphasis upon becoming Incentive Schools has had limited success in reducing the academic disparities between black and white students in test scores. Further, no significant number of white students has enrolled in the Incentive Schools despite efforts, although limited, to recruit and serve them in the Incentive Schools. The district continues to cope with problems that are common to urban school districts. The severity of our financial problems has caused the district to focus its energies and resources on establishing a balanced budget each year. Greater emphasis must be placed on implementing and evaluating quality integrated education for our community. The District must operate an efficient school districtIncentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 2 within the boundaries of its annual recurring revenues. Short-term remedies have only delayed the financial crises that we now face. B. Problem Definition Current programming has not resulted in either improved achievement or desegregated schools. A number of programs do have defined levels of focus and integration of content needed to optimize teaching and learning. Instructional time is limited. Each facet of this district must assist in resolving its financial problems. Over the years, funding incentive schools has exceeded the Districts double funding obligation and current programming has not resulted in improved achievement or desegregated schools. The District must now decide if it continue this practice of funding Incentive School programs, or should funding be realigned to our commitment The current practive has impacted the Districts ability to fund Area Schools. Such reduced funding of Area Schools will have a negative impact and run the risk of continued urban flight and aging buildings that need attention. There are 50 schools in the district and the children that populate all of these schools must be provided equitable opportunities and resources. A large we percentage of students attending our Area Schools are students who may live in the Incentive School attendance zones and/or have similar educational needs. C. Analysis of Alternatives Teaching and learning have not yielded the expected academic growth. Recruitment of white students to the Incentive Schools has resulted in little or no increase in enrollment The District is now asking the following questions:  Are there programs currently being implemented in the District (or elsewhere) which could better ensure that the Incentive Schools original goals are achieved?  Are there obligations that are questionable from an educational or some other standpoint?  Should funding the Incentive School Program be brought in line with the Districts commitment to double fund these schools?  Can we demonstrate logically that the current program is not making the best use of time, effort, and money?  Are there relevant programs within the District that are achieving the objectives desired for the Incentive Schools?Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 3 The alternatives at this time are\n Keep doing what we are doing.  Review programs and analyze current funding of Incentive Schools in order to realign funding as previously committed to by the District  Modify the Incentive School Program The most reasonable short term alternative is to double fund Incentive Schools without damaging the integrity and quality of programs committed to by the District Care must be taken to surgically realign funding of the Incentive Schools, as these schools remain an important and relevant component of our Court approved desegregation plan. Minimum modification of extended day can provide a more focused school day, time for staff to focus, assess and plan more meaningful extended day activities. D. Recommendations Number One The District recommends that it maintain its commitment as outlined in the settlement plan, to double fund the incentive schools. Educational excellence, as measured by state testing programs, does prevail in a number of District schools. Past and recent annual evaluation reports for the six stipulated magnets suggest that the students attending are achieving academically as well as or better than other students at the state level. The evaluation data for several area schools indicate that our students are progressing academically. Achievement disparity still exists\nhowever, data show that African-American students in these schools achieve at a higher academic level than African-American students in non-magnet schools in the district and across the state. The student enrollments at these schools have been stable over a period of time. There are waiting lists for parents who wish to enroll their students where educational excellence prevails. Financial resources alone will not ensure educational excellence. There must be on-going monitoring of programs to ensure the District maintains its commitment to provide for the needs of the children attending these schools. The District further recommends that extended day/week activities would be staffed in accordance with programmatic need. A review of current enrollment figures indicates that we may be able to eliminate some small classes. Although we are aware that students may enroll late, should the district staff these classes today, we could eliminate eight positions at a cost savings of approximately $280,000.00 (eight teachers x average salary of $35,000 = $280,000).Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 4 Number Two The Great Expectations Teaching Model, which encompasses the very best of what is known about teaching today, should be implemented in selected Incentive Schools. Successful implementation can enhance student achievement, promote a positive school climate, and increase the probability of attaining the goals of the Desegregation Plan. Successful implementation during the 1994-95 school year will ensure replication of this teaching model in the remaining Incentive Schools as well as Area Schools with similar nee^. (Refer to Business Case for Great Expectations) E. Objectives The objective of this recommendation is to offer a quality Incentive School program at all incentive schools by utilizing the funding that has been generated through our commitment to double funding. Evaluation Criteria The incentive school will be successfully operating as evidenced by\n Increased student achievement Teaching and learning will improve as measured by projects, portfolio assessments, and teacher-made tests.  Improvement in standardized test scores. Increased numbers of students moving from the bottom quartile to the next quartile and increased numbers of students moving above the t percentile.  Increased interest in the Incentive Schools by white families evidenced by more white students enrolling in these schools.  Grade distribution reports (by semester) reflecting an increase in letter grades of \"C\" or better in the core areas for each student  Increased student participation in extended day/week activities. Expected Benefits The District will be able to meet its commitment of increasing achievement for all students, which will result in a reduction of disparity between black and white students. Quality programs and effective teaching strategies will be used as a recruitment tool to assist the District in desegregating the Incentive Schools. The District will operate and implement an effective and efficient incentive school program.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 5 F. Impact Analysis Quality desegregated education will be provided in an environment that is attractive and conducive to learning. The desegregation plan will not be negatively impacted. This recommendation will have a positive impact on the plan as teaching and learning will be enhanced. Successful implementation of this program will allow the District to replicate those factors that enhance and promote student leanung and parent involvement  The District plans to provide early release time, one day each month for nine months, to provide quality staff development for aU of its teachers including Incentive School teachers.  Quality staff development will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers and support staff.  Using early release time is an effective and extremely cost saving means of providing support for staff.  Double funding of the Incentive Schools will provide for potential dollars for Area Schools. More than 80 percent of the districts students attend Area Schools.  Double funding of Incentive Schools will shift the emphasis to \"doing more with less. Testimonies have suggested that the \"double funding\" intent has created a financial illusion of a \"cure all\" panacea for these schools.  Monthly monitoring and conference with principals will allow the District to track expenditures and ensure that the rate of spending is appropriate for programming needs.  The Districts program planning and budgeting document will allow us to monitor the impact of \"double funding\" on Incentive School programs on a regular basis. Such monitoring can ensure that the Incentive Schools do not suffer irreparable harm as we realign expenditures with the Districts commitment to fund the Incentive Schools.  Start-up costs should decrease and/or be eliminated after several years of program implementation. Maintenance of programs is not as costly as start-up costs for Incentive School Programs.  Implementation of the Great Expectations Teaching Model should provide the means for establishing the proper focus and connectivity needed to optimize student performance in the Incentive Schools. Incentive School componentsIncentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 6 (i.e., Reading Across the Curriculum, Oral Expression Across the Curriculum, Program for Effective Teaching, Cooperative Learning, Teacher Expectations and Student Achievement, heterogeneous grouping, learning styles, social skills, and incentive/recognition programs) can be implemented in a systematic manner. The model will enhance the instructional skills of the teachers by providing excellent support for delivery of the current curriculum. Strengthening the capacity of the staffs to enhance learning through staff development activities is extremely cost effective. The educational returns can be long lasting. The probability of attaining the goals of the Incentive Schools will be increased. G. Resource Analysis Human and financial resources will be used in a more meaningful way. Staff and students will benefit as we shift our priorities from implementing a multitude of independent activities to implementation of a more focused program\none that places high emphasis on maximizing people power in schools rather than dollar power. See attachments for analysis of current spending in the Incentive Schools. An analysis and comparison of 1992-93 and 1993-94 budgets indicate substantial increase in spending, yet the student enrollment was reduced and little, if any academic increases were noted by these schools. The number of white students decreased.  The projected reductions will bring Incentive School budgets in line with the established double funding formula.  Utilization of human resources will be emphasized as opposed to spending because there is a perceived \"pot of money.\" Staff would carefully scrutinize spending of fewer dollars.  The district needs to develop a technology plan to determine its equipment needs. Such a plan will also include providing high quality hardware and software for the Incentive Schools.  Quality staff development will be provided during newly established early release days at no cost for stipends.  Stipends will be attached to meaningful extended day activities rather than providing too much staffZutilities/transportation/services for phantom students.Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 7  Staff would spend more time planning for quality integration of services to be more comprehensive and get the most for dollars expended.  Principals of Incentive Schools will have some flexibility in reallocating their budgets. Requests for budget increases will be handled through the use of business cases.  More students will engage in meaningful extended day/week activities.  Staff would have additional time to reflect and assess current program offerings. Time would be available for staff to plan more effectively for extended day/week activities.  Teachers would have an incentive to do a better job over a shorter period of time.  No additional funding will be necessary to implement Great Expectations. Existing materials will be used. Any additional materials or supplies can be secured with existing funds. This teaching model will be funded by a private foundation. The District expects to develop the ability to support and sustain the model through existing personnel. The staff development specialist assigned to the incentive schools attended the Great Expectations Summer Institute and provide technical assistance and support to the school staffs. Information provided in the following charts will reflect the actual savings derived from realigning our current spending.SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING FRANKLIN INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0025 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1105-0120 Reg. Non- Certified $ 36,794.05 $ 20,570.00 $ 16,224.05 1120-0117 Stipends $ 62,811.61 50,000.00 12,811.61 1120-0120 Reg. Non- Certified $ 146,368.56 137,205.56 9,163.00 1220-0110 Resource Room $ 61,485.75 28,104.00 33,381.75 1220-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 4,547.07 2,030.85 2,516.22 1220-0240 Insurance $ 2,234.80 1,105.00 1,129.80 $ 314,241.84 $ 239,015.41 $ 75,226.43SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING GARLAND INCENTIVE SCHOOL 0026 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1110-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 39,833.31 $ 35,852.00 $ 3,981.31 1120-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 421,511.31 1120-0117 Stipends $ 127,351.41 1120-0130 Subst. Short $ 18,696.56 1120-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 52,942.48 1120-0331 Pupil Trans. 339,508.60 50,000.00 .00 37,682.25 82,002.71 77,351.41 18,696.56 15,260.23 $ 5,856.86 5,000.00 856.86 1120-0333 Travel $ 1120-0380 3,775.42 Food Service $ 12,467.20 1120-0410 Supplies .00 8,000.00 3,775.42 4,467.20 $ 12,851.74 8,700.00 4,151.74 1120-0416 Supply Center $ 1120-0540 6,246.39 Equipment $ 83,179.56 .00 25,000.00 6,246.39 58,179.561993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1124-0110 Reg. Ceirtif. $ 27,276.67 1220-0110 Reg. Certif. 12,235.45 15,041.22 $ 3,738.42 .00 3,738.42 2113-0120 $ 14,447.74 10,438.50 4,009.24 2410-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 59,995.14 56,078.38 3,916.76 2410-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 5,700.26 2542-0120 Reg. NonCert. 5,188.32 511.94 $ 3500-0313 38,908.00 Pupil Srvs. 36,962.60 1,945.40 $ 17,763.51 15,000.00 2,763.51 $ 952,541.98 $ 645,646.10 $ 306,895.88SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING MITCHELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0034 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1110-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 101,070.50 $ 62,049.00 $ 39,021.50 1110-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 7,536.03 4,483.78 3,052.25 1110-0240 Insurance $ 1120-0110 3,338.14 Reg. Certif. 2,210.00 1,128.14 $ 350,906.95 308,624.74 42,282.21 1120-0117 Stipends $ 100,856.17 50,000.00 50,856.17 1120-0120 Reg. NonCert. $ 157,057.46 134,584.20 22,473.26 1120-0331 Pupil Trans. $ 5,515.32 $ 5,000.00 515.32 1120-0416 Supply Center $ 6,026.87 947.00 5,079.87 1120-0540 Equipment $ 8,185.22 .00 8,185.22 1124-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 23,286.00 15,653.00 7,633.00 1124-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 2,902.79 1,131.08 1,771.71 $ 766,681.45 584,682.80 181,998.65SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING RIGHTSELL INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0039 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1120-0117 Stipends $ 91,361.59 $ 50,000.00 $ 41,361.59 $ 91,361.59 $ 50,000.00 $ 41,361.59SCHOOL: PROJECTED SAVINGS REALIGNMENT OF SPENDING TO MAINTAIN LRSD'S COMMITMENT TO DOUBLE FUNDING ROCKEFELLER INCENTIVE SCHOOL - 0036 1993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1105-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 93,677.09 $ 83,185.00 $ 10,492.09 1105-0120 Reg. Non- Certif. $ 186,166.39 173,610.22 12,556.17 1110-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 86,437.25 71,384.00 15,053.25 1110-0210 Soc. Sec. Tax $ 6,472.67 5,158.38 1,314.32 1120-0110 Reg. Certif. $ 550,304.75 528,909.66 21,395.09 1120-0117 Stipends $ 105,960.94 70,000.00 35,960.94 1120-0120 Reg. NonCert if . $ 165,813.92 161,102.88 4,711.04 1120-0311 Instruc. Svcs. $ 38,136.77 .00 38,136.77 1120-0380 Food Services $ 31,013.40 20,000.00 11,013.40 1120-0410 Supplies $ 29,708.54 20,000.00 9,708.54 1120-0416 Supply Center $ 8,689.39 .00 8,689.391993-94 ACTUAL EXPENDITURES REVISED 1994-1995 PROJECTED BUDGET 1994-1995 ACTUAL SAVINGS 1120-0540 Equipment $ 44,595.14 .00 44,595.14 1120-0548 Equip. Supply Center $ 890.73 .00 890.73 $ 1,347,866.98 $ 1,133,350.14 $ 214,516.87Incentive School Plan - Double Funding August 4, 1994 Page 9 H. Force Field Analysis The primary supporters of this recommendation will be Area School staffs, students, parents, community, Board of Directors, and central office staff. The recommendation provides for the needs of students who will attend all of our schools and allows us to double fund our Incentive Schools. The primary detractors will be persons who believe that the current practice of funding Incentive Schools should be continued regardless of the negative impact on teaching and learning in Area Schools in the District Given the concerns expressed by a large number of our patrons and educators regarding current funding of many programs in the Incentive Schools, the list of detractors should be small. These concerns can be eliminated by providing information to them regarding our emphasis on educational excellence and the need to implement quality programs within the established double funding formula. BUDGET IMPACT: Department Function Object 25, 26, 34, 36, 39 1105, 1110, 1120, 1124, 2113, 2410, 2542, 3500 0110, 0117, 0331, 0380, 0410, 0540, 0120, 0210, 0240, 0130, 0333, 0416, 0313, 0311, 3548Arkansas Demcxxat 78?(gazette THUaSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1995  3B LR district exceeds spending on 5 schools to meet target\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_499","title":"Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District's Incentive Schools Mentoring Program,'' mentor handbook","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/1991"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: ''Little Rock School District's Incentive Schools Mentoring Program,'' mentor handbook"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/499"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nLittle Rock School District's Incentive Schools Mentoring Program ERSD Incentives for Success Mentor HandbookLittle Rock School District Incentive Schools Mentoring Program Welcome Incentive Schools Mentoring Mentor Handbook Cultural Diversity Student Population Confidenti ality ORIENTATION AGENDA November 19, 1991 Catherine Gill, Incentive Schools Coordinator Arma Hart, Desegregation Facilitator Debbie Milam, VIPS/PIE Coordinator Valerie Hudson, VIPS Incentive School Coordinator Horace Smith, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Jo Evelyn Elston, Pupil Services Director Gwen Efird, Director of Health Services Power of Mentoring Allie Freeman, III Questions and Paperwork Debbie Milam and Leia Hodges DISTRICT GOALS 1. To increase educational achievement for all students with specific emphasis on closing disparities in achievement. 2. To establish climates of educational excellence in all schools through a) 1 providing equitable educational opportunities for ail students in a desegregated learning environment\nb) enabling all students to develop a for learning\nlifelong capacity and love c) teaching all students to be productive contributors in the school 5 the community. and the workplace\nand d) providing a disciplined, structured learning all students. environment for 3. To enhance human relations skills for principals, teachers, central office administrators. andThe Focus Fvinction, and Guiding Process of the Incentive Schools The focus, function, and guiding process of the Incentive Schools will be to provide excellence in an environment of academic support\nindivid ualized education and flexibility. Tlsese -.schools shall exemplify the close partnership between parents and the school community which is a motivational factor for students. The school program will address student success and development of potential from affective, skill based and academic perspec tives. Ilittle rock school district EPS CODE: ADA MISSION STATEMENT of the LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The mission of the Little Rock School District is to provide an educational program that enables each child to achieve his/her highest potential. To that end, the Little Rock School District will provide: basic education for all students\n(2) programs that address the special needs of students (emotional, physical, and mental)\nand (3) enrichment opportunities such as art, music, and.athletics. 'Through an organized program of studies, each student will experience academic success and will learn and appreciate responsibility and productive citizenship. gram of studies Adopted 1-26-84 To (1) a program of 1. Goals The goals of this mentoring program are to see academic improvement, an increase in self-esteem in the participating students and increased awareness of career opportunities. 2. Recruitment Anyone may recruit mentors for the program. All mentors must complete the screening process before beginning work with a student. Many avenues will be used to recruit mentors, emphasizing a desire for diversity within our group of mentors. 3. Selection Process for Students The program is open to incentive school students in grades K-6. No more than 10% of the student population in each school may participate in the program. Students may be referred by the school pupil services management team. The team must be functioning and stay active during the school year for the school to participate in the program. monitoring. The team will be included in orientation and Family members, students and friends may recommend students for participation in the program to someone at the school. Parental involvement. essential to participation, may be confirmed through permission forms. Student participation in the program must be voluntary. Any of the following criteria may be used to refer students to the program\n  * *  moderate underachievement potential academic problems due to family crisis minor disciplinary difficulties social isolation dramatic shifts in behavior which cause concern Selection process for mentors Volunteers are responsible adults expressing the desire to extend their talents and services in a helping capacity with youth. While professional experience in dealing with youth may be helpful, it is not required or expected to be representative of the majority of prospective mentors. It is expected that volunteers will reflect the sampling of all socio-economic levels, ages, ethnic origins, physical challenges and professional/personal backgrounds. The only anticipated commonality among volunteers will be the sincere desire to responsibly contribute time to enrich the lives of youth. Mentors should be at least 21 years of age, responsible, respect alternative lifestyles and listen well. Screening process for mentors Potential mentors must complete an application which will provide needed information and give permission to check two references. driving record. police record and reported child abuse. After the application is reviewed, the A mentor may be scheduled for an interview.It is recommended that the mentor make a one-year commitment. This enables the students and mentor to feel comfortable committing the time, energy and trust necessary to make the relationship successful. Mentors may enter the program at the end of the first semester, remaining semester. Their commitment would be for the 4. Training Orientation will be conducted at least twice in the school year to accomodate the flow of program participants which includes mentors, students, parents, teachers, principals and the school pupil services teams. Orientation will serve to clarify program goals, policies and procedures, expectations, confidentiality and liability issues. Mentors will be assigned a student following training. Mentors must attend the first training session before making any contact with the student. Potential mentors must attend the orientation and first training session before mentoring. Topics that may be covered in the 2 hour sessions will include a discussion of a typical day in the life of a student at home and at school, tips on mentoring, enhancing good listening skills, techniques on how to read to students. confidentiali ty. accessing available ass i stance when needed, sensitivity to cultural diversity. goal setting and decision making with children, and Additional training will be offered once each nine weeks. Other sessions may cover topics such as improving academic skills, goal setting, understanding youth culture, communications skills, values, burnout and tips on tutoring. Mentor support will be included at the end of each training session to provide an opportunity for mentors to share concerns and accomplishments. 5. Monitoring and assessment The students' academic achievements will be monitored while they are matched with a mentor. Their grades and scores will be compared with a control group. Attendance and disciplinary actions will also be monitored. 6. Mentorship activities  In school reading to students * in class visits * visiting school library * playing games * helping with homework * talking together * sharing lunchIt is recommended that mentors and students stay in school for the first three months of their relationship. At the end of three months activities may move outside the school location with parental permission.   Out of school 200 telephone calls * historic area tours * dining out * circus * cultural events * athletic events 7. Recognition Mentors will be recognized at the district's annual volunteer recognition reception, Evening for the Stars, in April. A special graduation banquet will be held in May for mentors, students, parents and teachers. Badges will be made with the program logo and name for the mentors to wear when visiting their student.I n II MENTOR HANDBOOK II Table of Contents II II Pae Thank You 2 II What is Mentoring 3 Incentive School Programs 4 II Incentive School Listings 5 Little Rock School District Goals 6 II student Learning Outcomes 7 II Mentoring Program Outline 8-11 Mentor Job Description 12 II Mentor Roles and Responsibilities 13 student Attributes and Attitudes 14 II Benefits 15 II Mentor Strategies Tips for Writing 16-17 18 II Tips for Reading 19 Elementary Ideas 20 II2 I I Thank you for your interest in mentoring. As a mentor, you will not be required to know or teach \"new math\" skills. or computer You will simply share your wisdom and experience, ... ............. young people understand the connection between staying in and working hard'in school and getting a good job, '......................... You will help potholes on the road of life. You will be able to point out the pitfalls and And you will make a difference! ri Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation Incentive Schools (501) 324-2014 Volunteers in Public Schools (501) 324-2290 501 Sherman, Little Rock, AR 72202I 3 s. I LRSD Incentives for Success I What is Mentoring? I Attempts to arrive at a firm definition of \"mentoring\" are apt to leave one more than mildly confused. The reason for this is clear: Mentoring relationships are many things, more notable for their differences than for their commonalities. They are unique alliances, shaped by a particular mentor s talents and resources, and by a youth's equally unique needs. Mentoring is a particular kind of relationship in which a person with identified abilities or competencies enables another human being to develop his/her own abilities and talents. Mentoring is a close personal relationship, a process of working together to achieve agreed upon goals. Mentoring relationship, with mentors and mentees deriving satisfaction from their alliance. is also a mutual Acknowledging this kaleidoscope of meanings, the Little Rock School District Incentive Schools Mentoring Program has, initiative, chosen to view mentoring as: for the purpose of its own mentoring A supportive one-to-one relationship between an adult and a student, developed to facilitate the student's educational, social and personal growth. Mentors advise, coach, counsel, teach and model successful behaviors, roles vary depending on the abilities of the mentor and the needs of the mentee. These A mentor may help the mentee to: Translate his/her experiences into learning opportunities\n* Improve academic skills by helping with school projects, or encouraging the student to discover and use the resources of the public 1ibrary\nprojects, f Explore the world of employment. . , Mentors introduce students to the realities of the work place, introducing them to appropriate work habits and attitudes\n  Apply what he/she is learning in school to everyday life. II - -F / V 4 laeaalm hrf TIB 1 / Incentive School Programs  Student Education Plan An individual learning plan is developed to meet each student's learning style, interests, and needs. Exciting, Themed Focus Each school will have a theme that provides an exciting focus for solid basic skills results. ri Computer-Assisted Instruction Children learn computer-based instruction in elementary school reading, math, social studies and science. Writing to Read computer labs are available for kindergarten and first grade. Extended-Day, -Week, and -Year Learning Opportunities Classes after school (homework center, special skills, clubs and leisure activities) and on Saturday, as well as field trips, enhance learning. ri Parent Center Parents may obtain materials on parenting skills and other information at each school. student Homework Hotline A telephone hotline is available for students to call for assistance Monday through Thursday from 6 to 8 p.m. Best Pupil-to-Staff Ratio in the District This classroom ratio helps increase interaction between students and trained adults. Special Skills Programs Foreign language, free string program, band, choir, dance, gymnastics and aerobics are offered after school. Parent Council The Parent Council routinely visits the school and shares ideas with staff and administrators to accomplish model school results. Four-Year-Old Program The four-year-old program offers certified teachers, an instructional aide and an age-appropriate curriculum that prepares for kindergarten level learning. ri FOR MORE INFORMATION AND SCHOOL TOURS, CALL 324-2286 ri Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham SL Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I 5 I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Incentive Schools I School Frankl in Gari and Ish Mitchell Rightsei 1 Rockefeller Stephens Principal Address Phone Franklin Davis Robert Brown Stan Strauss Donita Hudspeth Bobbie Goodwin Ann Mangan Lonnie Dean 1701 S. Harrison Rd, (04) 3615 W. 25th Street, (04) 3001 Pulaski, (06) 2410 Battery, (06) 911 W. 19th (06) 700 E. 17th (06) 3700 W. 18th (04) 671-6380 671-6275 324-2410 324-2415 324-2430 324-2385 671-6350 I ri to c u? \u0026lt;_ eg O o LRSD Incentives for Success 1 5? S? zI 6 4 4 LITHE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 GOALS 4 1990-91 4 4 in To increase educational achievement for all students with specific emphasis on closing disparities 4 achievement. To in establish climates of excellence all schools. 4 for principals, teachers, and central office administrators. To enhance human relations skills 4 4 44 I* I 7 N Student Learning Outcomes N Little Rock School District Student Learning Outcomes Arkansas Board of Education Learner Outcomes* N 4 4 The Board believes that students should leave school possessing the skills and knowledge they need to have successful experiences in higher education and in the workplace. These exit outcomes should be reflected in the goals and objectives established for each curricular program, level/course, unit, and lesson. The District has the following outcomes for all students by the time they graduate from the 12th grade. 4 Students will: 4 4 4 444 1. Adequately master reading, writing, speaking, listening (communication, critical and creative thinking, and mathematical skills sufficient for effective, efficient functioning. 1. 2. Locate and use needed informaiion from printed materials and/or other resources. Students will acquire core concepts and abilities from the sciences, the arts, humanities, mathematics, social studies,language arts, foreign languages,physicaVhealth education, practical living studies and existing/emerg-ing technologies. 2. 3. Identify problems and needs, apply problem solring strategies, and analyze information for meaning and,^or action. Students will apply various thinking/problem-solving strategies to issues related to all subject matter fields and to real-life situations. 4. Use tools of technology at an effective, efficient, flexible, and adapuble level. 5. Have knowledge of basic historical, geographic, political, literary, and scientific information, and use such knowledge in day-to-day decisions. 6. Appreciate and understand cultural dL''ferences. the arts and humanities, current happenings, and ways to predict or influence future events. 2. Establish and maintain effective and supportive intrapcrsonal. interpersonal, and cooperative relationships, and civic and social responsibility. 8. Demonstrate scif-direciion as an active life-long learner and demonstrate self-respect, self-esteem, sclf-undersi.anding, and a physically and men tally balanced healthy life. 3. Students will exhihit/demonstraie attitudes and attributes that will promote mental, physical and emotional health. 4, Students will demonstrate good citizenship and function as positive members of the local, national and world comunity. Tcniatively approved by ihc Ariarsor Hoard of Ediicalion June 19.19^1. 8 c LRSD Incentives for Success Little Rock School District's Incentive Schools Mentoring Program 1. Goal s 2. Recruitment 3. Selection Process for Students and Mentors d 4. Training 5. Monitoring and Assessment d 6. Mentorship Activities 7. Recognition d ri dI 9 1. Goals The goals of this mentoring program are to see academic improvement. an increase in self-esteem in the, participating students and increased awareness of career opportunities. 2. Recruitment Anyone may recruit mentors for the program. screening process before beginning work with a student. All mentors must complete the Many avenues will be used to recruit mentors, emphasizing a desire for diversity within our group of mentors. 3. Selection Process for Students The program is open to incentive school students in grades K-6. No more than ri 10% of the student population in each school may participate in the program. Students may be referred by the school pupil services management team. The team must be functioning and stay active during the school year for the school to participate in the program. monitoring. The team will be included in orientation and Family members, students and friends may recommend students for participation in the program to someone at the school. essential to participation, Parental involvement. may be confirmed through permission forms. ri Student participation in the program must be voluntary. Any of the following criteria may be used to refer students to the program\nri *   * moderate underachievement potential academic problems due to family crisis minor disciplinary difficulties social isolation dramatic shifts in behavior which cause concern Selection process for mentors Volunteers are responsible adults expressing the desire to extend their talents and services in a helping capacity with youth. experience in dealing with youth may be helpful, While professional it is not required or expected to be representative of the majority of prospective mentors. ri It is expected that volunteers will reflect the sampling of all socio-economic levels, ages, ethnic origins, physical challenges and professional/personal backgrounds. The only anticipated commonality among volunteers will be the ri sincere desire to responsibly contribute time to enrich the lives of youth. Mentors should be at least 21 years of age, responsible, respect alternative lifestyles and listen well. Screening process for mentors ri Potenti al i nformati on mentors must complete an application which will provide needed and give permission to check two references, driving record, police record and reported child abuse. After the application is reviewed, the mentor may be scheduled for an interview.I 10 It is recommended that the mentor make a one-year commitment. This enables the students and mentor to feel comfortable committing the time, energy and trust necessary to make the relationship successful. program at the end of the first semester, remaining semester. Mentors may enter the Their commitment would be for the 4. Training Orientation will be conducted at least twice in the school year to accomodate the flow of program participants which includes mentors, students, parents, teachers, principals and the school pupil services teams. Orientation will serve to clarify program goals, policies and procedures, expectations, confidentiality and liability issues. ri Mentors will be assigned a student following training. Mentors must attend the first training session before making any contact with the student. ri Potential mentors must attend the orientation and first training before mentoring. session Topics that may be covered in the 2 hour sessions will include a discussion of a typical day in the life of a student at home and at school, tips on mentoring, enhancing good listening skills, techniques on how ri to read to students, confi denti ali ty. accessing available goal setting assistance when sensitivity to cultural diversity. and decision making with children. needed, and ri Additional training will be offered once each nine weeks. Other sessions may cover topics such as improving academic skills, goal setting, understanding youth culture, communications skills, values, burnout and tips on tutoring. Mentor support will be included at the end of each training session to provide an opportunity for mentors to share concerns and accomplishments. 5. Monitoring and assessment The students' academic achievements will be monitored while they are matched with a mentor. Their grades and scores will be compared with a control group. Attendance and disciplinary actions will also be monitored. 6. Mentorship activities ri ri In school reading to students in class visits visiting school library playing games helping with homework * talking together sharing lunch ri    11 It is recommended that mentors and students stay in school for the first three months of their relationship. At the end of three months activities may move outside the school location with parental permission.   Out of school zoo telephone calls * historic area tours * dining out  circus * cultural events * athletic events 7. Recognition Mentors will be recognized at the district's annual volunteer recognition reception. Evening for the Stars, in April. A special graduation banquet will be held in May for mentors, students, parents and teachers. ri Badges will be made with the program logo and name for the mentors to wear when visiting their student. ri ri ri ri12 Volunteer Job Description a Title: Incentive School Mentor a Support Persons: Incentive School Coordinators Job Description: To spend one hour per week with an elementary student with the goal of helping that child improve academically and experience an increase in self esteem. a Major Responsibilities: To complete orientation prior to becoming a mentor, visit assigned student weekly, serve as a positive role model for the student, and attend additional support and training once per nine weeks. Experlence/Quallflcations Desired: Good communications skills, nonjudgmental attitude toward others and support of public education. Hours of CoMiltaent: Per Week 1 Per Month 4 a Days oTWeek: Your choice, Monday through Friday, during school hours 8:00- 4:30. 11:00 - 12:30 is preferred time at some schools. a Length of ComltBent: Commitment should be for at least one semester. A coimitment of one semester would involve approximately five hours of training and 20 hours of work with the student. a Training and Supervision Provided: Attendance at two hours of orientation is required to progress to training. times most convenient to the mentors. Four training sessions will be provided at the mentoring begins, needed. Orientation must be completed before Ongoing individual consultation will be provided as Address Where Volunteer Hill Report: Assigned Little Rock Incentive School a a For Biore InforiMtion contact: Valerie Hudson or Debbie Milam Volunteers in Public Schools Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 324-2292 or 324-2297 Catherine Gill Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 324-2014i 13 ri ri Mentor Roles \u0026amp; Responsibilities The most crucial role for a mentor is to be an adult who has time for a child, who cares about that child, who believes in that child. This relationship may provide the ONLY stability a student knows, and the only time anyone spends quality time with the mentee.  Keith Geiger                       A GOOD MENTOR Engages in a positive relationship with the child Gives attention to the mentee Has a positive self-esteem Reacts well to stressful situations Tolerates frustrating situations Does not engage in alcohol or drug abuse Listens well Communicates on a level the mentee can understand Is stable Provides leadership Respects alternate lifestyles Is a positive role model Meets on a weekly basis with the mentee Shows up on time for sessions Has no criminal record Is willing to serve a minimum of one year in the program Cares about helping a needy child Is not a judgmental person Is committed Nurtures a relationship that respects the men tees dignity Accepts responsibilities Reinforces students successes THE MENTORS ROLE IS NOT TO       Replace the role of parent/guardian Interfere with school policies and procedures Tutor the mentee in academic subjects as a means of improving grades Expect dramatic changes in attitude, self-esteem or attendance quickly Provide solutions to all the issues facing students today Break the trust they have established unless life threatening Alon\nThe ME^'TCR HAWSi?0k', Educn-t^ccnaZ Rczcu-lCW Inc., 1990 I I Student Attributes and Attitudes \u0026lt; A positive self-image and self-esteem are crucial to learning. These attributes determine goals, behaviors and responses to others. Furthermore, people depend on and influence one another. Therefore, it is important that students take responsibility for their lives and set appropriate goals for themselves. In doing so, they develop lifelong attitudes. POSITIVE SELF-CONCEPT Each student should be able to: K K HI  Appreciate his/her worth as a unique and capable individual and exhibit self- esteem\nDevelop a sense of personal effectiveness and a belief in his/her ability to shape his/her future\nDevelop an understanding of his/her strengths and weaknesses and the ability to maximize strengths and rectify or compensate for weaknesses. MOTIVATION AND PERSISTENCE Each student should be able to: Experience the pride of accomplishment that results from hard work and persistence\nAct through a desire to succeed rather than a fear of failure, while recognizing that failure is a part of everyones experience\nStrive toward and take the risks necessary for accomplishing tasks and fulfilling personal ambitions. RESPONSIBILITY AND SELF-RELIANCE M Each student should be able to: M Assume the primary responsibility for identifying his/her needs and setting reasonable goals\nIniuaie actions and assume responsibility for the consequences of those M actions\nDemonstrate dependability\nDemonstrate self-control. Bl (Source. Connecticut s Common Core of Learning. Connecticut State Board of Bl Education, January 1987) Taken THE ME^'TCR EdacattOnaZ Re.4cuTcc.i K'c(a\u0026gt;c.^.k, Jnc., 19^015 Benefits to Mentees I The Signs of Success Mentors frequently ask: Am I making a difference? What are the signs of progress that can be considered successful irt a mentor/mentee relationship? For some, it may be ten years before a former mentee looks back, in retrospect, and says  you know who made a difference in my life? My mentor...when I was in second grade. Below are the signs of success which mentors observe from mentees as a result of the relationship. Teachers notice the same improvement Remember the key  PATIENCE... Every relationship is different. 4  H H M M                   Improved attendance Improved eye contact Raising a hand more often in class Increased communication Taking more risks in class and with friends Smiling Improved interactions with peers Happier at school Improved appearance Increased consideration of others Decreased hostility More enthusiastic Fewer trips to the principals office Reduced detentions Improved attitude Improved academic performance Paying more attention Opening up to the mentor Benefits to Mentors M Mentors make a difference in the life of at-risk youth. There are personal benefits which mentors have shared. These are welcomed outgrowths of the one-to-one relationship established. M Mentors M Bl Appear happier when they return to the workplace Are fulfilled with their commitment as a volunteer in the community Have a greater understanding of the educational system in which they are w'orking and education-related issues. Have more appreciation for students of the same and other races Feel better about themselves for having impacted anothers life Get along better with their own families (spouse and children) Often become a better prepared workforce Tafcer\nTHE HAIWBOOK, Educai-^OnaX Reicu-icc-i HeTiw^ck, Enc., J990 I 16 Mentor Strategies That Work Mentors read with their mentees, take them to the school library, play games and talk. In addition, many of the mentors in the program offer the following activities and strategies which have worked successfully for them in their relationship with their mentee. The list is below in the hopes that others will be able to replicate some of these ideas. Listen, listen, and listen then add three times the patience you would use with your own children.\" Just be a friend and be available.  If a teacher tells you something in conversation (such as your mentee did this and it was not good\nor he! she missed an assignment)\ndont bring this up with the youngster. They feel thatyou re not their friend and that you are on the teachers side\nthen you begin to lose a little trust. Do not constantly ask questions about the students life with the hope thatyou are going to get to know that person better. With time, he!she will let you know EVERYTHING.  H M Hi Bi FROM A MENTOR There is nothing to compare with rich advicefrom a mentor working each week with a youngster in a school. The following was shared by one mentor for others to benefit. The most important thing I have learned is to communicate. Talk to your principal who will help you get set up in a quiet location where you can work with your student Introduce yourself to your students teacher. They are the people who know the student best and can help you arrange one or two goals to work toward with your mentee. They dont have to be academic goals either. They could be something like working on controlling a bad temper or being more verbal or sharpening listening skills. The teacher might tell you on what level the child is reading so the two of you could read library books together that are appropriate. If you feel comfortable with it, a review of a reading or spelling assignment would help reinforce new learning. Most importantly, communicate with your student. The first couple of meetings you may feel like you are doing all the talking, but once the child gets to know you and trust you, youll probably be doing all the listening. The first time I met my student, I brought along a small photo album of pictures of my family, pets and my house. It was just a mailer of time before I heard all about his family. Then we had lots to talk about. Taker. 0- m THE ME^'TCk HAWBOOK, EducaticnaJ Rucu.'ica inc., 199017 w N R R R R n You can also play games with your student. When I first started doing this I felt guilty playing games - that he should be 'learning' something instead. Several mentors were feeling the same way, so we brought this up at a group meeting. It was brought to our attention that a lot of learning does take place while playing games - such as learning to obey rules and good sportsmanship as well as the fact that this game time may be one of the only times the child has the undivided attention of an adult and thats real special to them, too. If you have a hobby or special interest, dont be afraid to share it with your student. My student told me two things he didnt like to do were music and art, which, of course, are my two favorite hobbies! So I stayed clear of those subject for most of the year. Then I decided to bring in my autoharp one day. I played and sang a few fam iliar songs for him, then I went to put it away. He asked if he could try. He looked like he was enjoying it, so I suggested he might learn a song to play for his class. Everyone gathered around him and watched as he played. Then they all clapped when he was done. His smile was a mile wide and he was so proud of himself. One other thing that I think is very important is making a real effort to meet with your student each week and to be on time. These kids, especially the older ones, seem so tough and act like nothing matters to them, but youd be surprised how much they look forward to your visits. If you have to be out of town one week, try to reschedule your time with your student. If thats not possible, maybe you can talk about it the week before, so the child isnt disappointed at the last minute. I  ve watched my little boy go from a very emotional, insecure child to a cheerful and confident boy who knows that things can be done if he tries hard.\"  Susan Corey, Mentor Pepperidge Farm, Inc. How To Spend One Hour 15 Minutes 15 Minutes 15 Minutes 15 Minutes Talk What happened in school this week? What do you need help with today? M Read Share a library book Have your mentee read to you Play a Game Bring one in from home Physical Activity Walk around the school grounds Play in the school gym Taker, facn THE MEKTOR H^h/VSOOK, EducateonaE RcicttlcCi Wc.Cwo\u0026lt;fc, Ir.c., 199018 I R TIPS FOR ENCOURAGING CHILDREN TOWRITE Mentors can encourage children to write for real purposes. In addition to the typical writing assignments given by the teacher, you can offer simple exercises to reinforce R R writing. These include: Notes to parents Notes to friends Notes to the teacher Thank you notes A letter to a storybook character Letters asking for advertised freebies Letters to the local newspaper R Letters to legislators Letters to an author Greeting cards (invent an occasion) Pattern books Keeping dialogue journals Keeping post-it notes while reading Creating lists (use your imagination) DISCUSSION QUESTIONS The Kids Book of Questions. Gregory Stock, Ph.D., offers some good discussion starters for youngsters. Some are funny while others are grown-up questions, issues that a child will face throughout life. Six examples follow:  R    J M  If you were alone and had only a few minutes to hide from crooks who were about to break into your house, where would you hide? What is the best hiding place in your house? Do you think you have too many chores? If you could assign the chores in your house, which ones would you take for yourself? Some adults have a lot of trouble enjoying themselves. If you were asked to give them some advice about how to play and have more fun, what would you say? What is the worst nighunare you can remember? Would you be willing to have the same dream tonight if it meant you could spend a weekend at Disneyland? If you liked someone who later turned out to be a liar, would you still want to be good friends? Did you ever stand up for something you thought was right even though a lot of people got upset with you? If not, do you think you would ever be strong enough to do so? 01 Take-f. j-tcm THE MEh'TCR t-iAKyBOOK, EducitticiiclE Rezicutce-5 ^eXivo-'ik, Inc.., 1990 I TIPS FOR READING TO CHILDREN 19 I Mentors can support teachers efforts to help students learn to read while having fun. Studies indicate that youngsters who are read aloud to and are coached become successful readers. When reading to your mentees, consider the following suggestions which have been prepared by the Language Arts Department of the Norwalk, Connecticut Public Schools.          H    M Select books and poems which you like and will read enthusiastically. For selections to choose from, use school list or check with mentee's teacher. Make certain you have read the whole story before you read it to the child. Practice reading the story aloud before you read it to the child. Read with plenty of expression. Try to vary your tone of voice when there is dialogue in the story. Vary the pace of your reading to fit the story. Read a fast-moving action scene quickly. Read a suspenseful part slowly, drawing out the words. Avoid long, descriptive passages. Before beginning the story', ask the child some questions which will help set the stage for the story. If the child needs background information in order to appreciate the story, spend a few minutes talking about it Have the child predict from the title, the pictures and/or the first paragraph what s/he thinks the story is about. Stop occasionally while reading the story and have the child predict what will happen next Many children have difficulty listening for any sustained length of time. If you find this happening, stop and have the child draw what has been going on in the story or retell the story to you. If you are reading a picture book, go back and talk about the details in the pictures and how they relate to the story. Are there clues to the storys content in the pictures? Talk about the story w'hen you have finished reading. Some questions you might ask are: ? I* a. b. c. d e. f. How do you feel about What do you think happens after the book has ended? If you could write a follow-up to the story, what would you put in it? Why do you think this story could or could not happen? What parts of the story dont you believe? g- Would you like to have he would get along in Whv do you think for a friend? How do you think s/ school? wrote this book? Could any of the events in the book have happened in the authors life? (Ask the child if s/he would like to read another book by the same author.) rfl Taf:cr. Ztom THE MEK'TOR HAfJVBCOK, EducaTxcnauE Re4cu.^Lce^ , Jnc., 7 990 I 20 ELEMENTARY IDEAS TO SHARE Mentors who are working with youngsters on the elementary level can help students to stretch their imaginations with activities that use old magazines. Here are a few ideas, suggested by Scholastic Pre-K Today Magazine.    A A  J Hl Me collage. Ask kids to cut out pictures and phrases that describe their personalities and interests, then glue them on poster board. Or, trace around a childs body while he or she lays on butcher-block paper. Ask children to cover their bodies with favorite pictures and phrases. Whos who? poster. Ask older children to cut out pictures of famous people (celebrities, political figures, etc.), Post a few at a time and encourage kids to find out who each mystery person is and why he or she is famous. Picture stories. Have children cut out a series of interesting pictures, mount each as a page in a picture book, and write lines to a story below. Or, ask children to create strange pictures by combining various ones from magazines. For example, someone might create a tree with jeweled rings hanging from its branches. Attach a sheet of paper and invite a child to write the beginning sentence of a story\npass the picture to another child to write a line, and so on, until everyone who wants, has added a sentence. The child who made the picture can then add the ending. Make time to share your stories. Silly ads. Invite children to come up with funny ads by mixing up pictures and phrases. Older children can work individually or in small groups to create advertising campaigns for new products. Stationery and greeting cards. Kids can create their own special stationery with magazine pictures or make personalized notecards by pasting down letters to spell their names. To make greeting cards, show children how to fold pieces of construction paper in half, then glue on favorite pictures. Suggest that kids cut out words and phrases to create messages inside.  Ciass magazine. For a fun group project, design your own class magazine. Use Hl cutout pictures, words, and phrases from magazines to supplement kids writing and illustrations. J 1 reasure hunt. Make a list of 10 things for kids to find in magazines, cutout and paste on paper. Some possible pictures to search for: something ugly, something old, an orange food, something that has a scent, a child with brown eyes. Hi Taken Tk/E ME^'T0R MWBOOK, Educai-conat Tuouaezi K/cXivc-ik, Ir.c., 1990\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_487","title":"Incentive Schools: Meetings and 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":["1990/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","School improvement programs"],"dcterms_title":["Incentive Schools: Meetings and 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/487"],"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\nSCHEDULE AND CALENDAR COMMITTEE The Schedule and Calendar Committee met on March 1990 and discussed the provisions of the Incentive School Plan relating to the committee title. The committee members offer the following suggestions and questions for consideration: 1. The extended school day would apply to Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of each week. This approach frees Monday for staff meetings and in-service programs for the staf f. Friday afternoons would be available for parent conferences and/or planning for the staff. The committee recommends one Saturday per month to be designated as an out-reach approach to the parents. The building would be available for meetings. parent conferences, parent study groups, related activities. parenting classes. and other parentThe committee recognizes the value of educational and entertaining field trips for the students. We would appreciate the opportunity and the funding to provide these opportunities to our students during the extended day on a regular basis. preferably once or twice per month. 1 i 1 4 3 4. The committee recommends that specialized activities during the extended day program be staffed by community personnel trained in providing quality education in the areas of gymnastics, appreciation, tennis, golf, arts and crafts, etc. art 5. Given that Rockefeller School will house the Early' Childhood Magnet for the Little Rock School District, it was felt by the committee that the offerings of the extended day program be limited to grades 2-6 and that participation in the program be voluntary as opposed to mandatory. Opposition to the inclusion of the younger children was based on the belief that organized curriculum after the regular school day could be stressful for the younger children and create an overwhelming planning burden on the staff. 11 is educationally recognized that the attention span of these younger children is considerably less than that of the older students. Further, family time for these younger students is critical to their development regardless of whether that family time is judged to be \"good II or \"bad\" by those in the educational etting. 6. Would personnel be provided for free play time during the I I Iextended day? Socialisation time is essential to child development and the committee for the children. trongly endorses recess time 7. Young bodies require food to concentrate on activities and academics. Is the District planning to fund snacks for the children in the extended day programs? responsible for preparation and serving? Who would be 8. The committee .recommends educational staff involvement in extended day activities to be scheduled on a rotating basis. This would allow certified personnel to participate in District in-service offerings and organizations beneficial to the educational and academic growth of the staff. The Schedule and Calendar Committee submits these proposals for your consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this process. Respectfully Submitted, Martha Lowe Mary Kay Roe Almeda Giles Cindy Warren Ann Watson/ i? .V I SCHEDULE FOR PRESCHOOL INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFF DEVELOPMENT July 23 - August 17, 1990 Date Monday, July 23 Time 8:30-10:00 ______Topic_________ \"Mission/Purposes of Incentive Schools\" Participants Staffs of all Place Parkview Responsibility Estelle Matthis six (6) schools Cafeteria Pat Price (175) 10:30-3:30 Initiating Staff Cohe- siveness and Developing Garland Ish Mission/Goals for Individ- Mitchell ual Incentive Schools\" Rightsei 1 Rockefeller Stephens PV 7-101 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 PV 7-105 PV 7-106 Principals Tuesday, July 24 8:30-11:30 \"Curriculum Refinement: Identification of Desired Learning Outcomes (by grade-level/content 11 areas\nspecialists will K (25) 1 Reading (25) 2 Math (25) 3 Science (25) 4 Soc.St. (25) be assigned to a specific 5 Music (25) group by principal) 6 Art (25) PV 8-104 PV 7-101 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 PR 7-105 PV 7-106 Pat Price Reading Supervis Math Supervisor Science Supervis Soc.St. Supervis Staff Dev. Spec. Art Teacher 12:30-3:30 continue above K (25) 1 English (25) 2 Reading (25) 3 Math (25) 4 Science (25) 5 Soc.St. (25) 6 Music (25) PV 8-104 PV 8-102 PV 7-101 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 PV 7-105 Pat Price Eng/FL Supervise Reading Supervis Math Supervisor Science Supervis Soc.St. Supervis Staff Dev. Spec. Wednesday, 8:30-11:30 July 25 continue above K (25) 1 Art (25) 2 English (25) 3 Reading (25) 4 Math (25) 5 Science (25) 6 Soc.St. (25) PV 8-104 PV 7-106 PV 8-102 PV 7-101 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 Pat Price Art Teacher Eng/FL Supervise Reading Supervis Math Supervisor Science Supervisi Soc.St. Supervis. 12:30-3:30 continue above K (25) 1 Music (25) 2 Art (25) 3 English (25) 4 Reading (25) 5 Math (25) 6 Science (25) PV 8-104 PV 7-105 PV 7-106 PV 8-102 PV 7-101 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 Pat Price Staff Dev. Spec. Art Teacher Eng/Fl Supervise Reading Supervis? Math Supervisor Science Supervise Thursday, July 26 8:30-11:30 continue above K (25) 1 Soc.St. (25) 2 Music (25) 3 Art (25) 4 English (25) 5 Reading (25) 6 Math (25) PV 8-104 PV 7-104 PV 7-105 PV 7-106 PV 8-102 PV 7-101 PV 7-102 Pat Price Soc.St. Supervise Staff Dev. Spec. Art Teacher Eng/FL Supervise! Reading Supervise Math Supervisor 12:30-3:30 continue above K (25) 1 Science (25) 2 Soc.St. (25) 3 Music (25) 4 Art (25) 5 English (25) 6 Reading (25) PV 8-104 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 PV 7-105 PV 7-106 PV 8-102 PV 7-101 Pat Price Science Supervise Soc.St. Supervis' Staff Dev. Spec. Art Teacher Eng/FL Supervise! Reading SupervisiDate Friday, Duly 27 Time 8:30-11:30 ___________Topic continue above Participants K (25) 1 Math (25) 2 Science (25) 3 Soc.St. (25) 4 Music (25) 5 Art (25) 6 English (25) Place PV 8-104 PV 7-102 PV 7-103 PV 7-104 PV 7-105 PV 7-106 PV 8-102 Responsibility Pat Price Math Supervisor Science Supervisor Soc.St. Supervisor Staff Dev. Spec. Art Teacher Eng/FL Supervisor 12:30-3:30 \"Extended Day Program (I Staffs of all six (6) schools (175) Parkview Cafeteria Pat Price 2 '550, through Tuesday, August 7, 1990, incentive school staff members to be paired according to the following schedule for the identified activities: are Date Participants Place Time Topic Responsibility Mondav, Duly 30 Garland \u0026amp; Ish staffs (55) Ish 8:30-11:30 \"Lesson Planning for Individ- Staff Dev. D ual Differences Within Whole Group\" 12:30-3:30 II Higher Order Thinking\" G/T Supervisor Tuesdav, 'uly 31 Wednesday, August 1 Mitchel 1 Stephens 0 Cl staffs (55) Rightsell \u0026amp; Rockefeller staffs (55) Garland \u0026amp; Ish staffs (55) Mitchell \u0026amp; Stephens staffs (55) Rightsell \u0026amp; Rockefeller staffs (55) Garland \u0026amp; Ish staffs (55) Mitchell \u0026amp; Stephens staffs (55) Rightsell \u0026amp; Rockefeller staffs (55) Stephens 8:30-3:30 \"Classroom/Di sci pli ne Management\" Staff Dev. A Rockefeller 8:30-3:30 \"Cooperative/Student Team Learning\" Staff Dev. 8 Ish 8:30-11:30 Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles II Staff Dev. C 12:30-3:30 Foreign Language Enrichment Stephens 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 II Application of Classroom/ Discipline Management\" II Review of PET\" Eng/FL Supervisor Principals Staff Dev. D Rockefeller Ish 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 Stephens 8:30-3:30 Rockefeller 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 \"Cooperative/Student Team Learning\" PAL to Reinforce Regular Program\" \"Classroom/Discipline Management\" II Cooperative/Student Team Learning II Higher Order Thinking\" II Foreign Language Enrichment Staff Dev. B Supervisors of Math \u0026amp; Reading Staff Dev. A Staff Dev. B G/T Supervisor Eng/FL SupervisorDate Participants Place Time Topic Responsibility Thursday, August 2 Garland 8 Ish Ish staffs (55) 8:30-11:39 \"Application of Classroom/ Discipline Management (I Principals 12:30-3:30 \"PAL to Reinforce Regular Program 11 Supervisors of Math \u0026amp; Reading Friday, August 3 Monday, August 6 Tuesday, August 7 Mitchell 8 Stephens staffs (55) Rightsell 8 Rockefeller staffs (55) Garland 8 Ish staffs (55) Mitchell 8 Stephens staffs (55) Rightsell 8 Rockefeller staffs (55) Garland \u0026amp; Ish staffs (55) Mitchell 8 Stephens staffs (55) Rightsell 8 Rockefeller staffs (55) Stephens 8:30-11:30 \"Cooperative/Student Team Learning\" staff Dev. B 12:30-3:30 \"Higher Order Thinking II G/T Supervisor Rockefeller Ish 8:30-3:30 8:30-3:30 \", Classroom/Discipline Management\" Staff Dev. A \"Cooperative/Student Team Learning\" Staff Dev. 8 Stephens 8:30-11:30 PAL to Reinforce Regular Program II Supervisors of Math \u0026amp; Reading 12:30-3:30 \"Community and Parent Involvement Principals/VIPS Rockefeller Ish 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 Stephens 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 Application of Classroom/ Discipline Management II Principals Rockefeller 8:30-11:30 12:30-3:30 \"Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles\" Cooperative/Student Team Learning\" II Community and Parent Involvement II II Lesson Planning for Individ- ual Differences Within Whole Group \"Foreign Language Enrichment\" \"Review of PET 'Media Program Staff Dev. C Staff Dev. B Pri nci pals/VIPS Staff Dev. C Eng/FL Supervisor Staff Dev. D Supervisor of Library Media Garland 8 Ish Ish staffs (55) 8:30-11:30 \"Media Program 12:30-3:30 II Review of PET\" Supervisor of Library Media Staff Dev. D Mitchell 8 Stephens staffs (55) Stephens 8:30-11:30 Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles II II Staff Dev. C 12:30-3:30 II Media Program tl Supervisor of Library Mei da Rightsell 8 Rockefeller staffs (55) Rockefeller 8:30-11:30 II Lesson Planning for Individ- ual Differences Within Whole Staff Dev. D Group II 12:30-3:30 \"Community and Parent Involvement\" Pri nci pals/VIPSFrom Wednesday, August 8, 1990, through Friday, August 17, 1990, incentive school staff members are to report to their assigned schools\nthe following schedule identifies the staff development activities for each school: Date Participants Place Time Topic Responsibili ty Wednesday, August 8 Garland staff Garland (30) 8:30-3:30 11 Computer Training II Computer Central/ Principal Ish staff (25) Ish 8:30-3:30 \"Computer Training tl Computer Central/ Principal Mitchell staff (25) Mitchel 1 8:30-3:30 \"Computer Training II Computer Central/ Principal Rightsei 1 staff (25) Rightsell 8:30-3:30 II Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning II Principal Rockefeller staff (30) Rocke- feller 8:30-3:30 II Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning It Principal Stephens staff (30) Stephens 8:30-3:30 \"Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning It Principal Thursday, August 9 Garland staff (30) Gari and 8:30-3:30 \"Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning\" Principal Ish staff (25) Ish 8:30-3:30 II Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning II Principal Mitchell staff (25) Mitchell 8:30-3:30 \"Implementing Homework Center and Other Planning Pri ncipal Rightsell staff (25) Rightsell 8:30-3:30 tl Computer Training II Computer Central/ Principal Rockefeller staff (30) Rocke- feller 8:30-3:30 \"Computer Training\" Computer Central/ Principal Stephens staff (30) Stephens 8:30-3:30 \"Computer Training II Computer Central/ Principal Friday, August 10 Garland staff (30) Garland 8:30-3:30 II SEP Training\" Special Education Supervi sor Ish staff (25) Ish 8:30-3:30 II SEP Training\" Special Education Supervisor Mitchell staff (25) Mitchell 8:30-3:30 \"SEP Training tl Special Education Supervi sor Rightsei 1 staff (25) Rightsell 8:30-3:30 SEP Training II Special Education Supervi sor Rockefeller staff (30) Rockefeller 8:30-3:30 \"SEP Training Special Education Supervi sor Stephens staff (30) Stephens 8:30-3:30 II SEP Training II Special Education Supervi sorDate Participants Pl ace Time Topic Responsibi1i ty Monday, August 13 Garland staff Garland (30) 8:30-11:30 \"SEP Training\" Supervisor of Special Educatioi 12:30-3:30 II SEP Writing II Principal Ish staff (25) Ish 8:30-11:30 II SEP Training\" Supervisor of Special Educatio: 12:30-3:30 II SEP Writing II Principal Mitchell staff (25) Mitchell 8:30-11:30 II SEP Training\" Supervisor of Special Educatior 12:30-3:30 \"SEP Writing Principal Rightsell staff (25) Rightsell 8:30-11:30 \"SEP Training II Supervisor of Special Educatior 12:30-3:30 \"SEP Writing\" Principal Rockefeller staff (30) Rockefeller 8:30-11:30 \"SEP Training II Supervisor of Special Educatior 12:30-3:30 \"SEP Writing\" Principal Stephens staff (30) Stephens 8:30-11:30 SEP Training Supervisor of Special Educatior 12:30-3:30 \"SEP Writing Principal Tuesday- Friday, August 14-17 A11 teachers remain in assigned local schools. 8:30-3:30 Teachers will write a SEP for each student. PrincipalsJuly 23 (Parkview) Mission/Purposes\nJuly 24 (Parkview) July 25 (Parkview) July 26 (Parkview) July 27 (Parkview) July 30 a.m. p.ra. July 31 a.m. p.m. August 1 a .m. p.m. August 2 a.m. p.m. August 3 a.m. p.ra. August 6 a .m. p.m. August 7 a.m. p.m. August 8 August 9 August 10 August 13 a.m. p.ra. August 14-17 OVERVIEW OF PRESCHOOL INCENTIVE SCHOOL STAFF DEVELOPMENT (Reflects Preceding Schedule) Initiating Staff Cohesiveness\nDeveloping Hission/Goals for Individual Schools Curriculum Refinement by Content Area and Grade Level It II II II Extended Day Program Garland/lsh at Ish Lesson Plans for Whole Group Higher Order Thinking II II II Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles Foreign Language Enrichment Classroom/Discipline Management conti nued Application of Classroom Management PAL to Reinforce Program Cooperative/Team Learning continued continued Community and Parent Involvement Media Program Review of PET Garland Ish 11 II Mitchel 1/Stephens at Stephens Classroom/Discipline Management continued Application of Classroom Management Review of PET Cooperative/Team Learning continued continued Higher Order Thinking X PAL to Reinforce Program Community and Parent Involvement S Lesson Plans for Whole Group Foreign Language Enrichment Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles Media Program Mitchell Rightsei 1 Rightsell/Rockefeller at Rockefeller Cooperative/Team Learning continued continued PAL to Reinforce Program Higher Order Thinking Foreign Language Enrichment Classroom/Discipline Management continued Application of Classroom Management Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles Review of PET Media Program Lesson Plans for Whole Group Community and Parent Involvement Rockefeller Stephens Computer Training Computer Training Computer Training implementing Homework Center/Other Planning Implementing Homework Center/Other Planning Implementing Homework Center/Other Planning Implementing Homework Center/Other Planning Implementing Homework Center/Other Planning implementing Homework Center/Other Planning Computer Training Computer Training Computer Training SEP Training SEP Training SEP Training SEP Training SEP Training SEP Training continued SEP Writing continued continued SEP Writing continued continued SEP Writing continued SEP Writing continued SEP Writing continued SEP Writing continued continued continued continuedTRAINING NKKDRD FOR PRINCIPALS_QP^HCEMTiyE_SCHQDLS (Prior to Preschool Incentive School Staff Development Workshops) 1. Building Staff Cohesiveness 2. Developing Mission/Goals 3. Application of Classroom/Discipline Management 4. Developing Parents as Partners 5. Implementing Homework Center 6. Community Involvement 7. Curriculum Refinement and Program Implementation (at local school level with emphasis on unique features of individual schools)PRESCHOOL INCENTIVE SCHOOL WORKSHOPS 1 . C1 nssroom Management (1 day) a. Implement the model developed by the State Department (approach as a review i-f many teachers have had the b. c. course) Provide each teacher a copy of the textbook Emphasize the following\n- classroom management as a component of the Total Teaching Act - characteristics of effective classroom management  use of space  developing and teaching rules and procedures - consequences behavior - beginning of for appropriate and inappropriate i: 1 lOo 1 - instructional clarity - maintaining good learning - organizing for instruction enviro l uient - strategies -for potential problems 2. Application of Classroom Management (1/2 day) a. b. Development procedures, Deve1opmen t procedures, of school rules, regulations, etc . of classroom rules, etc . c . and regulations, Expectations of principal concerning classroom management, discipline and student behavior Review of PET (1/2 day) a. Development of objectives b. with emphasis Lesson line - set _ explanation - questions - RLEL - activities  closure on 1 earning components: (parts of objective and behavior)4. Cooperative/Team Learning ( 1 1/2 days) a. Rationale for cooperative b. Principles of cooperative leaf ning learning c. Development of cooperative/team learning lesson d. Various cooperative learning approaches - Jigsaw - STAD - TGT  Coop Cards - other strategies e. Social Skills 5. Higher Order Thinking (1/2 day) a. b . Focus on upper level of Bloom's Ta 2nomy 6. 7. c . d . Incorporating higher order thinking in objectives, questions and activities Using G/T strategies for all students Writing across the curriculum e. Problem-solving Community and Parent Involvement \u0026lt;1/2 day) a. Communicating with parents b. Strategies for involving parents in school c . activities Approaches for using parents to reinforce instruction at home. Lesson Plans for Whole Group (1/2 day) a. b. c . d . Research and theory on whole group instrction From curriculum guide to lesson plans Individualizing lesson plans within the whole group Using textbooks as a resource, the curriculum not as 8. PAL to Reinforce Regular Program (1/2 day) a. Purpose of PAL b. Organization and logistics of PAL c . Classroom teachers role in relation to PAL 9. Expectation Theory, TESA, Learning Styles (1/2 day) a. Research data on expectation theory b. Review of major components of 1 SA c. Teaching the at-risk student d . Different learning styles10 . Foreign Language Enrichment (1/2 cl\u0026lt;By) a. Program goals b . Implementation o-f program c . Role o-f the regular classroom t( '.her in the program 11. Media Program (1/2 day) a. Program goals b. Program design c . Classroom teacher's role in the program 12. Computer Training (1 day) a . Computer-based instruction in core content areas (available software) b. Keyboarding skills c. Programming skills d. Use o-f computer lab and roles o-f classroom teacher and computer aides 13. Homework Center and Other Planning (1 day) a. Organization, operations, and logistics o-f homework center b. Expectations -for teachers concerning homework and the homework center 14. SEP Training (1 1/2 days) a . Purpose o-f SEP b. Format of SEP c. Strategies for developing the SEP 15. SEP Writing (4 1/2 days) a. Development o-f SEP -for each student b. Expectations o-f principal concerning SEP* *f 'f v '- w '1' 1 i'  'A' 'i y I' x^ d' 1^ A ' w J/ T T' * T 4' 'P T T q A T 'T* * -T' T * 1 T V * * '^ T P * T 'T\" /T \u0026gt;T T A A r iT -T 'P A iT * '^ T A 'P -T- A T * X X, * * I * ' X nt' i: ',P START SENDER FEB-26 15:00 501 374 7609 ?\n? REPORT P.Ol FEB-26-91 TUE 15:01 RE ! !*' 46'- TYPE NOTE RECEIVE OK X X X X X X X X 1 I 'i' A* y A y y 4' y A y y y 4 \u0026lt; y y y y y y 4 y y y y y y y y y A y y y y 4 y y a y A a 4 a iy a a u 'L \u0026gt;i w A A A A A A A A A A * T. A A A A T' p * 'N A A A A A A A A A * A A A A A * A A A A A A A A A A A A * A n \u0026gt; * A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A^ A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A. A- A * A A A A' A A A A A A A idtl_*\u0026gt;\u0026gt;\u0026lt;. S'02-'26- 91 16:03 0501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 001 M Little Rock School District February 26, 1991 PRESS RELEASE SPECIAI, Board meeting Contact: Skye Winslow, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District KOCK bcnool District Board of Directorci win F,d=ruarY 21. 1991 at p.m. concerning Incentive School opportunity issues. The Board, will meet .=00 -- at meeting. 810 West Markham Street  Little Roch, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361f Office of Desegregation Monitoring Schedule of Formal Monitoring Visits to the Incentive Schools DATE SCHOOL TEAM LEADER Wednesday, October 30, 1991 Mitchell Connie Hickman Monday, November 4, 1991 Rightsell Connie Hickman Tuesday, November 5, 1991 Rockefeller Horace Smith Wednesday, November 6, 1991 Ish Melissa Guldin Tuesday, November 12, 1991 Stephens Margie Powell Wednesday, November 13, 19991 Garland Horace Smith Thursday, November 14, 19991 Franklin Melissa Guldin , The monitoring team will arrive at each school by 8:30 AM. Si F.Y.I. Date: II Bob Connie Horace zLinda Margie Meiissa 0^ Polly Return i- Little Rock School District November 20, 1992 RE iVSD Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring Heritage West Building NOV 2 5 19^2 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office cf Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ann: Thank you for inviting me to the meeting in your office to discuss matters related to the desegregation plan. Per our discussion, this letter is submitted to provide an update on the Staffing Committee for Incentive Schools that is required in the desegregation plan. At the inception of the Incentive Schools, the purpose of the staffing committee was to determine the staffing needs at each school and then develop criteria for principal and staff selection based on a needs assessment. An interview team was to have been selected from members of the staffing committee to interview and make recommendations to the principals. It is my understanding that although an interview team was established and recommendations were made by this committee, the contracted agreement actually dictated which teachers were placed in the schools. Therefore, at this time, Ms. Arma Hart will assist me in instituting a new staffing committee that will determine the present staffing needs at each of the schools and develop criteria for principal and staff selection needed in the future. Each principal has submitted names of patrons and staff personnel to serve on this committee. In the future, when positions become vacant, the interview team will be involved in the hiring process and will make recommendations to the principals, goal of this administration to have quality staff in the It is a Incentive Schools who are committed to the goals of the program. A District-wide Staffing Committee for Incentive Schools meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 9, 1992, from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. If you need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, I, Janet Bernard Associate Superintendent cc: Marie Parker 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: May 24, 1993 To: From: Subject: Janet Bernard, Estelle Matthis, Marie Parker, and Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring Team Incentive School Monitoring Meeting This memo is to confirm the meeting scheduled on Friday, May 28, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. at ODM to continue incentive school monitoring. General discussion topics include, but are not limited to: program specialists and theme implementation, the incentive school staffing committee, foreign language, the computer instructional technology system, parent home study guides, parent and community involvement, and student test profiles. We will also need copies of certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to the meeting:  Comprehensive long-range incentive school strategic plan  Each incentive schools theme implementation plan including but not limited to, goals and objectives, a description of curriculum infusion, management timelines, persons responsible, proposed budget, and evaluation criteria  Description of the 1991-92 year round school, including class offered, enrollment and attendance data, and evaluation criteria and results  Description of how the district is equipping parents with job skills necessary for employment at the incentive schools, including program goals and objectives, the community needs assessment and results, a list of adult education opportunities, a description of the parent internship program, the number of parent interns at each incentive school, and an overview of teacher/ parent mentorships.Date: May 24, 1993 To: From: Subject: Janet Bernard, Estelle Matthis, Marie Parker, and Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring Team Incentive School Monitoring Meeting This memo is to confirm the meeting scheduled on Friday, May 28, 1993 at 9:(X) a.m. at ODM to continue incentive school monitoring. General discussion topics include, but are not limited to: program specialists and theme implementation, the incentive school staffing committee, foreign language, the computer instructional technology system, parent home study guides, parent and community involvement, and student test profiles. We will also need copies of certain documentation. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Please bring copies of the following information to the meeting:  Comprehensive long-range incentive school strategic plan  Each incentive schools theme implementation plan including but not limited to, goals and objectives, a description of curriculum infusion, management timelines, persons responsible, proposed budget, and evaluation criteria  Description of the 1991-92 year round school, including class offered, enrollment and attendance data, and evaluation criteria and results  Description of how the district is equipping parents with job skills necessary for employment at the incentive schools, including program goals and objectives, the community needs assessment and results, a list of adult education opportunities, a description of the parent internship program, the number of parent interns at each incentive school, and an overview of teacher/ parent mentorships.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: June 2, 1993 From: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Margie Powell, Horace Smith, and Connie Hickman Tanner To: Incentive School Principals Subject: ODM Breakfast Meeting The Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) will publish its 1993 incentive school monitoring report this summer. We would like to give you time to review a draft of your schools report before it is published. We will share these preliminary reports with you at a 9:00 a.m. breakfast meeting on June 15, 1993 in the private dining room of Cheers on Broadway (located on the first floor of the TCBY Building at Sixth and Broadway). At the meeting we will give each principal a draft of his/her school report to check for accuracy. Although we will edit the drafts further for format and syntax, the factual information in the reports is complete. An ODM associate will be available to discuss each draft before we collect them all at the end of the meeting. We hope you will attend this important meeting, which we will keep as brief as possible. If you are unable to attend, please call the ODM office so we can adjust our breakfast reservation. We look forward to seeing you on June 15. cc: Janet Berntird1996 ODM INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING SCHEDULE Tuesday, April 2 - Rightseil Wednesday, April 3 - Garland Thursday, April 4 - Mitchell Monday, April 8 - Rockefeller Tuesday, April 9 - Franklin1995-96 ODM INCENTIVE SCHOOL MONITORING INFORMATIONAL MEETING MARCH 5, 1996 AGENDA Introduction/Get Acquainted Monitoring Procedures: Incentive School Monitoring Guide Description of the Site Visit Financial Monitoring Documentation Needed: School-Based Documentation Documentation From the Central Administration Monitors Areas of Responsibility Monitoring Schedule Questions and Concerns ClosureMONITORS AREAS OF FOCUS Biracial Committee (Horace Smith) Discipline, Suspension, Expulsion (Margie Powell) Early Childhood Education (Melissa Guldin) Enrollment (Horace Smith) Extended Day \u0026amp; Week (Gene Jones) Facilities (Melissa Guldin) Field Trips (Skip Marshall) Finance and Budgeting (Skip Marshall) Guidance and Counseling (Margie Powell) Home Visits (Margie Powell) Mentor Programs (Skip Marshall) Parent Center (Horace Smith) Parent Contracts (Gene Jones) Parent Council (Skip Marshall) Parent Recruitment (Melissa Guldin) Parent Training \u0026amp; Meetings (Gene Jones) School Themes (Horace Smith) Speakers Bureau (Skip Marshall) Volunteer Programs (Skip Marshall)Date: March 5, 1996 To: From: Subject: Sterling Ingram, LRSD Director of Staff Development Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Gene Jones, Skip Marshall, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Documentation Needed for the 1995-96 Incentive Schools Monitoring While most of the documentation we need can be obtained from the building administrators, we will need the following information from the districts central administration. Please furnish the following documentation by March 29, 1996.  Description of the current incentive school parent program, including program goals, objectives, timelines, and the person responsible for this program  Documentation of parent workshops including the topic, date, time, location, evaluation results, and the number of participants by race, gender, and childs school  Volunteer documentation including the number of volunteers by race, gender, and the number of hours volunteered at each school  Documentation of the mentor program including a brief description of the types of activities shared by mentors and students, the number of participants by race and gender, and the number of hours volunteered  Records of training the district conducted for mentors  List of community meetings including time, location, and copies of sign-in sheets  List of identified parent pick-up points for school functions, and an explanation of how the district publicizes this service to parents  Current membership roster for the Parent Council with members identified by race, gender, and the organization each represents  Copies of the current Parent Council monitoring instrument (highlighting any revisions made since the 1994-95 school year), 1995-96 meeting minutes, and quarterly reports  List of the Biracial Committee members by race, gender, and high school zone  Copies of the Biracial Committee meeting minutes, and monitoring schedule for 1995-96 and the current monitoring instrument (highlighting any revisions made since the 1994-95 school year)Incentive School Documentation Cont.)  Copies of the 1995-96 Planning, Research and Evaluation quarterly reports of the Biracial Committees monitoring visits  A list of all recruitment activities planned and implemented for the 1995-96 school year, including copies of any printed material distributed, lists of meetings held, tours conducted, the persons responsible for each recruitment activity, cost of individual activities, and an explanation of how you are tracking the results of all recruitment effortsDate: March 5, 1996 To: Incentive School Principals From: Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Gene Jones, Skip Marshall, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith Subject: Documentation Needed During the ODM On-Site Monitoring Visits During our visit to your school, we will need to interview you and conduct some brief classroom visitations. We will also need a workspace and a copy of the following 1995-96 records that we can take with us.                  School Map (5 copies) Discipline, Suspension, and Expulsion data by race and gender Building-level discipline plan Parent Center Committee by race, gender, and position (e.g. parent, teacher) Parent Center recommendations and an indication of the suggestions incorporated into the center The name, race, gender, and position of the parent trained to operate the center List of parent meetings including topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets A description of the mechanism designed to ensure that parents regularly sign homework List of community meetings and activities by topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets List of three key communicators by race, gender, and position Speakers Bureau roster by name, gender, race, and position, along with a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and participant sign-in sheets Recruitment Team roster by race, gender, and position Recruitment Plan, including a list of all recruitment strategies implemented and planned Copy of the parent and student extended day survey, and the results of the survey Extended day schedule Extended week schedule Data on Saturday program participation In addition, the following records should be available for our review the day of the monitoring visit. You do not need to copy these records since we wont need to take them with us.          Documentation of staff development activities related to classroom management approaches Theme implementation plan Field Trips Building-level guidance and counseling plan ?\\n example of the monthly communications packets distributed by the Parent Center The total number of home visits conducted as of March 1996 The number of signed contracts and a description of follow-up procedures Individual student and class test profiles 1995-96 Expenditure printout through February 29SI 1995-96 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS MONITORING GUIDE OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ann S. Brown, Federal MonitorENROLLMENT  The incentive school program is successfully desegregating each incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 149) 1DISCIPLINE, SUSPENSION, and EXPULSION  Data related to student discipline is disaggregated and reviewed to address issues of racial disparity. (Interdis. Plan, pg. 27)  Discipline data is carefully collected and the discipline program closely monitored in order to make modifications that are indicated by formative as well as summative information. The district analyzes the factors that contribute to some schools having fewer overall discipline problems and less disparity in discipline between black and white students. The district identifies and emulates these factors and closely scrutinizes progress toward reducing the number of students suspended or expelled as well as the disproportionate number of black students referred for disciplinary action. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Attendance and behavior guidelines include time-out rooms that are staffed with trained personnel. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184)  Students help develop school-based management rules and receive help with problem solving. (LRSD Plan, pp. 175, 184)  Staff, parents, and students cooperatively design discipline policies. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Discipline policies and procedures are well-publicized, clearly indicate what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior, and spell out consequences for infractions. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 23)  Classroom management approaches are appropriate for the work being done. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)  Regular tracking of student attendance, behavior, discipline, and achievement is systematic and assessed at least quarterly. Individual and class profiles are utilized. Individual student plans and interventions are based on needs determined through ongoing data review. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 186) 2GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING  Social skills are taught, when appropriate, through the core instructional program. The total school staff serves as models of positive social interaction. Social skills instruction includes such programs as Rites of Passage, Role Models, and Mentoring. (LRSD Plan, pp. 156-157)  The schools use a Career Skills Development Program to develop career choices using written information, guest speakers, films, and interest inventories. (LRSD Plan, pp. 172, 180)  Study skills training enhances skills in test-taking, listening, and studying. Test-taking skills are being taught and students practice test-taking. (LRSD Plan, pp. 153, 176, 183\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 32)  Students receive individual and group counseling and are taught conflict resolution. The school uses peer facilitators. (LRSD Plan, pp. 176, 184)  The staff has developed written building guidance plans to address personal growth, social development, career awareness, and educational development. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 27) 3FACILITIES  The district provides clean and safe facilities and makes all repairs fimdamental to maintaining the incentive schools. (LRSD Plan, pg. 129)  All of the incentive schools would benefit aesthetically fi-om the addition of attractive landscaping. Once plantings are installed, train the custodial staff in proper plant care to prevent loss of plantings to improper pruning or underwatering. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 43) 4PROGRAMS AND OPERATIONS  The four-year-old program uses High Scope or a comparable curriculum model, and a parent component is incorporated into the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 152)  Four-year-old enrollment is limited to 18 children per class. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 10)  The Early Childhood Education Task Force is an avenue for parent, teacher, and community input. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 17)  Parents and staff at each school develop school themes which are integrated into the curriculum. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Students in grades 3-6 have access to either mobile or permanent science labs with adequate materials that allow children to execute long-term experiments and study science in the fullest sense. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153\nODM 1992 Report, pg. 15)  The curriculum at each school incorporates foreign language instruction using the foreign language lab and the \"total physical response\" method of instruction. Emphasis is on basic vocabulary, conversation, and cultural materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 156)  Each building operates foreign language labs with appropriate equipment and materials. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Parent Home Study Guides in each core subject area for each grade (1-6) will be available by the 1993-94 school year. (LRSD Plan, pg. 153)  Physical education (PE) and health are included in the total elementary curriculum with emphasis on wellness, lifelong leisure skills, nutrition, and respect for those with disabilities. (LRSD Plan, pg 156)  The schools use local, state, and national field trips to enhance learning and broaden cultural experiences. Trips provide community access and racially desegregated experiences and activities for incentive school students together with other LRSD students. Exhibits and performances are also brought to the schools, and students participate in shadowing activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 158, 173, 181\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 4)  The schools schedule Special Skills Programs during the time designated for extended day activities. Scheduling for extended day meets the needs of students and includes the homework center, special skills training, and leisure time activities. Students finishing activities early report either to the homework center, CARE, or leave the campus at the request of a parent or guardian. (LRSD Plan, pp. 173, 174, 181, 184)  The district surveys parents and students to determine the most appealing extended day activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25) 5 The extended day program, which is based on information gleaned from SEP's, school staff, parents, and students, reinforces and extends the SEP to meet individual needs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 25)  Cumulative records document both host and guest schools participation in Saturday programs. (ODM 1992 Report, pg.25)  Saturday programs are developed to enhance learning. These programs include but arent limited to field trips, enrichment activities, tutoring, parent/child make-and-take sessions, book fairs, and physical education activities. (LRSD Plan, pg. 179) 6PARENT AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT  A Parent Center in each school provides resources and materials which are recommended by a parent and staff committee, that can be loaned to parents. A parent has been trained to operate the center, which is to be the source of a monthly communications packet that is distributed to parents. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 208)  The schools actively seek parent recommendations for resources to be housed in the Parent Centers, incorporating as many of their suggestions as possible. The school documents the degree to which parents use the center and its resources. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)  The schools offer parent workshops to assist parents in understanding and carrying out school expectations. The workshops include such topics as study skills, discipline, time management, pre-reading skills, financial management, and developmental learning skills. (LRSD Plan, pg. 209)  Parent training activities are documented by topic, time, and location along with the number of participants by race, gender, and the child's school. Participants feedback on how well the session was conducted and their perception of the potential helpfulness of the training is regularly collected and analyzed. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 39)  Complete documentation of all parent meetings and activities is maintained, including sign-in sheets that reflect parents race, gender, and the school their child attends. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  Parent volunteer programs and school/business partnerships are developed and expanded. (LRSD Plan, pg. 132)  Recognition is used as a tool for community and parent involvement. The school recognizes parents and the community at monthly PT A meetings, displays awards, gives school lunch vouchers to award winners, and involves students in the recognition selection process. (LRSD Plan, pp. 209-210)  The school makes parent and volunteer recognition an integral, ongoing, and highly visibly part of school life. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  At least two or more home visits are required. (LRSD Plan, pp. 206, 211)  The staff documents the number and date of visits to each student's home, along with who made the visit, to determine if each family is visited at least twice yearly. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  Each school provides community role models and a mentoring program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 157)  The district has mounted an intense mentor recruitment campaign. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29)  Individual school volunteer mentoring programs are coordinated with VIPS and all volunteers are screened and trained prior to being matched with students. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 29) 7 The school maintains mentor-student records that include the race, gender, participation hours, and types of activities shared by the mentors and their students. Records of training participants by race, gender, and classification (i.e. student, mentor, parent, teacher) are also maintained. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 30)  Parents sign contractual commitments prior to enrolling their child in an incentive school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 211)  The schools have follow-up procedures to remind parents of the commitments they made in the contracts they signed at registration. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 38)  A speakers bureau on education issues for community groups exists in school zones. Each school has identified three key communicators. The school staff coordinates events to promote neighborhood pride. These strategies work together to raise the trust level between the school and the community. (LRSD Plan, pp. 210, 213)  The Incentive School Program Parent Council functions as a districtwide council of incentive school parents. Membership includes two parents from each incentive school and four appointed by Joshua. The Council monitors all activities related to the incentive school program and reports quarterly to the LRSD Board of Directors and the Joshua Intervenors. (LRSD Plan, pg. 151)  The districtwide Biracial Committee, whose members represent various geographic areas of the community, will monitor the incentive schools quarterly. (LRSD Plan, pp. 224, 225)  The Biracial Committee furnishes copies of their monitoring reports to the incentive school principals and various district officials. The Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) prepares quarterly reports that summarize all monitoring visits. The superintendent shares the PRE document with the Board of Directors at their regularly scheduled meetings. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation is responsible for eliminating any noted deficiencies in a timely manner. (LRSD Plan, pg. 225)  The Biracial Advisory Committee, with the advice of marketing and advertising experts, serves as the steering committee for incentive school recruitment. The committee reviews bimonthly recruitment reports from the desegregation office, evaluates the program quarterly, and recommends needed changes to the Board of Directors. (LRSD Plan, pp. 217, 223)  Before July 1 of each year, the district convenes a committee to revise the instrument used to monitor the incentive schools, ensuring that it conforms with the expectations set for the program. The review committee consists of: incentive school principals, the superintendent's senior management team, specialists from PRE, and six members of the Biracial Committee (two of whom must be Joshua appointees). Any resulting revisions must be submitted to the LRSD Board and Joshua by August 15. (LRSD Plan, 225)  The Biracial Committee's monitoring instrument includes a recruitment assessment. (ODM 1992 Report, pg. 5) 8PARENT RECRUITMENT  The district informs the community about the incentive schools and their special features by providing informational sessions to special interest and community groups, including churches. Additional strategies include conducting Saturday information booths at malls and neighborhood stores, securing special media coverage, and developing an incentive school telephone hotline. The district distributes highlight sheets to all elementary parents and local businesses. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215, 218-219)  Recruitment is an ongoing process with each incentive school establishing a parent recruitment team to encourage voluntary assignments that enable the schools to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pp. 132, 135, 215\nInterdis. Plan, pg. 57)  The district's recruitment strategies include public service announcements, billboards, a media blitz, videocassette recordings, flyers, open houses, targeted neighborhood blitzes, small group tours, a special designation from the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE), and celebrity endorsements. Each school establishes a speakers bureau and helps the district develop a brochure highlighting their school. Meetings are held with NLRSD and PCSSD parents and PTA groups to encourage M-to-M transfers. (LRSD Plan, pp. 215-216, 220-222)  Parent recruiters focus on recruiting white students to desegregate the incentive schools and conduct recruitment activities. (LRSD Plan, pp. 216, 222)  All parties have made firm commitments to assist the LRSD in desegregating the incentive schools. (May 1992 Order, pg. 29)  The LRSD maintains a strategic plan, based on the recruitment section of the desegregation plan, that reflects a well thought-out, interrelated process\npresents a firm timetable in its recruitment plan and strictly adheres to it\ndevelops a tracking system to determine the success of particular awareness and recruitment efforts, especially with identified geographic areas and specific groups\nincreases the number and variety of specifically targeted recruitment activities. (ODM 1992 Report, pp. 4, 5) 9ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET SCHOOL  The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program is available to children from six weeks to four years of age. The program serves as a model for improving the academic achievement of disadvantaged students and attracting white students to comply with desegregation requirements. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  The early childhood program is an integral part of the whole school, not a separate or \"add-on\" program. It receives the same attention as to supervision, support, staff development, resource allotment, accountability, monitoring, and evaluation as grades K through six. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  The LRSD designated Rockefeller as a Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between UALR and other area colleges. The district works cooperatively with local colleges and universities to enhance and support the program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  At Rockefeller, the district gives special emphasis to developing and piloting innovative approaches to the education of young children. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  The county's teachers, administrators, aides, HIPPY (Home Instruction Program for Preschool youngsters), and daycare program workers use Rockefeller as a demonstration center for training. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  Parents and educational professionals from UALR and other area colleges advise the school and district staffs on all aspects of planning and implementation of the early childhood program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 12)  Rockefeller's early childhood education policies are evaluated in terms of their impact on desegregation and educational goals. The parent committee on early childhood education evaluates policies (including private pay rates, lunch charges, vacation days, enrollment age, and sick days) for their impact on the early childhood program's viability as a desegregation tool, its competitiveness with private schools and daycares, and its ability to retain both its private paying and Title XX students. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  The district allows students who attend the Rockefeller three-year-old program to continue on into the four-year-old program and the grades beyond. Siblings of early childhood students may attend Rockefeller in order to help retain children in the school. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13)  The district will explore developing Rockefeller as a year-round, frill-day school for children from infancy through sixth grade. A biracial group of teachers, parents, administrators, and experts from local universities and colleges works with the district to assess the feasibility of such a program. (LRSD Plan, pg. 13) 10FINANCE AND BUDGETING The district ensures that those who are responsible for managing programs and budgets have a working knowledge of the process and are completely involved in it throughout the year. (October 1994 Court Order, pg. 5) 11I-P 7- J err 1,7 IV-. 21 '97 S' R5*!fc 'S.-V' i UB LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRiCT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 ^4X (501) 324-2C32 : A Ti\nT . ?OM: I' r PVO, ?.'   SUBJECT\nSPECfA SNSTF?UCT50NS, NFunV r of Pac ' -.i t 1 . c Vd.lfe C ,6 /?llL.'.i\u0026gt; .'-{J k- \u0026lt; z1 . ^\"1  k. L\u0026lt; ?r f. n r i\u0026gt; F3x Phone *\u0026gt; oer .i \u0026gt;1 Ta IC F r. a  W-\n4^rl '\u0026gt;,'!^\n'7.^'^ ttH7\u0026lt;:E CI IHE ASSIST ANT SUrgRlNI'ENDENTS J Jttlc'Ro^k'Si^\u0026amp;ooIT^isM 'X' ii' y\u0026gt;' gw S^iyC \u0026gt;*''- y, '3'i .y Xil. 3 -ill,' i\n\"b *1\n? ji: 73. 'f\n.' ' TO. Ticeriviv'c School Work Team .Members A..! May 21, 1597 IKOM: Margaret Grem5il|ie\njtil^ A..\nU^^'adie Mitchell, Pvssistant Sijperinten.dent 'K.ssistant Snperinteridenr SUBJECT\nReiinnder ot Meeting Date and Time Friday. May 2J, 1997 a,fr, Board Ron tn. l.P.SD Mr. Chad 'A'oofey. Pre.sidenr.'\\.hiei Operating Officer, and .Shetr, f bxecum.-e Uireetor ot the Voyager mpei oundation will be presenting their program m '.1..5 on l-rjday. .May 23 as soon a.s rhev come in ftom t.he airport around 5:00 a.rn. .'. hey ivifl be a.vai!able to us for .approximately 214 .tours before leaving for lb . .0'.\np.U, Tiglit. nr . \u0026lt; .ne asking oiher LhstiiiC] personnel to attend this meetir-g whe- n -ay ha vs an rest ia VK\nv,'ma an e.xtended day propam, that is proving to b.? successfid. nt maii v other .iteas Pl e le\n:\ne kn.o.v that vi'e appreciate each ot y-JU tor the .suptport yon are giving to bt.s I. A'ork assignment and thepanence you (lavc demonstrated vher. liavirg tr. adjus msuPT' :. 0-^' : .1? C. 'r.k. ' i:\ni\nI2 hicendve Sehooi Won\nTeam rjeini' May 21. r:59' pace 2 thangtid dates, Vv e are making progTess. The Tnps and reports have beer: verv helrtui in slianug our ideas for a i innovatma school plan. FuLtowinfe the all ! :?m!' r pi'^isen-atior), we wil! have a wrap-up discussion to heai inpih from ttending. 'fit' w^Pieuse fZ^t^ tbfu' ch(t}s\n\u0026gt;e jroni 8:00 a.m. tv 8:00 u.m .  Ot. l,')o!i Roberts k- Fve vn Pl-ton M idha Rcgeis ?4t Price L.ecn .A I rns Incentive School Monitoring Schedule Date School Team Leader Friday, April 30 Mitchell Connie Wednesday, May 5 Rockefeller Melissa Friday, May 7 Stephens Margie Monday, May 10 Ish Margie Wednesday, May 12 Franklin Horace Friday, May 14 Garland Connie Monday, May 17 Rightsell Horace First Draft of the school reports is due Friday, June 18. Subsequent deadlines will be discussed at the April 23 meeting.\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":"aar_lessons_209","title":"Indian Culture","collection_id":"aar_lessons","collection_title":"Alabama History Education Materials","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/2022"],"dcterms_description":["Students will be conducting research and then adding it to a class book."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Creek War, 1813-1814"],"dcterms_title":["Indian Culture"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/lessons/id/209"],"dcterms_temporal":["1810/1819"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["lesson plans"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aar_lessons_241","title":"Influential Women of Alabama","collection_id":"aar_lessons","collection_title":"Alabama History Education Materials","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/2022"],"dcterms_description":["'In this activity, students will identify and be able to explain contributions by women in the fields of science, education, the arts, and politics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Alabama. Students will research five influential women of Alabama and will use primary sources to create a final project.'"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Celebrities--United States--Alabama"],"dcterms_title":["Influential Women of Alabama"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/lessons/id/241"],"dcterms_temporal":["1950/1959","1960/1969","1970/1979","1980/1989"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["lesson plans"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aar_lessons_234","title":"''In My Feelings'': Slavery in Alabama","collection_id":"aar_lessons","collection_title":"Alabama History Education Materials","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/2022"],"dcterms_description":["This lesson helps students gain a better understanding of Alabama slavery by analyzing primary sources. It also incorporates the arts into Social Studies or English Language Arts."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Slavery"],"dcterms_title":["''In My Feelings'': Slavery in Alabama"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/lessons/id/234"],"dcterms_temporal":["1820/1829","1830/1839","1840/1849","1850/1859"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["lesson plans"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"luu_ibe","title":"Integration and the Black experience at LSU","collection_id":null,"collection_title":null,"dcterms_contributor":["T. Harry Williams Center for Oral History"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish, 30.53824, -91.09562","United States, Louisiana, East Baton Rouge Parish, Baton Rouge, 30.44332, -91.18747"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/1999"],"dcterms_description":["Integration and the Black Experience at LSU includes audio files and transcripts from interviews conducted from 1985 to 1998 of African American students, faculty, and administrators at LSU during integration (1950-1970).","The Civil Rights Digital Library received support from a National Leadership Grant for Libraries awarded to the University of Georgia by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for the aggregation and enhancement of partner metadata."],"dc_format":null,"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":["System requirements: To listen to the audio files you need RealPlayer."],"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-OW-EU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge, La.)--Alumni and alumnae","Louisiana State University (Baton Rouge, La.)","College integration--Louisiana--Baton Rouge","African American college students--Louisiana--Baton Rouge","African Americans--Segregation--Louisiana","Baton Rouge (La.)--Race relations","Civil rights movements--Louisiana","Segregation--Louisiana"],"dcterms_title":["Integration and the Black experience at LSU"],"dcterms_type":["Sound"],"dcterms_provenance":["LSU Libraries. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.lib.lsu.edu/content/integration-and-black-experience-lsu"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","sound recordings","transcripts"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Crump, Maxine, 1946-","Hamilton, Leo C., 1951-","Tureaud, Alexander Pierre, Jr."],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aar_lessons_275","title":"Interacting with Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail","collection_id":"aar_lessons","collection_title":"Alabama History Education Materials","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1990/2022"],"dcterms_description":["Students will read and react to the letter. They will complete an anticipation worksheet about other possible sentences Dr. King might have included. Students will discuss sentences that stood out to them most in the letter."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights"],"dcterms_title":["Interacting with Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from a Birmingham Jail"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/lessons/id/275"],"dcterms_temporal":["1960/1969"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["lesson plans"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":775,"next_page":776,"prev_page":774,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":9288,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}