Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ED 292 183
DOCUMENT RESUME
AUTHOR Lauber, Diana; And OthersTITLE 1986-1987 Assessment of School Site Budgeting
Practice of the Chicago Public Schools.INSTITUTION Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Finance,
IL.PUB DATE 87NOTE 65p.PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/FeasibLity (142) --
Tests /Evaluation Instruments (160)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Accountability; Boards of Education; *Budgets;
*Citizen Participation; *Compliance (Legal);Educational Improvement; Elementary SeconiaryEducation; *Hearings; Participative Decision Making;Public Schools; School Based Management; *SchoolBudget Elections; School Community Relationship;*School Funds; State Legislation; Urban Schools
IDENTIFIERS *Chicago Public Schools IL
ABSTRACTThe 1985 legislation (PA 84-126) creating Local
School Improvement Councils (LSIC) and annual local school budgethearings laid the foundation for meaningful citizen involvement inthe Chicago Public Schools. This legislation had two components: (1)annual school site budget hearings required in each school in whichcitizens, parents, and teachers vote on the proposed school budgetfor the following year; and (2) the creation of LSICs at each publicschool with specific rights and responsibilities over curriculum,personnel, and budget issues. The major finding of this secondassessment is that the Chicago Board of Education has not adequatelyimplemented either component of PA 84-126 and gives little indicationthat it has any intention of doing so in the future. The secondbudget hearings were a sham in 1986 and they were a sham in 1987. Theadministration continues to obstruct the LSICs' ability to functionas intended by the legislation. The central recommendation of thisassessment is that the Illinois Legislature must hold the board fullyaccountable to see that this legislation is implemented. Appendicesconstitute over half of the report and contain hearing results andsurvey forms. (MLF)
************************************************************************ Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ** from the original document. *********************************************************************v**
(;41,:<,Z14.?)
THE CHICAGO PANEL ON PUBLIC SCHOOL POLICY AND FINANCE220 S. State St., Suite 232Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 939-2202
Tee Gallay, President
American Jewish CommitteeAspira Inc., of Illinois
Center for Neighborhood TechnologyCitizens Schools Committee
Chicago Region PTAChicago United
Chicago Urban LeagueCommunity Renewal SocietyErie Neighborhood House
Jewish Council on Urban AffairsJunior League of Chicago, Inc.
Latino InstituteLawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
League of Women Voters of ChicagoMexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
United Neighborhood Organization of ChicagoThe Woodlawn Organization
Youth Guidance
Support for this research has been provided by:
THE FIELD CORPORATION FUND AND THE WIEBOLDT FOUNDATION
Support for the Chicago Panel is also provided by:
Foundations:
Chicago Community Trust, Forest Fund, Fry FoundationJoyce Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Pick FunaSpencer Foundation, W.P. and H.B. White Foundation
Woods Charitable Fund
Corporations:Amoco, Borg Warner, Carson Pirie Scott, Fel-Pro, Kraft,Northern Trust, Sears Roebuck andd Co., Chicago Tribune
Individual Contributors, Organization Dues, In-Kind Gifts
Staff of the Chicago Panel:
G. Alfred Hess, Jr., Executive DirectorDiana Lauber, Assistant Director
Carmen Vazquez, Program CoordinatorClaudia Ingram, Program ConsultantChris Warden, Research Assistant
Amy Gibbons, Secretary
1986 - 1987
ASSESSMENT OF
SCHOOL SITE BUDGETING PRACTICE
OF THE CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
A Report on the Implementation of PA 84-126
Compiled by the Staff of the
CHICAGO PANEL
ON PUBLIC SCHOOL POLICY AND FINANCE
Diana LauberAssistant Director
G. Alfred Hess, Jr.Executive Director
With the Research Assistance of:Carmen Vazquez
Christina A. Warden
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary Page i
Findings Page iii
Recommendations Page vi
I. BUDGET HEARING PROCESS - 1986 and 1987A. Citizen ParticipationB. Budget MaterialsC. In-Service Training
II. ASSESSMENT OF 1987 BUDGET HEARINGSA. March Budget MeetingsB. Panel SurveyC. Recommendations and ObjectionsD. The Hearing Review ProcessE. Second Budget Meetings
III LOCAL SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCILSA. Adoption of GuidelinesB. Survey of Implementation of Local
School Improvement Councils
Pagel
Page 6
Page 12
IV. SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE FUTURE Page 16
7,4J0,3 .4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 1985 legislation, introduced by House Speaker Michael Madigancreating Local School Improvement Councils (LSIC) and annual local schoolbudget hearings, laid the foundation for meaningful citizen involvement inthe Chicago Public Schools. This legislation had two components:
1) Annual school site budget hearings required in each Chicago PublicSchool in which citizens, parents, and teachers vote on the proposedschool budget for the following year
2) The creation of Local School Improvement councils (LSIC) at eachpublic school with specific rights and responsibilities overcurriculum, personnel, and budget issues
Last spring, the Chicago Panel on Public School Policy and Financepubli$hed School Budget Hearing Assessment, a comprehensive assessmentof the first year's implementation of school site budget hearings. Theother component of PA 84-126, Local School Improvement Councils, were sominimally implementated that the Panel could not adequately evaluate themuntil this year.
The central finding of the Panel's 1986 assessment was that theChicago Public Schools adequately implemented the first year of the localbudget hearings except for its unwillingness to change any budgets to meetlocal school objections. However, the report also pointed to numerousproblems which needed to be corrected in order to fully implement thisaspect of PA 84-126.
This second report assesses the Board's success in implementing boththe Budget Hearing and the Local School Improvement Council requirementsof PA 84-126 during its second year of implementation.
The major finding of this second assessment is that the Chicago Boardof Education has not adequately implemented either component of PA 84-126and gives little indication that it has any intention of doing so in thefuture. Although there have been considerable improvements made in thebudget materials sent home to parents and those used at the hearings, anda genuine effort to involve Local School Improvement Council presidents inBoard provided budget workshops; these changes only involve process and donot change the product. The second budget hearings were a sham in 1986and they were a sham in 1987. The administration continues to obstructthe Local School Improvement Councils' ability to function as intended bythe legislation. The central recommendation of this assessment is thatthe Illinois Legislature must hold the Board fully accountable to see thatthis legislation is implemented as intented, and if the Board's actionsare not acceptable, other legislation to strengthen local accountabilityand school improvement must be forthcoming.
6
Other findings contained in this report and discussed in the followingpages are:
More than 9,000 people attended local school budget hearings in1987.
The Bc.,:cd adjusted no budgets for the second year.The decrease in re je,:ted budgets did not indicate an increase in
community satisfaction with the public schools.Hispanic parents used the budget hearing disapproval process to voice
their complaints at twice the rate of other parents.The local budget hearings were conducted more effectively this year
largely due :o duel training of principals and LSIC presidents.The narrow definition of discretionary funds has seriously diminished
the Local School Improvement Councils' power.
In addition to the legislature holding the Board accountable for itsinactions in implementing PA 84-126, the Panel recommends:
Redefining the term "discretionary" to include all teachingpositions in excess of those required to meet contractualteacher-pupil ratios, including those provided through Chapter 1and State Bilingual funds.
District Superintendents must closely monitor Local School ImprovementCouncil guidelines as implemented by the school principals.
The Chicago Board of Education must move towards allowing importantdecisions about education to take place at the local school and indoing so, initiate a three year pilot project in local schoolautonomy to accomplish this goal.
ii'7
FINDINGS
1. THE BOARD HAS FAILED TO MEET THE INTENTION OF PA 84-126IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCHOOL SITE BUDGET HEARINGS.
Although many improvements recommended by the City-WideCommittee on School Budgeting were implemented in 1987, the intentionof PA 84-126 to significantly advance school accountability was notmet. The Board's Department of Financial Planning and Budgetingincorporated in its materials many of the recommended changes to makethe budget documents more understandable. LSIC presidents wereincluded in the budget hearing in-service training events and werewelcomed as partners in the hearing process. A new review process wasput in place which was intended to aid those at the local level inmeeting the objections of the voters at schools which disapprovedtheir budgets. Although the budget hearing mechanics improvedsignificantly over 1986, the outcomes did not. Several topadministrators, principals, and Board members publicly demeaned thebudget hearing process by encouraging the idea that it is was a wasteof time and by misrepresenting the actual costs of budget hearingpreparation.
2. THIS YEAR, 9,083 PEOPLE ATTENDED LOCAL SCHOOL BUDGETHEARINGS, 2,185 FEWER THAN IN 1986.
Over 9,000 people chose to participate in local school hearingsdespite active discouragement of parents by the top leadership of theChicago Public Schools, from the General Superintendent downwards.However, many people across the city decided not to attend the 1987budget hearings because of their disappointment at last year's hearingresults.
3. AS IN 1986, THE BOARD ADJUSTED NO REJECTED BUDGETS.
The Chicago Board of Education was charged to "modify thebudget as near as possible to meet the objections of the voters at themeeting." For the second year in a row, no school budgets wereadjusted. Although a process for reviewing objections raised was putin place this year, many administrators put off the hearing reviewmeeting disregarding the Board's guidelines to hold all reviewmeetings by March 27th; others approached the meeting with the samelack of good faith as was evident last year. Again the overwhelmingnumber of objections concerned inadequate textbook and supply funding,and again these objections were met with standardized responses.
4. FEWER BUDGETS WERE DISAPPROVED THIS YEAR BECAUSEPARTICIPANTS LACKED FAITH THAT THE BOARD WOULD REVISEREJECTED BUDGETS.
In 1986, 66 schools rejected their budgets; in 1987, only 43rejected them. Some Board members and administrators have interpretedthe decrease in disapproved budgets as an increase in citizen
iii
8
satisfaction. However, participants at many schools who voted toapprove their budgets expressed the same dissatisfaction withtextbook, supply, and educational equipment allocations as those whodisapproved their budgets. Because no budgets were adjusted at thesecond budget hearings last April, and the 1987 textbook and supplyfunds were cut even after the community expressed a need for increasedfunding, many participants felt it was futile to disapprove theirbudgets.
5. TWICE AS MANY PREDOMINATELY HISPANIC SCHOOLS REJECTEDTHEIR 1987 BUDGETS AS DID EITHER PREDOMINATELYBLACK OR WHITE SCHOOLS.
Hispanic parents used the budget hearing process to complainabout the conditions of their schools to a far greater extent thaneither Black or White parents. In proportion to their total numbers,12% of all predominately Hispanic Schools (50% or more Hispanic)rejected their budgets compared to 6% of all predominately Black and6% of all predominately White schools.
6. THE MANAGEMENT OF THIS YEAR'S BUDGET HEARINGS WASMUCH IMPROVED. LSIC PRESIDENTS AND PRINCIPALS SHAREDTHE ROLE OF PRESENTOR AT THE BUDGET HEARINGS, ANDPARTICIPANTS RECEIVED BETTER AND MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION.
Because of the improved in-service training provided to both LSICpresidents and principals, many school principals and LSIC presidentsfelt a sense of partnership. This year, a considerable number of LSICpresidents conducted their meetings. There was not the same feelingof confusion about budgets as expressed last year. LSIC presidentswere much more confident about their role in the hearings and betterinformed, and principals did a better job.
7. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTCOUNCIL LEGISLATION HAS BEEN UNNECESSARILY SLOW,UNEVENLY CARRIED OUT, AND UNDERMINDED BY LACK OFSUPPORT FROM THE GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT.
Almost two years after the passage of the legislation whichmandated Local School Improvement Councils, many councils are onlyminimally operational. Despite the legal requirement to do so, amajority of the councils surveyed by the Panel this Spring had neverhad a proposal to spend discretionary funds submitted to them by theirbuilding principals. Councils were unevenly obeying the mandates ofthe legislation and the Board's guidelines. Council composition andprincipal attendance at meetings in many schools did not follow therequirements as mandated by law. The General Superintendent has beenopenly opposed to sharing authority. In a public meeting, instead ofemphasizing the value of a democratic process, the GeneralSuperintendent, referring to a specific school, characterized parentalinvolvement in the budget process as, "we're letting parents turn downrequests for textbooks for their children."
iv
9
8. THE BOARD GAVE LIP SERVICE TO ENCOURAGING MEANINGFULCOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WHILE AT THE SAME TIME EXCLUDEDCHAPTER I AND STATE BILINGUAL FUNDS FROM THE APPROVEDLIST OF DISCRETIONARY FUNDS, THUS SERIOUSLY T:01DERMININGTHE ABILITY OF LOCAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT COUNCILS TOPARTICIPATE IN REAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT.
The Board severely weakened the powers of the Local SchoolImprovement Councils by disallowing Chapter I and State Bilingualfunds from the list of discretionary funds. These disallowed fundsaccounted for millions of dollars of programs at the local level.Ways to resolve the complaints of ECIA and Bilingual Council memberscould have been found, but the Board chose to hide behind thecomplaints and thus weaken parental and community involvement.
v
10
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. THE CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION SHOULD BE REQUIREDTO REPORT ANNUALLY TO THE LEGISLATURE ON THEIMPLEMENTATION OF PA 84-126.
The Illinois State Board of Education has been charged withimplementing the 1985 reform legislation. It has not provided anymeasureable oversight of this important legislation mandating LocalSchool Improvement Councils and annual budget hearings. By refusingto judge the adequacy of the Board's interpretation of discretionaryfunds, the State Board has abdicated its role. Furthermore, when theChicago Board of Education made no effort, good faith or otherwise, tomeet the objections of those school communities which rejected theirbudgets both last year and in 1987, the State Board declined toenforce this part of the legislation.
2. THE TERM "DISCRETIONARY FUNDS" SHOULD BE REDEFINEDTO INCLUDE ALL TEACHING POSITIONS IN EXCESS OF THOSEREQUIRED TO MEET CONTRACTUAL PUPIL-TEACHER RATIOS,INCLUDING THOSE PROVIDED THROUGH CHAPTER I AND STATEBILINGUAL FUNDS.
Discretionary funds have been so narrowly defined as to createthe im,,ression that Local School Improvement Councils have no realarenas of authority. The definition should be changed to read"discretionary programming and funds" t' include all non-quotainstructional positions. Chapter I and State Bilingual funds accountfor the vast majority of discretionary funds and their exclusionweakens the Local School Improvement Councils. The concern cxprcsscdby ECIA and Bilingual Council leaders over loss of autonomy isunderstandable, but their interests can be served and the legislativeintent of PA 84-126 can remain intact by including these funds asdiscretionary. Local School Improvement Councils should includemembers of their school's ECIA and/or Bilingual council in theirmembership.
3. DISTRICT SUPLANTENDENTS MUST CLOSELY MONITOR THEIMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDELINES CONCERNING LOCAL SCHOOLIMPROVEMENT COUNCILS TO SEE THAT ALL PRINCIPALS AREFOLLOWING THEM.
There is a cavalier disregard by many principals concerning therights of Local School Improvement Councils. Many LSIC presidents arcconfused by the guidelines and are not sure of their new rights andresponsibilities. This is further exacerbated by principals who
andor partially follow both the mandates, as des r-ibed in the law,
the Board guidelines. Almost two years after this legislation wasmandated, an alarming number of councils have been deprived of theirrights.
vi
I
4. THE CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION MUST MOVE TOWARDSMAKING THE INDIVIDUAL SCHe 01 THE PLACE WHERE ASIGNIFICANT NUMBER 07 DECISIONS ABOUT THE EDUCATIONOF CHILDREN TAKES PLACE. TO DO THIS THE BOARD SHOULDINITIATE A THREE YEAR PILOT PROJECT IN LOCAL SCHOOLAUTONOMY BEGINNING IN THE FALL OF 1987.
Beginning in 1987, a city-wide committee should be establishedto select at least 46 schools, two from each district, to participatein a voluntary pilot project over a three year period. A schoolmanagement council should be established at each school in theproject with considerable authority over curriculum, personnel andbudget issues. This council should be half parents and residents andhalf staff, primarily teachers and the building principal. Eachcouncil should make a needs assessment of the school and build aschool improvement plan based upon that assessment. The city-widecommittee should monitor, assist, and evaluate the pilot project.
vii
12
1986 - 1987
ASSESSMENT OF
SCHOOL SITE BUDGETING PRACTICE
THE CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
A Narrative Report
13
I. Budget Hearing Process - 1986 and 1987
This section of the report evaluates the Chicago Board ofEducation's response to recommendations for improvement made in thePanel's 1986 assessment report and evaluates the 1987 budget hearingprocess.
A. Citizen Participation
1986: Last year, the Panel reported that 11,268 parents,teachers, community members and others attended the local budget hearingsheld at 537 schools across the city. Despite active discouragement bymany district and school level staff, citizens came out in record numbersto find out about and vote on their 1986-87 local school Budget. Thisactive discouragement took several forms:
1) Some high level administrators and school principals dismissed theprocess as time wasting, costly, and serving no purpose. Somedistrict superintendents made it clear that if a school disapprovedits budget, it would reflect badly on the local principal.
2) Many principals discouraged participation by misleadingly tellingthe parents that only two or three percent of the budget could bechanged and that they could have no influence on the programs offeredat their school.
3) Some local school parent leaders, influenced by school officials,discouraged participation by repeating the incorrect story about whatcould be changed in the school budget, implying that coming to thehearings was a waste of time. In fact, on the night of the hearings,some parent leaders asked the meeting participants to approve thebudget so they would not have to hold a second meeting which wouldcost the system money and make their principals look bad.
1987: This year 9,083 people attended the budget hearings, 2,000fewer than last year. This may seem to be a disappointing number when, iffact, it is remarkable. Despite the active discouragement of parents bothlast year and this year, the failure of the Board to respond to anydisapproved budgets in 1986, and the Board's disregard for theoverwhelming need for textbook and supply increases as expressed bycitizens across the city during the 1986 budget hearings, thousands ofpeople attended their local budgct hearings.
There were two very different attitudes about citizen participation bytop administrators this year. Some administrators, districtsuperintendents and principals actively encouraged parents and citizens toparticipate in the hearings and to use the hearings as an opportunity tolet the schools hear from the community. They openly encouraged the kindof partnership between the community and the schools that PA 84-126intended.
-2-
The 1987 City-wide Committe on School Budget Hearings, the committeecharged by the General Superintendent to recommend guidelines for thebudget hearings, exemplified this openness and cooperation. The 1986City-wide Committee on School Budget Hearings was comprised exclusively ofprincipals and representatives from the district and centraladministration. In 1987, the membership of the City-wide Committee wasexpanded to include three LSIC presidents and representatives from threecivic/community organizations, including the Panel. The City-wideCommittee, and especially the committee chair, Frank Lucentes, were veryresponsive to recommendations for improving the budget process made by thePanel and other committee members. Because of this committee's work,changes in procedures and budge, materials were made to improve the budgethearings and respond to the criticism made after last year's hearings.
While this was very encouraging, district and school level staff stillpracticed the same kind of active discouragement during the 1987 budgethearings as was documented in the 1986 report.
Some administrative staff, including the General Superintendent,portrayed the hearings as a time for the community to be told by theschools and not a time for the schools to hear from parents about changesor improvements to the budgets or school programs which were desired.Dismissing the hearings as simply a time for citizens to learn about theirschools undermined the concepts of school accountability and meaningfulcitizen participation; thus, the Board really conducted tellings, ratherthan hearings.
Some Board members along with some top administrative staff furtherdiscouraged the budget hearing process by publicly depicting the hearingsas a burdensome and useless annoyance which was costing the system overone million dollars a year. When the Panel challenged this figure,budget staff checked their figures and reported that it actually cost onehalf million dollars a year. However, even the half million dollar figurewas inflated: first, by charging normal staff time against the budgethearing costs, and secondly, by assuming that 50% of the schools wouldhave second budget hearings and based calculated costs on thatassumption. Except for custodians who worked in the evening during thefirst and second budget hearings, other personnel simply worked theirnormal time period. The real cost was approximately $154,875 in 1986 and$171,067 in 1987. (See Table 1).
B. Budget Materials
1986: Although the Department of Financial Planning and Budgetingdid an admirable job last year in preparing materials in a short time,parents and other citizens found the materials which they receiveddifficult to understand. According to the legislation, the LS1Cs are
15
catarn EOM CF ECUCATICNIS ESMATED SIM BASE =GM==TS AND THE CHICAGO PANEL'S RESECINSE
Cost of custodians, engineers, and schoolMaintenance assistants for ttrch BudgetBearings
Principals in-services, prerc.rationtie, meeting (first and seared budgethearings), and assessment of vote results
District superintendents in-service andpreparation time
School Clerks tire for duplication,dissemination and tabulation of hearingresults
Budget Departmeit/Cperation kialysistime: two months times director, budgetmanager, budget staff, and operationsanalysis time plus other centraloffice staff time
B. Materials Costs:
Duplication, printing and distribution costs
Public Annaraternents
C. Secarl Budget Hearing Personnel Costs:
Board figures assume 50% of schools heldsecond hearings. Panel figures reflectactual. numbers.
TOTAL cons FOR BUDGET HEARBIGS
COST PER SalOCL (531)
BOARD CF ED1986 FIGURES
alIC.AGO PANEL
1986 FIGURESBOARD CF ED
198T FIGURESan= PANEL1987 FLARES
$125,000 $125,000 $1113,250 $130,000
259,500 0 64,550 0
6,1100 0 10,522 0
80,600 0 92,368 0
29,100 0 83,920 0
15,555 15,555 23,267 23,267
1,000 1,000 10,000 10,000
75,000 14,875 85,950 7,800
1592,155 $156,1130 $513,827 $171,067
$1,115 t295 $968 $322
16
-4-
responsible for conducting the budget hearings; however, theLSIC members did not understand the budget documents, for the most part,nor did they receive their documents in time to get ielp in analyzingthem.
1987: Because of the cooperation and hard work of the Director ofthe Department of Financial Planning and Budgeting and her staff, manychanges were made in the budget materials to make them more understandableby citizens and building staff. The changes were made in several areas:
1) Language - many specific words which confused parents last yearwere replaced with more understandable terms.
2) Format - changes in document format were made to avoid last year'sconfusion.
3) Material - in 1986, a budget summary was sent home to parentswhich was confusing and did little to enlighten them about theirschool's budget. This year, parents received a program budgetwhich showed how many staff and what costs were assigned to eacheducational program in the school. They also received anarrative explanation defining terms used in the summary. Inaddition, they received a summary of their school'sdiscretionary funds, which are subject to disapproval by theLocal School Improvement Council.
C. In-service Training
1986: Only principals received training in preparation for the1986 budget hearings. This training did not emphasize encouragingparental participation. There were many principals who were resistant tothe budget in-service workshops and to the whole concept of school basedbudgeting and who performed poorly at their local school budget hearings.
1987: In addition to training principals, in-service workshopsthis year involved district administrators, district council presidents,and LSIC presidents. A city-wide workshop was held in January to whichdistrict superintendents, one principal from each district, and thedistrict educational advisory council presidents were invited. Theyreceived training on the budget hearing process, guidelines, and budgetdocuments.
In turn, in-service training was provided at each district by thestaff of the Department of Financial Planning and Budgeting, a member ofthe district administrator's staff, the principal who attended thecity-wide workshop, and the district educational advisory councilpresident. Other central office staff were available for specificquestions. School principals and their LSIC presidents received jointtraining at these district level training sessions. Parent leadersreceived valuable training to help them conduct the budget hearings, andthey and their principals received the same information at the same time,helping to eliminate much of the misinformation prevalent during lastyear's hearings.
1 '7
-5-
It was the responsibility of the district superintendents to notifytheir principals to attend their district in-service workshops. Theprincipals, in turn, were responsible for notifying their LSIC presidentsof the date and purpose of the workshops.
Although the recommendation to hold joint training sessions wasapproved by the Superintendent, the implementation of the sessions was notwithout problems. The early joint district-level in-services were notwell attended by LSIC presidents; many presidents were either notinformed or informed at the last minute by their principals. One districtadministration, in disregard for the guidelines established by theSuperintendent concerning the joint workshops, planned two workshops, onefor principals and one for LSIC presidents. When the Chicago Panelpointed out this problem to appropriate Board personnel, the districtsuperintendent invited parents to both sessions. It came as no surprisethat few parents attended the principals' session, since they were invitedat the last minute, it was held during an afternoon on which theirchildren were not in school, and it was held in a location far from theirhomes, outside the district.
For the most part, district superintendents did an adequate toexcellent job of informing their principals of the in-service andoverseeing the actual training. One district superintendent went evenfurther and notified each LSIC president by mail, emphasizing theimportance of the presidents' role during the budget hearings. For themost part, in those places where communication to parent leaders wasinadequate or lacking, the fault rested with the building principal. Ofthe 163 LSIC presidents surveyed by the Panel concerning theirparticipation in the in-service training workshops, 70% had attended theworkshops. Several others were invited but did not attend, and stillothers were not invited.
Throughout the 55 presentations and workshops Panel staff gave toprepare LSIC members for the 1987 budget hearing, the Panel found a changein parents' attitudes towards the hearings. Parents were much moreenthusiastic and interested this year. The school-level training sessionsgiven by the Panel last year averaged seven to eight parents; this year,the average was 25 to 30 parents. Parents wanted information so theycould participate in the hearings rather than be passive observers.
The dual training of principals and LSIC presidents at theBoard-sponsored workshops engendered much of this enthusiasm. Includingthe LSIC presidents in the workshops reinforced the importance of theirrole in the budget process. Additionally, each LSIC president receivedthe same budget packet as his/her principal. Last year, the LSICpresidents only received the same material that all other parents receivedjust two weeks prior to the hearings. The 1987 packets contained one copyof all the local school budget material which would be used at thehearings, providing the LSIC presidents with ample material and sufficienttime to prepare for the hearings. LSIC presidents and principals alsoreceived two booklets prepared by the Department of Financial Planning andBudgeting. One of these booklets, Guide to School Budget Hearings,contained valuable information for both the principals and LSICpresidents.
18
1
-6-
II. ASSESSMENT OF 1987 BUDGET HEARINGS
A. March Budget Meetings
On March 10th and 12th, the Chicago Board of Education held its secondannual School Site Budget Hearings in 451 elementary and 73 high schoolsacross the city. According to Board figures released in March, 1987 atotal of 9,083 parents, teachers, residents, and other interested personsattended these hearings. In 1987, parents represented 52% of the totalwhich was similar to 1986 figures. Teachers represented 29% of thetotal, a 5% drop from last year. Residents comprised 6% of the total,close to last year's figure of 7%, and others represented 12% of thetotal, up from 8% last year. There was greater teacher representation atthe elementary schools than the high schools - 31% in elementary and 21%in high schools. Conversely, there was greater parent representation atthe high school level with 61% parents compared to 52% at the elementaryhearings.
Seventy-nine percent of those voting at the high schools approvedtheir budgets while 19% disapproved and 3% abstained. The approval rateat the elementary schools was 80% with 14% disapproving and 7%abstaining. For all school heraings, 7,254 voted to approve their localschool budgets (80%) while 1,244 (14%) voted to disapprove and 585 (6%)abstained. A total of 481 schools (92%) approved their budget, 41disapproved and two tied (a tie was considered a disapproval). Last year,67 (13%) out of 537 schools disapproved their budget, including six tievotes.
In the 43 schools which rejected their budgets, 75% of those inattendance were parents compared to 53% parent attendance in all schools.An overwhelming number of parents, 89%, voted to reject their schoolbudgets. Ninety-two percent of residents and 79% of other voted todisapprove. On the other hand, only 44% of the teachers disapproved thebudgets in these 43 schools.
=APPROVED &MKS: VOTES BY CATEGORY
PARENTS % i RETDENI'S % 1 TFACEEPS % 1 OThER 11I I
TOTAL
I I
APPROVE 82 11%1 5 6%1 76 56%1 9 211H 172 18%
1 1 1 11
DISAERROVE 645 8911 55 9211 60 44%1 34 79%11 794 82%
1 1 1 II1 1 1 11
TOTAL 727 1 60 1 136 1 43 H 966
19
-7-
Actual school level data were supplied by the Board of Education inApril, 1986 and published in the Panel's 1986 assessment report. Thisdata contained individual school attendance and voting records. Theguidelines published by the Board clearly state that the results of thebudget hearing will be telephoned to the district superintendent within 48hours after the votes are tabulated and sumitted in writing to thedistrict office within 5 working days. After several calls to theDepartment of Operations Analysis and Planning, the Panel was informedthat the data received at the district offices was inaccurate and theprincipals were asked to resubmit the accurate data. According to theDirector of the Department of Operations Analysis and Planning, manyprincipals submitted voting records in which the number of people inattendance was identical to the number of people voting. Since principalscannot vote, every school should have had at least one more in attendancethan the number who voted. There was also confusion concerning thecategories of eligible voters. Some of the voters fit more than onecategory (parents who voted under residents or parents who were alsoteachers in the school). There were few reported problems concerning thisissue in 1986 and no explanation given for the confusion this year.
The Panel finally received the revised data included in this reportalmost three months after the hearings. At that time the Panel staff wastold that the information was still incomplete and not totally accurate.The school level budget hearing data prepared by the Board is inAppendix I. The Panel has attempted to correct obvious errors in theBoard's calculations in these tables.
B. Panel Survey
In late February, 1987, the Panel mailed surveys to all LSICpresidents and followed up with phone calls beginning in March andconcluding in May. (See Appendix II) The survey had two parts: the firstpart contained questions about the 1967 budget hearings and the secondpart contained questions about the work of the Local School ImprovementCouncils. From the 535 LSICs on file with the Illinois State Board ofEducation, 137 presidents (26%) responded to the survey questions on the1987 budget hearings.
Attendance: According to Chicago Board reports, 9,083 personsattended budget hearings; 57% were parents, 35% were teachers, 9% wereresidents, and 6% others. A total of 2,335 persons attended the hearingsheld in the survey's 137 schools. Of these, 57% were parents, 35%teachers, 9% residents, and 6% others. The surveyed schools had a highernumber of persons disapproving the proposed budget than the city-widefigure - 65% voted to approve and 26% voted to disapprove. Of the 137schools, school budgets in 27 schools were rejected, a higher ratio thanthe city-wide data. (See Appendix III)
20
1
-8-
Hearing Management: Most responding LSIC presidents ft t thehcarings were conducted well, the budget explanations were adequate andmost questions were sufficiently answered. Many presidents expressedconfidence in their ability to explain the budget and lead the meeting.Others stressed that, at the school level, the tensions, unpreparednessand antagonisms were gone and in their place was a sense of partnership.This is in strong contrast to last year's hearings when many principalsand most parents were confused and poorly informed, with the exception ofthe parents trained at Region PTA and Panel workshops. This year, thePanel again provided workshops to prepare parents and other residents forthe budget hearings. These workshops, coupled with the joint LSICpresident and principal workshops sponsored by the Board, resulted inbetter informed parents and principals. Unlike the 1986 budget hearingswhen no LSIC president conducted the the budget portion of the meeting,24% of the hearings were conducted by LSIC presidents and 46% were jointlyconducted by the presidents and principals. Only 32% of the hearings weresolely conducted by the principals.
While it was encouraging to have many more presidents and principalswell informed about the mechanics of the budget hearing, few principalsstrayed from the rhetoric of formulas and union contract restrictions asreasons for being unable to change their budgets. Many LSIC presidentswere primed to tackle their budgets and talk about school improvement atthe hearings and instead were met with the same resistance as last year.The presidents had studied their schools' discretionary budgets and yetwere told that even funds for textbooks and supplies could not be changedbecause they were set by formula, again ignoring the fact that funds forthese areas could be increased and had, indeed, increased in the past.
Parents were also told overtly and covertly that disapproving thebudget was a waste of time, it cost the system money to hold a secondbudget hearing, and it reflected badly on the principal. In fact, oneLSIC president reported that when her principal's budget was disapproved,he publicly said that if he knew his budget was going to be disapproved hewould have made more teachers come to the hearing and vote for approval.Other presidents reported that their principals asked the teachers to cometo the hearings and vote for approval.
C. Recommendations and Objections: The following is a list ofrecommendations and/or objections raised at the local budget hearings asreported by the surveyed LSIC presidents. In those surveys where commentswere given, 16 presidents reported that no one made any recommendations orhad objections; however, 88 other presidents reported the followingcomments:
55% recommended extra funds for textbooks50% recommended extra funds for supplies50% recommended extra funds for maintenance and repairs32% recommended increases in staff32% recommended increases for furniture and equipment21% recommended more or different programs16% recommended better prepared lunches13% recommended more funds for computers and software
-9-
Last year the Panel recorded comments only from those schools thatdisapproved their budgets. The above comnIents were made by persons inschools that approved as well as disapproved their budgets. Participantsoverwhelmingly voiced the need for more textbooks and supplies just as wasthe case in 1986. One difference is noted in the increase inrecommendations for better maintenance and repairs seen in 50% of theschools in which objections were made. (See Appendix III)
Many parents reported to the Panel that disapproving their budget wasfutile since the Board would riot change anything. This was reinforcedover and over again by different principals, administrators, and parentleaders who made the same statement even on the night of the budgethearings. The Board was m;staken, however, to believe that having fewerdisapproved budgets meant people were more content than last year. ThePanel survey clearly indicates that even Those who approved their budgets,many times because they thought that disapproving it was a futile act,were in no way content with their present situation.
D. The Hearing Review Process
An important change in procedure recommended by the City-WideCommittee on Budget Hearings was the review process for schools withdisapproved budgets. After a school budget was rejected, that school'sprincipal, Local School Improvement Council president, the districtsuperintendent, and the district educational advisory council presidentwere tc meet, tefore March 27th, in order to discuss the reasons fordisapproval and collectively try to fi'id budget remedies for theseproblems. It was then the responsibility of the district superintendentto forward these recommendations to the General Superintendent. Thedistrict superintendent's recommendations and the Board's response wouldthen he presented at the second budget hearing.
While this new process held great promise for the kind of enhanceddecision-making at the local level encouraged in PA 84-126, even itsimplementation was obstructed and compromised. In late March, afterseveral parents complained to the Panel that the hearing review processhad not been held at their school, Panel staff contacted many districtadministrators and principals of schools with rejected budgets to find outwhen their review meetings would be held. Several of the principals anddistrict administrators were quite annoyed at the Panel for asking andwere very vague about when the meetings would be held. The Panel was ableto gather information from 27 of the 43 schools which were supposed tohold second budget hearings.
2°4
-10-
Of the 27 LSIC presidents or principals contacted during this period;only twelve (44%) had met on or before March 27th. The Panel alsolearned that the district advisory council president in at least onedistrict (District 5) had not been invited or informed of her role in theprocess. Many of the disapproved schools held their hearing reviewsduring the last few days before the second budget hearings, indicating notonly a disregard for the guidelines, but also a cavalier attitude aboutthe importance of the hearing review process. An LSIC president inDistrict 3 who had inquired about her school's hearing review date wastold by a district administrator that since the review had not been heldby the 27th, the recommendations made at the review would be meaningless.
E. Second Budget Meetings
Budgets at forty-one schools were disapproved along with tie votesat two schools, Pasteur and McDowell. According to legislation, a tievote is to be treated as a disapproval. The law states:
"When the budget is rejected by a simple majority or a tie vote ofthose voting, each School Council shall conduct a second meeting
within the time period and for the purpose specified in Section34-18b(2) of The School Code."
However, the March 20. 1987 Board report which described the outcome ofthe second annual budget hearing, omitted the two tied schools from thelist of individual school data on disapproved budgets. (See Appendix IV)In fact, one of the tied schools, McDowell, never held the second budgethearing as mandated by law. After the first budget hearing, the McDowellLSIC president asked her principal about the second budget hearing date.The principal knew nothing about it. When the LSIC president called thedistrict office, she was told there was not going to be a second meeting.
On April 6th and 9th, forty-two schools met for the second time toreceive the Board's response to their objections. Bcxause of the dualtraining of LSIC presidents and principals, the hearing review process,and the severe criticism the Board received in 1986 for not altering anybudgets, parents were hopeful that this year some budgets would berevised. The Board did not change any budgets, and for the second yearthe Chicago Board of Education completely disregarded both the spirit andletter of the law by not even attempting to make "modify the budget asnear as possible to meet the objections of the voters at the meeting. TheBoard again insulted and enraged the community by portraying itself aswanting meaningful community involvement and then obstructing everyopportunity for it to take place.
23
The Board has been severely criticized by the community as well as thePanel for ignoring the needs expressed during the 1986 hearings for moretextbooks and supplies while reducing those funds in the 1987 budget. Inanswer to this criticism, the Board has asked the legislature to increasethe tax rate in the Textbook Fund thus showing, in their own words, how"accountable" they are to the community. Raising taxes is not the Panel'sidea of accountability; however, reallocating funds and reprioritizing thebudget is.
The one positive change which took place at the second budget hearingswas that, unlike last year, participants were asked to vote on the budgetat the second budget hearing. While this vote was only advisory, itallowed participants another opportunity to let the Board hear from them.Of the schools for which the Panel has data, 54% approved the secondbudget and 46% disapproved it. (See Appendix V)
24
-12-
III. LOCAL SCHOOL ADVISORY COUNCILS
A. Adoption of Guidelines
S,:hool Year 1985-86: Although the legislation which mandatedLocal School Improvement Councils was passed in the summer )f 1985, theChicago Board of Education did little more than allow councils to beestablished during 1985-86. The legislation called for the establishm.ntof local councils early in the fall, but it was not until November of 1985that the Deputy Superintendent of Schools convened a committee of parentsand other citizen leaders to consider guidelines for the LSICs andDistrict Educational Advisory Councils. The guidelines were adopted inlate January, 1986. While councils were established last winter, theydid not function as was intended either in the spirit or the letter of thelaw. Few if any LSICs actually conducted the local school budget hearingsand no LSIC was allowed to disapprove the principal's discretionary fundsin 1986. The excuse given for this inaction was that the Chicago Boardof Education had not approved the list of programs and funds which wereconsidered discretionary. Until the Board approved a list, the councilswere considered to have no disapproval rights.
During the winter and spring of 1986, the Illinois State Board ofEducation (ISBE) clearly stated to the Panel and to the Chicago Board ofEducation the range of items which were to be considered discretionary.In April, 1986, the Deputy Superintendent released a bulletin which statedthat only supplies and textbooks and gifts or grants in the principal'sinternal accounts of less than $1,000 were considered discretionary at thelocal level. This list was not accepted by the Illinois State Board ofEducation. In a letter to the Deputy Superintendent and again inconversations with Panel staff, the ISBE clearly stated that those fundsconsidered discretionary included: supplementary State Title I, gifted,desegregation, Chapter I and State Bilingual funds along with textbooks,supplies, and the entire principal's internal accounts.
School Year 1986-87: Finally, in the fall of 1936, more than a yearafter the passage of this legislation, the Deputy Superintendent and acommittee of staff, parent and civic leaders agreed to a list ofdiscretionary funds closely matching ISBE's with two exceptions:
1) Only money used for instructional materials and supplies for giftedprograms would be considered discretionary.
2) Only if the principal had authority to determine how desegregationfunds were spent would those funcL be considered discretionary.However, if the decision on fund use was made at the Central Office,then the desegregation program funds were not considereddiscretionary.
25
In December, 1986, the members of the Chicago Board of Education votedto exclude ECIA Chapter I funds and State Bilingual funds as part of theapproved list of discretionary funds. ECIA council leaders had complainedto the Board that defining Chapter I funds as discretionary would diminishthe ECIA local advisory councils' influence over programs designed toserve disadvantaged students.
The Chicago Panel protested this serious exclusion for severalreasons. The ECIA advisory councils are no longer mandated by federal lawand exist in Chicago at the whim of the Board; they have no legal standingor rights of disapproval as do Local School Advisory Councils. TheChicago Board of Education had been extmtnely reticent to Implement thelegislation requiring local school councils and according them disapprovalrights over discretiosuy funds. Furthermore, because Chapter I and StateBilingual monies accounted for the vast majority of discretionary funds(this is especially true in schools most in need of school improvement),excluding them greatly diminishes the new powers accorded to parents andcitizens to improve their local, schools. Furthermore, the exclusion ofstaff position choices which are made by the principal, from the arena ofdiscretion, also greatly diminishes citizen involvement in shaping a localschool education program which will be responsive to the needs of aneighborhood's children.
The Illinois State Board of Education abdicate,i its authority byrefusing to become involved in this development. in a letter sent by theIllinois State Board to be Deputy Superintendent in August, 1986, theState Board's position was quite clear. They wrote, "The key focus todiscretionary funds for the district superintendent or the principal iswhether they have the authority to approve the expenditure of the funds inquestion." Clearly, Chapter I and at least some State Bilingual funds fitthis description and until December, 1986, the State Board agreed andpromoted their inclusion. However, when the Panel protested the schoolsystem's exclusion of these funds, the Superintendent of the IllinoisState Board of Education responded by saying that the State Board wouldnot involve itself in the determination of which funds were discretionary.
B. Survey of Implementation of Local School Improvement Councils
In order to measure the Board's implementation of Local SchoolImprovement Councils, the Panel surveyed LSIC presidents. (Appendix VI) Asurvey was sent to each president by mail followed by phone calls fromPanel staff members. Approximately one third of the elementary schoolLSIC presidents (151) and 20% of the high school LSIC presidents (15)responded to this part of the survey, a total of 166 schools. (SeeAppendix VII)
26
-14-
Council membership: Membership in the LSICs ranged from as few asthree to several hundred people. Total membership for the 151 schoolswhich answered this question was 8,770. Approximately 79% were parents,7% were community members, 12% were teachers, 1.3% were students and lessthan 1% other. In at least six of the schools surveyed, membership wasopen to all interested parents, teachers and community members. In theselarge LSICs, the elected board carried on the work of the council.Approximately 19% of the LSICs had less than 70% parent membership (28),as mandated by PA 84-126, and 18% (27) were totally made up of parents.
Council Meetings: Over 70% of I -, councils met once a month; 4%met twice a month. Eleven percent met every two months, 7.8% met everythree months, and 6% met less than three times a year. Although,according to established guidelines, LSICs were to be in every school byOctober 15th, two councils surveyed had only met once and one had not metas of May 5, 1987.
Most councils met during the day (61.8%); 15.2% met only at night and23% meet at times during the day and other times at night. The mostfrequent place to meet was the local school. Eight-three percent of theLSICs met at their schools while only 3.6% met outside the school eventhough the law allows for meeting in other public places. Severalcouncils met both in the school and at other public places (13.3%).
Meeting Attendance: Principals or principals' representatives aremandated to attend every meeting of the Local School Improvement Council;however, only 79.9% of those surveyed stated that their principals orrepresentatives always attended their meetings. Another 17.7% sometimesattended their meeting and 2.4% of those survey stated that theirprincipal has never attended their meetings. It is recommended but notmandated that the school engineer and lunchroom manager be invited to LSICmeetings. Of the 165 LSIC president; who responded to whether either ofthese staff persons attended their LSIC meetings, 64.8% responded that oneor both always attended their meetings, 6.7% sometimes attended and 28.5%never attended or have never been invited to attend the meetings.
Discretionary Funds: As was previously stated in this report, theChicago Board of Education did little more than establish LSICs in1985-86. The excuse for this inaction was that the Chicago Board ofEducation had not adopted a list of discretionary funds and until theydid, the councils had no disapproval rights. On November 5, 1986, a listof discretionary funds was finally adopted. As of four to six monthslater, the time the Panel's survey was taken, less than half (48.5%) ofthe principals had regulary submitted proposals to their LSICs beforespending discretionary funds. Another quarter (22.7%) sometimes submittedproposals before spending from their discretionary funds, and 28.5% hadnever submitted a proposal to their LSICs before spending from theirdiscretionary funds.
27
-15-
Even as late as May, 1987, some principals were submitting proposals forthe first time. Several other presidents informed the Panel that theprincipals simply asked them to sign off on the expenditures withoutmeeting with the full council. The presidents were told to do thisbecause the principals needed to make the expenditure immediately, thuscircumventing meeting with the total council and discussing theexpenditure.
According to the Illinois School Code, a Local School ImprovementCouncil has the power to disapprove all obligations or expenditures of theprincipal's discretionary fund. The principal must submit a writtenproposal to the council before these appropriations may be expended. Ifthe council fails to adopt a motion to disapprove a proposed expenditureor oblitgation within thirty days of the date specified in a writtenproposal submitted to the council by the principal, the proposedexpenditure or obligation shall be deemed to tie acceptable. More thanhalf of the principals in the Panel's survey have either not followed theIllinois School Code or, since November 5th, have not spent any money fortextbooks, supplies, supplementary State Title I, instructional materialsand supplies for gifted programs, or held fundraisers.
Of the 116 LSICs in the Panel survey to whom proposals have beensubmitted, only 5 (4%) have ever disapproved a proposal. Two councilsdisapproved spending for textbooks and supplies, and °Ile for justtextbooks. Another council disapproved spending for supplementary StateTitle I and one disapproved spending from the principal's internalaccounts.
Local School Improvement Council Management: All Local SchoolImprovement Councils were to have adopted bylaws no later than twomeetings after the initial meeting. A large majority of LSICs in thesurvey (80%) have done this. Several others are in the process ofadopting bylaws sometime this Spring. Over half the LSICs have done needsassessments at their schools and 42.3% have developed school improvementplans. Neither the needs assessments nor school improvement plans arerequired by law or the Board's guidelines. It is encouraging that thecouncils are assessing the needs in their schools and developing plans toaddress them.
28
-16-
IV. SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE FUTURE
The movement to involve citizens in the local schools and in theinstitutions of public education is not new. What is new is the type ofinvolvement being encouraged in recent years. For the last severaldecades, most parent and citizen involvement was limited to servicing theschools: raising money through bake sales, volunteering to chaperoneclass outings, or supplying tutors for the classroom. Only recently hasthere been an effort to rcinvolve parents and community residents in thedecision-making process around local urban schools. In smaller schooldistricts in which the members of the Board of Education are moreaccessible to their neighbors and fellow citizens, such involvement,whether formal or informal, has been maintained. Such has not been truein large urban school systems.
There have been many barriers to meaningful citizen involvement in theChicago Public Schools. Parents and citizens often feel intimidated whenvisiting the local school, feeling as if their presence was an intrusion,as if their opinions were not worthy. Parents who have full time jobs,are ,,00r, do not have a car, do not have access to day care, or areraising their children alone are common in urban school systems. Allthese realities make it difficult to sustain parental involvement.
However, in other cities, these barriers have been overcome throughschool accountability movements in which parents and citizens aregenuinely involved in shaping school improvement and in other schoolsystems in which there is a strong commitment by the administration forshared governance.
After assessing the Board's implementation of PA 84-126 over the lasttwo years, the member organizations of the Chicago Panel believe that theGeneral Superintendent is not committed to shared governance in theChicago Public Schools nor has the Board shown its desire to involveparents and other citizens in meaningful decision-making at the locallevel.
The budget hearings have not produced changes in schooi budgets norhad any effect on school improvement because of the unwillingness of theBoard to allow this to happen. The Local School Improvement Councils'discretionary disapproval rights have been so limited in scope that thecouncils have little power to participate in school improvement. Withouta broader interpretation of discretionary funds and a new approach toshared governance at the local level, the intentions of PA 84-126 to bringabout school accountability and improvement will continue to be unmet.
29
APPENDICES
I. School Site Hearing Results
II. Budget Hearing Survey Form
III. Budget Hearing Survey Results
IV. Disapproved Budgets
V. Second Hearings Advisory Votes
VI. LSIC Survey Form
VII. LSIC Survey Results
00
Page 1
Page 18
Page 19
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 23
1987 MM. SUET BALurrnic BY DISTRICTHELD: MEM 10 & 12, 1981
E0A10 FiGuors coRREcTED TOTALS
APPROVAL 1
U IUDISIKCIS YES NO 1
I 1_1___IU I
U 1 36 01U 2 24 01U 3 24 21U 4 19 1 I
U 5 20 41U 6 19 4 1
U 7 22 1 1
U 8 24 1 I
U 9 22 1 I
0* U 10 18 2 1
s U 11 19 0 1
U 12 22 1 1
U 13 21 0 IU 14 20 2 1IJ 15 19 1 I
U 16 18 1 1
U 17 20 3 IU 18 26 4 1U 19 19 2 IU 20 17 1 I
UOM TOTALS 429 I31 I
TOTAL varno PAHOIIS
_I
YES
I
355616
369268
311
195241
408464
437
245246
293196
285272
334268
295221
6,293
NO YES
46
926
31es
18416
2930
22713
506
15
201865
772026
994
I
202228185
149
193
161
113
221203
179
115
121
157
134
138
139201
163
139
95
3,242
lEsimors LEACHERS 011ER
NO
L____
447
24
2865
15210
26
25191
644
511
13
12
48
5416
9
790
YES NO YES NO MS NO
2051
11
12
57
19
2518
17
10
24
19
719
11
11
16
11
12
325
004
2
78
31
1
19
71
02
1
1
710
2
5
81
106
306166
88103
26
81
137
192
20892
96
7345
104
81
7398
139
89
2,303
31
2
1
913
70
2
70
31
1
6
1
8
151
8
89
21
328
19
10
825
19
51
38285
44
7
2541
19
0
15
25
440
2
000
311
0
2
210
0
200
0
4
201
4
43
IJ ArmovAL 1
______I 1 INal U I
vOrmc 1_1 YES ES3 I
1_1 I
49 1j 35 1 1
62 u 24 0 I46 LI 24 2 142 1_1 19 1 I
48 1_1 19 5 I55 1_1 17 4 I37 1_1 18 1 1
19 IJ 24 1 I
56 IJ 22 1 1
35 IJ 18 2 II I 19 0 I
22 I_-1 20 3 I13 1_1 21 0 153 U 20 2 I21 IJ 19 1 1
29 1_1 18 1 I
21 1_I 18 5 I14 1_1 26 4 140 1_1 19 2 114 IJ 17 1 I
1_1 I
787 U 417 371
TOTAL vOrDG I
1
YES NO I
_____I_____I
349617
370
268311
202238408
464
442
245246
2931932E6
272334217
334221
6,310
49 181
33 131 1
84 11134 I
23 1
29 I33 I
227 1
13 I50 161
14 120 I18 I65 179 120 I26 I
I
1,003 I
Nal TarAL Uv31r03 ATIEIDINCE IJ
IJU
____1 JU
53 45162 687
I1J_1
46 446 1_144 343 IJ48 443 U55 441 U37 295
456 IJI
19
56 550 U35 704 IJ91 349 IJ22 318 U14 313 IJ58 265 IJ
3zr333
IJ29 19 U21 390 IJ14 370 IJ40 364 IJ14 261 IJ
IJ785 8,098 IJ
U 31 I 26 1 0 11 374 1 18 1 170 1 12 1 36 1 3 1 133 1 3 1 38 1 0 1 63 1_1 26 1 0 I 1 374 1 18 11 63 1 455 IJU 32 1 21 1 3 11 240 1 118 1 234 1 101 1 4 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 9 1 9 1J 21 I 3 11 240 1 118 I I 15 1 373 1_1U 33 I 21 1 3 11 328 1 82 1 196 1 59 1 26 1 10 1 66 1 10 1 40 1 3 1 35 1_1 21 I 3 11 328 1 82 11 38 1 448 UU I I II U II II IJUlt.& TOTALS I 68 I 6 II 942 I 218 I 600 I 172 I 66 1 18 I 197 I 16 1 79 I 12 I 107 IJ 68 I 6 II 942 I 218 II 116 I 1,276 IJ
UCITIMIE TOTALS: IJ I I II IJU I 497 I 37 1 1 7,232 I 1,212 1 3,842 I 962 I 391 I 99 I 2,503 I 105 I 519 I 55 I 814 IJ 4E5 1 43 II 7,252 1 1,221 II 901 I 9,374 IJ
31
>131300O.....X1..4
1987 wpm. TircET =raw pERINuas BY DISTRICTHELD: HArai 10 & 12, 1987
tom Flans comyED TOTALS
APPBOiAL I TOTAL vorrn Evens mums 1TAQES on IJ APPIDJAL
I L1
1
No 1
TurALoriNG I
I
In I No
Haivornic
Tyr& UanaloANce IJU 1
/23 No I YES NO YES NO YES Na YES Na Ifs NO
911 IJvorpc U YESUtzsi laci3
I 11 IJ IJU 1 100.00% 0.00%1 88.53$ 11.47$ 82.11% 17.89% 100.00% 0.00% 97.25% 2.75% 91.301 8.70% .481 U 97.225 2.78%1 87.69% 12.31%1 11.75% 100.00%IJU 2 100.00% 0.00%1 98.56% 1.44% 97.02% 2.98% 100.00% 0.00% 99.67% 0.33% 100.00% 0.00% 9.02$1J 103.0o% o.00SI 98.73 1.2811 9.02$ ico.03UU 3 92.31% 1.07%1 93.42% 6.501 88.53 11.46% 73.35 26.67% 98.81% 1.191 100.001 0.001 10.43%1J 92.31% 7.69%1 92.50% 7.50%1 10.31% 103.00$1_1U 4 95.00% 0.6711 89.63$ 10.37% 84.1$ 15.821 85.71$ 14.29; 98.88% 1.12% 100.00% 0.00% 12.33%IJ 55.00f 5.00%1 89.63% 10.3711 12.83$ 100.03UU 5 83.35 2.0311 78.34% 21.66% 74.81% 25.19% 41.67% 58.33% 91.96% 8.0 76.93 23.08% 10.79SU 79.17% 20.83%1 78.73$ 21.27%1 10.84% ico.cof IJU 6 82.61% 2.42%1 51.45$ 48.55$ 51.44% 48.56% 46.61% 53.33$ 66.67% 33.331 42.11% 57.89% 12.67% U 83.95% 19.05%1 52.33% 47.67%1 12.47% 100.03IJ
U 7 95.65% 0.80%1 93.77$ 6.23% 91.87% 8.131 126.36% 13.64% 92.05% 7.95% 100.00% 0.00% 12.59f0 94.74% 5.26%1 92.25% 7.75$1 12.54% 100.03IJU 8 96.00% 0.44%1 93.36% 6.64% 89.72% 10.26% 96.153 3.85% 100.00% 0.00% 90.43 9.525 4.17%1J 96.00% 4.031 93.36% 6.64%1 4.17% 1c0.03U
UU 9
10
95.65%
90.00%
0.49%1
1.10%1
93.93%
65.81%
6.07%
34.19%
89.04%
48.010.96$51.62%
94.74%
47.22%
5.26%52.7E%
98.97%
96.74%
1.03$
3.26%
96.23%
79.17%
3.77%
20.83%
1o.1451J 95.635.011U 90.00%
4.351110.201
93.9566.07%
6.07%1
33.93%1
10.1814.97%
100.031J100.031_1U 11 100.03 0.00%1 94.96% 5.04% 55.04% 4.96f 58.84 41.10% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 26.071U 100.00% 0.201 94.96% 5.04%1 26.07% 100.03IJ
U 12 95.65% o.8251 83.11% 16.89% 73.33% 26.67$ 96.0 4.00% 96.97$ 3.03$ 71.43$ 28.57% 6.9251J 16.96% 13.04%1 83.11% 16.89%1 6.92% 100.03UU 13 100.00% 0.00%1 97.99% 2.01% 96.91% 3.09% 100.03% 0.001 98.65$ 1.35% 100.0 0.00% 4.47%1_1 100.03 0.00%I 97.99% 2.01%1 4.47% 100.031JU 14 90.91% 1.41%1 92.09% 7.11$ 92.41$ 7.59% 11.141 22.24 97.031 2.11% 100.uu$ 0.04 21.541J 90.91% 9.07%1 93.24% 6.76$1 21.13% 100.00%1JU 15 95.00% 0.741 93.46% 6.54 91.39% 8.61% 95.03% 5.0 94.55$ 5.45$ 100.00% 0.00% 8.11f U 95.00% 5.03%1 93.46% 6.54$1 8.11% 103.031JU 16 94.74% 0.71%1 93.79% 6.21% 92.05% 7.95% 91.611 8.33% 98.78% 1.23 91.11% 8.89% 8.09%U 94.74% 5.26%1 93.79% 6.21%1 9.09% 100.03UU 17 16.96% 1.47%1 82.381 17.62% 83.72% 19.20% 61.11% 38.89% 90.125 9.82S 93.48% 9.52% 5.381U 78.26% 21.74%1 82.3% 17.62%1 5.38% Ico.03UU i6 86.67% 2.4c1I 77.68% 22.32$ 75.125 24.881 61.5:4 38.46% 86.73$ 13.27% N/A N/A 3.930 06.67% 13.3331 77.81% 22.19%1 3.78$ 100.03 IJU 19 90.11$ 1.42%1 93.65$ 6.35$ 89.68% 10.33 84.62$ 15.38% 99.29% 0.71% 93.75$ 6.25% 11.27%1J 93.401 9.52%1 93.83% 6.17%1 10.99% 103.03SIJII 20 94.44% 1.04%1 89.47% 10.53$ 91.35% 8.65$ 70.59% 29.41% 91.75% 8.25% 86.21% 13.79% 5.36%IJ 94.44% 5.56%1 89.47% 10.551 5.36% 103.00%1JU 1 IJ 1UM. Tams 93.26% 0.95%1 26.35 13.62:. 83.41% 19.59% 83.05% 19.95%1 96.25 3.73 91.10$ 8.90% 9.72%U 91.85% 8.15%1 86.28% 13.72%1 9.69% 100.00%1J
U 31 100.00% 0.011 55.41% 4.5951 93.41%1 6.59%1 92.31%1 7.69%1 97.74 %1 2.2661120.0 0.00% 13.85$1_1 100.00%1 0.0011 55.41%1 4.59%11 13.85% 93.03SUU N 87.50% 1.27%11 67.04% 32.96%1 69.85%1 30.15$1 44.44%I 55.56 %I 25.00% 75.0011 10.00% 90.00% 4.0211_1 87.50%1 12.01 67.04%1 32.96%11 4.02$ 103.03SUU 33 87.50% 1.51%11 80.24% 20.00%1 76.86%1 23.14%1 72.225 27.78%1586.84%1 13.16%1 93.0 6.98$ 8.4211_1 87.50%1 12.01 83.031 20.co$11 8.48% 103.0of1JU I IJ 1 I IIUH.s. Toms 91.89% 0.9511 81.21% 18.79%1 77.72% 22.28%1578.57% 21.43$13%92.49%I 7.51%1 16.81% 13.19% 9.0611_1 91.89%1 8.11 %I 81.21%1 18.7511 9.09% 103.03SU
UCITI I& TIMMI 93.07%1 0.95%11 85.651 14.351 79.9851 20.0251 79.63%1 20.20%I 95.97%1 4.03%1 90.431 9.5251 9.63%1_.1 91.86%1 8.14%11 85.59%1 14.41%11 9.61%1 100.coSIJ
UN/A: NO itraNTAGES ARE AyAnABLE tEr.AusE HO Hoots^ $ETE Hoerr AT 31E
32
Appendix I
1987 5103. BE= BAUD= Eft SCHD2.HELD: HARM 10 & 12, 1987
IC= MIMES COME= IDLILS
1 APPWIII. 11 Tor t. voniz 1 nava 1 max= 1 mules 1 01113 1 U Tau. voroclliorx. UI ,1
LI I I II 1Lorn WM. lac I Irs : NO 11 78S 1U 1 1 11 I '-1LLI .
,U .11.Iiii1 .
U 1 H A M M1 AMC:CM 11 11 1 10 1 7; 10 1 o 1 0 1 3 0 1U 1 wilio 1 APPW;a111 21 01 2: oi 0: 01 0 01U 1 Exam 1 APERoxo 1: 10 1 1 : 9 1 1 1 C 1 0 1 1 0 1U 1 HELIUM i APP97/3) 11 31 11 3: 1: 01 01U 1 Num 1 Ammo 11 7; 0 1 6 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
1_1. 1
1 arka..C 1 APPX7a) 11 291 11 6; 0: 61 01 171 0L.II 1 1 CAM
1 APPROM 11 12 1 2 I 5 1 2 1 1 i 0 I 3 1 01_1
.1 CIEVE00) I Anna/ 11 51 01 3: 0: ol 01 11 o
1_,. . 1 Drum
1 *pm= :1 121 11 111 1: 0; 01 11U 1 rano 1 Amara) 11 11 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 o 1_,. , 1 warm 1 APPF0D3 1: n 0 1 5 1 0 1 0! 0 i 2 ' 0 iU 1 I M G E a t a C 1 O R M ) 1 1 4; r I 4; 2 1 0; 0; 0;1-.1 1 MISCH GEM 1 APPPOM 11 31 11 31 01 0: 01 011_,. ,
1 F A R t s a t n i 1 Ana= 11 331 01 8: 0; 41 01 211U I can1 1
i 03:SAP220/ED°11 0; 5 1 0 1 4: 01 0: 0:1_,
.1 NA[ , APPEWM 1 1 11 I 1 1 8 I 1 1 0 1 0; 2;I-.
1 1
1 P a h l I E M U ) II 11 1 0: 6 1 4 1 01 01 1 I1_1 1 MEM) I *mom 1: 26 : 3 1 8 1 3; 4 1 0 1 14 1. ."
,1 ars
1 Arfitym 11 7 1 0 1 5 1 0 1 0; 0 1 2;1_, 1 1DITEC i APEC/0) 11 7 1 0 1 6 ; 0 1 0; 0 1 1,_,, .
1 WORECD PATE ANFOM 11 12 1 0 1 5; 0; 0 1 0, 6 1," 1 M A H A N p : ; 1 5 1 0 1 3 1 0 1 0; 0 1 2 1U 1 ORKIE. PAK, .
APaD/D) 11 8; 0; 6; 0; 0 1 o 1 2;1_,. .
1 PALKR APED 11 17 1 7 1 131 7 1 0 1 0 1 n._, 1 Phi aFaxa) 11 ii 1 o 1 4; 0 1 1 1 0; 6 1U 1 racum vac I L.Pano 11 16 1 0 1 7; 0 1 1 1 0 1 8;U 1 prarsoz. , 1 APEmirm 11 13 1 6 1 10 1 5 1 1 1 0 1 n1 &wawa r APEOVE) 1: 6; 0 1 1 1 0; 0 1 0 4 1U 1 SVSER. .
APPPINED 11 8 1 0 1 7 1 0 1 H 0 0;"U
1 SCLOCN Apayim 11 10 1 0 1 8; 0 1 0 1 0 2;1--1 1 SICCE I APFDED 11 8 1 0 1 7 1 0; 0; 0 0 1U 1 7Eorp s37- Aczarf Anus) 11 9 1 3 1 n n 11 0 oi 01u 1 ItLTAU ,
AgaraiED :1 31 :); 31 01 0: 0 o 1 01" 1 Hill =oaf mai 1 AEForm 11 4: 0: 31 01 01 01 0: 01U 1 saws. .
1 maxim II 121 0: 11 I 01 01 0: 1 1 01,_, 1 I M Z , 0 0 )1 1 , P a 3 M 1 1 2 1 01 2: 01 01 01 01 01U
1 1 I I 1 IN0 1 VS I &10 I rs I NO 1 zEs In I Irs 1 NO tvorim U zEs 1 NO 11 U
_1 U
1 01 1 11-1_1 11 1 10 PI 22 UO : 01 1U 2 1 0 1: 3 1_1of 01 2 1_1 10 1 1 1: 131_I
01 01 01 01 11_1 31 111 51J11 0: 01 o: 111 7: 011 8 U
O 1 1 1 1U 291 1 I 1 31U31 01 1 U 121 211 151J1 1 01 1 U 5, 01:
O 1 0 1 0 1 2 U 12 1 1 1: 156 11:11
0 1 10 : 0; 1. .,,__, 10; 0 1 : 11 1j
O 1 01 11J 71 011 8IH 01 H 2I U 41 311 9 UO 1 01 01 oU 31 011 31_Io; 0; 0 1 1 U 33 : 0;; 34 U11 01 0: 111 01 511O 1 01 0; 01_ 101 1 11O 1 01 01 1 U 7 1 4 11 12 111:1
O 1 1 1 0 1 2 1_1 12 1 0 11
01 01 01 41J 261 311O 1 0 1 0 1 3 12. 7 1 o 11O 1 o 1 0 1 1 1_1 7 1 0 11
331140 111:1
8 UO 1 o1 01 1_I 51 o11 61_I01 01 01 21_1 81 011 io 1JO 1 1 1 01 1;J 171 711 251101 01 01 1U ii 1 oil 121JO 1 01 01 4I_1 161 011 20UO 1 1 1 0 1 1
O 1 0 1 0 1 1
H 01 01 31_1 131 6 11kJ1 11..)
1 1
106 11 013 ill
6 1 o n
21971 111-=:Jj1
0; 0;O I 1 1 0 1 3
1 1
0; 1
o 1 1
. .e--.e 1L..1 e" 81 011
9 1 3 11 1131 11_1j
O1 01 1. .
3 1 0 11 ......" 4 1 1
11 0: 1U 41 0;1 5UO 1 0 1 3 , ." 121 011 15UO 1 0 1 1 U 2 1 0 :1 3 . ."
._.2 1 53' U 349 1 48 11 450 U
:EMMA= 1jI U I II
UDiSTRECI 1 =MILS: I 33 I 1 11 35 46 1 202 1 44 1 20 1 0 1 106 1 3 1 21 1
U 2 ARAI MIELE2 ARIZ=
U 2 HMO2 BRDAZIANN
LJ 2 CHAPPELL
APMZ:D 11
APPRAW 11
AM= 11MIMED 11APBOJED 11
18 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 0 1 9 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 6 1_1 18 1 11401 2 91 21 3; 0: 271 01 11 01 1U 401 21139 1 0 1 51 01 41 01 251 01 41 0: 1U 381 01119 1 o 1 16 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 n 01 0 1 4 U 19 : 0 1115 I 0; 41 0: o: 0: ill 01 01 01 2U 151 011
-3-
33
4 12,43 U39 U23 U17 U
=C
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
C0
NV
igo
H
11 1
1111
11N
MH
ill M
ill441:=8co ws.:8tnNilwcAti
C, C,
CP C, C, C, C, LO 0 W
0 0 0 CO PJ 0 0 0 0
bkviElcootirgo
.40sCoNallON440,
1JO
0 0 -4 0
LO OW 0 0 OW PJ 0 0 0 0
----
----
0 N J
0 0 0 0 -4
0.4 .4 .4 0 c, 00 c, c,
C, C,
C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C,
C, C, O 1.4 0 0 0 0 0
----
----
----
----
----
-sgto
NRNt.0-48,Tico
-4cr.-4wcovi-4RICA
C, C,
C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C,
C, C, C, NJ C, C, C, C, C,
----
----
----
-
;%No
g-4
-4D
0--
----
----
----
----
--VD
-4 0 0
00 0 0 0
-4 0 0 0 0
0PJ
PJ
g0J44-4
LaWON
47,aCo0,44
N-4WUJUD171
-4
000
00000
.4 0 0 0 0
0 0 -4 0 0 pj
----
----
----
----
---
0O 0
pu c
o.4
OW c)
W ON 000
----
----
----
----
--0
0 0 0
00 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 , 0 0 0 0
----
----
----
----
----
----
VN4-4
WcoiSS3
u1 Latn=c0
tnw24,;8A,
-0
C, C, C,
C,
C, C, C, C,
C, C, C, C, C,
C, c, -0 c, c, c,
_C, C,
C, C, C, C, C, C, C, N J
C ) 0 0 CA 0 J . 0 0 0
N0 0 0
c)
M c) c)
c) tn c)
c) c) c) c) c)
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
U 6 U O U U 6 U U
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0 C)
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
----
----
----
---
PJ C,
44 PJ PJ -4 -4 -4 4r PJ
44 0 O LO 0 O PJ O 4r
:CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
C C
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
C-4
CS
ki'IS
O W
CS
O tn
!"..1
w V
s 13
=34
7*co
gW
I" t3
03
it71
::C
O. 0
1 F
; 3LI
4. 1
.1.7
;03
00
0 0 -4 0 OW OW 0 0 0 Co NJ 0000
Co000 0 0000
-+ 0 0 0 0 00 NJ 00 NJ
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
=
DW T.-OCAF=VVOi
=C7S8ZaliZtrIZAN
z21 WN01
a;t1Z2401
no.wois=
7CC
CC
1 _C
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
C
Om
=E
L-
00
6
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
-CC
CC
:CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
JIN
tntntntn tntntntntn
======
ODO
c) Cl
c)
hi
----
----
---
7D e
ri01t
ne.0
gtr
id--
----
----
-Co CD
CD
CD
7 CD CD CD CD CD
CD
CD Pa
7 CD CD CD CD
Pa
CD CD
.1100WW0-.W Wg
----
----
---
7 CD CD CD CD CD tn ca
CD CD
Al CD Pa CD CD CD CD CD
CD
----
----
---
7 CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
CD CD
----
----
---
:CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
geM
.oco
ewde
ZaV
----
----
---
+ W CD
CD 4.11 Co-. CD0
===========
1CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
11
tx ix ti ix ix ix ix ix ix lx ix is 4, Ix ix Ix tx ix tx it 4.
NO
PPPI
EPR
NIM
Pla
.4
m
1111
11iii
ii1=
1111
1111
ODtriNgNosobi ON-3L1Z.odM
W Pi CD CD 7 CD CD Pa CD CD CD Pa
Pa CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
----
----
----
----
----
-.4
3tlI
0WE
AJ.
W.0
02.-
1Whi
Co
Co.
Itn.C
.coC
o8=
CPa . W800000-.000N N0000000
----
----
----
----
----
-. 0,1
c) .
CD CD
CD CD CD CD CD Pa
CD CD Pa pa
c) .
.....
Pa
CD
CD CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD
000 CD CD 000
----
----
----
----
----
-ON to CA OW
.. la) ..
gro OO co far c:. ro ig
----
----
----
---
----
-
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CW
WW
WW
WW
W
1111
111_
.0 CO 1.4 ON 1) CO -4
CC
U
0000000
tnco
hi4r
N 5
CD CD CD CD
5
CD CD
PLI CD CD CD
El
Am
CD CD CD CD CD CD
-A
-A CD Jwn tn
CD
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
hl
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
----
----
----
----
CD CD
CD Pa CD Pa CD
CD W
CD WI CD Pa
CD
CD
Co
CD CD CD CD CD CD Pa
----
----
----
----
CD
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
OCD CD CD CD CD CD CD
----
NcoNNINKINN-.-.VIN
C CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
tri11r)Nosbi 8113-ittzt10dM
-_-_
-_-_
-_-_
-_-_
-_--
-LO
W kJ CD CD CD CD CD ra c. c. c. N
N c. c. c. c. CI CD CD
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
==
=
cY0
OgV,WcorizAdgcr.r)
ZW.DSEA81:M
U
A..,,,,..
C CCCCCCCCC_CC C
V...w0,8-410
Lu
0
O_.
..__.
L5
1
ccrcccccccrrrccccamccc
cccccccrcca_cccc
V V 0 >4
-1-1711-1-1-1-171-1-1-1-1-M-1-M-1-1-1-Y1
W'°
.TFIR
WI
cgWaV:=M:Sc" ?
1
2
R colpremec0t-
- m00
cm
comocm0R-- g
2
m
21120]2
I
2]0
.,
gR0.2
Rcovte00'0.0r-
4.
0000 0
0000N00 M ].90
OO
N 0 000000010
--------, 000 0 000,0N00
ON
-----------------......
0 000 0 0,0N0000 ,..
0 000 0 00,0,000Lili
MOO N
LAN0000,0,,
MM
NO
NO
LALA
09
g
--000tr.-,0(000-000.,R-0 0
as
mm
-----00000,0N
0N0000000,000
,,0,0,000,00000000,0 N-_-_-_-_-_-_-_--C) CD CD CD CD
CD (, CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
OD CD CD
CD
01
----------N
NO
N00000M
00,000LAN
---------00000N00000000000111,0 0
00,001,0000,000000000 Nt--
9 9 cD CD CD CD 9 1.11 CD U) CD CD
CD CD CD 01
C) C)
C)
Ci
--------- ------c'1
000t-u.t0C'1
G-------
------------moo
cm
mamocmoR,,
,,000r-,e-owee.-000srm,o o
as
-:]III 1 1
!Mil 1
11
111N
gi
g121i5i1W11111
H3117.1========
t....ocoulmuamoimEmt-oom
g
11111111111111111111;
Iii11111111111011111
Appendix I
HOMO MODEMCOMOID) 717IALS
APPROVAL 1
I Ims1 Not
=AL. 1101= I PAR= I REIIDEXIS
1 1 1 Ius I mo I ms I mo ms 1 mo
1
wants 1 cum Tow. WI:DC:TOTAL IJtainammce tj
1 i that U 1 11ms I Not ms 1 mo Ivo= 1_1 nas 1 ND 11
.._____I ...___J____J 'J1JJIJ
J_mar a= weJJ I I
__...JI i I
..11 u 1 1: _1J 7
J TAMR= BRA=
1EITLER APPROVED I TtI I
01 31 0I
o 0I 1 I
31 01 1
I01
I,1 u I
7I I
011 8 -1,J T (LUC MIME II/SUMMED 1: 91 21 1 I 2 0 2 1 21 01 01 31J 2 6 I 1 11 iJ 7 arx ac 11 1 I I I . i 1 1J I II JJ T ram APPROVED II 181 51 61 .3 31 1 61 1 f 3 O1 11J 181 5 11 s J7 LEWD CPC 1
1 I . U I 11 JJ 7 DEP= APPROVED I 8 0 1 31 0t 1 01 01 01 41 0; 2U 8l 011 10 1 jJ IrIMASS MOLE APPROVED II 8 21 31 21 0 0 2 01 31 01 3 1J 8 2 I 1 131J13.112CDOI APPROVED 11 6 21 21 1 2 0 1t 1 1 1 01 1 IJ 6 2 1: 91_IJ 7J 7
El..12131Ctl MAIO 11
EIVZ APPROVED 11 le1
4t 171 11 0 0 25. I
31 0 1.
0 1U
2 1JI
42 11:
4 11U
48UJ 7 =Ma APPROVED 1; 01 of o o 0 1 01 01 01 11J 1 1 011 21J7 CCU:BLATT APPROVED 11 7; 0 51 01 1 0 1 ol of 01 21J 71 01t 9 LiJ 7 MUM; APPROVED 1I 91 o1 91 0I 0 0 0 0: 01 01 1 :_l 91 OH 10 LIJ 10a APPROVED if o1 171 01 2 01 13 0I 0I 01 21J 321 011 34UJ 7 AAA? ERANCB-Ka 11 I 1 I I I 1 U I 11 IJ7 MAPCONI APPROVED 11 24 1 0 17; 01 1 ; 01 51 0 1 1 1 0; 21J 24 0 1: 16 1 J7 HAY APPROVED 11 51 0 1 1 0; 01 01 21 01 21 01 21_1 5 01: 71J7!j.
7
MOD/ APPROVED 11 131MI APPROVED 11 70
I761
0 31 01 31 01 011 1 01 01 01 01 31
0101
31_1212,
13191
011I 11
161J12 1 J7 ROEVZIFV EVOC AMR= 11 71 0 31 01 01 ot 41 o 1 0; 01 31J 7 0 11 10 U7 small APPROVED 11 31 0 1 1 01 01 01 21 0I 21 01 2;_1 51 0 11 7 1J7
1_1 7Ea= APPROVED 11 24 1IMIMMELEE =tar 0 8; 0 31 0 1 11 1 01 2;
. 1 1 1
01.
3;JU
24
1
01;..
Z7 ;J1JUUDESTEICI 7 TOTALS: 18 1 1 1: al 1 16 1 113 1 10 1 19 1 3 1 81 1 7 1 Z 1 0 1 31 IJ 238: 20 11 295 1_1
BEMIRE APPROVED I1 16 1 31 12I 2 0; 0; 2I 01 2 1 1 2 IJ 3 : 1 21 1_1EUTTCOILS AMR= 11 11 1 3 1 6 I 3 0; 0 4; o 1 1 ol 21J 11 3 :1 16 1.J CEALP.EAS. APPROVED 11 6 1 0 2 1 0 1 I 0 31 o 01 ol 21J 6 oft 81:11J COCK MONTI tEM C1R 1 I I1 U 11 1JJ RUELHE BRACH H I I I U II 1JJ
JTRI =ER BRANCHEARPORME FM BR
11 1
11 1 1 I11
..
..'d..J ODCPER PELWIRT211 APPROVED 11 z 1 o 1 21 I 0 01 0 0 0 4 0 I 3U z 0 I 28 IJJ CCCPER appaa cYCLZ APPROVED 11 15 1 0 I 8 1 0 I 0 6 0 0 01 1_1 0 : 16 1JJ DAVIS APPRMED I1 39 1 o I 15 I o 2I 0 22 0 0 0 1 oU 39 01 39UJ MERIT APPRO= I 11 I 0 I 7 I 0 01 0 4 0 0 01 olJ 0 1 11 I JJ CLVSAIIXIS Saki. ACEti: APPROVED ; 21 I 0 I 7 ; 0 0 I 0 14 0 0 01 1U 21 01 mIJU BU.K22) I LoPROVED 1 14 I 1 12 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 oU 14 1 1 151JIJ REDXS I APPROVED I 4 I 0 I 2 I 0 21 0 0 0 0 01 2U 4 oil 6 1_1IJ =MS EAST I i 1 I I
I U 11 IJIJ leas 1EST I I I I 1I IJ 11 UIJ ICWIARD I APPROVED 11 30I 1 I 14 I o 2I 0 13 0 1 1 1 1 01J 3C 1 11 31 IJA Avrocurn !! Is ! n ! A ! n n . A n! n n ! ! it 6 !I 1811
-7-
37
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
m2V19RW-2
RRPV:g EIV:VIOV"
2R
==
=.
0II]
mmeseA,m.w,o,
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn n
112
101 1
012]11]
2]
==========
CP ..-0 CP
CP CP
CP CP
I.-. m
0CP 0
0CP Al
Nsr
gOWW .o.offiwpw. m.rm
n-ryinni-vrinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
....-....
000000000000
N0.-00
0000000
04,
000
0000
0,04.
0.-00
01
O
004.004rnee0,..O
M.-N
NN
NO
NIN
CPAIM
CPCPsrAl0000
O
000000000000
CP
00.-0
0000000
.-600
0000
0000
O
9-rwfw
g-M9.004
grOrns,
,00,NM
tntnO
MM
O,
MsO
NV
.
00000000.-00
0000000
0000O
---------e e
0000.-00400040
0000,0%0 r4
0.-00
0.-APCPCPCPCP00
CP
CP
MC
PVD MCP
060.-0
-------049-m
N g-tM
mW
mm
otMm
WM
MN
OsrM
04.004.Ir-
0.-000 0
0 0tM
CP
00.-0C
PA
INJZ
m.rm
1111 milli
;III ull
gg
ill 11
le1
ri
00000000 WW
WW
WW
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
CC
CU
ILLL
LLLL
LLL
I_LL
LLLL
LLLL
LLI_
LLLL
LLI_
Ca_
t_t_
t_t_
CD CD 4:$ 4:$ 00 0 0 0 0 0 CD 4:$ 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00
8 lilliqgiAli/IPPNION61YRig
a' Nw8
co8m...., NM TA
MI
ill!
11 1
1111
11
Q .44.8
74,0558
Niro
aw..01..010.0s0. -4
CD000
CD
CD CD
00
El
N 000
1/4/1 lfitaar
N
0 000
CD
CD CD
CJ Jr
CD
0 0
- 0
CD CDOW
CD
0 00
0 0
0 0
00
.40
NNWW
000
0 0
0 0
0 00
0
000 ONO° WW
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 00
0
1.:.!
- 0
0000
0._LLLLLLLLLCCCCC
m Nw 8
mmm.4 NM
as.
000
0.-.
000
j
N N4.8
LLLL
LLLL
LLLL
LLL
t A
N CD
-.0
0 0 0 0 0
0
OwINW
01..01g..01
w0 0 0
45W
-.0.
..010
. Mm
Je
tA
- N CD
CD
CD CD CD CD CD A' 0
CD
W CD CD CD CD
0 0000 00 0000000Jr
000 N
Ln0000
OW
0 W
CD CD CD CD
CD0000
CD CD
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
CD
La
N La
- La
CD N
CD
CD Co
Jr0
0 0
JrN
ON
O
CD
CD CD CD
CD CD
CD CD CD CD CD CD CD Jr
Ntn CD
CJ CD
CD 0.
CD W CD ... w
L CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCIA-LLI-LL
WirWirai
Jr
I: .0 S
ti
111. .1 CA 881 tg CO
t484)000
N .j-0 40 00000740W
troocho
U=M8 MC;
1E4Clitiga
LLLL
LLLL
LLLL
LLLL
LLLL
LLLL
LLL
11!
Appendix I
LOAM =ES CORK EMED =ALS
J I:= =XL NNEJJJ 11 sumJ 11 INTOJ 11 =ELMJ 11 PERSEEDG HOLM
J 11 ROMJ 11 SHAW HAM=J 11 AR)J 11 LEAREGRi PAM EH
J 11 10112AS
DIDISTAXCE 11 MEALS:
11110111. i inni. Ivrea PARRIS maws IDIOM ODER 1 IJ =I %Immo :TOTAL1 1-1litsineuxe
1 I no u IIYES I NO 1 YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO VS NO =DC U YES NO 11
---JJ1__1__I_1____L____1____I_1___J__1__I____I J J___11 1 1
APPROVE 1 13 0 9 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 8 1 J 1 3 01 21APPROVE 1 17 0 8 0 3 0 I: 0 2 0 41.J 17 0 1 21APPROVE 1 5 0 3 o o o 1 o 1 0 161J 5 01 21APPRNED 1 8 1 5 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 121J 8 1 1 21AM= 1 12 0 4 0 1 0 3 0 4 0 91J 12 01 21APPROVED 1 13 0 8 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 8 1j 13 0 1 21AIM= 1 13 0 8 0 0 1 o 3 0 2 0 8 1J 13 1 o I 21
1 I IJ I PIAM= 1 10 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 . 0; 11 U 10 1 0 11 21
19 1 0 1 245 13
J 12 MR SP3:14, ED AMINE) I 7 1 0J 12 =IMPS APPROVED I 35 0J 12 ME APPROVE 1 6 1
J 12 CHRESIMER PH= MAN APPROVED 1 16 1
J 12 CEPEEHICUS APPF0,4 I 8 0J 12 LORE APPR7M 1 1 0J 12 =PDS APPRXED i 5 0J 12 ELLICH /MOM 1 6 0J 12 FM= matj 12 GFOKS APPFOJED 11 17 0J 12 EL EM Satin APPROVE 11 10 0J 12 HALE APPPENE) 1 5 0J 12 EAPST AFPFOJE) 32 8J 12 E21017921 APR= 8 2J 12 WM APPROVED 9 0J 12 EINEM APPROVED 9 0J 12 LIM DISAPPROW 10 11
J 12 101:21EDC42 MPH= 27 0J 12 PASIEJH DISWPFOIED, 2 2J 12 PBS AMMO ; 4 0 1J 12 911112 AMR= 1 8 0 1J 12 SfalAti APIS:NED 1 10 0 IJ 12 IOC APPROVED 1 6 5 1
J 12 11,101 DISAPPFOIED 1 5 23 1
jDISTPICE 12 TOTALS: 20 1 3 1 246 50 1j-PASIEWS EMCEE WAS DISAPPROVED DOE 70 A TIE VOLE.
J 13 12 LE I APPROVED 22 0J 13 IDS= ACADIKEE CIRI APPROVED 24 0
J 13 BEEDVEN APPROVED 15 0J 13 ECM I APPROVED 13 0J 13 CO M I APPROVE 5 0J 13 OXVILL CPC
115 6
21 0231 061 1
5I 1
7 001 0
31 041 0
4
1
21266
6
10
11
00
54
40
121
516
762
10 1 7
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
1
0 20 00 1
71 3
21 001 3
0 0
9 00 1
2 00 1
0 00; 0
31 0
19 1 0
44 1 24
0
0000
3
20
-10-
00
000
0
0
0
00
0
0C00
000
00
00
00000
92
30
010
21
11
9121
17
21013101
212131612151
96 1
8
3
3
53
0 28 1 0 1 01, IJ 245
01 2I01 o01 oo1 1 1
01 01of o01 of01 o I
1000
0
0
0
00
00
0
0
00
000
0
0
0
0
0
000
31 5
00
000
84
200
00
00
0
0
0
0
00
00000
00
00
0
0
2
00
000
13 11 349
JJJJ.1JJJJJ
JJJJJ
0U01J2 U0 U
71 0 II35 1 0 1161 1 11
16 1 11
7 IJ351191J
17 1J01J 011 8;J1 1J 11 011 2 1J2 U 51 o11 7;J0 U 61 0 11 6 1jj 11 1j3 U 17 011 20 IJ3 U 10 0 11 13 1J0 IJ 5 011 51J0 IJ 32 811 401J01 8 2 11 10 1J
1_1 9 01I 10 IJ0 IJ 9 01 91J0 IJ 10 111 211J1 U zr 01 28 1J2 U 2 21 61J2 1J 01 6 Ij2 IJ 8 01 101Jo 10 of io U2 1_I 6 51 131J1 U 5 23 1 26 1j
U21 1J 21&6 50 1 318 1j
31J 22 o11 Z 1J01J 24 o li 24 IJ31J 15 o11 18!Jo lj oll 131J31J 5 o1I 8 1J
IJ II 1J
Appendix I
133AM MIRESCOWIE) TOTALS
JJ EIST swear. NNEJJJ 13 OMNIJ 13 DEMJ 13 rota anJ 13 MIT HO=J 13 FARMJ 13 FARREN CPCJ 13 GFIARAH
J 13 1014-12E
J 13 INLREEANJ 13 isSIDMESj 13 HOPE 0211Xlif ACMJ 13 PEODHCLEJ 13 OVEOCNJ 13 (rale; CPCJ 13 PARNAtiJ 13 FOSS
J 13 MUMJ 13 S.MD:DJ 13 TEIFELL
I
J D/STRICP 13 TOMS:
AMR& I IVY& VOIEC P NEARS
I I!Es 1 in 1 YES NO ES 1 N3_1_1 _J_J_J
LPE931ED I 3 2 1 1 1
APPROVED 4 0 3 1 01
APPROVED 1 35 0 12 1 0APPNDIED I 21 1 171 1
HESE:EMS Tame OnEa I IJ IOIA VOTEGI MOLL UI I 1 RU ljj-illAnDzimcE II-Jj
Y E S 1 N 3 Y E S 1 N 3 I Z S 1 N 3 N O M E U Y E S N3 11 U_I_J_J_J_1_1_JJ_J '1 JI I U II IJ0 0 21 1 01 0 0 lj 3 211 51J0 0 1 1 0 01 o o U 4 0 1 1 4 U
1 1 U n IJ2 0 131 0 ili 0 OU 35 On 35 1...12 0 21 01 01 0 01J 21 1 11 221J1 I 1 U ..
..1_;2 0 31 01 21 0 OU 11 011 111J
0 0 3 ; 0 ; 2 1 0 o U 14 0 11
01 u 1 1 01 1 I o; 01j71 1 11
1 1 0 6 1 o 1 5 1 o o 1_1 27 1 0 1: 27 U8 1J
HEWED 1 11 0 4 1 0 1APPROVED 11 14 0 9 1 0 1APPRITE) 11 27 1 0 1 15 0 1AFMNE) 1: 7 1 1 i 5 i HAPPROVED 11 9 1 0 1 2 1 0APPROVE) 11 9 1 0 1 6 1 0APPROVED 11 9 I 0 I 6 1 0 1
11
APPROVED 1: 51 0 1 4 1 01APPROVED 11 17 1 1 7 1 1 1
APPR3/3) 11 30 0 1 23 I 0 1APPROJE) 11 8 1 1 1 6 1 1
APPROTE) 11 5; 0 1 1 0 1
21 1 0 11 293 1 6 '57 1 5 1
U 14 COMM APPRO/ED 11 15U 14 m1 APP 1) 11 51j 14 MIAS AFPROV 1: 15
U 14 MIAS CPC I I I1J 14 FEW I APPRORD 11 6U 14 17212
1 APPRZFIE) 11 9J 14 FULLER APPRO/E3 11 10J 14 MEE APPEND) 11 1J 14 IODEIDISCE OIPS ACIMII APPROM 11 8J 14 ELYS14i
1 APPROVE) 11 13J 14 KUM1 APPROVED n 17
J 14 HIRRAY IhE ACME I APPROVED 11 3J 14 OAKENNALD NORM CFC IIJ 14 PRICE
1 APP,' CNE) 9J 14 RAY
1 EPROM 11 16j 14 FEAVM1 APPROVED 11 2
IJ 14 RCEINS:11 1371-041COM): APPRO/ED 11 6IJ 14 SECIEN 1 DISAPPROVED 11 4IJ 14 VAIMIEAFE 1 APPROED i 12J 14 Sr II
1 APPFCNED 1 11IJ 14 WALS437031 I APPROVED I 13U 14 WAYEAEMI CPC ;U 14 WIN EXPEairena. I DISAPPROVED I 3U 14 N3CEECU NORD; 1 APPRCNED 1 81J 14 WO YSCN SORB 1 APiRCVED 1 10
0 1 11 I 0;01 2; 00; 81 0
1 1 51 1
0I 9 0101 91 01of 01 010., 7I cl01 9: 0:01 81 010; 31 o1
21 41 1
1 15I 1
01 1 1 001 31 05 4I 321 71 221 8I 201 81 0
1
21 01 111 8 0
0I 51 01
31 0 2:01 2: 001 0 H 01 21 00 1 0 1 2 1 0; 1 1 o
. 1111 Io; 01 1 1 01 01 ofO 1 0 1 8; 0 1 2 1 0 12 1 O 1 5 1 0 1 o 1 oo 1 ol 11 ol il o 1o; ol o: o: 41 o 1
19 1 01 731 1 1 441 01
o 11
21
o
oo1
1
010111o1
ofo
011 1
01o 1
1
o
0101o
010101
oo0101o1o;of01
0
00
000
010101
41 021 o151 01
0I 01o1 o1
1 o;o 1 of
1 o11 o
81 0;O 1 01
51 01 0o 01 1
1 01 02 Ci 00 1 1 03 01 22 0 05 01 0
01 01 0O 1 of o5I 01 0
01 00; 00 0
1 1 001 0o1 001 0o 1 031 0o 0oI 0
41
0
0
000000
00
0
OUOU1 IJ
1.111J2 U1 1_1
919 19 1
I
5;17 130 1
OnOn0 11
11
0l111 1o 11oU 81 11;
oU 51 011
14v 1j 2931 6 11
3U 15 01121J 5 0113U 15 o 11
..3U 6 1 113U 9 o 111 U 10 o 1111J 1 0112 U 8 0112;J 13 0113U 0112 U 3 011
IJ 11
3 U 9 2114 ' 16 1 11
2 d 2 o I:4 U 6 0I;8 U 4 5112 U 12 2 112 U 11 2114 IJ 13 011IJ H
11J 0 1 11
2 U 8 o 111 U 10 o11
313U
181-$7 ;'18 U
. .it.,101J12 U11 U21J
10 IJ15 U20 IJ51J
U14 IJ21;-$4 U
101J171J16 U151J171Jlj2 U
lo U11 IJ
Appendix I
EOM =RES CCM= 113IALS
1 APPROAL 11 TOMM. V01:12& 1 PARENTS 1 RES1IENIS 1 TFACIOS 1 Me i 1_1 ILTAL voarc1171:7r14. 1j.,1 : 1j 11AITEMANCE IJ..
1_1 I 1 11 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :WI LI 1 11 IJljEozr sans. NA 1 YES 1 ht 11 %ES 1 D3 1 = I NO : /FS / D3 1 ITS 1 NO 1 rEs 1 NO Ivcial,c 1J YES 1 10 11 1_1
IJ 1_1_1: 1 1_J _1 _1 _1 _1__ 1 1 1 . s, H13 .
. 1111111111 j 14 1CCMCN CFC .
. 111
.1 1 I 1 1
..,1jDISIP32Cr 14 113IALS: I 20 1 2 11 1S61 151 134 1 111 71
IJ 15 AL7caD APPRO/D 11
lj 15 PAR X:1 1 APPPMED 11
lj 15 RMS 1 kP 1115 CAMS. 1 AFF-Ctia. 11
j 15 F=CALD F-RDH 1 ii1j 15 PAW IPPRItED 11
1j 15 EAPIZ APPPD/ED 11
1j 15 FMrdiflPS APPFC?ID 11
lj 15 Fa MM PAEK I APPECYM 11
lj 15 Carati rvae.= i APPFAVED 11
lj 15 FLSIF-v 1 APPLOAD 11
lj 15 SCELM APPD3vED 11
lj 15 112:. I DZAPPFIM 11lj 15 11 1 APPEr.:10IJ 15 l'aAr 1 APPFOM 11
1 j 15 IVRY= 1 AE'PR7.0) 11
lj 15 Mt= ; IMMO 1:1J 15 GS1 372, F.C.,Ma' 1 APPPCVE) 11
!J 15 akka7-9: Mial."-Z kr-FANO:1- 11
J 15 i AFEKSV 11
1_1 15 Rata ER;D:li 1.
1 j 15 SIEVaa- anForm 11
Utaziett.; 15 TOrALS: 1
181 0 1 11 1 0 171 01 61 0191 01 81 0181 H 31 1 1
9 H 4 1 061 0 5{ 0
171 1 51 1 1
6 1 1 2 1 211 1 0 5 1 0 111 0 1 5 1 0 1191 31 7I 0141 51 1 51
f 4 8 4 1281 01 51 01io 1 H io o12 1 1 12 1 0
1 01 201 0123 0' 81 0112 0 7 0 1
15 0 6 0 ;
2 10I0101
2 11121051212100000
300
0
:
1 I 1 I
21 431 '1 n01 H 01 410 1 H 0 : 0 10 1 1 1 o: o10 1 2 1 0 1 3 1
. . I :U
0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
111_1111 UI IJ I 11 1J
U01 5841j 193 1 14 11 265 1_1
01 Olj 181 011 181J0 1 2 1_1 7 : o :: 9 1Jo : 2 {J 91 011 11 Li0 : 0 lj 3 i 1 11 9 -1.
I 11 ,...0{ 0 lj 9 1 1 11 10 ...... .
01 0: 01 01 01 01J 61 011 6 .-1
..
0 1 10 1 0 1 0 11 1 3 1 0 1 1 1
01 01 01 H0 1 4 : 0 1 0 101 91 31 1 1
0 1 3 1 0 1 0 10 1 21 1 0 1 n air:12 18:11: DI:
0 1 4 1_1 17 1 1 11
0 1 0 1_1 6 1 3 1:01 01j 11 1 011 . .._,0 1 1 1 j 11 1 0 11 ,, 1 15, 1.j01 01_1 191 3110 1 3 1 j n : 5 110 1 4 1_1 1 4 11 40 fj
01 17: 01 61 01 01_1 281 Oil 28 1_101 01 1 1 01 01 3 U 10 1 1 11 14 lj01 01 11 01 01 5U 121 111o{ 71 01 2{ of 0{J 321 0 {1 32 u01 121 01 0{ 01 0{J al 1 0 :: 201J01 41 0 : 1 1 01 21J 121 0 1: 141J
. . . 1 I lj . 11 ._,01 71 01 21 01 1 1_1 151 OH 16 :_j
19 11 285 20 1 138 i 13 1 19 1 H 104 1 6 1 25 i 0 1 n U 266 I 20 11 333 1j
fj 16 P i l l i A F P R O M 1 : 9 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 11 01 21 01 2 1 0 1 1. 1
I..1 9{ 0 11 10 UU 16 P.i.M APPWAS) 11 13 1 0 1 11 1 01 21 01 01 01 01 01 4 lj 13 1 011 17 ljlj 16 MD AFFFaso 11 6 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 01 21 01 1 1 01 OU 61 011 6 U1 j 16 O X I : A P H M E D 1 1 15 1 2 1 9 1 1 1 O f 1 1 61 01 01 01 OU 151 211 17 1j1J 16 CUM DISI,PFFLVED 11 3 1 6 1 31 51 o 1 01 01 ol o: 11 3 lj 3 1 6 11 12 1Jlj 16 McSiini APPROP-J) 11 26 1 0 I 21 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 5 1 0 I 0 1 0{ 2 lj 26 1 0 11 28 1jlj 16 03M.U.S Evcc APPECVED 11 7 1 1 1 3: 01 1 I 01 3 1 0: 01 1: Olj 71 1 11 8 Li1J 16 WZGE18M2i MEM 11 9 1 2 1 61 2i 1 : 01 1: 01 II 01 51j 9 I 2:1 16 1_11_1 16 FM APPECl/ED ,1 19 1 0 1 3 1 0 i 3 1 0 1 12 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 4 ,_, 19 1 0 11 23 1j1j 16 iiELLTMO AIULT CFR . APFECh 1: 29 1 H 0 I 0 1 0 1 0 1 14 1 0 1 15 : 1 1 1 lj 29 1 1 11 31 1 j1j 16 ?POONA% MANCH 1 1: . ' t ., ' ..... 1_1 1 11
...1
s.
1J16 PINICN 1 AHMED 11 6{ o1 51 01 1 1 01 0{ 01 01 01 2 1 j 61 o 1: 8 {JU 16 EPSW01 1 AFFIViED 11 16 1 0 1 12 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 U 16 1 0 li 19 1j1j 16 m u m s 1 A m a r a 1 : la 1 1 1 8: ;1 0: 0: 21 01 41 oi 01j 141 ill 151J1J 16 ptsr.r.R alm ACAMW 1 iffIXNED 11 2S 1 3 1 10 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 12 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 3 lj 25 1 3 11 31 1_11j 16 wiaut CPC 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 . 1 1 i j 1
. 11 Ulj 16 Fm 1 ;:pPEcvED 11 20 1 0 1 6 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 6 1 0 1 8 1 O 1 0 U an 0 11 20 1j
-12-
42
Appendix I
EDAM FIGLIMS =EC= TO=I IMP01AL 11 itta.1013/G 11
. ?MUM 1 Maim= MCIMS I1
o 1
I
IJ 70CAL v01:12011107.0.1 1 ' IAT1WANL.
1j._1
1_1
IJ1...I
JjEaSi MM. WM
.J1111111111 II3 1 NO 11 TES 1 NO 1 7M 1 NO 11-.1 1 '..___I____1* 'I U n IIIII AM/ED 11 12 I 0 I 9 1 0 II APPRJ47D II 20 1 1 I 13 I 0 11 APPIVED 11 16 1 1 1 7 I 1
1 APPICITED II 7 1 0 1 7 : 0 1
I 18 I 1 11 272 I 18 ; 139 1 12
1 APPRX ED 11 4 1 2 1 3 I 2I APPPOM 11 7 1 H 7 1 01 APPFGED 11 17 1 1 1 6 1 1
I APETOM 11 10 1 0 1 8 1 0 I1 H 1
. 1 .1 A P p r o fi D 1 1 8 1 4 1 3 1 31 DISISPFCIF-41; 2: 21 01 011 APFAXD 11 S 1 1 1 35 : 1I APPIon U 2 1 0 I 1 : 01 E I S A P P M ) 1 1 1 1 18 1 0 1 141 APPRXED 11 6 1 3 1 6 1 31 DISAPPFAM 1: 0 1 14 1 0 1 10
APPIEvED 11 23 I. 2 1 15 1 2.. I I. ' .
.. ' .APPPOP2o 11 9 1 0 1 61 01
12SAPPYJ/FL11 2 1 6 1 0 1 4en= II 81 1 0 1 66 1 0APPIria) 11 7 1 0 1 4 I 0
OcEsAPPFM 11 3 1 9 1 H 6'APPFCED 11 9 1 0 1 6 1 0APPPAW 1: 12 1 1 1 6 I 1
APPDXED 11 7 1 1 1 3 1 11 APPB:NW 11 8 1 0 1 4 1 01 APPFORD 11 22 1 0 1 19 i 01 :RAND 11 9 1 0 1 2 1 0
1 18 1 5 H 304 1 65 1 201 1 48MEW WAs DIStppFCNED DE ID A 1= VOr--
1 A M I D 1 1 12 1 2 1 2 I 01 OMUTA= H 9 I 4 1 0 1 6
ARMED 11 10 1 0 1 5 1 2IPII 17 1 1 1 12 1 01 H E W E D 1 1 10 1 o 1 3 1 01 APPRXED 11 5 1 2 1 4 1 2I APPIDED 11 3 1 0 1 3 1 0
MSAPPEOPJ) 11 H 11 1 0 1 101 MOD 11 1 1 0 I 1 1 0
US 1I
I
0 11 1
I 0 I0 I
1 11 I
1 0 11 0 :I 1 1
0 11 1
1 210:
1 1 11 0 11 0 1
1 0 1I 0 1
1 0 1I
' .
ol1 0 11 2 11 0 1
0 10 11 1
. 1 11 3 11 0 11 0 1
1 11 1
1 1 I1 0 11 0 11 0 11 1 1
I 0 I1 0 1
1 0 11 0 1
NO
0000
1
00
00
1
H00
2020
011
00000
000o
7
C
001
01001
0
IYES 1
I1
0 1616101
81 1
1 1 1
1 0 11 5 11 2 11
II
1 3 12
I 18 11 1 1
1 0 11 0 11 0 1I 8 1II
I.
' I
2:1 2 11 12 1
1 0 11 0 11 1 1
I 4 11 1 1
1 1 1
1 3 11 7 1
1 73 1
I 12 I1 4 11 6 11 5 1
611 2 1
1 0 11 2 11 0 1
I
NO 1
I1
0 1010101
1 1
0 10 1
0 10 1
I
01
0 I0 1
1 1
0 I2 10 1
I
'.011 1
0 10 13 10 10 10 10 10 10 I
8 1
0 13 10 10 1010 10 10 I0 1
US
30
30
In
0
05
0
010101
o1
000
1
01
3
22H2000
19
0000
010
000
I$24NO
1
1
0 11 1
0101
1 4 I
I 0 1I H1 o I
1 0I I
0
1 01 01 1
1 01 0
1 0
1
0
00
1 01 01 0
0I 01 01 01 0
1 2
1 01 01 01 0
01I 01 0I. 01 0
lj ..
NOT= 1j rES I1 1 .
IJ 1
0 1j 12 101J 2011 1J 16101J 71
29 1J 272 I
0 LI 4 10 Ij 7 I0 IJ 17 I
1 1. .
10 1_.1
1..1 I
0 1 j 8 10 1 j 2 16 LI 55 11:
1 o i j 2 11 0 LI 1 I1 2 1j 6 1
1
1
3 1_1 0 14 Ij 23 I
I
1.1I
..., '1 o L: 9 I1 0 1_1 2 11 0 1_1 81 1
: 0 LI 7 11 1 1_1 3 1
1 0 1_: 9 11 3 1_1 12 11 0 lj 7 11 1 LI 8 11 0 ;_1 22:1 0 1j 9 1
1 21 1J 334 1
1 1 1_1 15 11 0 1_1 2 1
1 3 1_1 11 1
1 0 1j 17 1oij 1011 1 1_1 6 I1 0 1_; 3 ;1 1 1j 2 11 0 1j 1 I
11
NO 11
IIJJ 16 SMOGJ 16 WM=lj 16 IES=ITIJ 16 TALE
1jIjDISIREM 16 TOMS:
Ij 17 Av AUX ?ARC1_1 17 Moat1_1 17 PiKlitIELt.1j 17 VO 1. 0211111j 17 His PAR BRAICH
LI 17 C I L a E L Llj 17 laCtELL EV=1_1 17 OGLES
1j 17 IEI-MiIj 17 D D : c t i1j 17 miXamii j 17 tAtti: _i 1 7 .1j 17 NEL PPM ECOPCtspLI 17 lxviS Lomat1_1 17 OM EEIM Its2E.":j 17 0,--'1_1 17 PAPZ2013DR
1_1 17 NEM= CCmi Pawlj 17 PIM1j 17 Fa-Si.lj 17 FEVLTE
1j 17 Fin=1j 17 iF0.-41:0
lj 17 =DAN1j 17 TAIER1JLauziaCT 17 TCriALS:1_14TDIEu. En2Ali cF CALUELLis
:j 18 B u m p1j 18 BOAS1_1 18 CASSEIL
1
1_1 18 = M I )1j 18 M a t o1 j 18 EvEPS1j 18 FERVXDIJ 18 MT IF-AFBOIN 1
1_1 18 Ca n i a
II0 111 11
1 1:011
18 11
2 111 11
1 11
0 11II
4 112 111
0 1118 113 11
14 1:2 11
IIIII
0 116 1:0 110 119 110 111 11
1 110 110 110 11
65 11
0 119 112 111 11
0112 110 1 1
11 l!0 11
1_I12 IJ21 1J181J71J
319 1j
6 1j8 1_1
18 1_:11 lj
.,...
12 14, j
62 1 j2 1_1
19 1 jii 1J17 I j29 1_1
ill._.
9 IJ8 1J
81 IJ7 1J
13 1_19 1 j
16 ,_.8 1j9 1_1
22 lj9 1Jlj
390 1j
16 j11
16
18 ij10 1_1
9 IJ3 1J
111 ij1 ij
-13-
4 3
._LL
=C
:C:C
C:C
:C:C
r.C
C:C
C:C
=C
:CC
=C
:C:=
C:C
.IN
:t_t_
t_t_
t_t_
t_.
0 V, V, w, V, w, V, w, V, V, V, V, V, w, V, w, w, w, u)
.O o4
hiliN
EE
Mg
4041
1111
1111
1 1
111
11
= =
= =
= =
= =
= =
= =
= =
=LO8
NJ .41 .41 c) -4 Ch
CA 60 CA
la ST Ch
Sr
--------
CD Cp Cp
Cp NJ
CP
NJ CD CD
.CD NJ
NI 74 NI sr
wFS VI
w o
o
CO CD co 000o 0303 00 CO Co Co CO COCO CO 03 CO CO Co CO Co co
CoW'
kr) .0 .0 RI ts.
NO
N A
Oo O 4.-=4
CS P
:1
c) CD NI sr c) ta:
NI CD CI CI
C61 u) w c) o
:W
.
wc"w
Ji ES
-4 -
4 :1
ul
NI 60
CD POLO I: C.J.
*c)
LO
g
000N
-.%
/100
-.00
-.0
0 N
T 0 c)
la C) Co C)
CP
CI
Jr la la CP Cp
nn c) -6
6El
.FP
D C D
DD D D N
) D
DN
N -
0-
C D N O- C D D
r C D
DD
DD
C N C
C C C
C C C C C ) C C
) C
C0
Cc
C C C C 0 C
C C C C C
Ch
C C
C C
C C
FF. F
....F
FF.
F.FF
5 0
CD CD Ch Jr -6 CD Sy sr
CO NJ 60
NJ
NJ CD
Co
CD la .41 N. NJ -4 u)
-4la NJ
CD
NJ NILO NJ rr CD
D D
DD
D D D D D
D D
D D D
DD D
-CD CD CD
CD CD CD CD
CD CD CD
LO NJ CD CD Cp CD la NJ CD
. FF.
C) NJ C) C) C) C) Cp C) C) C) C) NJ
-6 .p) C)
CP
C)
C) C) Cp C) C) Cp Cp Cp Cp C) C) C)
C) C) Cp C) C) C) C) C) C)
IEl
.000O000-000
Cp C) C:
Cp
Cp Cp
C)
C) 0 C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C)
C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) 0
6
N N
N 1
.44
(4)
NA0
0N
474
0 0
0 0
0 N
N 0
0 0
0 0
0 0-
0 0
L-1
--tL
-L-C
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
C:C
W 8
NI u)
CS EA
(A) 4),
(a O :
F3 taw C Ec; P P Jr ES
o O V I J ii.kn CS I:
FFFF
.FFF
.FFF
-4
CD CD CD la
6.11 CD CD NJ
Cp -6
NJ CD CD
NJ
C) CD CD A CD CO
NJ Cp -6 CD
c,' u
, u,CD CD
=La
u, 8
u,OCo a.1 O EA LS NO
ES AP :3
OP
LLLL
LLI._
LLLL
LLLL
I _ l_
l_LL
I _l_
o1.
41,0
- O
s Jr
-1U
1 C
W V
l OW
U'
.0,1
1.01
0.
p
43aa
nnnnnnnnnnnn
rin-nn-nnnnn
nm
a00 0
n011,1
0UN
00 0
fit00 0
Cl
0- 00V
I
MR
1a.
HI
%IR
a
nnnnnnpDpnn:In:Innnnn-1
VIM
S:200R
MW
121M008,2
==
==
=»
At 0 02 0 01 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnD
tzchnmgPIsPag. Arni=in
Cl 0.. C2 C2 C2 0.. C2 C2
»01-00
0M0000-navanr..uN
amN
yaomx
nnnnnnnnn:Innnnnnnnn
NON00-00-000.-MN.-0-000
01 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 0 C2 . 0 C2 C2 0 C2 0 0 C2 C2
0*-0.-.01Mw-01C100100.-MMN»
UN 0 01 0 C2 C2 0 C2 0 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C2 C1 C2
OU
2ON
Or-M
UN
SIM
.-0000NO
,*----_-_-_-_-_-_-___0048\ 000000000000000
-I
CO
aUN
C-.A10-0-N0-MMNN
CD C2 C2 C2 0 C2 0 0 C2 C2
0 » e 01 0 01 0t
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
W-teten'
0-01M0-0-
0 0 0 C2 0
0 0 0 0 0
.- 0000
1Q000VIO
0 Cl 0 0 0
i4"":"
'414
UN 0 N000000.00
00.-01121N,.12100 0»000
QD C2 C2 C2 r- 01 C2 C2 C. C2
C2
C2
CM
e00.-00
UN 00 0./0 Cl 01. C Cl st Cl 0- 01In tr. In
C
00
Cl 00-000000000
OW
200MatIla0002
111111111111111111_
Ell
1g@
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
nnnnn-1-1=211:010DMIDD
MM
W00020n,.»
M00.78,2
0.-02.-000..00
gunEIR
°*IER
RIV
V.
- 02 0 .1
AAAARAAAAMAAAAAP
-1-1-1-1-1-1711172:=2:
Appendix I
MAIO FIGUFES 02FEECIED TOTALS
Jr= MEM NM
JJ 31 PCOSINELT
J 11 30INM IfiLeJ 31 mei ISIR3 ELMJ 31 INC Art CENIEI BR1_1 31 =DMZ FGG,IU 31 SULLIVAN acaU 31 Tin ECM1j 31 %CM SMEN KIMI j 31 MIS Cal. ACA Stlj 31 VESMISYLIE VOCtj 31 WILS21 1= MGR
AFPFO/AL 11 TOTAL %CMG I PAM= 1
1
1 11 I 1 1
YES 1 NO 1: YES 1 NO YES NO 1
1 11 I11 I I
APPFO/ED II 19 1 0 14 0AFFROVED 11 13 1 0 10 0 tAFFACVED 11 291 3 91 1 1
II I 1 I
AFFFORD 11 15 0 10 1 0 1AFFR:NO) 11 10 1 0 1 0 1 0;AFETCTD 8 1 0 1 8 1 0AFFIX:NE) 11 6 1 H a : 1 1
APPFOM 11 15 1 0; 5 1 0 1APPFCNED n 12 1 1 I 11 I 1 1
AFTFO/G) 1; 8 01 21 0
UDISTRECT 31 TOMS: 1 26 1 0 11 TM 1 18 1 170 1 12 1
U 32 CHIC:+33 FWR3 ECM 1 D7SAF11013) 11 0 1 48 1 0; 48 11_1 32 oxK calaY JUL 1 11 I 1
.
. 1
L: 32 camsatin I Anna) 11 5 1 0 1 5 1 0 11J 32 alt-a mai I APPFaa 11 81 01 6: 01LI 32 cmiam vEC Er_rli 1 AF FROM 11 10 1 0; 1C ; 0 11 j 32 CMCMit IIJRS FRCG 1 .. . , , ,
1_1 32 C0 SE METFO FM 1 OFFICYFD 11 15 1 0 1 15 1 0 11j 32 WEAR VCC IMI 1 APPROVED ;1 5; H 5; 1 1
LI 32 Ectsas mai 1 Amogo 11 61 01 61 0:: J :-.2 Fia7GLT C.t1FIlt MIL: r-SAFFFCVM 1: 12 1 47 : 6 1 30 1L: 32 aa PAW. Mai 1 /mom 11 7 : 1 1 7 1 1
1j 32 MEM nAnamait: ApFara) :: n: o: n; o;L:32 =reran. sou. cm; APPR3rd) 11 61 1 1 61 1 1
LI 32 JEEMI..miommi 1 APPEom II 11 1 0: 11 1 01LI MM., Dm 1 AFFROM 1: 32 1 5 1 32 1 5 11.j 32 FM.1 .2 MEE 1 APPROVE) II 15 1 0 1 15 1 0 11 j 32 EM MY ME 1 DISAFFROJED :1 3 1 12 1 3 1 12 I1j 31 MU IGGH I APPROVED 11 9 1 0; 9 1 0 11j 32 1-2PSRALL HEM ELM 1 APFRO;ED 11 6: 01 61 011J 32 MLLES Mud 1 AFFFO/ED 11 9 1 0 1 9 1 0 11_1 U aCF MS VX FiGi 1 AFFROIM 11 8; 0 I 81 0:1J 32 S1/39:17 ALT HIGH 1 MR= 11 10 : 0 I 10 : 0 11J 32 F:ALC31C 7:C6 KM ; APPKVED 1: 8 1 0 1 6; 0 11_1 .. TZI:Ell MEI 1 APF.FCVED 11 10 1 1 I 10 1 1 1
1j 32 WAS-Za7. TPXE APPS; AFFIMD 1 t 4 1 0 1 4 1 0 1L: 32 Tam man I APPFOia3 11 19 1 2 1 19 1 2 1LJUDISTECT 32 TOTALS: 1 21 1 3 11 240 1 118 1 234 1 101 1
IJ 33 B:C111 1 A.FPRCtn^ 11 22 I 1 1 8 1 011 FUMED ALT !Mt 1 11 1 I 1 I
iris a LIVD* FR 11 1: 1 1
- 1 6 -
IYACIMIS 1 MEER
1
1
1
U =AL VOTI3C11TOIAt.U '1_I I 1
IJ YES 1 NO 1
1jIATIB3IVOZE 1 j
LIU1 I
YES 1 NO TES I1 1
243 1= 11101
NC 1vMDc'
1 12;6;
21210 ;010 ;1141
Y.; 1
G 1,,.....
C;E:0;
.
C 1
G;G1t;C;01010;0 10;C;0 1010;010 1G 1
0 10;0 1
4;
3 1
I
001 1
01010
00010;
n
0;
0
010
00;0:50o;010:0;000;0:0;010
00;0;0
5=
1
4
1
13
260
2; 4
0
1
130
0;
1 001
1 0
.
1 0;0;01
1 H1 0
ol010:0
1 0I 0
0;010'0
1 0
1 00:0
1 o
1
1 10
:
1
00
00000
00
1 3
0
1 00:
, 0
1
0;0;013
I 0o;010;
I 01 0;1 0
0
010;0:03;0
1 01 0
1 3
1 0I
1
I
0I011 1
IH210;0161011;
1 38
1 0 I
1 0 101
1 0 1
. ,
0 10;01
1 I 1
1 0 I010101
1 0 10 1
1 0;1 0;
010 101
1 0;0 1
1 0 11 0 I1 0 1
1 1 1
I 1 1
t
I
1
0I010I
I010;0;01010I01
0 1
0 1
0 1010;
.
0 10;019;0 13;01010 10;0 10;010 1010 10 10;0 I0 1
9 1
0 I
I
_1
IJ3;J71J81J
IJ1;J1;J2;J1;J21J2 1J21j
63 ij
0 1j1J
OU5L:0;
1j1 U0;J0L10 Li2 Uo:JILI0;J0 1j1 U0 U0 ,...,olj0 ._1o_:0 1_10 U0 1j0 1j5 U
15' U
0 tj1_1ij
I19113129I
I151i0;8;61
15112181
374
0;I
5 181
10 1
.
15 15I6:
12 1
n:6:ii :
32 115 ;
3 19 16:9 181
10 18 1
10 1
4;19 :
240
22 I
',010I311
11
01;0 1:0;11 11
01i1 II0;;
18 1;
48 1:I
0 1:0110 II
.
0 1:1 I
01147 11
o::1 11
0;50
12 ,,0 :,
1:
11
0;10110 111 11
2: Ili
1 11
I
,
I
I.
111
1_1
22 lj20 1J40 IJ
1
161111101 J8
17
15 1_1
1
4
48 UiJ
5 U131'10 1..;
I
166 1 ,
.....,6 . ,,_,
59. .Lj1C 1J22 1j
8
11 1j37 1 j16 1J
. ,15 ,._,9 . ......6 .,..,,9 ,LJ,81J
101J8 .L,
11 ,
4 U26 U
IJ373 U
23 1j1j1j
46
CCCOIECCalCCO=CCCCCO7CCCLLLLLL
0wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
Q
gEs
illiiiill1111111111111
go
4000eAmmilomploil
m
Ili iiiiiiiiiiiii
41-- g1
3
ar.
Oo.1.,,A=100.-.0000N0 0 0...NMiAchow
cr.
wch
Wa.
..ase
w,..
.aitw
chw
amw
oze-
4ch
----
----
--LEI
W
WOW0,00-.0000*000**WN
.-.1
300.
-.0W
ON
000N
*00*
**0
000Nar00000000000000W000
----
----
----
----
NW*0WW4r*OtatW*ON00*Nui
----
----
----
----
----
0*00.40000000*000000-6000
SN
NWiONNO0W000***0000Z0W
O00*0000000000000*00*00
----
----
----
----
----
ONOW*000*0*N*W*WOON0000
L 1:1
RI
m
CO:CCCCMC7CCCCCCCLLLLLLL_LLLL
coGYI-4R43.1118covig14W=IvicoVos.01
----
----
-O
01 00,..400*0000N000*NtJalChON
8--
----
----
----
----
----
----
---- iP
g N
-6.
..%10
61...
.-A
wa=
zczn
ilcA
ev.,.
.A
CCCCCC0=======CLLILLLL
Appendix II
BUDGET HEARING SURVEY
How many of the budget hearing participants were (please write number):Parents Residents Teachers Other: TOTAL
Your school budget was: Approved Disarproved
The vote was (please write number): For Against TOTAL
The explanation of the school budget was:Complete and informative Adequate
Were all the questions raised at the budget hearing sufficiently answered?Yes No Not certain (please explain):
Who conducted your budget hearing: Principal LSIC PresidentOther (please specify):
The recommendations/objections raised were (check as many as apply):
Need for more textbooks )
Need for more educational supplies )
Need for more equipment/furniture )
Need for improved maintenance and repairs )
To have more computers/software in the school )
The need for more staff )
T1a need for more programs )
The need for longer school hours )
Provide extra funds for summer programs )
The need for better prepared lunch food )
Other (please specify):1
2.
3.
The Panel provides technical assistance to schools and communityorganizations. Would you like assistance? Yes No
Your Name (please print):Address:Phone Number:Are you the LSIC president at your school? Yes No
Zip Code
-18-
.0 ..
0 03
03
CO
03
140
0*
0* 0
* 0*
0*
401.
0 t/1
1.0
t/1
1.0
1.0
t/1 it
it it
.Iit
it W
WW
W W
W W
W N
IV IV
IV IV
IV IV
Iffi
lli!f
illif
fill1
1111
1111
1f11
1111
1111
{111
1111
1111
1111
1111
12
La2
O O
123
+ V
I W o
.o W
o.o
ze
Vco
co
4.1
N c
oC
r,kr
,a
Ile b
co c
o ch
IN
in2
t341
8 C
r, c
h,o
.04
474
t),
2 2
4:1
C.;
1.11
AI 0
0 O
0* 0
3 it
0 0
Crl
03 A
I a 0
000
0 0
0 0
3 0
0C
O0
0 0
0 A
I 0 0
NO
0*
0 O
W 0
t./1
0
Na
NW
Witi
0 W
1.0
01 0
itl./
1 a
It.4.
3-.
.1w
0 0
3 l./
1J5
1it
0 1.
..) 0
,O-4
4 C
.1 W
Oa
2 2
:a 8
al O
DN
al .
43 O
h Ja
co
Oi 7
- N
1,./
1 Jr
IV
10Jr
Os
irkr
, VI I
CS
n3
cout
NN
TA
.c c
o8
O z
rco
oz c
ow O
n C
o. a
coN
OR
JR n
a
0 0
0* 0
00
0 0
0 0
0 0*
00
0 0
0N
W 0
R 0
0 IV
0 0
0 IV
IV 0
00
0 0
2 A
A u
n.4
RIV
00co
8.1
17-4
7::
7; -
co
ix, c
o co
co
Oze
it38
IV8
2 tS
co
cocr
. -- 0
0-
0 it
0IV
VI I
V01
.41.
4--1
%)-
03
NO
IV0
0 IV
NW
0W
00-+
RN
.ter
ir32
2ut
ciZ
ESS
8N
N W
a,' K
.;0,
1414
1414
1414
1414
14/.
1414
1414
1414
1414
14
1414
14
14 1
414
14
14
1414
S414
1414
1414
1414
1414
1414
1414
1414
14W
1414
1414
c_,
IN11
1119
1111
PP,C
AM
MO
D ..
.... C
AC
AC
AP
NI.A
.AM
4m.P
4r4.
WW
WW
WW
WW
MIU
NN
IUN
NH
HRH HHH
HM
HH>4
P.4
HP-4
U
H H
H H
>4 >4
X>4 >4 M >'
>4
>4
>4
>4
H H
>4
>4 X
>4
HMX
>4
>4
>4
X X
XH H
XHX
MX X
XX
11
>4
>4
>4
>4
..
..
>4
HH
>4
>4
>4
>4
HH
H H
HH
111
lig 111
110
ig
a%O
NC
a.er
a o
aNna
O P
O, w
C.;
sr F
S O
Has
al .
42a;
O-
s...2
Pi
4.as
ict a
; a'.
14)
0-11
K3
W 0
0 0
0 K
30
as 0
kc
0...
0-+
00
K3
Cn
K3
000
- 08
0s00
0000
3 N
a at
bIV
a's
a's
cz c
z -4
tri 7
::.7
2.a;
Z1
cr,
.42
O F
lW
er,
cr,
=2
.4,
s/1
3 ay
l tit
flO
o45
.42
WIJ
I OO
O a
'scz
W3t
k r i
4 7 .
,as
aas
8 F 4
li O
lb-
+O
, OW
N ..
013.
1 as
as
41.
Na
coE
1na
co
taw
kri O
N c
oI;
wcr
s44
O-
tit5
0 0
00 0
0 K
3K
3 0a
000
0 0
W O
K.1
O0-
+.O
K.1
O 0
0 -+
W 0
00
00 N
Ola
0
fx 0
13. K
t 03
1.1
O''
0 N
-+ W
N 1
3-
0 13
03s0
0% a
t Kt s
o cc
-4 W
g-.
4.14
.104
.1W
O0
13 1
3 O
lri 4
.1 0
13
13W
0 1
...14
.1 O
- 4
.1.1
1%
) I%
) O
-+N
;Ss
va V
I E
f:0.
3V
IWN
NW
c.;
a.2
1 w
P=
1 0:
1S
ON
13
is)
0:1
40 C
4I. S
O I
SN
z.1
0:1
41i
13. ;
51 a
:2 3
14 >
414
14
14 H
H
14 1
4 14
HH
NN
H 3
4K
N N
14 3
4 )4
14
1414
14
14 1
4 H
HH
HH
4)4
14 1
4sl
34)4
)4
14 1
414
14
iliiii
iiillp
1111
1111
1151
111E
1111
1111
11N
1111
1111
g111
1111
1BP38.3.ovammmmmm.4.4 4 4444choschututututviv,,,,v, ..... 4..wwww m rum NN m
X
0000
4.4
0000
00 O
S
4.4
00O
S
44
oo
4.4
4,0
4.4
SO
OS
Oa
O O
4.4
Oo
$A,
oo
Y4
Y4
Y4
O.
O
4 00 PO 00
00
00
4
00
00
00 00
04 .4
00
00
00
00
00 00
00 00
00 00
.4 00
Y4
44
44
NH
NH
4X
Ht X
4ss
44
.44.
4X
0000
00 0
000
0000
00
00 0
000
00
00 0
001
100
00 0
000
0000
00
so 0
000
00
00 0
000
0000
00
00 0
000
Po00
00
0000
00
00 0
000
00
00 0
000
00
00 0
000
00 O
S00
00
44
4 4
4 P
I44
4.44
44
4Y
44.4
X>
4 >
444
4.4
4.4
0000
0000
00
0000
0000
0000
00O
PP00
00
0000
00
00 0
000
0000
00
0000
0000
0000
00 0
000
0000
00
0000
00
00 0
000
00
00 0
000
00
00 s
o00
00
00 0
000
.00.
1104
4.4
4.4
.44
44
44
4N
HN
H4
0000
......
00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 OP
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
00 00
Oa
00
00 00 00
00
00
00 00
00 00
00
00
00
00
00 40
OS 00
OS
00
00
00
00
4 4
.4
.4.4
.4.4
.44
.4 4
444.
44.
44.
4 44
MM
4444
4444
It44
Y4
YI
11 410
00
00
Appendix III
SOHOCL DIST
VOTE DATA CATEGORY OF VOTERS :MEET= LEALER
VOTE
=cosNOME
YES NO VOTING PARENTS RESENTS TEACHERS CAMS TOTAL PRIN LSIC
HIGH 3211 LS
AKICISEN 31 Approved 10 0 10 i 0 1 10 3 14 XCLEMENTE 31 Approved 19 1 20KELM PAHL 31 Approved 25 0 25 111 1 7 6 28 1 X XLAKE VIEW 31 Approved 33 7 40 20 5 7 0 32 XLANE 31 Approved 10 2 12 9 3 0 0 12 X XMAIM 31 Approved 36 1 37 8 3 27 0 38 X XSENN 31 Approved 29 3 32 10 3 18 0 32WELLS 31 Approved 15 0 15 1 4 4 4 3 15 X XMD tlECR) 32 Disapproved 0 118 118 1 40 0 8 0 118 XCURIE 32 Approved
1 8 1 1 6 16 1 X X=EAR 32 ApprovedFARRAGIN 32 Disapproved 11 48 59 1 55 1 3 2 61 I X XJUAREZ 32 Approved 32 15 47 I 26 11 15 2 47 I XIMLY 32 Approved 14 0 14 1 6 2 6 0 14 I X XMARSHALL 32 Approved 6 0 6CRS AG XI 33 Disapproved 0 15 15 1 11 3 1 0Q VCC 33 Disapproved 5 23 28 28 0 2 1 31
1
X}IMAM 33 Approved 11 0 11 6 1 11 2 XIMAM 33 Approved 5 0 5 1 11 1 0 2 7 1 X X=EMI 33 1 Approved 5 0 5 1 11 0 1 2 7MEGAN PAK 33 I Disapproved 7 17 211 1 15 5 7 0 27 1 X
TOTAL: 273 180 453 I 268 39 160 29 457PEMENT: 60% 40% 100% 1 59% 9% 35% 6% 100% I
-23-
4
53
Pt
>4
>4>
4
>4>
4>
4>
4>
4>4
X X
XX
XX
X
xX
XX
XX
X
XX
XX
XX
XX
X
XX
X X
XX
XX
>4>
4
mmmmmmmin%AAFAAP;AMMWAMM
NH50
riMPA°.
IMPP
Rili
rPill
iliPP
1111
1111
11M
P3
WW
Wid
MS
t.0 t.
0 C
O C
O C
O C
O -
4 1
1 1
1 O
N U
l .0
.0 h
.) IV
Co
Co
%C
o C
O 1
coN
coN
coN
cnkn
UIV
IUlu
t.ww
....
0 -4
Vt -
la.)
0 0
0 -
- O
h.)
h.)
O -
W .0
0 0
' ON
Co
,c,N
rAr8
.-cr
crcr
i.-ric
rocr
ocr,
ocrk
ncr
Vt
z3.t3
rt to
a;ca
l, %
Co
h.)
it C
A U
la.
8 f.
8?
'a -
-,--
,:a
-4 -
IAto
"F
kico
01
co I
Sra
l co
kr,
03...
.-f
l0
c: n
ut
c: n
0 6
c o
0 6
0 6
c o
c o
0 6
0 6
c o
. 00
6 0
6L
a 0
f a .0
....
c r
% p
p c
r %
Co
-4 ..
.6 C
o C
o C
o ...
6 co
Co
Co
coco
.0. C
o h.
) co
El
"2
14Z
.... C
A 1
13 W
8 &
ON
VI N
I o.C
o .0
0 O
. ON
VI
..O
r, k
r, c
r. -
.. Lc
:Et .
c. 7
3 n
Lc a
l r.)
'4 C
ol V
I EA
EA
.c.
co C
S k
r, 8
al u
., .o
ra
14 kil
c.c.
c. c
. o o
c. c
. o o
c. c
. c.
c, c
, c, c
, c, c
, c, c
, c, (
..) c
, c, c
, c, c
, c, c
, c, c
, c, c
, c,
c. c
. c.
Igi
ON
Lo.)
.0 c
o kn
0 0
0 0
0 0
ON
0 0
0
0 0
0 -
la.)
0 0
0 0
- O
N.0
10
h.)
N 0
0 0
- -
0 0
0 0
h.)
0000
NO
NW
c. L
A. c
.8
.014
.)0D
UJU
)-.0
00.0
0000
0.11
0314
0
ON
Co
Co
-4la
.) h
.) C
o0
0 -
0 Lo
.1h.
) 00
00 -
-U
.*-
h.)
0 0
0 0
-+ O
NO
b O
S
0 0
0 -
N 0
0 0
0 0
0 C
I 0 -
++
- +
0000
0000
0000
C I
0 C
I t O
L O
OW
0 C
I C
I 0
0 C
I 0
0 I V
- 0
0 0
0 -
0 0
0 0
0 O
O C
o O
W 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
.8
GI
gct
cr. k
A,
LA, L
A, L
A, r
k) c
ore
tt:o
w12
2 53
RI
8 1:
+-3
er.,
0,3
PA
.-4
.1`a
cr;
Vi
Appendix V
i
SCHCCL BIZ= HEARINGSaiICAGO PUBLIC SC ELLS
MAKE 10 & 12, 1981
SC ECL msr our= APPIPG DISAPPIG VOTING PAW'S BMWS TEACHERS MRS PItNr
GAMBURLEY
FRANKLIN
saluBEET
FUNSTCN
MIMEWERKESTCWE
PRITZKER
SABIN
CLAIK, M.
SALAZAR
ODFKERY
LIBBY
PASTEUR
TWAIN
WERTH
LEE
=FEtonMANN
14tECVELL
OIKEEFEE
MARSH
FARRPGUT
MDFGAN PARC
1
334
55556678
1012121214151617171717193233
+ApprovedApprovedDisapprovedDisapprovedDisapprovedDisapprovedApprovedApprovedDisapprovedApprovedApprovedDisapprnvedApprovedApprovedApprovedApprovedApprovedApprovedDisapprovedDisapproved
*
DisapprovedDisapprovedApprovedDisapproved
+6
926008
2407
16
36
593
381521
3*
241
+00
1787
00
3521
2301
026
211
23
3*
012
+ :6:9:
19 :14:7:9:8:
24 :35 :9:
17 :'6 :
6 :
6:9:5:
114 :
17 :13 :24 :
6:* :
24 :13 :
81
620
9698
1935
39
255373
3310
9
35
178
1
2021
1
000000001
0051
1
01
43
002421
0055461
1
2206
40
2062
1
3432241
1
1
2240022324
3230
106
12291410
139
2541
91730
66
11
5147
1714
88
3013
:
::.
:
:::..
.
.
.
....
:::
:::
::
TOTAL:
PERZEICACZ:
188514
16246%
350 :100% :
26167%
236%
5514%
5113%
390100%
:
:
Notes: + no vote was taken* second meeting .as rct held
-26-
56
Appendix VI
ABMSchool Name:
PART I: LOCAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL SURVEY
Please fill in the following Information as accurately as you can. Thank you/
How many members are in your Local School. Improvement Council (LSIC)?
How cony are (please write in number): 2arents? Community members?Teachers? Students? Other (please specify):
How often does your LSIC meet: Twice a month Once a monthOther (please specify)
When are your LSIC meetings held? Day Evening Weekends
Where are your LSIC meetings held? School Bank Field HousePolice Station Other (please specify):
Please check the category that best applies, using the guideline below.
Some-
Alum simIE Ears17 Never
1. How often does your principal attend your LSIC ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )meetings?
2. Has your principal submitted to your LSIC a ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )proposal before spending frcm his/her discre-tionary funds?
3. Has your LSIC disapproved any such proposal (please ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )give details on a blank piece of paper)?
4. Have the following attended your LSIC meeting wheninvited-
(a) the building engineer?(b) the lunchroom manager?
5. Row often has your LSIC disapproved spending for:(a) textbooks?(b) supplies?(c) Supplementary State Title I?(d) Gifted program materials?(e) Desegregation programs?(f) money raised from the scho-A's fundraisers
in the principal's internal accounts?
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
6. Has your LSIC done a needs assessment on yourschool? ( )
7. Has your LSIC developed a school improvement plan? ( )
8. Has your LSIC president received training on thebudget hearing from his/her district office?
( )
9. Has'your LSIC written its bylaws? ( )
-27-
57
l )
Appendix VII
198T LOCAL. 9Clf
Stan NAkE
DIPROJEMENT
TYPE 1 I
=CU D15r
CCM= MEM
1 MIMS CF Mawr CF =CSIMES CFFErDIGS IMEETB4 PLACE
IN IMEC :PAWS CM.= ICE SON OBER 221111 WM Wit 4rfR <4XYRi DAY EVENG Sara. Ona
Bearl elan 1 8 1 5 3 0 0 0 X
Eeaubien elan 1 MO 1 200 19 1 0 0 xI xBeldirg elan 1 5 1 5 0 0 0 0Eoirger elan 1 5 1 4 0 1 0 0 Y. x. 1.
Bigebrock elm 1 26 1 16 10 0 0 0 x. xEdison elm 1 i 12 1 11 1 0 0 0 x
Gerry elan 1 I 196 i 171 5 20 0 0 i X
lianpn elan 1 i ALL x
}racy elan 1 1 3 1 3 0 0 0 0Kuity elan 1 1 12 i 10 2 0 0 0
North Side elan 1 1 88 1 56 2 28 2 0 1 X x x
Palmer eler 1 1 204 1 180 0 22 0 2 X x x x
Peterson elan 1 1 300 1 266 4 30 0 0 X x x x xPortage Mc elan 1 1 ALL I I X x x
Pressing elan 1 1 10 i 10 0 0 0 0 1 x x x
Arnatrag elm 2 1 33 i 21 4 5 0 0 1 X x x xOpel].Decauter
elanelan
2 1 8 12 i 285 I
5233
034
1
18
00
2 10 1
X
X
xx
Field elem 2 1 25 i 20 0 6 0 0 X x xHayt elan 2 1 ALL I I X
Kilmer elan 2 1 15 i 13 0 1 0 1 1 X
Rogers elan 2 i 338 1 302 0 29 0 7 1 X x xTnnbuU. elan 2 1 5 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 X
Raley elan 3 1 74 i 42 7 23 0 2 X
Franklin elan 3 1 2C0 1 2C0 1 X
Hasilten elan 3 1 260 1 170 60 28 0 2 X x
Inter-American elan 3 1 20 1 19 0 1 0 0 1 X x xJenner elan 3 1 ZT 1 15 5 3 0 0 1 X
Nettelhorst elan 3 1 11 1 9 0 1 0 1 i X
Cgden elan 3 1 16 1 13 0 3 0 0 1 X x xRaveswood elan 3 1 130 I 96 15 18 0 1 X x xTruth elan 3 1 20 1 17 2 1 0 0 1 X x x
auto* elan 4 1 60 1 52 0 7 0 1 1 X
Dever elm 4 1 230 1 74 4 20 0 2 1 X I!Doke elan 4 1 263 1 259 0 3 0 1 1 X x x x xLyon elan 4 1 147 I 112 0 25 0 8 1 X
Sciubert elan 4 1 12 1 7 1 4 0 0 1 X x xBreitam elm 5 1 20 1 16 0 4 0 0 1 X
Elmston elan 5 1 20 1 19 1 0 0 0 1 X
Jahn elan 5 1 I I X x x x
Wardell elan 5 1 25 1 23 0 2 0 0 i X x x
Morrce elan 5 1 200 I 164 5 30 5 1 1 X x xMorse elan 5 1 651 52 8 1 1 3 1 X
Mozart e',..mi 5 1 7 1 5 0 2 0 0 1 X
Pulaski elan 5 1 10 1 3 0 3 0 4 X
1*.illy slam 5 1 9 1 6 1 1 0 1 1 X
Eyerscn elan 5 1 181 17 0 0 0 1 1 X
-28-
aem
egel
mlia
aaee
aean
i i11
>4 4 r: >4 14
14 14
14
14 14 14 14 14 14
14
>4 4 N 14 14 14 14 14
14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 >4 4 >4 /4 04 14 14 04
Cl
>4 >4
>4 >4 >4
>41.4>44
>4>41.4
N>4 >4
>4 >4
14 14 >4 4 4
>4
14
14 14
N O4
>4 >4
>4
>4
>4
/ 4 >4
>4 >4
>4
>4
>4
>4 44 4
>4 >4 4 4 >4
14 1414 14
14 14
14 14
1414
14 14 PI 14 14
14 14
14 >44
4 >4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4 >4
>4 >44 4
>4
>44 4
>4
>4
>4 >4
>4
>4
4
>4 >4
>4 >4>4 >4
>4 >4
>4 >4>4
>4 >4
14
>4 >4
>4
>4 >4
>4
14
14 14
14 14
>4
>4 >4
>4 >4
>4
>4 >4
14
14 14
14 1414 14
14 14
14 1414 14
>4 >4
>4
>4 >4
Cl
14 14 1414 14 14
14 14>4 44
4 44 44 4
>4 1414 14
14 14
>4 4
4 4 4
14 14
14
14
14 1414 14
14
>4 4
>4
>4 >4
>4
>4
>4
>44
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4 >4
4 N
>4
>4
04
>4 >4
>4 >4
>4>4 4
44 >4
Ns4
N>4 >4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4 >4>4 >4
>4 >4
>4 >4
>4 >4
>4 >4
>4 04
14
14>4 4 >4
14
>4
>4
>4 >4
>4 >4 >4 IN
>4 >4>4 >4
>4
>4
>4
>4
/4 >4
>4 >4 >4>4 4
>4
>4 >4>4 >4
>4 >4
>4 >4
>4 >4
>4 >4>4 >4
>4
>4
>4
14 >4 14 14 14
>4
CA
>414140404
>4 >4 04 14 N
6
>4 >4 1.4
>4
>4 >4 04 04
>4
>4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4
>4 >4 >4 >4 >4
HHHHH
M
HHHHMH H
H
>4 >4 >4 >4 P4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4
IH
P4
>4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4 >4
>4 >4 )4 >4
>4 >4 >4 >4 >4
0 C7 C7 C7 C7
0 C7 C7 C7 Co CM 0 C7 C7 C7 C7 v- 00
0 CI 4, C, c) c) c) c) c) c) c) cl C, C, 4, C, C, C, C, C,
000 Fl
c,
r. 0 CM Ul 00 ill
000 CJ 0
000 to 00 v- 0 U7 CM 00 v. 0 v. 000 C4 C7
v-
cnm) sr
cn rt a, U3 O. 0, fa 0 mr Ul 03 .mr Ul fa ar n1
AM
c"'"Stiltetilt=i0NKIVV42.9-#
>4 M >4 >4 >4 >s PC P4 >4 >4
>4>4 >4
se
se
HH
>4 >4>4
>4
>4
>4>4
>4>4>4
>4
>4
P4
>4 >4
>4
>4
>4>4>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
P4
H
>4 04 >4>4>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4>4 >4
HH
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4>4>4
>4>4>4
>4 >4
>4
>4
>4
MM MMMX
MMM
m
v.C)
C) C) C) C) C)
v- 000 v- 000 cm sr
c)
c) c) c)
c) c) c) c) c) c) c) c) v-
c) c)
v-
000 CM 00 v.
0 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 v. 0
0 1? v. nl to c)
v-
v-
CQ C7 C7 C7 c) tn CV C) C) c) CM v- c) m) v- c)
co C7 c7 v-
C7 C7 Ul
t-0 "i'VIRMWS5ktilwg,
cng"n"PIRISFAVERFIR""nalilBtotRw"PMSL4".0
UMW
U, t t t t t t t- 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, cn cn
cn cn cn C) 0000
cM CM CM CM cM CM n1 n1 sr sr
tql!!!!!!!MIntall1111111M
!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!
P4
P4
P4
HH
H H
H H
H1.4 1.4 P
4 1.41.4
HH
H14
14
14 14 P4
HP4 P4 14
P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4HHHH HH
P4
HH
H HH HHHH NM H
HH
HH
HHHH
1.4
HH
H)4HHHH
HH
P4 P4 1.4 P4 14 1.4 P4 P4 P4 P4
HH
;i.41
itW
3
.41
111
.41
1.; P4
NI
1.4 1.4 1.4
1.4
1.4
PC
1.4 )4 )cHHHH
1.4
1.4
1.4 1.4 1.4
1.4
NI
HHHH
HH
P4
1. I
14
14
14 14 14
1.4
NI
1.4HH
1.4
1.4HH
1.4
1.4
114 104 P4 P4 P4
H14
14
NH MINH
HH
NI
HH
H1.41.41.4
1.414114MINH NH
HHHHHHHH
HH HHHH
HH
P4
1.4H
HH
HH
HH
HH
P4
H H
1.4
HH
HH
H
HP4HH HH
HH
H HH H
P4 P4 P4
HP4
HH H
1.441.4P4P4P4
P4 P4 14 F4 P4 14 P4 P4 14 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 14
HH
P4 1.4 P4 P4 1.4HHHHHHHH
P4 1.4 P4 P4 P4 1.4 P4 1.4 P4 P4 P4
HP
4 I-4 14 P4
HHH HH
1414.1P4P4
HH
HH
HH
HHH
P4 )4 P4 P4
HH
P4 P4 P4
H>4 PC
HH HHHH H
HHHH
1,3
.41
H H
HP4P4P41.41.4
HH
HHH HH
P4
14 14 P4 P4 P4 14 14 14
HH
14 P4 14
H14 14 P4
P4 P4 P4 14 P4 P4 P4HHHH
1111 11 1 1 11 11 11 11 1 !I 11
11 !I!I
1111
1111 !I 11 !
11 !!I
!11 11
11
mig
num
Pww
wvq
,°
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
g X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
g"),
XX
XA
XX
AX
AA
1111
1111
1111
1111
1131
1113
MY
MM
WM
1366
1111
1113
1311
1MB
L@
Bill
i301
1111
1110
0
e 0
%C
o %
Co
%C
o%
Co
%C
o C
O C
O C
O C
O V
I C
O C
O C
O C
O C
O -
4 -4
.4 -
4 -4
-4
-4 -
4 -4
o o
o a
tat
o L
SI 1
./1 1
./1 1
./1I
1./1
1./1
JNIX
HMII
.
Fico
liiC
A-4
CA
ma8
48f)
3,7A
AW
RiC
A8g
8GIP
M8r
)G.1
8u1-
z-4N
811-
Ao,
O,'u
litS
oAih
onH
M--
--
---
_-
-_
----
- -
,acc
S ri
l .m
. 7-:
w W
Ln
-. w
ul -
-. I
tR
CA
a' F
S8
818
a,8
Zil
w L
n L
n en
18
ER
-a
a a,
OS
wtr
ira'
Ln
fil
13 -
i tS
1
44.0
0004
011)
001.
44.0
04.
0421
001
. 4 1
1 . 4
1 0
0 I
V I
V0
IV 1
,./1
0 IV
0 k
i 0 0
18 I
V I
V I
N
O o
N o
NN
-...
mu,
1. U
.10-
4 Z
itW
t.t1L
,40
O5.
8ro-
nu.,-
+N
orv
oiS
oroo
-nbi
ro-n
g
44. 0 IV
0
000
0000
0IV
000
0 0
0 0
00
0 0
0 0
0 00
1-8.
1000
00-.
0000
0000
000
Or
IV00
0000
- O
C3
--00
000
000
00-n
0000
0-n0
0000
0000
0 1.
40
0
XX
XX
XX
>4
>4>
4M
MM
MM
t4M
MX
M X
MX
MM
MM
M M
MM
MM
MM
M
>4
>4
>4
MX
M M
MM
>IM
M M
M X
M M
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
><
><
><
><
X X
MM
M M
MX
XM
MX
MM
>4X
XX
X X
XX
XX
X>
<>
4>4)
4X
M>
42.4
><
>4
>4
>4
X X
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
><
>4>
<>
4>
4M
X X
Xt.4
>4
X)4
a
p
14$1
11f1
1111
1111
1WW
W11
1 fi
girr
lpfi
llif
i11
4;;;;
;;;;;;
;;;;;;
;;;;P
;;;;;;
;;;;;;
;;;;;;
;;;;;;
;-
.11
14M
M M
MM
MM
1414
M M
N M
M14
.414
MM
MM
M M
M M
MM
M14
1414
/4/4
1414
14
M M
MM
M M
M M
M M
NM
MM
M14
MM
1414
4M
MM
M M
MM
MM
MM
a4
sw as
MN
/4/4
/414
X /4
14
14 1
4 14
MM
MM
MM
H=
M
M
MM
I4m
MM
1Hm
lii
MM
MM
M14
14
MM
MM
MM
MM
1414
.M
MM
M14
1414
MM
MM
MM
MtiIII
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
M M
MM
MIs
i/4
/4/4
1414
MN
/4M
MM
MM
114
444
P4
/414
14
'414
M14
MM
MM
M M
M/4
/414
144
MM
M14
14
MM
MM
MM
MM
M M
MM
MM
MM
M M
MM
MM
M M
U
14 1
4 14
14
Ma4
14 1
4M
14 1
4
M/4
MN
1414
Appendix VII
SEE. NAM
TIM3:1131
1 i RI
MST ISM
nEERS OF =MKS OF IIEE:C0165
IVES OF I
tics It1G PLACE
PAWS atirf Tt1 SIM OMER 2xtcoi bfron 5xm 4rsa c4XaRI Da EVENS sacs.
Tanis elci 20 7 5 0 1 0 1 x x xCalm= clam 20 ALL X x x X
CWecs
Pullman
Scanlon
Van Vlissenger
Itishington
elem
elmelm'
elmelm
20
20
20
20
20 I
12
18
10
I 20
400
12
11
7
14
i 366
0
33
3
20
0
4
0
3
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
2
X
XX
X
x
xx
x
x
x
Xxxx
x
Lae View
Linsoln Park
Mather
h.s.
h.s.
h.s.
31 I 40 I 28
31 I 180 1 128
31 : 361 1 224
5
0
15
7
50
60
0
0
60
0
2
2
X
X
x
x x1x1x
x
x
x
x
Tait n.s. 31 I 550 I X x x
Wilson h.s. 31 i 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 x x
Far:Mut h.s. 32 48 1 35 2 5 5 1 1 X X
Juarez h.s. 32 27 1 19 3 3 2 0 1 X x x x
Kelly h.s. 32 25 i 7 12 6 0 o x x xYoung h.s. 32 15 1 8 3 3 1 0 1 X x x
Carver h.s. 33 158 1 i X x x1 x x
Chicago Voc h.s. 33 325 I 240 25 50 10 0 I X I XI X
Harlan h.s. 33 i 30 i 20 5 5 0 0 1 X
King h.s. 33 i 6 i 5 1 0 0 0
Vbrgan Park h.s. 33 1 150 1 90 20 30 10 0
South Shore h.s. 33 1 8C i 33 17 18 11 1 X
1
nut.
_____
110,222
____
1 6,929
_____
581 1,066
----
115
___
79 1 7 117 19 13 lo I 102 25 I 137 6
1 I I
mow I I 78.7% 6.6% 12.1% 1.3% 0.9%1 4.2% 70.5% 11.4% 7.8% 6.0%1 61.8% 15.2%1 83.0% 3.6%
-34-
6 4
2M
MM
MM
M13
0>4140.4 >4 MN
>4>4:1
>4MMM
M>40.4
r
2
El
>4
>4
>4
I*gi
>4 >40.40.404>4
>4
>4
>40.40.4 MN >4MXIMI 4-S
2
el
>40.40.4
>4 >
4
N
M>40.40.4
MN
MMM
>4
MN
>4
>4
>40.4><>40.4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>4
>40.40.4
>4
>4
NH
MN
MMMM>40.4
His
M
It
>4>IMMMMMMMMMMMM>INMMMMMM 1
m
Itni
lelq
>4
NH
>4
NH
>4
>4
1
>4
>4
>4
I
MM
M1.4
14
m.1, n
>4
>4
144
V.
>4
>4
>4
1 n n
>4
>4 >4141"414 >4
>4 >
4 >4
14 14 14 1414
.IF, 71ti
