{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_932","title":"Reports: Activities, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1989/2002"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Student activities"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: Activities, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/932"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_967","title":"Reports: Financial, North Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1989/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Finance","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","School buildings","School employees","School facilities"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: Financial, North Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/967"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_927","title":"Reports: Suspension/expulsion comparisons, district level","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1989/1998"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational statistics","Student expulsion","Student suspension","School discipline","School buses"],"dcterms_title":["Reports: Suspension/expulsion comparisons, district level"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/927"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1454","title":"Report: ''Task Force on Safety and Security in the Secondary Schools of Little Rock''","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)"],"dc_date":["1989"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","School discipline","School improvement programs","Education, Secondary","School management and organization","Student activities","School buses","School administrators","Student suspension"],"dcterms_title":["Report: ''Task Force on Safety and Security in the Secondary Schools of Little Rock''"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1454"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["reports"],"dcterms_extent":["45 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1475","title":"\"Review of Law and Social Change,\" New York University","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","United States, New York, Erie County, Buffalo, 42.88645, -78.87837"],"dcterms_creator":["New York University"],"dc_date":["1989/1990"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Evaluation","Education","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","School boards","School improvement programs","School integration","School management and organization"],"dcterms_title":["\"Review of Law and Social Change,\" New York University"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1475"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":["26 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_928","title":"Senior High School, Parent-Student Handbook","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["North Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1989/1990"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School discipline","Student activities","Students","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Senior High School, Parent-Student Handbook"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/928"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["handbooks"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n1989-1990 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL PARENT-STUDENT HANDBOOK NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS Parent-Student Statement of Responsibility Student Name Date The statement below must be signed and returned to the homeroom teacher within one (1) week after the student receives the handbook. We have read the North Little Rock Parent-Student Handbook. We understand the District's discipline policies and realize that the student must adhere to these and to the other policies, rules and procedures contained in the Handbook. In the event that we are not entirely certain of some aspect of school policy, we will contact the principal for clarification. Student Signature Parent/Guardian Signature Date State law (80-1629.6-80-1629.8) requires documentation of student and parent receipt of student discipline policies. This document will become part of the student's file. (over) Emergency Procedure Information Date ____ Student's Name _______________ _ Date of Birth ______________________ _ Address _______________ Home Phone ____ _ In case of emergency, illness or accident to the student named above, the school is authorized to proceed as indicated. Number below in order of desired action. __ Contact parent at number listed above. __ Contact father at Business Name Phone __ Contact mother at ___________________ _ Business Name Phone __ Contact other ____________________ _ Name Phone Physician's Name _______________ Phone ____ _ Hospital Preference ____________________ _ Signature of Parents or Guardians: Mother's Signature Father's Signature Student's Signature It ~ very important that this be returned to the school office as soon as powble. SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL PARENT-STUDENT HANDBOOK NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT James R. Smith Superintendent 1989-1990 ADMINISTRATIVEO FFICES 2700 POPLARS TREET Dear Students and Parents, The North Little Rock School District is recognized as a quality educational institution. Sound academic programs, great variety of offerings, special programs to meet student needs and strong school spirit have led to educational excellence in our schools. Excellence has been maintained through the outstanding support and cooperation of the students and patrons of our school district. I thank you for that support and cooperation and look forward to a continued good working relationship. This handbook has been provided so that you will better understand the purposes, policies, and regulations of the North Little Rock School District. It is important that you familiarize yourself with the total contents and that the handbook be retained for reference from time to time. If you have questions regarding information included in the handbook or any other matter, please contact the principal's office. We welcome suggestions that will help make the North Little Rock Schools even better. I hope that this school year is a happy and productive one for you. Sincerely, ~~\u0026lt;Lxiv James Smith Superintendent of Schools bja P.O. BOX 687, NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR 72115/0687 501 /758-1760 ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITIES The undersigned superintendent for the North Little Rock School District in Pulaski County, assures the Director, General Division, Arkdnsas Department of Education, that all Schools within the District are in compliance with the following Civil Rights Regulations as stated: ********* Title VI, Section 601, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under dDY program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Title IX, Section 901, of the Education Amendment of 1972 No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States ... shall, solely by redson of handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. This is to certify that the District's Civil Rights Coordinator is: Name: Bobby Acklin Telephone: Address: 270Q Poplar Street (P.O. Box 687) North Little Rock, AR 72115 758-1760 Date ' COMPLAINTS AND PROBLEM SOLVING A good communication link between the school and the home is necessary if students are to receive the maximum benefits from the educational opportunities available to them in the schools of North Little Rock. Good communication results from open, frequent and objective dialogue among students, teachers, parents and school administrators. Most school problems are the result of poor communication among the parties involved. Proper communication, therefore, usually solves most, if not all, problems that are related to the school. In order to ensure that problems are discussed and solved as quickly and fairly as possible, the following procedure is to be employed in the North Little Rock School District. If a parent becomes concerned about a problem at the classroom level, the parent should make an appointment with the teacher and thoroughly discuss the matter. Most problems are solved at this level. Should the problem not be solved through discussions with the teacher, or if the problem is not related to classroom activities, the parent should contact the principal for further attempts to find a workable solution. If the parent is not satisfied with solutions offered at the building level, the matter may be appealed to the appropriate educational director or assistant superintendent at the District Administrative Office. The phone number is 758-1760. After other appeals have been exhausted, the parent may appeal to the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent may uphold, overturn or modify decisions made by other District administrators. An appeal of a decision by the Superintendent may be heard only by the School Board while an official meeting of the Board is being held. North Little Rock School District 1989-90 Calendar s M I w I f s s M I w I f s August January 1 2 3 4 5 H 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Aus. 18, 22, 23, 2 7 8 9 10 11 12] 13 13 14 15 16 17 SD 19 staff development 14 W [16 17 18 19 20 20 W SD SD SD W 26 Au1. 21, 25, teacher work day 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 [28 29 30 31 Au1. 28, first school day 28 29 30 31 September Sept. , Labor Day February 1 2 1 2 3 3 H 5 6 7 8 9 Oct. 12-13, AEA Mettinss 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Nov. 6-10, dismiss early for parent conferences 18 so 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Nov. 23, Thanks1ivins Day 25 26 27 28 October Dec. 21-Jan l March 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Winter Holidays 1 2 3 8 9 10 11 H H 14 Jan. 1, New Year', Day 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Jan. 15, teacher work day 11 12 13 14 15 16) 17 22 23 24 25 26 27] 28 18 [19 20 21 22 23 24 29 [30 31 Feb. 19, staff development 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 (no school) November March 26-30, dismiss early April 1 2 3 4 for parent conferences 1 SBSB SB SB SB 7 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 April 2-6, Spring Bi'.eak 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 19 20 21 22 H H 25 April 15, Easter 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 May 28, Memorial Day 29 30 December June 1, Teacher work day May 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 17 18 19 20 H H 23 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 24 H H H H H 30 27 H 29 30 31) 31 June KE! w 2 w Teacher Workday, Student Holiday 3 4 5 5 r a 9 SD Staff Development Day, Student Hofiday 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 H Holiday for Students and Staff 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [ Begin Nine Weeks Period 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 I End Nine Weeks Period SB Spring Break Days to be used as make-up days in case of inclement weather Table of Contents Absences and Excuses ...... Activities .................. . Arrival Time at School ............ . Arkansas School Laws Governing School Attendance . . . North Little Rock School Board Policy Pertaining to School Attendance Behavior at School Activities Bus Conduct ....... . Care of School Property .. Change of Address ..... Communicable Disease Conduct To and From School .. Contact With Students While at School Corporal Punishment ......... . Demonstrations and Disorderly Activities Detention ............ . Discipline for Handicapped Students Distribution of Literature Drugs and Alcohol ....... . Electronic Communication Devices Emergency Phone Numbers. Entrance Requirements .. Expulsion ....... . Field Trips ...... . Gifted/Talented Education Graduation Requirements Guidance Services . Handguns ...... . Health Services ... . Homebound Services . . Homework/Independent Study Skills Honors Classes ..... . Honor Roll . . . . . . . . . . . Injuries/Illnesses at School Leaving School During School Day Lockers . . . . . . . . . . . . Lost and Found .... . Magnet Schools ..... . How to Apply for Magnet School Enrollment M - to - M Transfers . . . . . . . How to Apply for M- to- M Transfer Make Up Work .......... . Medication ........... . Notes from Parents Regarding Absences Parent-Teacher Association Physical Education Promotion/Retention .... Public Display of Affection Religion in Sc.heals .... Reporting Student Progress Safety Regulations--Bicycles/Motorcycles/Other Vehicles Schedules ........ . School Closing In Inclement Weather School Lunch ...... . School Supplies ........ . Search, Seizure and Interrogation  Special Education ...... Student Assignments ...... Student Behavior--Prohibited Conduct Student Dress and Grooming Student Insurance. Student Records .. Student Suspension Summer Schoo 1 . Tardies .... Telephones Testing Program Textbooks . Tobacco and Tobacco Products Transfers . Visitors  Weapons and Dangerous Instruments Work Perm1 ts I 1 2 2  3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 18 18 18 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 ' i : Absences and Excuses The Board believes the fundamental right to attend public schools places upon students the accompanying responsibility to be regular in attendance. Regular attendance can be assumed to be essential for a student's successful progress in the instructional program. In accordance with Board policy, only the following absences shall be considered excused absences, provided that in such instance parental confirmation has been received of the reason for the absence: I. Illness 2. The existence of a family emergency or other family situations which have received prior approval by the principal 3. When the student is on official school business. When a student returns to school after being absent, he/she shall bring a written statement from the parents with an explanation of the reason for the absence and the date of the absence. Students having unexcused tardies or absences shall be disciplined accordingly. No make-up work shall be allowed if the absence is unexcused. A student who accrues 12 excused and unexcused absences in a course during a semester shall not receive credit for that course. Exceptions may be granted by the principal after consultation with teachers, counselors and others who have knowledge of the circumstances. Except in the cases of illness or other excusable reason, students are expected to attend every day in which school is in session. The Board does not recognize \"skip days\" or other similar days when students willfully miss school. Such absences shall be unexcused and no make-up work shall be allowed. Because a student is required to be in attendance, days of suspension to the Student Assignment Class are not counted as days of absence. A student who is exempted from compulsory school attendance will not be permitted to enroll after the 12th day of the first semester or after the 12th day of the second semester unless the principal determines that extenuating circumstances exist. Students who are absent during all or part of a school day shall not participate in any school activity on that day or night unless permission is granted through the principal's office. Activities Eligibility to participate in athletic activities is governed by the Arkansas Activities Association, including the requirement that a student passes four academic subjects from the preceding semester. Additional information regarding athletics may be obtained from the school office. Eligibility to be a cheerleader or a drill team member is determined by the same standards as athletic participation. Clubs and organizauons related to special interests or subject areas do not have minimum grade requirements except those clubs and organizations that are governed by charters from parent organizations. All clubs and student organizations shall operate under the direction of the principal and shall be under the supervision of a staff member appointed or approved by the principal. Membership to student organizations and clubs shall not be restricted on the basis of race, sex, national origin or other arbitrary criteria. Entry shall not be by decision of the current membership of the organization. Arrival Time at School Ideally, students should not arrive at school more than 10 minutes before school opens (or before bus departure time) except to participate in scheduled activities. The District recognizes that this ideal cannot always be realized because of family schedules\nhowever, because children must have the security of supervision, absolute limits must exist as to when the school will assume responsibility. The North Little Rock School District assumes this responsibility up to 30 minutes before school hours for students who do not ride a bus to another school and up to 15 minutes for those who do. Parents must make other arrangements outside these limitations. Arkansas School Laws Governing School Attendance Arkansas school laws pertaining to school attendance are found in the following acts: (Act 60-1983 and Act 1069-1985) SECTION 1. The public schools of any school district in this State shall be open and free through completion of the secondary program to all persons between the ages of five (5) and twenty-one (21) years whose parents or legal guardians are domiciled in the district and to all persons between those ages who have been legally transferred to the district for education purposes. Any person eighteen (18) years of age or older may establish a domicile separate and apart from his or her parents or guardians for school attendance purposes. In order for a person under the age of eighteen (18) years to establish a residence for the purpose of attending District schools separate and apart from his parents, guardians or other person(s) having lawful control of him under an order of a court, he or she must actually reside in the District for a primary purpose other than that of school attendance. SECTION 2. The minimum age for enrollment in public school kindergarten shall be age five (5) on or before October 1 of the year of initial enrollment. Provided, any student who has been enrolled in a kindergarten program in another state for a period of not less than sixty (60) days, who will become five (5) during the school year in which he is enrolled in kindergarten and whose parents or guardians establish domicile in a public school district in the State of Arkansas may be enrolled in kindergarten upon the written request of the student's parent or guardian. SECTION 3. (a) Every parent, guardian or other person residing within the State of Arkansas having custody or charge of any child or children of age seven (7) through sixteen (16), both inclusive, shall send such child or children to a public, private or parochial school under such penalty for noncompliance as shall be set by law. Provided, however, this Section shall not be applicable to any child who has received a high school diploma or its equivalent as determined by the State Board of Education. (b) The State Board of Education shall adopt rules and regulations for the imple- 2 mentation of this Act, which shall provide that any parent or guardian of a child aged five (5) on or before October I of any school year shall have the option not to enroll such child in kindergarten in that year. Any six year old child who has not completed a kindergarten program prior to initial enrollment in a public school district shall be evaluated by the district and placed in the first grade if the evaluation results indicate that the child is ready for enrollment at the first grade level. l f the evaluation results indicate that the child is not ready for enrollment at the first grade level, the child shall be enrolled in the district's kindergarten program. (Act 60-1983) SECTION 4. The Board of Directors of each school district in the State shall adopt student attendance policies. Each school district shall, as a part of its six-year educational plan, develop strategies for promoting maximum student attendance, including, but not limited to, the use of alternative classrooms and in-school suspensions in lieu of suspension from school. A student attendance policy may include excessive unexcused absences as a mandatory basis for denial of promotion or graduation. (Act 1069-1985) North Little Rock School Board Policy Pertaining to School Attendance Every child who resides within the North Little Rock School District who is at least seven (7) years of age and not more than seventeen ( 17) years of age, and who is not legally exempt from this requirement, shall attend public school in the District or in some other public school district to which the student may legally be transferred. The following are exempt from the compulsory attendance law: I. One who attends a recognized private, parochial or home school, 2. One who, because of a physical or mental handicapping condition, attends a special school, 3. One who has been suspended or expelled in accordance with the requirements of law, and 4. One who has graduated from high school. Truancy is the unlawful absence from school. Arkansas law holds parents or guardians legally responsible for insuring that children who are subject to the compulsory attendance law do attend school on a regular basis. The Board expects school administrators to seek strict enforcement of laws relating to school attendance. Principals shall see that charges are filed against parents or guardians when attendance laws are broken. Prior to the filing of charges, parents shall be warned in writing that such charges will be filed if their child's attendance does not comport with the law. Behavior at School Activities Students attending school sponsored activitie , on-campus or off-campus, shall be governed by school district rules and regulations and will be subject to the authority of school district per onnel. Failure to obey rules and regulations and/or failure to obey reasonable instructions of school personnel may result in lo s of eligibility to attend chool sponsored events. Failure to comply with District rules and regulations may also result in disciplinary action applicable under the regular school program. Bus Conduct Since the school bus is an extension of the classroom, students shall be required to conduct them elves on the bus in a manner consistent \\\\ith e tablished standards for classroom behavior. When a student does not conduct himself/herself properly on a bus, uch instances 3 shall be brought to the attention of the building principal by the bus driver. The building principal shall inform the parents immediately of the misconduct and seek their cooperation in controlling the student's behavior. The principal shall discipline guilty students as deemed appropriate. A student who becomes a serious disciplinary problem on the school bus may have transportation privileges suspended or terminated. In such cases, the parents of the students involved shall become responsible for seeing that their children get to and from school. Care of School Property Deliberate destruction or damage to school property will result in payment for loss, as well as other disciplinary action which may include police involvement. Careless destruction or damage may result in a requirement to pay damages. Change of Address It is the parent's responsihility to keep addresses current in the school office. Communicable Disease The Board of Directors hereby authorizes the Superintendent to make determinations on the exclusion of a student/individual suffering from a reportable disease, as defined by the Arkansas Department of Health, on a temporary basis not to exceed ten ( 10) school days. An exclusion longer than ten (10) days shall be brought before the Board of Directors immediately for a determination on the individual's status. Before any official action is taken by the Board for an exclusion longer then ten (10) days, the individual shall be provided an opportunity for a hearing before the Board of Directors upon appropriate notice. Students/ individuals excluded for reason of infectious/ communicable disease shall be readmitted by one or more of the following methods as determined by the State Department of Health: I. By permit for readmission issued by the State Department of Health. 2. After a period of time corresponding to the duration of the communicability of the disease as established by the State Department of Health. 3. By application to the School Health Advisory Committee and upon the recommendation of the School Health Advisory Committee. Conduct To and From School School officials may take disciplinary action against any student who does not exhibit proper personal conduct while traveling to and from school. Contact With Students While at School In case of question about the legal custody of a student, the principal shall require the necessary documentation in order to make a valid determination of who has custody and what, if any, limitations are imposed. In cases of estrangement where legal custody has been afforded a parent, or where other legal restrictions have been decided, it shall be the responsibility of the custodial parent to make such information known to the principal. Estranged parents may visit with students during school hours with consent of the parent holding legal custody. Without such consent, visits shall be in the presence of the principal. If the police, SCAN, or family service agencies wish to contact students for the purpose of obtaining information, the principal shall cooperate. If removal from school is requested, the principal shall inform the parent or legal guardian prior to any release of 4 custody of the student. If the principal is presented a subpoena by a police officer, he/she must release the student with or without communication with the parent or legal guardian. Corporal Punishment Reasonable corporal punishment may be used as a means of preserving an effective learning environment. When used, corporal punishment shall be moderate and shall be used solely for the purpose of changing student behavior. Corporal punishment shall be administered in the District in accordance with the following guidelines: 1. Students shall not be paddled in the presence of other students. 2. Paddling may be done by a building administrator. At least one other certified staff member must be present when corporal punishment is administered. All paddling must be administered in the administrative offices. 3. The student shall be informed of the offense and be afforded an opportunity to explain his/her actions before corporal punishment is administered. 4. The District shall respect the wishes of parents who formally notify the school that they do not want their child disciplined by paddling. Other discipline measures, including suspension, may be employed if parents do not want corporal punishment used. 5. If used, paddling will be administered to the buttocks only. 6. A written record of the date, nature and reasons for the corporal punishment shall be made and retained by the principal. Demonstrations and Disorderly Activities Demonstrations and disorderly activities on the part of any student or group of students at any time on school grounds shall not be tolerated. Participation in any such demonstration activities, no matter how well-intentioned, may bring about immediate suspension and possible expulsion from school. Demonstration and disorderly activities on school grounds during school hours shall, if circumstances justify, be promptly handled by civil authorities. Detention Elementary and secondary school principals may establish student detention (D Halls) as a means of discipline to preserve an effective learning environment. Detention may be used before and/or after regular school hours. Parents shall be notified in advance that early/late detention has been assigned and shall assume responsibility for student transportation. Discipline for Handicapped Students Handicapped . tudents who engage in misbehavior are ubject to normal school disciplinary rules and procedures so long as treatment does not abridge the right to a free, appropriate public education. Distribution of Literature All publications edited, printed or distributed in the name of, or within the schools of the North Little Rock School District, shall be under the direction and control of the school administration and Board. In allowing the distribution of student literature, the principal hall set firm and fair regulations for students to follow. s Drugs and Alcohol This policy applies to any student who is on school property, who is in attendance at school or at a school-sponsored activity (including any student who has left the campus for any reason and who returns to the campus), or whose conduct at any time or in any place interferes with or obstructs the mission or operation of the school district. It shall be a violation of policy for any student: I. To sell, supply, or give, or attempt to sell, supply, or give to any person any of the substances listed in this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance listed in this policy. 2. To possess, procure or purchase, to attempt to possess, procure or purchase, to be under the influence of (legal intoxication not required), or to use or consume or attempt to use or consume, the substances listed in this policy or what is represented to the student to be any of the substances listed in this policy or what the student believes to be any of the substances listed in this policy. Prohibited substances shall include, but not be limited to: alcohol or any alcoholic beverage\nmarijuana\nany narcotic drug\nany hallucinogen\nany stimulant\nany depressant\nany other controlled (illegal) substance\nany substance, legal or illegal, that alters the student's ability to act, think, or respond\nany other substance that the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by this policy\nor any substance manufactured to look like a substance prohibited by this policy. Any student engaging in any of the activities with any of the prohibited substances listed above shall be subject to the following penalties: A. Use or possession of any substance prohibited by this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by this policy. (1) First violation: The student shall be suspended off-campus for ten school days\npolice may be called\nproof of professional help is required\nand parental conference is required prior to readmission. (2) Second violation: the student shall be expelled for the remainder of the school year. B. Selling any substance prohibited by this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by this policy. (l) The police will be summoned. (2) The student will be expelled for the remainder of the school year. Any student suspended or expelled in accordance with this policy shall be required to seek professional counseling prior to readmission to school. The student will receive full counseling through District approved professional counseling services at his/her own expense. Upon readmission, continued enrollment shall be contingent upon completion of the alcohol/drug counseling program. Failure to complete the alcohol/drug counseling may be grounds for expulsion. Electronic Communication Devices The North Little Rock School District will enforce Act 146 of 1989, which prohibits elementary and secondary students from possessing paging devices or electronic communication devices on school campuses. 6 Emergency Phone Numbers Emergency phone numbers where parents can be contacted are to be provided for each student enrolled in the school. It is the parent's responsibility to keep these numbers current and up-to-date. Entrance Requirements In order to enroll in a school in the District, a student must be a bona fide resident and must meet age requirements. The minimum age for enrollment in public school kindergarten shall be age five on or before October 1 of the year of initial enrollment. Any student who has been enrolled in a state accredited or approved kindergarten program in another state for a period of not less than sixty days, who will become five during the school year in which he is enrolled in kindergarten and whose parents or guardians establish domicile in a public school district in the State of Arkansas may be enrolled in kindergarten upon written request of the student's parents or guardians. The minimum age for enrollment in the first grade of any public school in the state shall be age six on or before October 1 of the year of initial enrollment. Any student who has been enrolled in grade one of an accredited or state approved elementary school in another state for a period of not less than 60 days, who wm become age six during the school year in which he is enrolled in grade one and whose parents or guardians are residents of Arkansas, may be enrolled in grade one upon request thereby in writing by a parent or guardian. Any six year old who has not completed an accredited kindergarten program prior to initial enrollment in a public school district shall be evaluated by the District and placed in the first grade if the evaluation results indicate that the child is ready for enrollment at the first grade level. If the evaluation_ results indicate that the child is not ready for enrollment at the first grade level, the child shall be enrolled in the District's kindergarten program. Each school must have a placement committee consisting of the principal, a kindergarten teacher, a first grade teacher, and the child's parent/s. The committee's primary task is to determine whether the student should be placed in a kindergarten or a first grade classroom. A student who has been enrolled in a first grade of an Arkansas School District or a private school but whose parents reside in the North Little Rock School District shall not be allowed to enroll in the first grade in the District if the child's sixth birthday falls after October 1 of that year. A student entering a school in the District for the first time shall submit a copy of his/her birth certificate. Official enrollment shall not be completed until this requirement is met. When a student moves into the District from attendance in an accredited school, he/ she shall be placed in the same grade that would have been assigned in the former school. Students who have attended an unaccredited school shall be evaluated by the District and proper grade placement determined. Arkansas Jaw requires that all student be immunized against poliomyelitis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough) and red (Rubeola) measles. Students who do not comply with this requirement shall be excluded from school enrollment. A student entering a school in the District for the first time shall submit a copy of his/her immunization record. 7 Expulsion The Board of Education is authorized to expel a student for the remainder of the school term: I) for conduct that is deemed to be of such gravity as to make a relatively short temporary suspension inappropriate, 2) when the Board finds that the student's continued attendance at school would be unacceptably disruptive to the educational program, or 3) when continued attendance would present unreasonable danger to other students and faculty members. Arkansas Statute 80-1516 provides that directors of a school district may exclude students for immorality, refractory conduct, insubordination, infectious disease, habitual uncleanliness or other conduct that would tend to impair the discipline of the school or harm the other students. Field Trips A field trip is defined as any organized educational experience outside the classroom involving travel. Written parental consent must be obtained for each field trip. Gifted/Talented Education A program of gifted/talented education is provided for those students who require differentiated activities and services beyond those normally provided in the regular school program. Students who are above average in ability, task commitment and creativity may be considered for the program. Students must exemplify an interaction of these three traits. Referral for consideration to receive services through the gifted/talented program may be made to the principal by school personnel, parents, peers or the student. The decision for placement is made after all available data are reviewed by~ referral/placement committee. English Mathematics Science Social Studies Practical Arts Physical Education Health Education Fine Arts Communications Electives TOTAL ,~ Graduation Requirements 4 Units 5 Units 3 Units l Unit  Unit  Unit  Unit  Unit 8 Units 23 Unit~ (No substitutions allowed) (2 units of mathematics and 3 units of science or 2 units of science and 3 units of mathematics) (Must include 1 unit of life science and l unit of physical science) (1 unit must be American History and at least  unit must be civics or American Government) (There shall be no activity or assignment substituted for this requirement) (Three non-academic units may be counted) 8 In counting credits for graduation, courses taken in grades nine through twelve shall be considered. No more than three units may be earned in any other way than through regular attendance in a recognized high school. This exception will be made only in cases of extreme emergency and with the principal's permission. A student must be enrolled in six subjects each year. A District progress form shall be a part of the student's record to ensure that the courses taken by the student meet State Standards and District requirements. Any student lacking no more than one credit to meet graduation requirements shall be allowed to participate in the graduation ceremonies, provided the student has paid summer school tuition. A student's diploma shall be retained by the principal's office until any deficiency has been removed. Any deviation from these requirements shall be at the discretion of the principal and his staff. Guidance Services The North Little Rock School District maintains a guidance program in its elementary and secondary schools consistent with state and North Central Association regulations. The program provides counseling for students, parents and school personnel relative to students' academic progress, behavior and personal matters. Parents and students are encouraged to seek guidance services at any time. Handguns The North Little Rock School District will enforce Act 649 of 1989, which prohibits minors from possessing or carrying handguns. In Section I, a handgun is defined as, \"a firearm capable of firing rimfire ammunition or centerfire ammunition, which is designed or constructed to be fired with one hand!' Health Services Health services by the school nurse are primarily inspectional rather than diagnostic in nature. Students are routinely screened for hypertension in the 10th grade. Screening for vision and hearing is conducted for new students and is available for others at teacher and/ or parent request. Students receiving special education services may be screened more often depending upon the date of their last comprehensive evaluation. 9 Secondary students participating in interschool competitive athletics, including Special Olympics, are required to pass a physical examination each year BEFORE being allowed to take part in such sports. Free physical examinations are provided at the beginning of the season for all students participating in such sports. Examinations conducted by family medical doctors at parents' expense will also be accepted. Homebound Services Students with medical conditions certified by a medical doctor which will require them to be absent from school for four or more consecutive weeks are eligible for homebound services. Application forms need to be completed as far in advance as possible and are available from Special Services. (771-6123) Homework/Independent Study Skills Recognizing that homework is a flexible and individual instructional responsibility, teachers in the North Little Rock Schools shall consider the following in making this type of assignment: That parent-student understanding of the necessity for homework is desirable. That homework shall be within the limits of individual student ability. That, within the limits of good judgment, homework should vary gradually from fairly light (no more than 15-30 minutes per day) in grades 1-3 to fairly heavy (no more than 60-120 minutes per day) in grades 10-12. That teachers, particularly at the secondary level, shall, at all times, be aware of the student's problem of multiple assignments. That homework, to be purposeful and worthwhile, should, in all probability, vary from day to day depending upon the needs of the students. That the availability of study materials such as reference books at home be considered in assigning homework. The following guidelines for homework and the development of students' independent study skills will be observed in making homework assignments: Assignments will be considered as an extension of the classroom instruction for the purpose of either independent skill practice for mastery or for review of previously mastered skills/ concepts. Assignments will not involve skills/ concepts which have not been previously taught. Assignments to achieve mastery of new skills/concepts will follow guided practice to ensure that the learner can successfully practice the skill /concepts accurately. Maximum use of classroom time for input and supervised study should be planned for each lesson. Some homework assignments can best be accomplished during supervi ed study conducted as part of the allotted instructional period. Assignments will be designed to provide short, frequent practice sessions focused on small segments of learning while maintaining maximum meaning for the learner. Assignments will be made which address common needs of groups of learners and specific needs of individuals rather than automatically assigning common homework to all learners without regard to the individual learner's need. Immediate feedback should be given to the learner whenever possible. Honors Classes Placement in an honors class is based on a student's grades, teacher recommendation and standardized test scores. After all data are studied, the school may issue a written invitation to the student and parent. If this invitation is accepted, then the student is placed in the honors program. .,,, Student progress is monitored continuously to determine if the correct placement has been made. Generally, if a nine-week grade falls below a \"C\", then the student is reassigned to a regular class. The grade in the honors class is weighted one point higher than other classes: A = 5 points B = 4 points C = 3 points D = 2 points F = 0 points Honor Roll Each nine weeks, all secondary schools will prepare honor rolls of students making 4.0 averages and 3.0 averages. To be eligible, a student must be a full-time student, have no failing grades, no incomplete grades and no unsatisfactory citizenship grades. Honor roll eligibility will be based on all subjects taken and on the grade point average (GPA) listed on the report card. Injuries/Illnesses at School When a student is injured in the school building or on the school grounds, the parent will be called immediately. The student may be taken to the family doctor if parents have made emergency numbers and the name of the family d.octor available. When a student becomes ill at school, the parent is called immediately. The student will remain in the health room until the parent can check the student out of school. If contact with the parent cannot be made, the principal and teacher will do what is expedient and safe for the injured and/or seriously ill student, which may include taking/ sending the student to the emergency room of a hospital. The school assumes no responsibility for treatment. Leaving School During School Day All schools in North Little Rock operate as closed campuses. Students must stay on the school grounds from arrival time until the completion of the scheduled day. If at any time during the school day it becomes necessary for a student to leave school, the student must report to the office to obtain permission from both a parent or guardian and a school official and sign the check-out sheet. Any student arriving at school after the tardy bell or returning after an absence during a part of the school day must report to the office to get permission to return to class. Only those students who live within walking distance (five blocks) and have written consent may be granted permission to walk home for lunch. Lockers Locker space is provided for the storage of a student's school supplies and per onal items. In grades JO through 12, students supply their own locks. Students are responsible for the care of their lockers. Lockers are school property, and therefore, are subject to search by school officials when reasonable cause exists. 11 Lost and Found Students are encouraged to label all belongings. Lost and found items will be kept in a designated area. Unclaimed items will be discarded periodically. Magnet Schools Six magnet schools located in Little Rock are available for North Little Rock students. Each offers one or two areas of specialization for students of all ability levels. Magnet schools offer highly-trained staff members and enriched learning activities. Optional enrollment is open to all students, kindergarten through grade twelve. Registration is on a first-come/first-served basis. Once enrolled, a student has priority to continue attending the magnet school, until he or she chooses to transfer to another magnet school or back to the assigned school in North Little Rock. The Arkansas Department of Education provides transportation to and from school for students who attend magnet schools. Pick-up points will be announced at a later date. How to Apply for Magnet School Enrollment Fill out one application for each child. Place in a stamped envelope and mail to: Magnet School Office, North Little Rock School District, P.O. Box 687, North Little Rock, AR 72115. Applications may be obtained by calling 758-1760. Applications are accepted on a first-come/first-served basis according to priorities set by the court. If the target enrollment for a school has ~~en reached, students are placed on a waiting list. Parents receive notification of their child's a::ceptance by mail. High school students wishing to attend Metropolitan should see a school counselor for enrollment information. Interested students and parents must return a completed application form to the North Little Rock School District by May 1. M-to- M Transfers The plan approved by the U.S. District Court allows for majority-to-minority (Mto- M) transfers among the three Pulaski County districts (North Little Rock, Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts.) A student who is enrolled in a district in which his or her race is predominant may enroll in any district and school in the county in which his or her race is in the minority, provided that school offers appropriate programs for the student's needs at his or her grade level. Therefore, any white student in the North Little Rock School District (which is predominantly white) may elect to attend any school in the Little Rock School District (which is predominantly black.) The Arkansas Department of Education will provide transportation from predetermined pickup points for students who participate in the Mto- M transfer plan. How to Apply for M-to-M Transfer Fill out one application for each child. Place in a stamped envelope and mail to: M-to-M Transfer Office, North Little Rock School District, P.O. Box 687, North Little Rock, AR 72115. Applications may be obtained by calling 758-1760. Applications are accepted on a first-come/first-served basis according to priorities set by the court. If the target enrollment for a school has been reached, students are placed 12 on a waiting list. Parents receive notification of their child's acceptance by mail. High school students wishing to attend Metropolitan should see a school counselor for enrollment information. Interested students and parents must return a completed application form to the North Little Rock School District by May 1. Make Up Work A student who misses school due to an \"excused absence\" shall be afforded the opportunity to submit make up work. Following the absence, the teacher and student shall make arrangements for completion of the assignments. In order to receive credit, all work must be completed within the prescribed time. A student who misses school due to an \"unexcused absence\" shall not be afforded an opportunity to submit make up work for credit. Medication Written parent consent is required for the school to administer any medication. A medication consent form should be completed, even for medication given on a temporary basis. Prescription and non-prescription drugs must be brought to the school office in the original container stating the dosage and method of administration. Reasons for the medication must be clearly stated. All medication, including non-prescription drugs, will be kept in the principal's office and will be administered by designated school personnel. Students are encouraged not to possess any non-prescription drugs. (Possession of illegal drugs is addressed in the School Board Policy on Drugs and Alcohol FBO.) Notes from Parents Regarding Absences To be readmitted to school, a student shall bring a note from a parent or legal guardian stating the reason for the absence and the dates of the absence. Notes will be presented to the appropriate staff member. If a note is not received on the day of the return, the student will be readmitted to class with an unexcused absence. Parent-Teacher Association Parents are encouraged to join and participate in Parent-Teacher Association activities. Senior high school Parent-Teacher Association meetings are usually held on the second Tuesday of each month. Physical Education Each secondary student shall be required to take physical education unless a doctor's statement is on file in the principal's office recommending that the student be excused from this activity. Any student who has religious objections to certain activities in the physical education program will be allowed to substitute other activities. Religious objections must have supportive documentation. Upon written request from the parents, a student may be excused from physical education activities on a temporary basis due to illness or injury. 13 Promotions/Retention Students from 9-12 are not classified by grade level except for homeroom and reporting procedures. For such purposes, five units are required for sophomore standing, ten units for junior standing and 15 units for senior standing. It is recommended that individually failed subjects be made up in summer school. Required subjects failed, which are not made up in summer school, must be successfully completed before the student can advance to the next course offering in that sequence. Public Display of Affection Public display of affection is considered inappropriate behavior. Failure to abide by this rule may result in disciplinary action. Religion in Schools The Board respects the sincere religious beliefs of all students and staff members. The Board believes that teaching about religion, as it relates to a study of the historical development of civilization is appropriate. Moreover, it is proper for teachers to enumerate and emphasize the generally accepted moral and ethical principles of the different religions. Teachers shall not, however, evaluate, advocate or place values upon any particular religion or religious belief. No student shall be required to participate in programs or activities which are contrary to the tenets of his/her religion. Speakers who are affiliated with religious organizations shall be allowed to speak in schools only upon the approval of the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent's decision should be guided by the following considerations: The presentation is designed for all students who might attend the assembly or meeting. The presentation does not advocate the beliefs of any denomination, religious group or faith. The presentation does not encourage students to attend worship services or activities associated with specific denominations or beliefs. Reporting Student Progress Report cards are issued to students after each of the first three nine week grading periods. The final report card may be mailed at the parent's expense or picked up in the school office. Written interim reports will be sent home to parents if a student's performance is unsatisfactory. Letter grades (A-F) are used at the secondary level to report progress in academic areas. The following four-point grading scale is used: A= 4.0\nB = 3.0\nC = 2.0\nD = 1.0\nF = 0. Grades shall be based on many factors such as tests, class assignments, class participation, research and special projects and contributions. Students also receive conduct grades. A semester grade point average is computed on the grades from the two nine weeks' grading periods and the sem1:ster test grade. The two nine weeks' grades shall equal 80 percent of the semester grade point average, and the semester test shall equal 20 percent of the semester grade point average. A grade point average (GPA) is computed based on 14 all letter grades a student has received. The letter grades are converted into a numerical value. Grade point averages shall be based on the following scale: 4.0-3.8 = A\n3.79-2.B=B\n2.79-1.B=C\n1.79-1.0=D\nbelow l.O=F. Parents are encouraged to confer with teachers and administrators throughout the year concerning the progress of students. Appointments should be made through the school office. Safety Regulations - Bicycles /Motorcycles/ Other Vehicles Licensed drivers are permitted to drive a motor vehicle to school if the following rules are obeyed: 1. All vehicles must be registered in the office. 2. Vehicles must be parked in designated area. 3. Loitering in the parking lot is not allowed at anytime. 4. Students will leave the lot immediately after parking. 5. Students may not enter the parking lot during school hours unless permission is obtained from the office. 6. Caution in driving should be used at all times. Fast or reckless driving will not be tolerated. It is illegal to pass a school bus while it is loading and unloading. Schedules Assignments to classes are based on available data and are generally expected to be permanent. If errors or changes in student enrollment should occur, the school staff will approve appropriate changes. School Closing In Inclement Weather Weather conditions sometimes force the cancellation or alternate scheduling of school. It is not always possible to provide in advance alternative plans and procedures for students to follow because of the varied circumstances of times and conditions that might arise. Therefore, the District administration is charged with th~ responsibility of making alternate plans, procedures and schedules as the weather conditions warrant and notifying students and parents through the means of broadcast and print media. The guiding principle will be the safety and welfare of the students. School Lunch Hot lunches are provided in the school cafeteria. Students are encouraged to participate in this nutritionally balanced program\nhowever, students may choose to bring a lunch from home. Each student who lives within five blocks of the school will be allowed to walk home during the lunch period provided that a note is brought from the parents stating a desire for a lunch permit to be granted. Students will not be excused to eat lunch anywhere else except at home, and only those students having a permit will be allowed to leave the school campus during the lunch period. The North Little Rock School District operates a lunch assistance program which complies with federal guidelines. Students must not sell, give away or exchange lunch tokens. Unused tokens must be returned to the school office. lS School Supplies Parents are responsible for furnishing school supplies. Basic supplies are available for purchase at the school. Search, Seizure and Interrogation The District respects the rights of students' privacy and security against arbitrary invasion of their person or property. School officials do have the right, however, to search students and their property in the interest of the overall welfare of other students or when necessary to preserve order and discipline in the school. School authorities may conduct searches of student lockers, desks and automobiles when a reasonable cause exists to believe that stolen items or items prohibited by law or policy are contained in the area to be searched. School officials may seize illegal contraband, weapons or stolen property found in a search. The search of a student's person shall be conducted by a school official of the same sex and with an adult witness of the same sex present. Interrogations by law enforcement authorities shall be conducted in private with the school principal or designee present. Efforts shall be made to have a parent or guardian present. In the event a parent or guardian cannot be present within a reasonable length of time, law enforcement officials shall be permitted to proceed with questioning. Special Education A special education program is provided for handicapped students whose handicap-ping conditions result in educational deficits. Special education services are available for: l. Speech/Language handicapped 2. Learning disabled 3. Mentally retarded 4. Orthopedically handicapped 5. Emotionally disturbed 6. Severely/profoundly handicapped 7. Hearing or visually impaired 8. Other health impaired Referral for consideration to receive special education services may be made to the principal by teachers, administrators, parents, counselors and students. The decision for appropriate placement is made after all available data are reviewed by an evaluation/programming committee and appropriate school personnel. Student Assignments School attendance zones for elementary, junior high school and high school students shall be established in accordance with the Federal Court ordered desegregation plan. Students shall attend the schools as assigned by the District. If a family moves from one attendance zone to another during the final nine weeks of school, the students may, at the option of the parent or guardian, elect to complete the school year in either of the two zones. Students who establish residence in another school district may, at the option of the parents, continue enrollment in a North Little Rock school if the change in residence occurs within the final nine weeks of school. 16 Student Behavior - Prohibited Conduct Appropriate learning opportunities can be afforded students only in an environment that is free from conflict, distraction, intimidation and various other influences that result from student misbehavior. Certain students' actions are beyond the definition of acceptable student behavior and are, therefore, prohibited in school and while traveling to and from school. Prohibited conduct may include, but is not limited to the following: 1. Disregard of directions or commands of teachers, administrators, bus drivers or other authorized school personnel. 2. Disruption and/or interference with the normal and orderly conduct of school and school-sponsored activities. 3. Behavior that involves indecent and/or immoral acts. 4. Wagering or any form of gambling. 5. Physical abuse or assault to a school employee, other student or any other individual. 6. Possession of a knife, razor, ice pick, explosive, pistol, rifle, shotgun, pellet gun or any other object that can be considered a weapon or dangerous instrument. 7. Using, offering for sale, or selling alcoholic beverages, any narcotic drug as defined by Arkansas law, or what the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by the district policy on Drugs and Alcohol. 8. Destruction of or the attempt to destroy school property. 9. Stealing or the attempt to steal school property or the property belonging to an-other individual. 10. Cheating or copying the work of another student. 11. Failure to abide by attendance rules. 12. Use of profanity, vulgar language or obscene language. 13. Committing extortion, coercion, blackmail or forcing another person to act through the use of force or threat of force. 14. Engaging in verbal abuse such as namecalling, ethnic or racial slurs or using derogatory statements to other students, school personnel or other individuals. 15. Hazing. Hazing includes any willful act done by a student, either individually or with others, to another student for the purpose of subjecting the other student to indignity, humiliation, intimidation, physical abuse or threats of abuse, social or other ostracism, shame or disgrace. The School District reserves the right to establish rules in addition to those appearing in this policy and to punish those who are guilty of their violation. Punishment may include corporal punishment, detention study hall, suspension and expulsion. Any of these disciplinary actions may occur on the first offense or any subsequent offense depending upon the nature of the situation and the age of the student involved in the situation. The student shall be informed of the offense and shall be afforded an opportunity to explain the actions before disciplinary action is taken. 17 Student Dress and Grooming The general climate of any school is reflected by the dress, grooming and manners of the students\ntherefore, students are expected to wear appropriate clothing and to present a neat appearance at all times. Students, with the help and approval of parents, know what is acceptable attire for school ~ctivities\nmoderation in type and style should be the basic standard. The following guidelines should be followed: 1. Grooming or dress which could cause blocked vision or restricted movement is discouraged, as well as dress styles that create or are likely to create a disruption of classroom order. No hats or sunglasses will be allowed to be worn in the building. 2. Clothing which displays profanity, nudity or suggestive comments or clothing that is supportive of illegal chemicals, tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, drug paraphernalia, etc. will not be tolerated. 3. Clothing or shoes made of materials or of such structure that cause damage to school facilities will not be permitted. 4. During warm weather, students will be permitted to wear shorts\nhowever, the appearance of students should not be disruptive to the educational atmosphere of the school. 5. For health and safety reasons, students must wear shoes at school at all times. 6. Clothing shall be clean and appropriate for school wear. Articles of dress which are distracting or which fail to conform to reasonable rules of decency shall not be worn. If, in the judgment of the administration, a student's attire is a health hazard or a distraction to the educational atmosphere of the school, the student will be asked to go home and make proper adjustments. Disciplinary action may occur if grooming or dress violations continue. Student Insurance An accident insurance policy is offered to all students at the beginning of the school year on a voluntary basis. Parents may choose school day coverage or 24 hour coverage. Expenses above and beyond either policy covered by the student accident insurance will be assumed by the parents. Student Records Authorized school personnel shall have access to students' records. The parent or legal guardian shall have access to his child's records upon written request to the principal. If a student is 18 years old or older, he/ she has the right to determine who, outside of the school system, may have access to his/her records. A student's records may be released to other school systems upon the written request of the parent or guardian, or student if he/she is 18 years old or older. A student's records may also be released to other school systems upon their request, provided that notification is given to the parent or legal guardian, or student if he/she is 18 years old or older. Parents have the right to request that the school withdraw material from a student's record. Refusal by the school entitles the parent to a hearing to determine if material is accurate and appropriate. If at the hearing, material is ruled to be accurate, material remains in the file, but parents may prepare a statement to be placed with the material stating their objection. Statement is to be made available with objectional material whenever access is permitted. Directory information may be made available for noncommercial uses by the school 18 principal without the prior consent of the parent. However, at the beginning of each school year, the parent may request that all or part of such information not be made available. Directory information shall be defined as: Student's name Address  Phone number Parent's name Grade level School(s) attended  Activity participation  Height and weight, if member of athletic team  Dates of attendance  Honors and awards received Student Suspension The Board of Education recognizes that many alternatives are necessary to a workable system for maintaining good student conduct. Among those alternatives is student suspension. The Board views student suspension as a serious matter and believes that all other less severe measures should be tried before students are excluded from the regular school experience. Within the scope of this policy, the school principal may suspend students for a period of time not to exceed 10 days for any one action. Students may be suspended off-campus or in the case of secondary students, to the on-campus Student Assignment Class. The following guidelines are to be followed in imposing student suspensions: 1. Suspensions are to be imposed only by the principal. 2. The principal shall advise a student who is to be suspended of the exact nature of the misconduct and shall give the student the opportunity to express his/her perception of the facts of the matter. 3. In the case of secondary students, genuine efforts shall be made to contact the parent prior to imposing a student suspension. 4. The parent or legal guardian and the Superintendent of Schools shall be given written notice of each suspension. The notice shall include the specific reason(s) for the suspension, its duration, the manner in which the student is to be readmitted to school and (if appropriate) the method through which the suspension may be reviewed or appealed. The notice shall be mailed to the parent or legal guardians at the address reflected on the student's records on the day the suspension is imposed. If a suspension exceeds four school days in addition to the day the suspension is imposed, the parent shall be notified of the right to have-the decision to suspend reviewed by the Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs. At the review, the student and the student's parent or legal guardian may make statements and present evidence. The Assistant Superintendent may sustain, revoke, terminate or otherwise modify the suspension. The student, parent of record, the principal and the Superintendent of Schools shall be notified of the Assistant Superintendent's decision on the day the review is completed. Students may be suspended for the violation of rules established by the school and within the scope of policies adopted by the Board. 19\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eNorth Little Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_923","title":"Senior High School, Parent-Student Handbook","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["North Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1989/1992"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","School districts--Arkansas--North Little Rock","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School discipline","Student activities","Students","Parents"],"dcterms_title":["Senior High School, Parent-Student Handbook"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/923"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["handbooks"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nThe transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.\n1991--1992 SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL PARENT-STUDENT HANDBOOK NORTH LIITLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH LIITLE ROCK, ARKANSAS NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Parent-Student Statement of Responsibility Student Name Date The statement below must be signed and returned to the homeroom teacher within one (1) week after the student receives the handbook. We have read the North Little Rock Parent-Student Handbook. We understand the District's discipline policies and realize that the student must adhere to these and to the other policies, rules and procedures contained in the Handbook. In the event that we are not entirely certain of some aspect of school policy, we will contact the principal for clarification. Student Signature Parent/Guardian Signature Date State law (80-1629.6-8~1629.8) requires documentation of student and parent receipt of student discipline policies. This document will become part of the student's file. (over) Emergency Procedure Information Date ____ Student's Name _______________ _ Date of Birth ______________________ _ Address _______________ Home Phone ____ _ In case of emergency, illness or accident to the student named above, the school is authorized to proceed as indicated. Number below in order of desired action. __ Contact parent at number listed above. __ Contact father at Business Name Phone __ Contact mother at ___________________ _ Business Name Phone __ Contact other ____________________ _ Name Phone Physician's Name ___________ ~ _ Phone ____ _ Hospital Preference ____________________ _ Signature of Parents or Guardians: Mother's Signature Father's Signature Student's Signature It is nry important that t~ be returned to the school offke as soon as pos.gble. SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL PARENT-STUDENT HANDBOOK NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT James R. Smith Superintendent 1991, 1992 'iJ'IHIIlr! :l@m'i1'II!H..III 'i1''i1m'I!.@.~~ [K[\\F )Il!IDI!~..~IlI~H IOOI!..~ ADMINISTRATIVOEF FICES 2700 POPLARS TREET August 1991 Dear Students and Parents, The North Little Rock School District is recognized as a quality educational institution. Sound academic programs, great variety of offerings, special programs to meet student needs, and strong school spirit have led to educational excellence in our schools. Excellence has been maintained through the outstanding support and cooperation of the students and patrons of our school district. I thank you for that support and cooperation and look forward to a continued good working relationship. This handbook has been provided so that you will better understand the purposes, policies, and regulations of the North Little Rock School District. It is important that you familiarize yourself with the total contents and that the handbook be retained for reference from time to time. If you have questions regarding information included in the handbook or any other matter, please contact the principal's office. We welcome suggestions that will help make the North Little Rock Schools even better. I hope that this school year is a happy and productive one for you. ~-u James Smith Superintendent of Schools P.O. BOX 687, NORTH umE RCCK, AR 72115/0687 501/758-1760 ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS RESPONSIBILITIES The undersigned superintendent for the North Little Rock School District in Pulaski County, assures the Director, General Division, Arkansas Department of Education, that all School::: within the District are in compliance with the following Civil Rights Regulations as stated: ******** Title VI, Section 601, of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded for participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Title IX, Section 901, of the Education Amendment of 1972 No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or 'be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. This is to certify that the District's Civil Rights Coordinator is: Name: Mable Bynum Telephone:_7_7_1_-_8_0_0___0_ __ _ Address: 2700 Poplar Street (P.O. Box 687) North Little Rock, AR 72115 July, 1991 Date COMPLAINTS AND PROBLEM SOLVING A good communication link between the school and the home is necessary if students are to receive the maximum benefits from the educational opportunities available to them in the schools of North Little Rock. Good communication results from open, frequent and objective dialogue among students, teachers, parents and school administrators. Most school problems are the result of poor communication among the parties involved. Proper communication, therefore, usually solves most, if not all, problems that are related to the school. In order to ensure that problems are discussed and solved as quickly and fairly as possible, the following procedure is to be employed in the North Little Rock School District. If a parent becomes concerned about a problem at the classroom level, the parent should make an appointment with the teacher and thoroughly discuss the matter. Most problems are solved at this level. Should the problem not be solved through discussions with the teacher, or if the problem is not related to classroom activities, the parent should contact the principal for further attempts to find a workable solution. If the parent is not satisfied with solutions offered at the building level, the matter may be appealed to the appropriate educational director or assistant superintendent at the District Administrative Office. The phone number is 771-8000. After other appeals have been exhausted, the parent may appeal to the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent may uphold, overturn or modify decisions made by other District administrators. An appeal of a decision by the Superintendent may be heard only by the School Board while an official meeting of the Board is being held. Ii - I S M T w T F s North Llttle Rock s M T w T F s Aug. 18 SD lcn ,_ _.\n: .,r SchooDl istrict i I..,_. I SD 24 Jan. H H H 4 II 25 1262 7 28 29 30 31 1991.9c2a lendar 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I Sept. Aug. 26, first school 12 13 14 1 H 3 4 5 6 7 day lo! students 15 16 17 18 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Sept. 2. labor Day. 19 H 21 22 2] w 25 no school 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Nov 1 . teacher 26 g1 28 29 30 31 wor1(danyo. school 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Nov. 7-8, AEA meetingsn, o school Feb. 1 29 30 I! 2 3 4 5 Nov 11-15, 6 7 8 parent conlaranoas. II. Oct. 1 2 3 4 5 schoool ut 1 houre arly 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 6 7 8 9 Nov,2 8-29. 16 17 18 19 20 21 10 11 12 Thanksgivinhgo idays, 22 no school 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Dec 23  Jan. 3, 23 s 25 26 27 28 29 Ill wint81h olidaysn, o school II 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Mar. 1 2 3 Jan. 20, Dr. Kng Day, 4 5 6 7 27 28 29 30 31] no school 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Jan. 24, 18acher Nov. w 2 wor1(dany,o school 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 3 ~ 5 6 SD H 9 Feb.2 4,s lafl development 22 23 24 25 26 w ~8 day, no school 10 I\"- 1~ pc pc I''- March 27, teacher 29 SB SB 11 13 14 15 16 wori(dayn, o school 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 sMparirncghb3 r0e aAkp,r il3 Afx. :SES B SE 4 24 25 26 27 H H 30 no school 5 ~~ r I''- ~c pc Apri 6-10, . 8 10 11 Dec. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 parenct onlerenoas. 12 13 14 15 16 H ~8 schoool ut t houre arly 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Apri 17, holiday, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 no school 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 May 25, Memorial 26 27 28 29 30 Da~, r,o school 22 H H H H H ~8 June 3, last May 1 2 29 H H scnood1a y 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I w 176s choodl ays 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 187t eacherd ays 1, W TeacheWr orkdaSy,t udenHt oliday 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~3 SD StaffD evelopmeDnat yS, tudenHt oliday ~ H 26 27 28 29 30 includerse quiredde segregatiionns ervice H Holidafyo rS tudentasn dS taff I BeginN ineW eek.Pse riod June 1 2 ~ w 5 6 I EndN ineW eek.Pse riod SB SpringB reak 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 II Table of Contents Absences And Excuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Arrival Time At School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Arkansas School Law Governing School Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Arkansas School Law Governing Compulsory Attendance Age . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Behavior At School Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Bus Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Care Of School Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Change Of Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Communicable Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Conduct To And From School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Contact With Students While At School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Corporal Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Demonstrations And Disorderly Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Detention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Discipline For Handicapped Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Disruption Of School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Distribution Of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Drugs And Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Electronic Communication Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Emergency Phone Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Entrance Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Expulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Field Trips ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Food Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Gifted I Talented Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Graduation Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Guidance Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Handguns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Health Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Homebound Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Homework / Independent Study Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Honors Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Honor Graduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Honor Roll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Injuries I Illnesses At School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Leaving School During School Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Lockers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Lost And Found . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Magnet Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 How To Apply For Magnet School Enrollment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 M - To - M Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 How To Apply For M - To - M Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Make Up Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Medication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Notes From Parents Regarding Absences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Parent - Teacher Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Physical Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Promotions / Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Public Display Of Affection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Religion In Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Reporting Student Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Safety Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Bicycles / Motorcycles / Other Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 School Closing In Inclement Weather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Search, Seizure And Interrogation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Smoking/ Use Of Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Special Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Student Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Student Behavior - Prohibited Conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Student Dress And Grooming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Student Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Student Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Summer School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Suspension From School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Tardies............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Telephones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Testing Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Textbooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Weapons And Dangerous Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Work Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 ABSENCES AND EXCUSES The Board believes the fundamental right to attend public schools places upon students the accompanying responsibility to be regular in attendance. Regular attendance can be assumed to be essential for a student's successful progress in the instructional program. In accordance with Board policy, only the following absences shall be considered excused absences, provided that in such instance parental confirmation has been received of the reason for the absence: 1. Illness 2. The existence of family emergency or other family situations which have received prior approval by the principal 3. When the student is on official school business. When a student returns to school after being absent, he/she shall bring a written statement from the parents with an explanation of the reason for the absence and the date of the absence. Students having unexcused tardies or absences shall be disciplined accordingly. No make-up work shall be allowed if the absence is unexcused. A student who accrues 12 excused and unexcused absences in a course during a semester shall not receive credit for that course. Exceptions may be granted by the principal after consultation with teachers, counselors and others who have knowledge of the circumstances. Except in the cases of illness or other excusable reason, students are expected to attend every day in which school is in session. The Board does not recognize \"skip days\" or other similar days when students willfully miss school. Such absences shall be unexcused, and no make-up work shall be allowed. Because a student is required to be m attendance, days of suspension to the Student Assignment Class are not counted as days of absence. A student who is exempted from compulsory school attendance will not be permitted to enroll after the 12tb day of the first semester or after the 12th day of the second semester unless the principal determines that extenuating circumstances exist. Students who are absent during all or part of a school day shall not participate in any school activity on that day or night unless permission is granted through the principal's office. ACTMTIES Eligibility to participate in athletic activities is governed by the Arkansas Activities Association (AAA), including the requirement that a student passes four academic subjects from the preceding semester. A 1.6 grade point average is required from the preceding semester. Any competitive interscholastic activity under the jurisdiction of AAA must meet these schofastic requirements. Additionaf information regarding activities may be obtained from the school office. Eligibility to be a cheerleader or a drill team member is determined by the same standards as athletic participation. Clubs and organizations related to special interests or subject areas do not have minimum grade requirements except those clubs and orgamzations that are governed by charters from parent organizations. All clubs and student orgamzations shall operate under the direction of the principal and shall be under the supervision of a staff member appointed or approved by the principal. Membership to student organizations and clubs shall not be restricted on the basis of race, sex, national origin or other arbitrary criteria. Entry shall not be by decision of the current membership of the organization. 1 ARRIVAL TIME AT SCHOOL IdeaJly, students should not arrive at school more than 10 minutes before school opens l or before bus departure time) except to participate in scheduled activities. The District recognizes that this ideal cannot always be realized because of family schedules\nhowever, because children must have the security of supervision, absolute limits must exist as to when the school will assume responsibility. The North Little Rock School District assumes this responsibility up to 30 minutes before school hours for students who do not ride a bus to another school and up to 15 minutes for those who do. Parents must make other arrangements outside these limitations. ARKANSAS SCHOOL LAW GOVERNING SCHOOL ATTENDANCE Arkansas school law pertaining to school attendance is as follows: SECTION 1. Arkansas Code 6-18-222 is hereby amended to read as follows: (a)(l)(A) The board of directors of each school district in this state shall adopt a student attendance policy as provided for in 6-18-209 which shall include a certain number of excessive absences which may be used as a basis for denial of course credit, promotion, or graduation. However, excessive absences shall not be a basis for e~ulsion or dismissal of a student. (tl) The legislative intent is that a student having excessive absences because of illness, accident, or other unavoidable reason should be given assistance in obtaining credit for the course. (2) A copy of the school district's student attendance policy shall be provided to the student's parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis at the beginning of the school year or upon enrollment, whichever event first occurs. (3) The student's parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis shall be notified wben the student has accumulated excessive absences e9ual to one-half (1/2) the total number of absences permitted under the school districts student attendance policy per semester. Notice shall be by telephonic contact with the student's parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis by the end of the school day in which such absence occurred or by regular mail with a return address on the envelope sent no later than the following scliool day. (4) Whenever a student exceeds the number of excessive absences provided for in the district's student attendance policy, the school district shall notify the prosecuting authority, and the student's parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis shall be subject to a civil penalty in such an amount as a court of competent Jurisdiction presiding in the presence of a representative of the school district may prescribe, but not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) plus costs of court and any reasonable fees assessed by the court. The penalty shall be forwarded by the court to the school attended by the student. (5) Upon notification by the school district to the prosecuting authority, the prosecuting autbority shall file an action in the appropriate court to impose the civil penalty set forth in subdivision (a)(4) of the section and shall take whatever action 1s necessary to collect the penalty provided for therein. The failure of the prosecuting autho1ity to timely file an action or pursue collection on a case once notified shall be considered neglect of duty, subjecting the prosecuting attorney to the provisions of 16-21-116. (6) The penalty set forth in this section is to impress upon the parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis the importance of school attendance and is not to be used as a primary source of revenue. When assessing penalties, the court shall be aware of any available programs designed to improve the parent-child relationship or parenting skills. When practicable and appropriate, . the ~urt may utilize mandatory attendance to such programs as well as commumty service reqmrements in lieu of monetary penalties. 2 (7) In cases where the court determines the student's unexcused absences cannot be attributed to the parents, guardians, or persons in loco parentis, the action may be suspended or dismissed conditioned on a petition being filed in juvenile court to seek services on behalf of the student. (8) As used in this section, 'prosecuting authority' means the elected district prosecuting attorney or his apJ\u0026gt;?inted deputy for schools located in unincorporated areas of the county or within cities not having a police or municipal court and means the prosecuting attorney of the city for schools located within the city limits of cities having either a police court or a municipal court in which a city prosecutor represents the city for violations of city ordinances or traffic violations. (9) In any instance where it IS found that the school district or prosecuting authority IS not complying with the provisions of this section, the State Board of Education may petition the circuit court to issue a writ of mandamus. (b )(1) Each public, _private, or parochial school shall notify the Department of Finance and Admmistrahon whenever a student fourteen (14) years of age or older is no longer in school. (2)(AJ Upon receipt of such notification, the Department of Finance and Administration shall notify the licensee by certified mail, return receipt requested, that his motor vehicle operator's license will be suspended unless a hearing is requested in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of notice. (B) The licensee shall be entitled to retain or regain his license by providing the Department of Finance and Administration with adequate evidence that: (i) The licensee is eighteen (18) years of age\n(ii) The licensee is attending school\nor (iii) The licensee has obtained a high school diploma or its equivalent. (C)(i) In cases where demonstrable financial hardship would result from the suspension or the learner's permit or driver's license, the Department of Finance and Administration may grant exceptions only to the extent necessary to ameliorate the hardship. (ii) If it can be demonstrated that the conditions for granting a hardship were fraudulent, the parent, guardian, or person in loco parentis shall be subject to all applicable perjury statutes. (D) The Department of Finance and Administration shall have the power to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the intent of this section and shall distribute to each public, private, and parochial school a copy of all rules and regulations adopted under this section.\" Act 876 of 1989 authorizes school districts to enter into cooperative agreements with law enforcement agencies to detain suspected truants during school hours. The North Little Rock Police Department will detain and question school-age children who are not in school on those days and hours that the North Little Rock schools are in session. Students who are off school grounds without permission from the school will be transported to the Alternative Scbool from where parents will be contacted for further action on the truancy. ARKANSAS SCHOOL LAW GOVERNING COMPULSORYA TTENDANCEA GE Arkansas school law pertaining to compulsory attendance/age is as follows: SECTION 1. Arkansas Code 6-18-20l(a) is hereby amended to read as follows: \"( a) Every parent, guardian, or other person residing within the State of Arkansas having custody or charge of any child or children age five (5) through seventeen (17) years on October 1 of that year, both inclusive, shall enroll and send the child or children to a public, private, or parochial school or provide a home school for the child or children as described in 6-15-601 et seq. under such penalty for noncompliance as shall be set by law with the following exceptions: (1) Any child who has received a high school diploma, or its equivalent as determined by the State Board of Education, is not subject to attendance requirement. 3 (2) Any parent, guardian, or other person residing within the state and having custody or charge of any child or children may elect for the child or children not to attend kindergarten if the child or children will not be age six (6) on October 1 of that particular school year. If such an election is made, the parent, guardian, or other person having custody or charge of the child must file a signed kindergarten waiver form with the local district administrative office. Such form shall be prescribed by regl.!lation of the State Department of Education. On filing the kindergarten waiver form, the child or children shall not be required to attend kindergarten m that school year. (3) Any child enrolled in a postsecondary vocation/technical institution, a community college or a two-year or four-year institution of higher education, is not subject to this attendance requirement. ( 4) The local school district may grant a waiver of this requirement with notice to the State Board of Education.\" BEHAVIOR AT SCHOOL ACTMTIES Students attending school sponsored activities, on-campus or off-campus, shall be governed by school district rules and regulations and will be subject to the authority of school district personnel. Failure to obey rules and regulations and/or failure to obey reasonable instructions of school personnel may result in loss of eligibility to attend school sponsored events. Failure to comply and District rules and regulations may also result m disciplinary action applicable under the regular school program. BUS CONDUCT Since the school bus is an extension of the classroom, students shall be required to conduct themselves on the bus in a manner consistent with established standards for classroom behavior. When a student does not conduct himself/herself properly on a bus, such instances shall be brought to the attention of the building principal by the bus driver. The building principal shall inform the parents immediately of the misconduct and seek their cooperation in controlling the student's behavior. The principal shall discipline guilty students as deemed appropriate. A student who becomes a serious disciplinary problem on the school bus may have transportation privileges suspended or termmated. In such cases, the parents of the students involved shall become responsible for seeing that their children get to and from school. CARE OF SCHOOL PROPER1Y Deliberate destruction or damage to school property will result in payment for loss, as well as other disciplinary action which may mclude police involvement. Careless destruction or damage may result in a requirement to pay damages. CHANGE OF ADDRESS office. It is the parent's responsibility to keep addresses current in the school COMMUNICABLE DISEASE The Board of Directors hereby authorizes the Superintendent to make determinations on the exclusion of a student/individual suffering from a reportable disease, as defined by the Arkansas Department of Health, on a temeorary basis not to exceed ten (10) school days. An exclusion longer than ten (10) days shall be brou~t before the Board of Directors immediately for a determination on the indiV1dual's status. Before any official action is taken by the Board for an exclusion 4 longer then ten (10) days, the individual shall be provided an opportunity for a hearing before the Board of Directors upon appropnate notice. Student/individuals excluded for reason of infectious/communicable disease shall be readmitted by one or more of the following methods as determined by the State Department of Health: 1. B:x permit for readmission issued by the State Department of Health. 2. After a period of time corresponding to the duration of the communicability of the disease as establisfied by the State Department of Health. 3. By application to the School Health Advisory Committee and upon the recommendation of the School Health Advisory Committee. CONDUCT TO AND FROM SCHOOL School officials may take discielinary action against any student who does not exhibit proper personal conduct while traveling to and from school. CONTACT WITH STUDENTS WHILE AT SCHOOL In case of question about the legal custody of a student, the principal shall require the necessary documentation in order to make a valid determination of who has custody and what, if any, limitations are imposed. In cases of estrangement where legal custody has been afforded a parent, or wnere other legal restrictions have been decided, it shall be the responsibility of the custodial parent to make such information known to the principal. Estranged parents may visit with students during school hours with consent of the parent holding legal custody. Without such consent, visits shall be in the presence of the principal. If the police, SCAN, or family service agencies wish to contact students for the p~se of obtaining information, the principal shall cooperate. If removal from school 1s requested, the principal shall inform tile parent or legal guardian prior to any release of the student. If tlie principal is presented a subpoena by a police officer or if an agent of the social services presents a court order signed by a judge, he must release the student with or without communication with the parent or legal guardian. CORPORAL PUNISHMENT Corporal punishment in any form will not be used as a disciplinary measure in the North Li_ttle Rock Public Schools by any teacher, administrator, or other school personnel. DEMONSTRATIONS AND DISORDERLY ACTMTIES Demonstrations and disorderly activities on the part of any student or group of students at any time on school grounds shall not be tolerated. Participation in any such demonstration activities, no matter how we11-intentioned, may bring about immediate suspension and possible expulsion from school. Demonstration and disorderly activities on school grounds during school hours shall, if circumstances justify, be promptly handled by civil authorities. DETENTION Elementary and secondary school principals may establish student detention (D Halls) as a means of discipline to preserve an effective learning environment. :Detention may be used before and/or after regular school hours. Parents shall be notified in advance and early/late detention has been assigned and shall assume responsibility for student transportation. The North Little Rock School District wiJI operate a Saturday Detention School between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Secondary students assigned 5 Saturday detention will be expected to work on school assignments during the four hour program. Transportation to and from Saturday Detention School will be the responsibility of the student and his/her family. DISCIPLINE FOR HANDICAPPED STUDENTS Handicapped students who engage in misbehavior are subject to normal school disciplinary rules and procedures so long as treatment does not abridge the right to a free, appropriate public education. DISRUPTION OF SCHOOL No student shall by use of violence, force, noise, coercion, threat, intimidation, fear, passive resistance, or any other conduct intentionally cause the substantial and material disruption or obstruction of any lawful mission, process or function of the school. Neither shall a student engage in such conduct for the purpose of causing the substantial and material disruption or obstruction of any lawful mission, process, or function of the school if such a disruption or obstruction is reasonably certain to result. Neither shall a student urge other students to en~age in such conduct for the purpose of causing the substantrnl and material disruption or obstruction of any lawful mission, process, or function of the school if the disruption or obstruction 1s reasonably certain to result from his/her urging. Any student who threatens a teacher or a teacher's family shall be disciplined by the building administration. The student will not return to class until the 6uilding administration has taken appropriate action concerning the incident. A conference with the custodial parent or guardian, an administrator and the teacher, will be scheduled by a buildmg admimstrator as soon as possible following the incident. DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE All publications edited, printed or distributed in the name of, or within the schools of the North Little Rock School District, shall be under the direction and control of the school administration and Board. In allowing the distribution of student literature, the principal shall set firm and fair regulations for students to follow. DRUGS AND ALCOHOL The North Little Rock School District recognizes that student alcohol and other drug use is illegal and harmful and can seriously impair capacity to learn and to function effectively in our schools. Therefore, the North Little Rock School District prohibits the possession, use, distribution or sale of such substances as outlined in Student Policy FBO. Further, the North Little Rock School District supports a comprehensive program approach which includes prevention, early identification/ referral, intervention, and support/after-care to prevent or disrupt the use of alcohol and other drugs. Policy FBO applies to any student who is on school property, who is in attendance at school or at a school-sponsored activity (including any student who has left the campus for any reason and who returns to the campus), or whose conduct at any time or in any place interferes with or obstructs the mission or operation of the school district. It shall be a violation of policy for any student: 1. To sell, supply or give, or attempt to sell, supply, or give to any person any of the substances listed in this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance listed in this policy. 6 2. To possess, procure or purchase, to attempt to possess, procure or purchase, to be under the influence of (legal mtoxication not required), or to use or consume or attempt to use or consume, the substances listed in this policy or what is represented to the student to be any of the substances hsted in this policy or what the student believes to be any of the substances listed in this policy. Prohibited substances shall include, but not be limited to: alcohol or any alcoholic beverage\nmarijuana\nany narcotic drug\nany hallucinogen\nany stimulant\nany depressant\nany other controlled (illegal) substance\nany substance, legal or illegal, that alters the student's ability to act, tf1ink, or respond\nany other substance that the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by this policy\nor any substance manufactured to look like a substance prohibited by this policy. Any student engaging in any of the activities with any of the prohibited substances listed above sha11 be subject to the following penalties: A. Use or possession of any substance prohibited by this policy or what the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by this policy. (1) First violation: The student shall be suspended off-campus for a minimum of ten school days. The pohce may be called. Proof of professional help is required when the student returns to school, and a parental conference is required prior to readmission. (2) Second violation: The student shall be expelled for the remainder of the schoolJear. B. Selling any substance prohibite by this policy or what the student rerresents or believes to be any substance prohibited by this policy. ( ) The police will be summoned. (2) The student will be expelled for the remainder of the school year. Any student suspended or expelled in accordance with this policy shall be required to seek professional counseling prior to readmission to school. The student will receive full counseling through District approved professional counseling services at his/her own expense. Upon readmission, continued enrollment shall be contingent upon completion of the alcohol/drug counseling program. Failure to complete the alcohoVdrug counseling may be grounds for expulsion. ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DEVICES The North Little Rock School District will enforce Act 146 of 1989, which prohibits elementary and secondary students from possessing paging devices or electronic communication devices on school campuses. EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS Emergency phone numbers where parents can be contacted are to be provided for each student enrolled in the school. It is the parent's responsibility to keep these numbers current and up-to-date. ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS In order to enroll in a school in the District, a student must be a bona fide resident and must meet age requirements. The minimum age for enrollment in public school kindergarten shall be age five on or before October 1 of the year of imtial enrollment. Any student who has been enrolled in a state accredited or approved kindergarten program in another state for a period of not less than sixty days, who will become five during the school year in which he is enrolled in kindergarten and whose parents or guardians establish domicile in a public school district m the State of Arkansas may be enrolled in kindergarten upon written request of the student's parents or guardians. 7 The minimum age for enrollment in the first grade of any public school in the state shall be age six on or before October 1 of tlie year of m1tial enrollment. Any student who has been enrolled in grade one of an accredited or state approved elementary school in another state for a period of not less than 60 days, who will become age six during the school year in which he is enrolled in grade one and whose parents or guardians are residents of Arkansas, may be enrolleo in grade one upon request thereby in writing by a parent or guardian. Any six year old who has not completed an accredited kindergarten program prior to initial enrollment in a public school district shall be evaluated by the District and placed in the first grade if the evaluation results indicate that the child is ready for enrollment at the first grade level. If the evaluation results indicate that the child is not ready for enrollment at the first grade level, the child shall be enrolled in the District's kindergarten program. Each school must have a placement committee consisting of the principal, a kindergarten teacher, a first grade teacher, and the child's parents. The committee's primary task is to determine whether the student should be placed in a kindergarten or a first grade classroom. A student who has been enrolled in a first grade of an Arkansas School District or a private school but whose parents reside in the North Little Rock School District shall not be allowed to enroll in the first grade in the District if the child's sixth birthday falls after October 1 of that year. Act 838 of 1991 mandates that no child shall be admitted to any public school without an official copy of that child's birth certificate and that child's social security number. School authorities may temporarily admit a child who has not been provided an official birth certificate or social secunty number if: 1. other proof of the child's date of birth is submitted along with a comp1eted, postage paid application and money order so that an official birth certificate can be secured\nor 2. a completed and postage paid application for a social security number is provided so that a social security number can be obtained. Act 838 also states that if there is an objection to using the social security number on school records, parents can waive the requirement by signing a notarized statement regarding their objections. With that waiver, an individualized number similar to a social security number will be assigned to the student. When a student moves into the District from attendance in an accredited school, he/she shalJ be placed in the same grade that would have been assigned in the former school. Students who have attended an unaccredited school shalJ be evaluated by the District and proper grade placement determined. Arkansas law reqmres that all students be immunized against poliomyelitis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whopping cough) and red (RubeolaJ measles. Students who do not comply with this requuement shall be excluded from school enrollment. A student entenng a school in the District for the first time shall submit a copy of his/her immunization record. EXPULSION The Board of Education is authorized to expel a student for the remainder of the school term: 1) for conduct that is deemed to be of such gravity as to make a relatively short tempora1y suspension inappropriate, 2) when the Board finds that the student's continued attendance at school would be unacceptably disruptive to the educational program, or 3) when continued attendance would present unreasonable danger to otber students and faculty members. Arkansas Statute 80-1516 provides that directors of a school district may exclude students for immorality, refractory conduct, insubordination, infectious disease, habitual uncleanliness or other conduct that would tend to impair the discipline of the school or harm the other students. 8 FIELD TRIPS A field trip is defined as any organized educational experience outside the classroom involving travel. Written parental consent must be obtained for each field trip. FOOD SERVICES Hot lunches are provided in the school cafeteria. Students are encouraged to participate in these nutntionally balanced programs\nhowever, students may choose to bring a lunch from home. Each student who lives within five blocks of the school will be allowed to walk home during the lunch period provided that a note is brought from the parents stating a desire for a lunch permit to be granted. Students will not be excused to eat lunch anywhere else except at home, and only those students having a permit will be allowed to leave the campus during the lunch period. The North Little Rock School District operates a meal assistance program which complies with federal guidelines. Meal assistance in the form of free or reduced price meals is available with the lunch program. Students must not sell, give away or exchange lunch tokens. Unused tokens must be returned to the school office. GIFTED{fALENTED EDUCATION A program of gifted/talented education is provided for those students who require differentiated activities and services beyond those normally provided in the regular school program. Students who are above average in ability, task commitment and creativity may be considered for the program. Students must exemplify an interaction of these three traits. Referral for consideration to receive services through the gifted/talented program may be made to the principal by school personnel, parents, peers or the student. The decision for placement 1s made after all available data are reviewed by a referral/placement committee. English Mathematics Social Studies Practical Arts Physical Education Health Education Fine Arts Communications Electives TOTAL GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS 4 Units 5 Units 3 Units 1 Unit 1/2 Unit 1/2 Unit 1/2 Unit 1/2 Unit 8 Units 23 Units (No substitutions allowed) (2 units of mathematics and 3 units of science or 2 units of science and 3 units mathematics) (Must include 1 unit of life science and 1 unit of physical science) (1 umt must be American History and .at least 1/2 unit must be civics or American Government) (There shall be no activity or assignment substituted for this requirement) (Three non-academic units may be counted) In counting credits for graduation, courses taken in grades nine through twelve shall be considered. No more than three units may be earned in any other way than through regular attendance in a recogniz.ed high school. This exception will be made only m cases of extreme emergency and with the principal's permission. A student must be enrolled in six subjects each year. 9 A District progress form shall be a part of the student's record to ensure that the courses taken by the student meet State Standards and District requirements. Any student lacking no more than one credit to meet graduation requirements shall be allowed to participate in the graduation ceremonies, provided the student has paid summer school tuition. A student's diploma shall be retained by the principal's office until any deficiency has been removed. Any deviation from these requirements shall be at the discretion of the principal and his staff. GUIDANCE SERVICES The North Little Rock School District maintains a guidance program in its elementary and secondary schools consistent with state and North Central Association regulations. The program provides counseling for students, parents and school personnel relative to students academic progress, behavior and personal matters. Parents and students are encouraged to seek guidance services at any time. HANDGUNS The North Little Rock School District will enforce Act 649 of 1989, which prohibits minors from possessing or carrying handguns. In Section I, a handgun is defined as, \"a firearm capable of firing rimfire ammunition or centerfire ammunition, which is designed or constructed to be fired with one hand.\" HEALTH SERVICES Health services by the school nurse are primarily inspectional rather than diagnostic in nature. Students are routinely screened for hypertension in the 10th grade. Screening for vision and hearing is conducted for new students and is available for others at teacher and/or parent request. Students receiving special education services may be screened more often depending upon the date of their last comprehensive evaluation. Secondary students participating in interschool competitive athletics, including Special Olympics, are reqmred to pass a physical exammation each year BEFORE oeing allowed to take part in such sports. Free physical examinations are provided at the beginning of the season for all students participating in such sports. Examinations conducted by family medical doctors at parents' expense will also be accepted. HOMEBOUND SERVICES Students with medical conditions certified by a medical doctor which will require them to be absent from school for four or more consecutive weeks are eligible for homebound services. Application forms need to be completed as far in advance as possible and are availabfe from Special Services (771-8033). HOMEWORK/INDEPENDENTS TUDY SKILLS Recognizing that homework is a flexible and individual instructional responsibility, teachers in the North Little Rock Schools shall consider the following in making tfiis type of assignment: That parent-student understanding of the necessity for homework is desirable. That homework shall be within the limits of individual student ability. That, within the limits of good judgement, homework should vary gradually from fairly light (no more than 15-30 mmutes per day) in grades 1-3 to fairly heavy (no more than 60-120 minutes per day) in grades 10-12. 10 That teachers, particularly at the secondary level, shall, at all times, be aware of the student's problem of multiple assignments. That homework, to be purposeful and worthwhile, should, in all probability, vary from day to day depending upon the needs of the students. That the availability of study materials such as reference books at home be considered in assigning homework. The following guidelines for homework and the development of students' independent study skills will be observed in making homework assignments: Assignments will be considered as an extension of the classroom instruction for the purpose of either independent skill practice for mastery or for review of previously mastered skills/concepts. Assignments will not involve skills/concepts which have not been previously taught. Assignments to achieve mastery of new skills/concepts will follow guided practice to ensure that the learner can successfully practice the skills/concepts accurately. Maximum use of classroom time for input and supervised study should be planned for each lesson. Some homework assignments can best be accomplished during supervised study conducted as part of the allotted instructional period. Assignments will be designed to provide short, frequent practice sessions focused on small segments of learning while maintaining maximum meaning for the learner. Assignments will be made which address common needs of groups of learners and specific needs of individuals rather than automatically assigning common homework to all learners without regard to the individual learner's need. Immediate feedback should be given to the learner whenever possible. HONORS CLASSES Placement in an honors class is based on a student's grades, teacher recommendation and standardized test scores. After all data are studied, the school may issue a written invitation to the student and parent. If this invitation is accepted, then the student is placed in the honors program. Student progress is monitored continuously to determine if the correct placement has been made. Generally, if a nine-week grade falls below a \"C\", then the student is reassigned to a more appropriate placement. Grades earned in honors courses will be weighted only in those courses designated as exit level Advanced Placement (AP) courses, e.g., AP Biology, AP Calculus, and AP English, and AP Physics. HONOR GRADUATES For students who will graduate in 1992 or 1993, the critetion for being named an honor graduate is a cumulative grade point average of 3.5 in grades ten, eleven, and twelve. Act 980 of 1991 establishes qualifications for valedictorians, honor graduates, and membership in the National Honor Society. Beginning with the 1993-94 school year, students who have successfully completed a minimum core of high school courses recommended for preparation for post secondary education or a more rigorous program of vocational study shall be eligible for the honor of serving as a valedictorian or honor graduate. Honor graduates must earn a minimum cumulative grade point average of 3.5 in grades nine through twelve in addition to completing the core curriculum. The core curriculum recommended by the State Board of Higher Education and the State Board of Education is an follows. English - 4 units (not to include oral communications courses) Natural Science - 2 units, with laboratory components, chosen from two of the following: biology, chemistry, or physics Mathematics - 3 units, including algebra I \u0026amp; II and geometry 11 Social Studies - 3 units, including one of American history, one of world history, and at least one-half unit of civics or American government ForeiS!} Language- 2 units in one foreign language Candidates for valedictorians or honor graduates who are enrolled in technical preparation courses are required to compfete the following coursework in addition to or in lieu of the minimum core outlined above. l. Students will complete three credits each in mathematics and science with at least two credits in each area from courses with content comparable to that in the college preparatory curriculum. The two higher level math and science courses may be courses designed to teach essential content from the college preparatory curriculum through an applied instructional process. 2. Students will complete at least four credits in a vocational major and two related vocational credits. Beginning with the 1991-92 school year, only those students enrolled in a course of study containing the minimum core of high school courses recommended for preparation for post secondary education shall be eligible for membershif in the National Honor Society. Students who are current members of the Nationa Honor Society are exempt from the provisions for membership outlined in Act 980. HONOR ROLL Each nine weeks, all secondary schools will prepare honor rolls of students making 4.0 averages and 3.0 averages. To be eligible, a student must be a full-time student, have no failing grades, no incomplete grades and no unsatisfactory citizenship grades. Honor roll eligibility will be based on all subjects taken and on the grade pomt average (GPA) listed on the report card. INJURIES/ILLNESSES AT SCHOOL When a student is injured in the school building or on the school grounds, the parent will be called immediately. The student may be taken to the famify doctor if parents have made emergency numbers and the name of the family doctor available. When a student becomes ill at school, the parent is called immediately. The student will remain in the health room until the parent can check the student out of school. If contact with the parent cannot be made, the principal and teacher will do what is expedient and safe for the injured and/or seriously ill student, which may include taking/sending the student to the emergency room of a hospital. The school assumes no responsibility for treatment. LEAVING SCHOOL DURING SCHOOL DAY All schools in North Little Rock operate as closed campuses. Students must stay on the school grounds from arrival time until the completion of the scheduled day. If at any time during the school day it becomes necessary for a student to leave school, the student must report to the office to obtain permission from both a parent or guardian and a school official and sign the check-out sheet. Any student arriving at school after the tardy bell or returning after an absence during a part of the school day must report to the office to get permission to return to cf ass. Only those students who live within walking distance (five blocks) and have written consent may be granted permission to walk home for lunch. 12 LOCKERS Locker space is provided for the storage of a student's school supplies and personal items. In grades 9 through 12, students supply their own locks. Students are responsible for the care of their Tackers. Lockers are school property, and therefore, are subject to search by school officials when reasonable cause exists. LOST AND FOUND Students are encouraged to label all belongings. Lost and found items will be kept in a designated area. Unclaimed items will be discarded periodically. MAGNET SCHOOLS Ten magnet schools located in Little Rock are available for North Little Rock students. Each offers one or two areas of specialization for students of all ability levels. Magnet schools offer highly-trained staff members and enriched learnmg activities. Optional enrollment is open to all students, kindergarten through grade twelve. Registration is on a first-come/first-served basis. Once enrolled, a student has rriority to continue attending the magnet school, until he or she chooses to transfer to another magnet school or back to the assigned school in North Little Rock. Transportation wdl be provided for students involved in magnet schools. HOW TO APPLY FOR MAGNET SCHOOL ENROLLMENT Fill out one application for each child. Place in a stamped envelope and mail to: Student Affairs Department, North Little Rock School District, P.O. Box 687, North Little Rock, AR 72115. Applications may be obtained by calling 771-8010. Applications are accepted on a first-come/first-served basis according to priorities set by the court. If the target enrollment for a school has been reached, students are placed on a waiting list. Parents receive notification of their child's acceptance by mail. High school students wishing to attend Metropolitan should see a school counselor for enrollment information. M-TO-M TRANSFERS The plan approved by the U.S. District Court allows for majority-to-minority (M-to-M) transfers among the three Pulaski County districts (North Little Rock, Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts.) A student who is enrolled in a district in which his or her race is predominant may enroll in any district and school in the county in which his or her race is in the minority, provided that school offers appropriate programs for the student's needs at his or her grade level. Therefore, any white student in the North Little Rock School District (which is predominantly white) may elect to attend any school in the Little Rock School District (which 1s predominantly black.) Transportation will be provided for students involveo in M-to-M transfers. HOW TO APPLY FOR M-TO-M TRANSFER Fill out one application for each child. Place in a stamped envelope and mail to: , Student Affairs Department, North Little Rock School District, P.O. Box 687, North Little Rock, AR 72115. Applications may be obtained by calling 771-8010. Applications are accepted on a first-come/first-served basis according to priorities set by the court. If the target enrollment for a school has been reached, 13 students are placed on a waiting list. Parents receive notification of their child's acceptance by mail. MAKE UP WORK A student who misses school due to an excused absence shall be afforded the opportunity to submit make up work. Following the absence, the teacher and student shall make arrangements for completion of the assignments. In order to receive credit, all work must be completed withm the prescribed time. A student who misses school due to an unexcused absence shall not be afforded the opportunity to submit make up work for credit. MEDICATION Written parent consent is required for the school to administer any medication. A medication consent form should be completed, even for medication given on a temporary basis. Prescription and non-prescription drugs must be brought to the school office in the original container stating the dosage and method of administration. Reasons for the medication must be clearly stated. All medication, including non-prescription drugs, will be kept in the principal's office and will be admimstered by designated school personnel. Students are encouraged not to possess any non-prescription drugs. (Possession of illegal drugs is addressed in the School Board Policy on Drugs and Alcohol FBO.) NOTES FROM PARENTS REGARDING ABSENCES To be readmitted to school, a student shall bring a note from a parent or legal guardian stating the reason for the absence and the dates of the absence. Notes will be presented to the appropriate staff member. If a note is not received on the day of the return, the student will be readmitted to class with an unexcused absence. PARENT-TEACHERA SSOCIATION Parents are encouraged to join and participate in Parent-Teacher Association activities. Senior high school Parent-Teacher Association meetings are usually held on the second Tuesday of each month. PHYSICAL EDUCATION Each secondary student shall be re~uired to take physical education unless a doctor's statement is on file in the principal s office recommending that the student be excused from this activity. Any student who has religious objections to certain activities in the physical education program will be allowea to substitute other activities. Religious obJections must have supportive documentation. Upon written request from the parents, a student may be excused from physical education activities on a temporary basis due to illness or injury. PROMOTIONS/RETENTION Students from 9-12 are not classified by grade level except for homeroom and reporting procedures. For such purposes, five units are required for sophomore standing, nine units for junior standmg and 15 units for senior standing. It is recommended that individually failed subjects be made up in summer school. 14 Required subjects failed, which are not made up in summer school, must be successfulfy completed before the student can advance to the next course offering in that sequence. Students in grades 7-8 are on a pass or fail policy. All students in the eighth grade shall be tested in reading, mathematics, language arts, social studies and science on a competency test developed by the State Department of Education. Any student who does not achieve a passing score, as determined by the State Department of Education, shall not be promoted to the ninth grade. The level of competence required will be derived by the State Department of Education from an analysis of tlie Minimum Performance Test, standardized examinations and any other examination that may assist in determining the level of achievement that is expected in the United States at large. In any examination area where Arkansas students are significantly below the national average, the State Department of Education will devise a plan to move student achievement toward the national average. Retesting shall be permitted for students who score below the level required to progress to the ninth grade. The test shall be administered two (2) additional times oefore the beginning of the next school year on dates selected by the State Department of Education. Each local school district shall provide opportunities for additional study for all students who request it in order to prepare those students to retake the test. Any student who is retained at the eighth grade shall be evaluated by the student's school principal, teachers and counselors who shall jointly prepare an academic skills development plan to assist the student to attain mastery of the area(s) in which the student ts deficient. Any student failing to achieve mastery at the end of the second year shall be evaluated to determine the education programming that offers additional education opportunities. A conference shall be held with each student's parent(s) or guardian(s) to review and discuss the student's retention and plan. Special Education students shall be required to accomplish the goals and objectives stated in their individual education plans for the current year before progressing to ninth grade. PUBLIC DISPLAY OF AFFECTION Public display of affection is considered inappropriate behavior. Failure to abide by this rule may result in disciplinary action. RELIGION IN SCHOOLS The Board respects the sincere religious beliefs of all students and staff members. The Board believes that teaching about religion, as it relates to a study of the historical development of civilization 1s appropriate. Moreover, it is proper for teachers to enumerate and emphasize the generally accepted moral and ethical principles of the different religions. Teachers shall not, however, evaluate, advocate or place values upon any particular religion or religious belief. No student shall be required to participate in programs or activities which are contrary to the tenets of his/her religion. Speakers who are affiliated with religious organizations shall be allowed to speak in schools only upon the approval of the Superintendent of Schools. The Superintendent's decision should be guided by the following considerations:  The presentation is designed for all students who mig,ht attend the assembly or meeting.  The presentation does not advocate the beliefs of any denomination, religious group or faith.  The presentation does not encourage students to attend worship services or activities associated with specific denominations or beliefs. 15 REPORTING STUDENT PROGRESS Report cards are issued to students after each of the first three nine week grading periods. The final report card may be mailed at the parent's expense or picked up in the school office. Written interim reports will be mailed home to parents if a student's performance is unsatisfactory. Grades shalJ be determined and reported in accordance with procedures established by the Superintendent and Board of Education and will be in compliance with state laws and regulations approved by State Board of Education. Letter grades will be reported in grades one through twelve. Act 1070 of 1991 establishes a statewide uniform grading scale. 93 - 100 A 60 - 69 D 83 - 92 B Below 60 F 70 - 82 C Students in grades K-12 will be graded each nine-weeks. Students in grades 7-8 will receive four nme-week grades and two semester averages. Students in grades 9-12 will receive four nine-week grades, semester exam grades, and semester averages in each course taken. In grades 9-12, the two nine-week grades shall equal 80% of the semester average, and the semester test shall equal 20% of the semester average. Semester tests must be taken before credit in a course is awarded. Group exceptions to the semester test requirement must be approved by the Director of Secondary Education and the Assistant Superintendent-Instmction. Grade point average is computed for each student at the secondary level based on all letter grades the student has received in academic subjects. Grade point averages will be calculated using the following four point gradmg scale: A=4.0\nB=3.0\nC=2.0\nD=l.0\nand F=0. Letter grades earned in Advanced Placement courses at the exit level will receive one additional point\ne.g., A=S.00\nB=4.0\netc. Cumulative grade point averages will begin with grades earned in the ninth S!.ade commencing with tbe 1990-91 school year. Cumulative grade point averages will be updated at the end of each semester when credit is earned. SAFETY REGULATIONS BICYCLES/MOTORCYCLES/OTHEVRE HICLES Licensed drivers are permitted to drive a motor vehicle to school if the following rules are obeyed: 1. All vehicles must be registered in the office. 2. Vehicles must be parked in designated area. 3. Loitering in the parking lot is not allowed at anytime. 4. Students will leave the 1ot immediately after parking. 5. Students may not enter the parking lot during school hours unless permission is obtained from the office. 6. Caution in driving should be used at all times. Fast or reckless driving will not be tolerated. It is illegal to pass a school bus while it is loading and unloading. SCHEDULES Assignments to classes are based on available data and are generally expected to be permanent. If errors or changes in student enrollment should occur, the school staff will approve appropriate changes. SCHOOL CLOSING IN INCLEMENT WEATHER Weather conditions sometimes force the cancellation or alternate scheduling of school. 16 It is not always possible to provide in advance alternative plans and procedures for students to follow because of the varied circumstances of times and conditions that might arise. Therefore, the District administration is charged with the responsibility of making alternate plans, procedures and schedules as the weather conditions warrant and notifying students and parents through the means of broadcast and print media. The guiding principle will be the safety and welfare of the students. SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INTERROGATION The District respects the rights of students' privacy and security against arbitrary invasion of their person or property. School officials do have the right, however, to search students and their property in the interest of the overall welfare of other students or when necessary to preserve order and discipline in the school. School authorities may conduct searches of student lockers, desks and automobiles when a reasonable cause exists to believe that stolen items or items prohibited by law or policy are contained in the area to be searched. School officials may seize illegal contraband, weapons or stolen property found in a search. The search of a student's person shall be conducted by school official of the same sex and with an adult witness of the same sex present. Interrogations by law enforcement authorities shall be conducted in private with the school principal or designee present. Efforts shall be made to have a parent or guardian present. In the event a parent or guardian cannot be present within a reasonable length of time, law enforcement officials shall be permitted to proceed with questioning. SMOKING/USE OF TOBACCO Students shall not be permitted to smoke or use tobacco in any form on the school grounds, or in school buildings dming the school day, or when riding school buses to and from school or on a school sponsored trip. Parental permission to smoke or otherwise use tobacco does not exempt a student from the policy. Professional school personnel shall organize and maintain intensive programs of education designed to make pupils fully aware of the hazards of smoking and use of tobacco. Students caught using tobacco in any form on the school grounds are subject to suspension or other appropriate disciplinary action. SPECIAL EDUCATION A special education program is provided for handicapped students whose handicapping conditions result in educational deficits. Special education services are available for: 1. Speech/Language handicapped 2. Learning disabfed 3. Mentally retarded 4. Orthopedically handicapped 5. Emotionally disturbed 6. Severely/profoundly handicapped 7. Hearing or visually impaired 8. Other health impaired Referral for consideration to receive special education services may be made to the principal by teachers, administrators, J)arents, counselors and students. The decision for appropriate placement is made after all available data are reviewed by an evaluation/programming committee and appropriate school personnel. 17 STUDENT ASSIGNMENTS School attendance zones for elementary, middle school and high school students shall be established in accordance with the Federal Court ordered desegregation plan. Students shall attend the schools as assigned by the District. If a family moves from one attendance zone to another during the final nine weeks of school, the students may, at the option of the parent or guardian, elect to complete the school year in either of the two zones. Students who establish residence in another school district may, at the option of the parents, continue enrollment in a North Little Rock school if the change in residence occurs within the final nine weeks of school. STUDENT BEHAVIOR - PROHIBITED CONDUCT Appropriate learning opportunities can be afforded students only in an environment that is free from conflict, distraction, intimidation and various other influences that result from student misbehavior. Certain students' actions are beyond the definition of acceptable student behavior and are, therefore, prohibited in school and while traveling to and from school. Prohibited conduct may include, but is not limited to the following: 1. Disregard of directions or commands of teachers, administrators, bus drivers or other authorized school personnel. 2. Disruption and/or interference with the normal and orderly conduct of school and school-sponsored activities. 3. Behavior that involves indecent and/or immoral acts. 4. Wage1ing or any form of gambling. 5. Physical abuse or assault to a school employee, other student or any other individual. 6. Possession of a knife, razor, ice pick, explosive, pistol, rifle, shotgun, pellet gun or any other object that can be considered a weapon or dangerous instrument. 7. Using, offering for sale, or selling alcoholic beverages, any narcotic drug as defined by Arkansas law, or what the student represents or believes to be any substance prohibited by the district policy on Drugs and Alcohol. 8. Destruction of or the attempt to destroy school property. 9. Stealing or the attempt to steal school property or the property belon-ging to another individual. 10. Cheating or copying the work of another student. 11. Failure to abide by attendance rules. 12. Use of profanity, vulgar language or obscene language. 13. Committing exto11ion, coerc10n, blackmail or forcmg another person to act through the use of force or threat of force. 14. Engaging in verbal abuse such as namecalling, ethnic or racial slurs or using derogatory statements to other students, school personnel or other individuals. 15. Hazing. Hazing includes any willful act done by a student, either individually or with others, to another student for the pufP?Se of subjecting the other student to indignity, humiliation, intimidation, physical abuse or threats of abuse, social or other ostracism, shame or disgrace. 16. Students shall not belong to or participate in secret societies of any kind. Gangs or similar groups, whether organized in the community or in other settings are prohibited on school grounds or at any school sponsored activity. Clothing, outer wear, pins, symbols or insignia of such organizations shall not be worn to school or at any schoolrelated activity. The School District reseives the right to establish rules in addition to those appearing in this policy and to punish those who are guilty of their violation. 18 Punishment may include detention study hall, suspension and expulsion. Any of these disciplinary actions may occur on the first offense or any subsequent offense depending upon the nature of the situation and the age of the student involved in the situation. The student shall be informed of the offense and shall be afforded an opportunity to explain the actions before disciplinary action is taken. STUDENT DRESS AND GROOMING The general climate of any school is reflected by the dress, grooming and manners of the students\ntherefore, students are expected to wear appropriate clothing and to present a neat appearance at all time. Students, with the help and approval of parents, know what is acceptable attire for school activities\nmoderation in type and style should be the basic standard. The following guidelines should be followed. 1. Grooming or dress which could cause blocked vision or restricted movement is discouraged, as well as dress styles that create or are likely to create a disruption of classroom order. No hats or sunglasses will be allowed to be worn in the building. 2. Clothing which displays profanity, nudity or suggestive comments or clothing that is supportive of illegal chemicals, tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, drug paraphernalia, etc. will not be tolerated. 3. Clothing or shoes made of materials or of such structure that cause damage to school facilities will not be permitted. 4. During warm weather, students will be permitted to wear shorts\nhowever, the appearance of students should not be disruptive to the educational atmosphere of the school. 5. For health and safety reasons, students must wear shoes at school at all times. 6. Clothing shall be clean and appropriate for school wear. Articles of dress which are distracting or which fail to conform to reasonable rules of decency shall not be worn. If in the judgement of the administration, a student's attire is a health hazard or a distraction to the educational atmosphere of the school, the student will be asked to go home and make proper adjustments. Disciplinary action may occur if grooming or dress violations continue. STUDENT INSURANCE An accident insurance policy is offered to all students at the beginning of the school year on a voluntary basis. Parents may choose school day coverage or 24 hour coverage. Expenses above and beyond either policy covered by the student accident insurance will be assumed by the parents. STUDENT RECORDS Authorized school personnel shall have access to students' records. The parent or legal guardian shall have access to his child's records upon written request to the principal. If a student is 18 years old or older, he/she has the right to determine who, outside of the school system, may have access to his/her records. A student's records may be released to other school systems upon the written request of the parent or guardian, or student if he/she is 18 years old \u0026lt;?r older. A student's records may also be released to other school systems upon thelf request, provided that notification is given to the parent or legal guardian, or student if he/she is 18 years old or older. Parents have the right to request that the school withdraw m1terial from a student's record. Refusal by the school entitles the parent to a hearing to determine if material is accurate and appropriate. If at the hearing, material 1s ruled to be accurate, material remains in the file, but parents may prepare a statement to be 19 placed with the materials stating their objection. The statement is to be made available with objectional material whenever access is permitted. Directory information may be made available for noncommercial uses by the school principal without the prior consent of the parent. However, at the beginning of eacfi school year, the parent may request that all or part of such information not be made available. Directory information shall be defined as:  Student's name  Activity participation  Address  Height and weight, if member of  Phone number athletic team  Parent's name  Dates of attendance  Grade level  Honors and awards received  School(s) attended SUMMER SCHOOL A summer school program on a tuition basis is offered to students in grades 9 through 12 for credit courses. Students needing this service either for credit toward graduation or for enrichment may participate\nhowever, approval of the principal must be received before credit can be granted. SUPPLIES Parents are responsible for furnishing school supplies. Basic supplies are available for purchase at the school. SUSPENSION FROM SCHOOL The Board of Education recognizes that many alternatives are necessary to a workable system for maintaining good student conduct. Among those alternatives is student suspension. The Board VIews student suspension as a serious matter and believes that all other less severe measures should be tried before students are excluded from the regular school experience. The school principal is authorized to suspend a student from class attendance for disciplinary reasons for a period of time not to exceed ten school days, including the day upon which the suspension is imposed. The suspension may be off-campus or may be to the on-campus student assignment class. A student may be suspended if he/she: 1. Violates school policies, rules, or regulations. 2. Is guilty of conduct which substantially interferes with the maintenance of essential school discipline. 3. Is guilty of conduct which, in the judgement of school administrators, warrants the reasonable belief that substantial disruption of school orrations will likely result. 4. I guilry of incorrigible conduct, including insubordination, disorderliness, and defiant and hostile acts\ntruancy or cutting class\nfighting or other hostile behavior\ndestruction of school property\nact involving moral turpitude\nor violation of parking regulations. School officials shall determine whether the alleged misconduct, if proven, would warrant a suspension from classes, and then shall proceed as follows: 1. The student shall be advised of the exact charges against him/her. 2. If the charges are denied, the evidence shall be explained and the student given the opportunity to present his/her facts or opinions. 3. If the school official finds the student guilty of the misconduct, a suspension may be imposed. 4. If possible, pnor to the suspension, the custodial parent or guardian will be notified of the reason for the suspension, its duration, and the manner in which the student may be readmitted to class. If the suspension results from an incident with a teacher and if the teacher 20 requests a conference, the student will not be readmitted to classes until a conference with the custodial parent or guardian has been scheduled by a building administrator. Every effort will be made to schedule the conference when the teacher is available. Availability would be defined as,\"before/after school and during the teacher's preparation period.\" 5. On the day: the suspension is imposed, a written notice of suspension will be mailed to the parent or guardian at the address shown on the school records of the student. Student Assignment Classes (SAC) shall be established for on-campus suspension of secondary school students. If a student is assigned to SAC three times in a given school year, any subsequent serious misbehavior will result in that student's bein_g suspended off-campus {Boys' Club, Alternative School or home) for a m8Xlmum of ten days. Chronic severe discipline problems may be grounds for recommending expulsion for the remainder of the school year. An alternative school for secondary students shall-be established for suspension of students who are identified as having severe discipline problems. While under suspension, students shall not be eligible to participate in, practice for, or attend any student activity whether during or after the school day. These activities include both Vespers and graduation. Absence from school due to home suspension shall be treated as an unexcused absence. TARDIES Promptness to class is necessary in order to maximize learning opportunities for all students. Students are, therefore, expected to be in class and ready for instruction at the appointed time. Principals shall implement suitable discipline procedures to encourage promptness in class attendance. TELEPHONES School telephones are for school business only. Students will be called to the phone only in case of emergencies. Important messages will be delivered by office personnel. Parents desiring to talk with teachers should call the office and leave a phone number. The calls will be returned at a convenient time. When pay phones are available, use will be regulated by building rules. TESTING PROGRAM Standardized tests are administered in grades nine, ten,and eleven. Pre college tests (PSAT and PACT+) and college admissions tests (ACT and SAT) are administered on a voluntary, test-fee basis. Specific test dates and test fee information is available in each high school's guidance office. TEXTBOOKS The North Little Rock School District furnishes textbooks to all students and provides access to library books and other media materials. Loss or destruction of books or other media materials will result in payment to the school district. TRANSFERS The students of the North Little Rock School District will attend school according to assigned residence zones or as assigned under the Federal Court-ordered desegregation plan. The only exceptions are for medical or programming reasons. 21 If a family moves from one attendance zone to another during the final nine weeks of school, the student may, at the option of the parent or guardian, elect to complete the school year in either of the two zones. VISITORS All visitors are required to register with office personnel. Classroom visitations should be arranged in advance through the principal's office. Student visitors in the classroom are strongly discouraged and should be permitted only after careful consideration by the buifdmg principal. WEAPONS AND DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTS No student shall possess, handle, or transmit any object that can reasonably be considered a weapon: 1. On the school grounds during, before, or after school, 2. On the school grounds at any other time when the school is being used by a school group, or 3. Off the school grounds at any school bus stop, or at any school activity, function, or event. A weapon is defined as a firearm, knife, explosive device, or any other instrument or device capable of causing bodily harm. Expulsion from school may result and/or criminal charges may be filed against any student who has possession of a weapon as described herein. WORK PERMITS Work permits for the last fX:riod of the day may be granted to students who are regularly employed in a job which necessitates reporting to work before the end of the school day. Applications for work permits will be approved by the principal. The student will be required to present a written request from the student's parents and a statement from the empfoyer covering the time and nature of the employment. Upon arrival of the application, the office will issue a special permit to be carried each day by the student and presented on request by members of the teaching staff. Students having work permits must leave the building. Permits will be revoked for students who loiter in or about the building and/or are no longer employed. Due to the increasing enrollment and the complexity of scheduling, not all requests for work permits can be granted. Efforts will be made to grant as many work permits as possible, but first consideration must be given to the total class schedule. 22\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\u003cdcterms_creator\u003eNorth Little Rock School District\u003c/dcterms_creator\u003e\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_698","title":"Settlement plan","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1989/1995"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational planning","Student assistance programs","Educational law and legislation"],"dcterms_title":["Settlement plan"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/698"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nService Master Management Services, an Illinois company hired to supervise Little Rock School District's maintenance and custodial staff.\nLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1989 SETTLEMENT PLAN \u0026amp; MAY SUBMISSION BRIEF summaryLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SETTLEMENT PLAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION (Pages 5-26) BACKGROUND \u0026amp; PHILOSOPHY Statistics show that children who are provided with early childhood education have greater opportunities which enable them to succeed in the future. While the enrollment for early education programs continues to increase, there are many families who do not have access to affordable and accessible early childhood education. In order to combat this problem the LRSD proposes to expand existing and develop new early childhood education programs. The LRSD's plan is comprised of the following programs: HIPPY  I  ) ' .r . J - Aids train mothers to teach their four and five year old children through home-based curriculum /\u0026gt; - LRSD \u0026amp; PCSSD will collaborate and coordinate implementation II ,A' - HIPPY \u0026amp; Four Year Old Program will collaborate with regard to parental involvement and teacher training i r EVALUATION - Early Prevention School Failure Model conducted on participants at Kindergarten (pre and post tests) - Standardized achievement test at the end of the 3rd grade MAY SUBMISSION - Addition of \"similar model\" for evaluation at kindergarten - Deletion of \"pre and post tests\" and replaces with \"as they enter and exit kindergarten\" TIMELINES - HIPPY is a year round program - The following should be in place: - 14 Aids Selected and Trained - Families Recruited and TrainedHIPPY MAY SUBMISSION - Addition \"the LRSD's HIPPY Program depends on external funding. ... cannot be continued at present levels without continued receipt of JTPA and Chapter 2 funds.\" CONTACT: Miarian Shead at 324-2266 FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM - High Scope Curriculum which emphasizes active learning - High Scope Curriculum complements HIPPY Curriculum MAY SUBMISSION - Addition to curriculum of \"or similar curriculum.\" - LRSD \u0026amp; PCSSD will collaborate on parental involvement, inservice and training for teachers EVALUATION - Inservice evaluation will be summarized - Test data will be analyzed MAY SUBMISSION - Deletes \"test data\" and replaces with \"student assignment data\" TIMELINES - Program implemented in 3 incentive schools in 1988-89 school year - Program implemented in other incentive schools in 1989-90 school year - Program to be implemented in all elementary schools by 1993-94 school year NOTE WORDING IN PLAN BUT DELETED IN MAY SUBMISSION: \"Scope of this program may be altered, affected and/or enhanced by the proposed assignment and construction proposals made in this plan.\"MAY SUBMISSION - Deleted program to be implemented in other incentive schools by by the 1989-90 school year and replaced with \"By the 1991-92 school year the program will be implemented in the schools listed below: Badgett Frankl in Garland * Ish Mitchell * Rightsell * Rockefeller * Romine Stephens * Washington Woodruff\" * Incentive Schools - Deleted \"all schools in the district will implement the four year old Program by 1993-94 school year and replaced with \"A long range implementation plan will be developed for additional four year old program...as a means to meet the needs of disadvantaged students and desegregate schools that are difficult to desegregate. The long range plan will address demographic, instructional, structural needs.\" \u0026lt; ! NOTE: Stay Order requires plan to be submitted by September 30, 1991 CONTACT: Pat Price at 324-2015 CITY WIDE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION The purposes of the city wide early education is to provide: - Parenting education to mothers and fathers, family health care and nutritional guidance - Quality child-care arrangements for poor parents stressing social development and school readiness - Quality preschool program for disadvantaged three to five year old chiIdren The plan then goes onto discuss components of quality programing, including MAY SUBMISSION Deletes this entire section of the plan and rewrites this section in its enti rety. Of particular concern is the deletion of the components of quality programing and the insertion of a description of the Head Start, Model Cities and LRSD programs. The stipulation dated.7/2/91 rationalizes the deletion of same staffing patterns, teacher qualifications, and the same comprehensive services because \"the plan is in conflict with some of the practices and policies of the Headstart and Model Cities programs.\" The May Plan inserts areas for cooperation between the three programs including parent involvement, staff development, student referrals, and information on student assignment process for kindergarten. In addition, the program purposes are kept in tact, except the May Plan deletes \"family health care and nutritional guidance.\" Finally, the May Plan deleted all the timelines for implementation of city wide comprehensive early childhood program for LR and did not insert any new timelines. TIMELINES - By September 1990 the initial phase of program should be implemented. - By September 1993 LRSD \u0026amp; other agencies should have implemented a comprehensive and consistent early childhood education program for children in LR. - By October 1993 80% of disadvantaged eligible students should be enrolled in early childhood education programs. - By September 1994 pre-screening data at the beginning of the school year will indicate a 75% reduction in the number of children identified as moderate to high risk. ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET (MAY SUBMISSION ONLY) - Early childhood education for children ages six weeks to four years old / - Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet between LRSD and area colleges to: - train college students in early education - pilot innovative educational approaches for young children - provide assistance in planning and implementation - Three year old student may continue into the four year old program - Siblings of children in program receive preference for Rockefeller assignmentROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD MAGNET - Explore year-round program for children from infancy to sixth grade NOTE: Did Not Find Any Timeline Sheets For Early Childhood Magnet! SPECIAL PROGRAMS (Pages 27-39) JTPA SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM -Six week program JTPA eligible students who work either part or full time Students are tested to determine if remediation is needed in math and/or reading, if needed remediation is provided - Increase the number of student participants NO CONTROL OVER THIS - FEDS! - Allow \"any student\" (non-eligible JTPA students) to participate in remediation who needs assistance ! MAY SUBMISSION - Deletes \"any student\" and provides remediation only for JTPA certified/eligible students - Counseling Staff increased by two (1 male \u0026amp; 1 female) and psychologist contracted to help students with serious problems - College students or college bound seniors who shall be hired as as instructional aids - Clerical aids to be added to the program I EVALUATION - Pre \u0026amp; Post Test of Adult Basic Education MAY SUBMISSION - Deleted evaluation mechanism and did not replace TIMELINES - By 1993-94 school year \"increase to 350 students who will show significant grow gains as a result of their participation.\" NOTE: PROGRAM CURRENTLY SERVING 300-350 STUDENTS LRSD NO CONTROL OVER INCREASE -FEDS CONTROL! HOW MEASURE?? - NO SPECIFIC TIMELINES! JTPA ASSET PROGRAM - Peer tutoring by JTPA certified students who work under the supervision of certified teachers n NOTE: ,+z p LRSD IS NOT DOING THIS PROGRAM WITH JTPA \u0026amp; WAS NOT DOING THIS PROGRAM IN DECEMBER OF 1990 WHEN THEY REPRESENTED TO THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT THAT THEY WERE!!! EVALUATION - Compare students receiving tutoring assistance with other students in areas of standardized test results, academic performance based on nine week grade reports, absentee records, drop-outs, follow-up reports and parental reinforcement activities NOTE: NO TIMELINE FOR EVALUATION - WHO? WHEN? TIMELINES - By 1988-89 school year program to be implemented in 4 junior high schools and revise program to include non-certified JTPA student tutors - By 1993-94 school year program available to all \"at risk junior high populations and high school students at accessible sites, students will show improvement, tutors will increase their opportunities for future employment MAY SUBMISSION Inserts \"Programs and individual components will be continued only if JTPA funding is available.\" - Deletes all timeline sheets but leaves the narrative NEW FUTURES HOMEWORK CENTERS \u0026amp; HOMEWORK TELEPHONE HOTLINE - Homework Centers in selected junior high schools - Homework Hotline in areas of English, math, science and social studies MAY SUBMISSION - Deleted Homework Hotline TIMELINE - Begin implementation 1988-89 school year (funded by business community)SCHOOL OPERATIONS (Pages 39-63) - Division of Schools will be responsible for monitoring and implementing the following aspects of LRSD's desegregation plan: - Organizational structure - Discipline - Guidance/Counseling - Internal integration - Extracurricular activities - Evaluation/Testing - Staffing - Planning/Implementation - Specific goals and timelines follow MAY SUBMISSION - Deletes Division of schools and the above aspects of the deseg plan Inserts \"LRSD Office of Desegregation\" will be responsible for moni tori ng - Revision of goals and timelines PROGRAM FOR ACCELERATED LEARNING/PALS (Pages 64-77) - Remediation for students grades K-12, with emphasis in reading and math at the elementary level \u0026amp; English, reading, science, social studies and math at the secondary level - Technology assisted instruction (computers, VCR's etc...) - Goal for student to attend computer lab for at least 70 minutes a week (35 minutes in reading and math) with assistance from a non-certified instructional aid - Develop a profile on elementary students that identifies their strengths and weaknesses \u0026amp; develop an improvement plan with parents which provides timelines for performance/achievement to be assessed - Provide a transitional program for secondary students who need assistance to function effectively in the regular classroom \u0026amp; develop a profile, etc., (see above) - Utilize multi-cultural, interdisciplinary, language-based, individualized instruction MAY SUBMISSION - Deletes PAL program and inserts remediation programs - Merges plan goals for elementary and secondary students \u0026amp; inserts that schools will remediate in areas in which the student has failed - Deletes remediation for reading, social studies and science!!EVALUATION - Improvement Plan, parents are provided with written information on their child's progress in meeting the performance goals of their plan - Evaluation Design and Checklist already developed TIMELINES - Implementation to begin in Fall 1988 - Cannot read timetables!! GIFTED EDUCATION (Pages 78-83) - Subject based instruction for grades K-12 based on ADE's standards - Collaboration with district in areas of curriculum, staff development and research and administration - Placement based on superior intellectual and creative ability ... \"neither criterion shall be used if the result is disparate impact upon either racial group within the district.\" - Special attention to identify and place students from low and middle socio-economic levels MAY SUBMISSION - Deletes subject based \u0026amp; inserts services - Adds attention to identify and place \"minority children I ' (A TIMELINES - Research administration of program to begin November 1988 - Investigate tri-district model for socio-economically deprived students to begin November 1990 - Cannot read other timelines! MULTI-ETHNIC CURRICULUM (Pages 84-99) - Integrate in subject areas, materials, libraries, bulletin boards, assemblies, etc...AN EVENT OR A THING NOT A PROCESS! - Collaboration for three districts in developing and implementing curriculum, studies fai rs, in-service training and access to higher educational TIMELINES FOR MULTI-ETHNIC CURRICULUM - By September 1989 ready for pre-school - grade 6 - By September 1990 ready for grades 7-12 - By September 1991 Review/Revision cycle for pre-school serve as a model for all three districts 12 to EVALUATION - Each building principal responsible - Section on multi-ethnic curriculum added to monitoring checklist MAY SUBMISSION - Deletion \"ethnic\" replaced with \"cultural\" - Added Speaker's Bureau to develop and promoted a better understanding of multi-cultural education in schools and community - Deleted timeline for curriculum to be ready for pre-school - grade 6 - Revised timeline for curriculum to be ready for grades 7-12 from 1990 to 1993 - Deleted monitoring checklist CONTENT AREA PROGRAMS (Pages 101 -108) - Ensure equality and excellence in curriculum \u0026amp; programs in the following: - Instructional methodology - Teacher/student interaction - Muiti-cultural materials - Textbooks w/ no race or gender bias - Organization instruction - Special activities Inservice - Staffing - Objective non-discriminatory criteria for student placement in advanced classed TIMELINES - Implement and incorporate organizational equity practices by Fall 89 \u0026amp; 90 MAY SUBMISSION - This section is revised and merged with multi-cultural curriculumFOCUSED ACTIVITIES K-6 (Pages 108-115) - Elementary schools to have a sound \u0026amp; strong education program with developed focused activities utilizing parent and community involvement - Elementary Academies (non-incentive \u0026amp; non-interdistrict) will receive an annual allocation for implementing focused activity for year which should focus on: 1) Promoting the school as a \"community of learning\" among parents, staff and students 2) Provide enrichment opportunities at the building level 3) Ensure equitable opportunities for participation - Collaboration with PCSSD in implementation of focused activities, curriculum and achieving greater racial balance \u0026amp; agreement that only magnets and incentive schools will have themes TIMELINES - By 1994 academy elementary schools will all have focused activities which will be integrated into the core curriculum, parental, staff and student involvement, academic performance at or above grade level for each student EVALUATION - Principals will appoint an activities coordinator and steering committee to develop and implement and evaluate planned activities - End of school year coordinator will include focused activities in a district wide report MAY SUBMISSION - Deletion of \"academies\" and insert \"area schools\" \u0026amp; deleted \"K-6\" - Deletion of themes for \"incentive\" and insert \"interdistrict\" schools - Addition of Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program whereby each area school will be able to apply for $75k over a 3 yr period to improve academic achievement of all students by reducing academic achievement di sparity - Deleted all timeline sheet and target date of 1994 in narrative - Deleted that academic performance of every student will be at or above grade levelPARKVIEWMAGNET SCHOOL (Pages 116-125) - Fine Arts Magnet and propose to phase in over a 3 yr period a science and math magnet for students graduating from Mann - Contains specific course offerings and new courses - Staff development (curriculum and inservice) - Parental involvement (sign contract) - Space needed for a research writing lab MAY SUBMISSION - Deleted specifics of the 3 year phase in of the science and math magnet - Deleted Russian language course (FAMOUS KNOWN BY ALL LOCAL PAPERS!) - Deleted staff development and lab facilities McClellan community school (may submission only) - Develop as a center to meet the needs of the community - During 1990-91 school year a bi racial planning committee began to worked with consultants to determine how to best utilize the school - Committee will report their progress and recommendations to the LRSD \u0026amp; ODM RECRUITMENT OF PRIVATE SCHOOL STUDENTS (Pages 125-126) - PTA's and parent recruiters will form strategies to recruit private school students back to the public schools - Efforts to be coordinated with Magnet Review Committee MAY SUBMISSION - Deleted coordination with Magnet Committee and inserted that the district will assess the effectiveness of recruitment on an annual basis and discuss with parties before seeking court approved alternative strategies FEDERAL PROGRAMS (Page 127) - LRSD will work with SDE to seek federal funding MAY SUBMISSION - Deletion of working with SDE, LRSD will identify and applyFecruary 22, 1991 RICIIVID FEB 25 1991 Judge Susan Webber Wright 600 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 'J. S. DISTRICT JUDGE Dear Judge Wright\nIn reading the opinion of the Eight.h Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the LRSD Case, I noticed that on page 28 it states that \"Moreover, the state agreed to lend LRSD up to 520,000,000 over the next ten years, the loans to be forgiven if by December 21, 2000, the existing gap in achievement between black and white pupila in LRSD has been reduced to 10 per cent. \u0026gt;1 Prevision Six on page 25 of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Casa Settlement Agreement of March 1989, stipulates that \"if at any time between the date of this agreement and December 31, 2000 the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and the LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students), the escrowed funds will be paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven. II There is a difference between these two statements. As an example, if the composite score of white students is at the 70th Percentile, according to the Eighth circuit statement, black students would have to score at the 60th Percentile in order the loan to be forgiven. According to the Settlement Agreement, sy would have to score at the 63rd Percentile because ^0% of iS 62. Did rhe ighth Circuit change the stated requirement of the Settlement Agreement? LRSD senior administrators are using the 1C figure instead of the \"90% of\" it is. of course, to their advantage. Settlement requirement because Which is correct? Since the State of Arkansas and the other school districts in this state have a stake in the 520,000,000, I think it would be equitable if 8 Settlement Agreement provisions are strictly enforced by the Court. Your cooperation in making a public statement regarding this ts'\ne will be greatly appreciated. .are. A Axton co: Dr. - con Elliot Arka.-.eas Department of Education1 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AJl-. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. f\nle9 U.S. DiSTrfcr ccvnT I I\nkaxsas 91 JUL25 PM Us 33 CAaL E, i' 1 CLERK ipSTiEE. vir. LLtr I DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS STIPULATION REGARDING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT AND INTERDISTRICT PLAN MODIFICATIONS The undersigned parties agree and stipulate as follows: The Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan (May 1991 Plan) was filed in the District Court on May 1, 1991, with the agreement of all of the parties. except on a few specific points, the Knight Intervenors. 1 The May 1991 Plan contains certain changes from the Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan which was submitted to the District Court in January and March of 1989 (1989 Plans or settlement plans). Some of those proposed changes are described in the Memorandum and Order of the District Court filed June 21, 1991. An explanation of the changes noted by the District Court in that Order was provided in a Stipulation of Facts filed July 2, 1991. See LRCTA Objections filed 5/1/91 and Amended 5/3/91. be noted that the LRCTA Objections are directed toward LRSD's implementation of the 1989 settlement plana and not to differences It must between the settlement plans and the May 1991 plan. *5^ G BiI 2. 9 In a Memorandum and Order filed July 15, 1991, the District Court noted other differences between the settlement plans and the plan agreed to by the parties and submitted to the District Court on May 1, 1991, and refused to reconsider its Order of June I 21 rejecting the May 1991 Plan, The District Court said, however. that \"the merits of transitional revisions will be considered more fully at a hearing subsequent to the parties' compliance with the terms of the June 21 Order\". Memorandum and Order filed July 15, 1991, The purpose of this Stipulation is to provide in advance of that hearing an explanation of the differences between the settlement plans and the May 1991 Plan and to show the basis of the parties' agreement to those changes. The differences which were expanded in the July 2, 1991 Stipulation of Facts will not be repeated here. The parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan to use the term \"norm-referenced tests\" rather than \"standardized tests\" to clarify the difference among norm-referenced. criterion-referenced and minimum performance tests. since all of these tests are standardized. (p.l) .- 3 . 13 . 4. The parties added to the settlement plans a requirement for a management information system to be developed by LRSD which will have the capability to compare in later years students who participated in the four-year-old program to those who did not (p.l4) for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the four- ^Page references are to the May 1991 Plan unless otherwise noted. LUSO/liMi^iMnd 2old-program. 5. The Rockefeller Early Childhood Magnet Program was incorporated in the May 1991 Plan from the Tri-District Plan (pp.25-27) because the parties believe that:(1) the high quality early childhood program will attract white students to Rockefeller who will elect to continue their education at Rockefeller and thereby enhance the desegregation effort there\n(2) its location near an interstate highway makes Rockefeller an ideal magnet site because of its accessibility to students throughout the county\nand (3) the early childhood program can help children from the Rockefeller attendance zone by enhancing their educational program in a desegregated setting. 6. The parties added a requirement to use the information generated by LRSD's monitoring of the four-year-old program nc less frequently than annually to improve that program (p.34). 7. The parties agreed to minor changes in the Summer Learning Program (pp.39-41) to reflect that fact that the Sxxmmer Learning Program was at the time the settlement plans were written and is now fully funded by the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) . The. enrollment requirements are governed by federal regulations. I The JTPA program cannot admit or serve non-certified participants\". The settlement plans were therefore amended to eliminate the word \"non-certified\" (p.4O). All participants must meet JTPA eligibility requirements. 8. The Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) (p.41) is no longer used for the Summer Learning Program. The TABE provides 3information related to student growth in terms of grade equivalent and is designed to assess adult education. A more appropriate measure of student growth was needed. Therefore, with JTPA approval, the Metropolitan Achievement Tests - Sixth Edition (MAT- 6) was substituted for the TABE. The May 1991 Plan eunends the settlement plans accordingly. Use of the MAT-6 enables the LRSD to ( use the same procedure for identifying students who need remediation during the summer as is used during the regular school year. 9. The parties added a requirement that the LRSD Student Hearing Officer will be responsible for developing and monitoring plans to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions (p.50-51). This requirement strengthens the settlement plans with respect to the issue of disparate discipline and places a responsibility for reducing the disparity of disciplinary actions with the person most involved with student discipline and in the best position to\"reduce the disparity. 10. The parties added a requirement {p.63) that LRSD remove any barriers to equitable participation of all students in all classes. 11. The parties strengthened the provisions of the settlement plans which protect against excessive pullouts and possible resegregation in academic support programs (p.75-76) by requiring written approval of the parent or guardian before students may be placed in academic support programs and specifically requiring that \"pullouts' will be a last resort and will be kept at \"a minimal 4level\". 12. The parties added a specific process by which improvement plans will be developed for students participating in academic support programs (p.78-79). 13 . The parties broadened the scope of students who will be eligible to participate in LRSD's Gifted Education Program (p.88) by requiring \"above average intellectual ability and creative ability\" rather than \"superior intellectual and creative ability\". 14 , The parties also revised the language describing the LRSD Gifted Program to reflect changes in the delivery of services to identified students which were approved by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Arkansas Department of Education in 1989. (p.87) ( These changes resulted from LRSD's desegregation efforts during the 1983-89 school year to develop an equitable selection process for the Gifted and Talented Program. 15. The parties added a specific requirement (p.ll3) for the purchase of science and math materials to facilitate a \"hands-on approach to those subjects and a requirement to provide in-service training to staff regarding the use of those materials. 16. The settlement plans were changed to incorporate from the Tri-District Plan the requirement that LRSD establish an Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program (pp. 127-30). 17. The notation in the settlement plans that \"in 1989-90 an additional science teacher and a part-time Technical Writing teacher will be needed\" was deleted because of LRSD's present ability to provide the courses described in the May 1991 Plan 5( 9 9 (including Technical Writing/Applied Statistics) with existing staff. 18 . The parties changed the listed prerequisites for physics at Parkview Science/Mathematics Magnet School {p.l46) to conform to LRSD's current prerequisites. The prerequisites listed in the settlement plans served to unnecessarily exclude a number of ( tudents from participation in this magnet school program. 19 . The McClellan Community School Program (p.148-49) was taken from the Tri-District Plan and included in the May 1991 Plan because of the success of that program. 20. The parties added a number of specific requirements to strengthen the LRSD Library/Media Program (p.167-63), including requirements for a school-wide reading motivation activity each year, the correlation of library instruction to classroom instruction, the requirement that library media specialists provide training for building staff in the use of materials and equipment. and the requirement that library media specialists perform an annual evaluation of the adequacy of multicultural materials in the library collection. 21. Because funding is now provided in LRSD for indirect special education services. the erstwhile problem \"funding for indirect services\" was deleted from the list of \"areas of need\" (p.l72) in the LRSD special education section of the settlement plans. 22 . The parties agreed to strengthen the LRSD Staff Development Program (p.191-92) to include a list of specific staff 6 1auhy'iSU:p LXSO/befdtftria( ( development requirements, including the participation in staff development planning of community resource persons and all district personnel responsible for delivering training, and a requirement that LRSD deal decisively with the issue of racism and involve all staff, students and parents in a comprehensive prejudice reduction program. The settlement plans required the LRSD Data Processing Division to support school based and central office based functions by providing dropout statistics, test scores. attendance data. disciplinary data and student assignment data (p.204-05). In the May 1991 Plan the parties provided the additional requirement that the data processing office provide \"Student Achievement Data (to include the capacity to monitor test scores, grade distribution and other identified achievement data by race, gender, grade, subject, school and district wide)\" (p.2O5). The settlement plans established secondary attendance zones for each incentive school (p.220-21). Students in the secondary attendance zone of an incentive school had the option to fill vacancies in that incentive school after grandfathered and primary attendance zone students were assigned (p. 221). This provision was eliminated by the parties in the May 19 91 Plan because it would reduce the pool of white students eligible to transfer to each incentive school. The elimination of the 23 . 24 . secondary attendance zone allows any white student in Little Rock School District to enroll in any incentive school. The secondary attendance zones would also have allowed West Little Rock black 7( ' 9 students to transfer to incentive schools to the detriment of primary attendance zone black students who might attempt to enroll at a later date and find no space available. 25 . The parties agreed in the settlement plans to reserve in .each incentive school a certain number of seats in each prekindergarten and kindergarten class for black and white students (c. 221) . In order to avoid having pre-kindergarten and kindergarten seats go unused while eligible neighborhood black students are bused to more distant schools, the parties have included in the May 1991 Plan language which will allow such students to fill the seats reserved for white students which, even after recruitment, would otherwise remain vacant. r 26. In order to maximize desegregation at all grade levels. the parties added to the settlement plans specific authorization for desegregation transfers by LRSD students to elementary area schools that are difficult to desegregate (p. 222). 27. In order to help harmonize procedxires among the three Pulaski County school districts and to benefit LRSD employees and their children, the parties agreed to add to the settlement plans a provision to allow enrollment of the children of LRSD employees at the schools where the employees work (p. 223-24). This provision does not apply to magnet schools and is subject to desegregation requirements and the capacity limits of the particular school. 28. The LRSD Student Assignment Handbook which would have I been used for the 1989-90 school year was included in the 8( ' settlsment plans (p. 226, 233-48). That handbook includes a timeline and procedures which are now obsolete. For that reason, and because the student assignment handbook is a procedural document which is subject to change each year, the parties did not include that document in the May 1991 Plan. 29. The parties described Dunbar Junior High School in the settlement plans as a computer science/music school and set forth the specific programs and course offerings which would be available at Dunbar (p. 226-23, 230-36). By force of a 1989 district court ( order, which the parties did not seek to stay pending appeal. Dunbar has operated for the past two years as an international studies/gifted and talented magnet. The parties have expressed in the May 1991 Plan (p. 228-29) their agreement that Dunbar should continue to operate as an international studies/gifted and talented magnet because the benefits of implementing the program described in the settlement plans are outweighed by the detriments of the disruption which would be required to return to that program. 30. An international studies magnet program was established at Central High School by the terms of the Tri-District Plan. The parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan (p. 228) to continue this program. 31. Washington Elementary School was a racially identifiable black school during the 1989-90 school year and is described in the settlement plans as an interdistrict school. Under the terms of the Tri-District Plan, Washington was opened for the 1990-91 school year as a racially balanced (57% black) magnet school. The parties 9( 9 have agreed that the magnet program at Washington has been successful and therefore included Washington as a magnet school in the May 1991 Plan (p. 229). 32. LRSD agreed in the settlement plans to build two new interdistrict elementary schools (p. 258) . The first school was to have the capacity of 600 students. No capacity requirement for the second school was included in the plans. The parties have agreed in the May 1991 Plan to increase the capacity of the first LRSD interdistrict school, which the parties now agree will be nampH Martin Luther King Interdistrict School, to 696 students (p. 258). The language of the settlement plans expressing the possibility that Rockefeller may become an interdistrict school (p. ( 260) was deleted in accordance with the agreement described above that Rockefeller will remain an early childhood magnet and an incentive school. 34. The language of the settlement plans regarding computer laboratories in incentive schools, which required a minimum of 24 stations in each classroom (p. 267), was changed to reflect the fact that the minimum required number of stations is 25 and to clarify the intention of the parties that there will be one computer laboratory at each incentive school, not in each classroom. 35. The settlement plans restricted participation in the incentive school mentoring program to intermediate age students in grades four through six. The parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan to expand the mentoring program to include all students (p. 271). 10I 36. 9 The parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan to improve the incentive school component of the settlement plans by requiring an annual review of the incentive school curriculum and an annual inservice for incentive school staff members regarding any revisions in the incentive school curriculum (p. 288). 37. Thc parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan to strengthen the provision for Homework Centers in the incentive schools by saying that Homework Centers \"will\", rather than \"should\", be in place at each incentive school and by expanding the Homework Center program from a minimum of two days per week to a minimum of three days per week (p. 296). 38. The parties deleted the superfluous modifier \"certified . before \"instructional aides\" (P- 296) because there 13 no certification program for instructional aides and the parties do not intend to limit employment as an instructional aide to those who are certified as teachers. 39. The settlement plans did not contain a program to provide financial assistance to instructional aides so that they may pursue education degrees and provide a pool of potential teachers for LRSD. Such a program was added in the May 1991 Plan (p. 297-98) . 40. The requirement that \"Explorer Post Access/Membership\" be available to incentive school students (p. 300) was deleted in the May 1991 Plan because elementary students do not meet the age requirements for Explorer Post membership. 41. Washington school, as noted above, was an incentive I school in the settlement plans, was changed to a magnet school in 11( the Tri-District Plan, and was proposed for continuation as magnet school in the May 1991 Flan. To ensure that students in the a Washington attendance zone will retain some of the benefits to which they would have been entitled had Washington become an interdistrict school, the parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan that ( such students \"will have access to extended day activities, extended year activities and the scholarship program.\" (p. 303). 42. The settlement plans required that student evaluators in the incentive school assess the educational climate at each school twice a year (p. 306). The parties have determined in the May 1991 Plan that such evaluations need be performed only once each year. but that the group of evaluators should be expanded to include teachers and parents as well as students. 43. The parties have agreed in the May 1991 Plan to expand the Saturday program.^ at incentive schools to include physical education activities (p. 308) . 44. The parties have agreed to add representatives of the Joshua Intervenors to the incentive school staffing committee (p. 322) . 45. The requirement that an instructional specialist be hired to provide assistance to new teachers and others with special instructional needs (p. 328) was changed to reflect the fact that the LRSD Instructional Resource Center staff is of sufficient size to provide such assistance and that such assistance will also be provided by curriculum supervisors and the incentive schools coordinator. LIlSQ/liMMdMrkl 1246. In order to clarify and strengthen the provisions of the incentive schools staffing section of the settlement plans, the parties have included language in he May 1991 Plan which establishes committee composed of teachers, principals, administrators and parents to review the incentive school program and recommend change: for the 1991-92 school year, to pay teachers a stipend for their work on the committee, to share the coTn-mi-h-t-PP'g report with the parties. to require incentive school teachers to report to work five days early (except for Franklin school teachers) for in-service, to pay stipends to those teachers for this work, and to require Franklin school teachers to'report to work ten days early for in-service and to pay stipends to Franklin -teacher for this work (p. 329} . The 1991-92 school year is the (' firs year in which Franklin will operate as an incentive school. 47. The parties have-agreed to add to the setrlement plans a requirement that LRSD collect and review data on the needs and interests of its student population, particularly targeting at-risk students, including such information as \"number per grade level. race/gender makeup, academic achievement needs/interests. disciplinary needs, health needs. social interaction- needs. and attendance and tardiness records (p. 335). 48. The parties have agreed to broaden the scope of any parenting education classes by eliminating the language that such classes are only \"for mothers\" (p. 344) . 49. The parties have agreed to expand the scope of math and science workshops to include parents as well as students (p. 353). 13I 9 9 50. The  parties have agreed that coiamittee of administrators, parents and teachers should work o develop a a school improvement plan at each incentive school rather than simply establish school policies and procedures (p. 356). 51. The parties have agreed to expand the scope of parent recruitment for the incentive school program by requiring information sessions at churches throughout the entire community, rather than just the black community (p. 35S) . 52. The May 1991 Plan does not contain the requirement of the settlement plans that LRSD hire two parent recruiters (p. 360) because those two parent recruiters were hired in 1989, 53 . The parties have agreed to strengthen the monitoring provision of the settlement plans by including in the May 1991 Plan .resent for educational equity monitoring in all schools in LRSD by the Planning, Research and Evaluation staff with assistance from local bi-racial committees and including a requirement for quarterly evaluations of the incentive schools by the districtwide bi-racial committee and a requirement for semi-annual reports to the superintendent concerning such issues as separation of races in chool programs, achievement disparity, curriculum. staff development, extracurricular activities and student discipline (p. 371-72) . 54. The May 1991 Plan reflects the parties' agreement to strengthen the settlement plans with respect to the consultant/monitor by requiring quarterly visits to schools in PCSSD and NLRSD as well as LRSD (p. 374) . LUSO/lBMidMU-A 14r  55. The May 1991 Flan does not contain the description of the LRSD's computerized transportation system found in the settlement plans because the settlement plans described only what had been done in 1983-89 and what would be done in 1989-90. Everything described in the settlement plans has been completed (p. 376-77). 56. The settlement plans contained an LRSD data processing schedule for the 1989-90 school year (p. 379-80). This data processing schedule was not included in the May 1991 Plan because it is obsolete, it adds nothing of substance to the desegregation plan, and the data processing schedule will change from year to year. 57. The interdistrict school component of the settlement ( plans restricted participation in interdistrict schools to LRSD black students and PCSSD white students. The parties have agreed in the May 1991 Plan to expand the interdistrict school program to authorize NLRSD black students to transfer to Crystal Hill Interdistrict school if space is available after the transfer of LRSD black students to that school (p. 255). 58. The parties agreed in the May 1991 Plan to strengthen the summer school component of the interdistrict plan by requiring the cooperative summer school planning among the three districts \"will\" be conducted \"each year\" rather than \"should\" be \"scheduled for early 1989\" (p. 416). The parties also agreed to expand plans for tuition-free summer programs to those students \"in danger of\" grade retention rather than just those students already \"recommended\" for grade retention (p. 417). 15I 59. e e In the May 1991 Plan, the parties agreed to add to the settlement plans as an objective the establishment of a uniform records transfer policy and the requirement to appoint a committee to develop procedure and time lines for records transfer (p. 437) . The parties also agreed to add as an objective uniformity among the districts in reporting test results and analyzing disparities (p. 440) . 60. The settlement plans said that the directors or coordinators of counseling services for the three districts should meet monthly to share concerns and to plan for joint activities (p. 469) . xn he May 1991 Plan, that language is strengthened to require that those people \"will\" meet monthly. 61. In the May 1991 Plan, the parties agreed to add to the settlement plans an entire section on public relations (p. 476-39) which is taken from the Tri-District Plan. 62. The settlement plans contained a requirement that Russian be taught at Parkview Science Magnet School (p. 138). Following the rejection of the settlement plans by the district court. Russian courses were established at both the Central High School nternational Studies Magnet and the Dunbar Junior High School International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet. The parties have therefore expressed their agreement in the May 1991 Plan that there is no benefit to be gained by establishing a competing program at Parkview. 63 . The settlement plans were drafted during the Fall of 1988 and plans for each of the three school districts were submitted to 16( 9 9 the district court in January, 1989, Minor revisions to the LRSD Plan dealing primarily with the issue of grandfathering of student assignments required a resuhmission of Volume II of the LRSD Plan to the district court on March 23, 1989. The Interdistrict Plan was submitted to the district court in February of 1989. Two and cne-half years have passed since the settlement plans were drafted. Many of the dates by which the parties were supposed to implement various aspects of the plan have already passed\nother deadlines are new impossible to meet. The parties have therefore agreed in the May 1991 Plan to change many of the dates in the settlement plans so that implementation can proceed on a reasonable schedule as it would have done had the plans been approved in 1989. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Breadway Little Rock, AR 72201 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 . BY\n^ohn Walker Christopher Hei*\nr WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Little Rock, AR 72201 Said Jone^ BY:_________ Ste'^ Jones C\\ 6/ MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL, P.A. 1014 West Third Little Rock, AR 72201 BY\n_________________ Richard Roachell (. 17 ( f 9 9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Stipulation has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 19th day of July 1991: Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 ( Christopher Hei bthyVSUp UtSO/lstM^iMna 18 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 October 28, 1991 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ruth: As you are aware, the District Court is obligated to monitor the use of settlement monies and does so through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. ODM must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the districts legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obhgations. For the past several weeks, my associate. Bob Morgan, has been working closely with your Manager of Support Services, Jim Ivey, and also with our financial consultants, the Arkansas Financial Group, to develop a system for adequately and fairly monitoring desegregation finances. During the course of this process it has become apparent that the settlement monies are being spent at a rate which wiU exhaust them long before the plan commitments and their scheduled fulfillment have been reahzed. Budgeting and fiscal management to ensure full implementation of the desegregation plan needs to be such that the district can answer the following questions: 1. 2. 3. What are the district guidelines for identifying expenditures as desegregation costs? What process is used to project the desegregation budget? How do these costs conespond to the specific provisions of the desegregation plan, i.e., what is the correlation between the settlement monies and specific desegregation objectives?Page Two October 28, 1991 4. If a cost item is determined to be both a desegregation and nondesegregation item (staff development might be a fair example), what criteria determines the apportionment of cost to the desegregation budget (Code 13) and the \"regular\" budget? 5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted in Code 13? 6. Who makes the decisions about which costs are actually debited to Code 13? 7. What criteria determine how budgeting and debiting decisions are made? 8. What checks are buUt into the accounting/bookkeeping system to prevent arbitrary debiting of cost items to one budget category or another? 9. What are the districts spending priorities and how have they been determined? 10. What is the districts plan and corresponding timeline for reaching the 90% achievement goal for black students, thereby attaining forgiveness of state loans the district otherwise must repay? 11. What steps is the district taking to prevent a funding shortfall that will inhibit carrying out the desegregation plan to its fuU extent? Within the next ten days. Bob and I want to meet with you to discuss the answers to these . questions. We are aware of the enormity of the districts planning, budgeting, and accounting tasks\nif we can be of any assistance as the above information is gathered, please dont hesitate to let me know. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor cc: Judge Susan Weber WrightOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 October 28, 1991 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ruth: As you are aware, the District Court is obhgated to monitor the use of settlement monies and does so through the Office of Desegregation Monitorin\ng- ODM must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the districts legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. For the past several weeks, my associate. Bob Morgan, has been working closely with your Manager of Support Services, Jim Ivey, and also with our financial consultants, the Arkansas Financial Group, to develop a system for adequately and fairly monitoring desegregation finances. During the course of this process it has become apparent that the settlement monies are being spent at a rate which will exhaust them long before the plan commitments and their scheduled fulfillment have been realized. Budgeting and fiscal management to ensure full implementation of the desegregation plan needs to be such that the district can answer the following questions: 1. What are the district guidelines for identifying expenditures as desegregation costs? 2. What process is used to project the desegregation budget? 3. How do these costs correspond to the specific provisions of the desegregation plan, i.e., what is the correlation between the settlement monies and specific desegregation objectives?Page Two October 28, 1991 4. If a cost item is determined to be both a desegregation and nondesegregation item (staff development might be a fair example), what criteria determines the apportionment of cost to the desegregation budget (Code 13) and the \"regular\" budget? 5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted in Code 13? 6. Who makes the decisions about which costs are actually debited to Code 13? 7. What criteria determine how budgeting and debiting decisions are made? 8. What checks are built into the accounting/bookkeeping system to prevent arbitrary debiting of cost items to one budget category or another? 9. What are the districts spending priorities and how have they been determined? 10. What is the districts plan and corresponding timeline for reaching the 90% achievement goal for black students, thereby attaining forgiveness of state loans the district otherwise must repay? 11. What steps is the district taking to prevent a funding shortfall that will inhibit carrying out the desegregation plan to its fuU extent? Within the next ten days, Bob and I want to meet with you to discuss the answers to these questions. We are aware of the enormity of the districts planning, budgeting, and accounting tasks\nif we can be of any assistance as the above information is gathered, please dont hesitate to let me know. Very truly yours. Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor cc: Judge Susan Weber Wright\"n 4 3 Little Rock School District December 12, 1991 T J? DEC 1 3 1991 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Ciiics o! Os\nic*i Hioring 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 4 W Dear Bob: Attached are our responses to the questions posed in Ann Brown's letter to Dr. Steele on October 28. I believe you will find them to be essentially the same as our previous verbal responses. , Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, T: Tony Wood Deputy Superintendent TW/ch 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361LRSD ANSWERS TO ODM QUESTIONS (Reference 10/28/91 Ann Brown letter to Dr. Steele) Question 1. What are the district guidelines for identifying expenditures as desegregation costs? Answer: Desegregation is one of the basic objectives of the District. Almost everything we do is directed to some degree to this goal. It is not possible therefore, and we have not attempted to identify all the cost associated with it. Our approach has been to identify personnel and materials that are required for the specific programs mandated by the Desegregation Plan, to set up budget accounts for those expenses, and charge to them as the programs are implemented. This approach may result in our charging less than possible to desegregation, but it should allow us to account for the settlement funds. It has never been the view of the LRSD that the settlement funds would cover the total cost of desegregation. Using the funds for court-mandated programs will allow us to use the money and to be able to show that it was used for proper purposes. For the purposes of showing that settlement funds are properly spent, budget/expense accounts are established for the specific programs in the Desegregation Plan. Expenses associated with those programs are charged to those accounts. Question 2. What process is used to project the desegregation budget? Answer: Building principals, department directors, and others responsible for various functions in the LRSD are designated as budget managers. Each spring the budget managers submit requests for each of the budget account codes assigned to them. If an individual has responsibility for a program mandated by the Desegregation Plan, he or she will have account codes for that. These budgets are approved by the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents (where appropriate). Manager of Support Services, and the Controller. All of these codes will show a fund code of 13. If a Desegregation Plan program requires office supplies, for example, there will be an amount coded in the budget for expenses of that description that are related to the desegregation program.QDM Response Page 2 Question 3. How do these costs correspond to the specific provisions of the desegregation plan, i.e., what is the correlation between the settlement monies and specific desegregation objectives? Answer: The costs can be tied to programs that are specified in the Desegregation Plan. This will not be obvious from accounting reports but can be done through discussion with budget managers and the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Question 4. If a cost item is determined to be both a desegregation and nondesegregation item (staff development might be a fair example), what criteria determines the apportionment of cost to the desegregation budget (Code 13) and the \"regular\" budget? Answer: If, at budget time, it is determined that an individual will divide time between Desegregation Plan mandated programs and other activities, appropriate portions of that persons cost will be budgeted to the fund source codes. That persons cost will be automatically charged as budgeted through the year. For non-personnel costs, most of the expenses that can be charged to desegregation programs are easily identified, such as PAL computers and four-year- old program equipment. We have the capability to apportion costs, if needed. Question 5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted in Code 13? Answer: The budget managers make this decision with review by the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendents, the Manager of Support Services, and the Controller.QDM Response Page 3 Question 6. Who makes the decisions about which costs are actually debited to Code 13? Answer: The budget managers either make this decision or review monthly expense listings to make sure it is properly done. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation also reviews all Fund 13 expenses monthly. Since many Desegregation Plan projects are the responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs, she also closely reviews these expenses on a monthly basis. Further, our computer system will not allow a budget account to be overdrawn. To transfer additional money into an account from another account requires approval of the Manager of Support Services. These processes are the same as those used to control all LRSD expenses including those that must meet certain state regulations. practices are sound. Independent audits show that LRSD accounting Question 7. What criteria determine how budgeting and debiting decisions are made? Answer: The accounts are clearly named so there is little confusion. The budget managers code the expenses. Question 8. What checks are built into the accounting/bookkeeping system to prevent arbitrary debiting of cost items to one budget category or another? Answer: The procedures described above with the monthly reviews described are intended to catch any improper coding. If an expense is improperly coded to a valid account that has sufficient funds, manual reviews like those described above are the only possible ways to detect it. As stated above, these are the same procedures used throughout our system, and independent audits have consistently found our procedures to be sound.ODM Response Page 4 Question 9. What are the district's spending priorities and how have they been determined? Answer: The district must implement the programs mandated by the Desegregation Plan, must meet state education standards, must meet debt service commitments, and must make the capital improvements committed to voters in millage elections. All salary expenses are under contracts. There is little to prioritize. As Desegregation Plan programs are implemented and their effectiveness is determined, we can petition the court and the other parties to allow us to discontinue or modify those that are not effective. Until we reach that point, we can do little to prioritize our costs. Question 10. What is the districts plan and corresponding timeline for reaching the 90% achievement goal for black students, thereby attaining forgiveness of state loans the district otherwise must repay? Answer: The LRSD will implement the plan called \"No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning for All Students in the Little Rock School District.\" This plan, which was adopted by the Board of Directors on March 28, 1991, provides the framework for attaining the 90% achievement goal for black students (see attachment). Question 11. What steps is the district taking to prevent a funding shortfall that will inhibit carrying out the desegregation plan to its full extent? Answer: As stated in response #9 above, LRSD will measure effectiveness and attempt to remove ineffective programs in the plan. We will address overall funding problems through reducing programs that we can reduce, better management practices and, if necessary, a request for increased millages. F:odminto2.wpdNO MORE EXCUSES: A PLAN TO INCREASE LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The purpose of this report is twofold: first, to identify and discuss problems and issues which the Little Rock School District must address if we are to substantially improve the level of learning in our schools\nand second, to outline a plan to empower all our students to be successful learners. BACKGROUND import te ichc cur co: What students are learning in our schools is the most it issue School Board members, administrators, and must ccnsi C  omunity. as decisions are made about education in The elimination of academic achievement disparities between black and white students, the enrollment in upper level courses, appropriate remediation for the students who are not learning, the use of school assignments, ibraries, homework minimum grade point requirements for graduation, the number and quality of reading assignments, multi-cultural education. \"tracking,\" higher order thinking skills, and many other issues are all related to this central question: How can we get students to learn what we think they should know and how can we be sure they are learning as much and as well as they can? Last fall the administration was asked to consider a proposal to require a 2.0 grade point average as a requirement for graduation and to subm consideration by Decemiber. : a re: The a rt to t. inistra' ncc subm ua\ntec rcr ts report December 3 and recommended that the 2.0 req-uirement be phased in starting with certain minimum requirements for the 1991-92 school year and implemented fully by 1994-95. The recommendation was presented to the Board at the December meeting and tabled for further consideration at a later meeting. Tn January, 1991, the Little Rock School District received riculum Audit conducted in September 1990 by a team of administrators and professors from the National Academy of School Executives. This audit was authorized by the Board when it adopted the budget in August 1990. The audit found that the District's curriculum is disjointed, uncoordinated, and inappropriately sequenced. It found that district-wide curricui im objectives do not exist, grading practices are 1 ent, promotion criteria are unclear. assessment is not ted to the curriculum, and curriculum guides lack internal ency. In short, even though the Little Rock School  isurict is performing \"reasonably well\" according to the Curriculum Audit, much work needs to be done to improve curriculum design, content, delivery, sequence, and assessment of student learning.Following the December Board meeting, three public hearings were held to give District patrons an opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed 2.0 requirement. were evident during these hearings. Two opinions The first was that people were generally in favor of the schools setting higher learning expectations for students. The second opinion was that schools are responsible for seeing to it that students receive every possible opportunity to develop their intellectual abilities to the fullest extent and that this responsibility is not being met in all cases. Concern was also expressed for the student with identified learning deficits who might not ever be able to achieve the requirement of a 2.0 g.p.a. Since the public hearings, a survey was sent to teachers and principals requesting their opinions concerning the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. The results showed support for the 2.0 but mos thought it should be phased in. The District's Biracial Advisory Committee took the position that the effectiveness of the current remedial and compensatory programs should be assessed before the Board decides to implement the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. PROBLEMS AND ISSUES The problem of low student achievement in the Little Rock School District is not unique in our community. In a report entitled Accelerating Academic Achievement: A Summary of Findings from 20 Years of NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress, September 1990] the following points are made: 1. \"Most of the data in this report show th our present education performance is low and not improving. II 2. \"Research shows that student academic perforaance is likely to be greater when pupils work hard, when parents are actively involved in their children's education, and when teachers and school administrators incorporate research tested improvements in the classroom. Yet, this report ....shows that these things are not typically happening.\" 3. \"Time devoted to some subject areas is limited... It 4 . Homework is often minimal or non-exisment. II 25. \"Most classroom work is dominated by passive learning activities that feature teacher and textbook-presented information despite research findings indicating that these techniques are not the most effective. It 6. II Although parents are our children's first and most effective teachers, large proportions of students are not reading outside of school, are spending excessive hours watching television, and are spending little time on homework. If 7. II Students can read at a surface level, getting the gist of material, but they do not read analytically or perform well on challenging reading assignments. II 3 . \"Small proportions of students write well enough to accomplish the purposes of different writing tasks\nmost do not communicate effectively. II 9. \"Students' grasp of the four basic a thmetic operations and beginning problem solving is far from universal in elementary and junior high school... II 10. \"Only small proportions of students appear to develop specialized knowledge needed to address science-based problems and the pattern of falling behind begins in elementary school. It 11. \"Students are familiar with events that have shaped American history, but they do not appear to understand the significance and connection of these events.\" 12. II In recent assessments, more students appear to be gaining basic skills, yet fewer are demonstrating a erase of higher-level application of these skills II 13 . \"Despite progress in narrowing the gaps, the differences in performance between white students and their minority counterparts remain unacceptably large.\" 14. \"La enr sci e proportions of students....are not lied \"ce c challengine mathematics and urseworx. II 315. II Across the last 20 years, little seems to have changed in the way students are taught. Despite much research suggesting better alternatives, classrooms still appear to be dominated by textbooks, teacher lectures, and short answer activity sheets.\" Other findings from the NAEP report are also highly disturbing: 31 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 read five or fewer pages per day from all. textbooks in both homework and school. 52 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 said they never or rarelv borrow books from the school or public library. 97 percent of the 4th graders reported that they completed workbooks or skill sheet assignments on what they read\nonly 45 percent said they talked in pairs or groups abou' their reading. More than 30 percent of the eighth and twelfth graders reported never talking to someone at home about things they read. Nearly three-fourths of the eighth graders had teachers who reported spending an hour or less on writing instruction and assistance each week or les\n15 minutes per cav. At grade 12, half the students assessed in 1988 reported that they had written two or fewer papers as part of any school assignment in the six weeks before the assessment. Only 14 percent of the Sth graders and 9 percen' of the seniors reported weekly writing assignments of three or more pages. At grade 3, 49 percent of the teachers reported spending one to two hours a week teaching science. In 1986, one quarter of the assessed were no enrolled eleventh graders in a math course and ley. Mat: anorher one quarter were taking lower 1 math courses such as General emetics, ?re-algebra. or Algebra I. 4Slightly more than half said they were not taking any type of science course. More than two-thirds of the high school seniors typically do an hour or less of homework each day. Only 29 percent had two or more hours of homework each day. presented. These findings are by no means all that the NAEP Report Many others are equally distressing. The inescapable conclusion is that students, for the most part, do not learn nearly what they are able to learn. for several reasons: This appears to be the case (1) they are taught in ways that have been proven ineffective over and over by well-documented research\n(2) the curriculum is content-deficient, and (3) expectations from both parents and educators are set at an unacceptably low level. While these findings are based on nationwide research, they are no atypical of what we find locally and should give us cause for e concern. In fact, the grade distribution. level of expectations, a large amount of test scores. \"seatwork\" in our classrooms, and the limited use of libraries are among the indicators in our own District that support these findings. As we examine our schools in relation to the NAEP report and decide whether to impose a minimum requirement for graduation, we must reflect upon events that have greatly affected our ability to deliver quality education to our students. 1983, we have been in court almost continuously. Since January, During that period, no less than four desegregation plans have been written. Weeks were spent in 1938 and 1989 negotiating a settlement with the State to bring an end to the desegregation litigation. District has experienced significant changes in The boundaries. Board governance. and adm ti its geocraph As was DO ted out in the Curriculum Audit, the District has had five different superintendents since 1982. The issues we have dealt with and the rapidity of the changes which have occurred in the District have contributed in varying degrees to weakening many of our internal processes and organizational procedures. We have seen job roles become less clearly defined, lines of authority eroded, and employees not held accountable for their work. The result  as was vividly and painfully described in the Curriculum Audit  is a district in which \"Learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse unless administrative direction. expertise. provided in the educational programs of the Li and interventi n are srrict.\" le Rock School In fulfill (p.l4)\ny opinion. two things are necessary before we can he responsibilities we have as a school district toward 5our patrons and students. reviewed, revised. First, Board policies must be and in some cases improved. Coherent, consistent regulations, directives, and procedures must be developed where needed to support the enactment of these policies. Then all employees must be held accountable for carrying out Board policies and adhering to regulations, directives, and procedures developed to support them. Second, as the Audit pointed out, the curriculum must be reviewed, revised as necessary, developed in an appropriate scope and sequence, and capable of supporting carefully written educational objectives. In my opinion, we cannot afford to take three to five years to complete this redesign of our curriculum. It must be started now. Core areas of the curriculum (reading. language arts, math, science, social studies and fine arts) must be appropriately scoped and sequenced in time for use during the 1992-93 school year. This will require enormous work by a cadre or teac. ers and administrators, and it may very well require the expertise of curriculum designers who can work with our staff in putting our entire curriculum together in the proper scope. sequence, and format, K-12. reorganization of the central office admi It most certainly will require istration and an allocation of sufficient resources in order to accomplish this major goal. Not until these things are done can we move forward as a district to address in a meaningful way the evaluation of effective teaching and building management, assessment of student learning, overall school success, and the effectiveness of central office leadership. In_my opinion, it would be unfair to place the full burden of improvement in student learning on the students and the parents. It is our responsibility to take appropriate and immediate action to remove all barriers to improved performance and at the same time raise expectations for student achievement. RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF INCREASED LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS I am recommending the following: 1. A review and adoption of revised Board policies in Curriculum and Instruction by the Little Rock School Board at a work session to be held before the end of the current school year, preferably during the month of April. All other Board policies will be reviewed. revised as necessary, and adopted by September, 1991. A decision by the Board at this work session as to the educational outcomes we want our students to have whe.n they leave our schools. 63 . A decision at the work session regarding the priority the Board wishes to assign to the thirteen recommendations of the Curriculum Audit. 4 . An acknowledgement by the Board that the proper way for the schools to address dispar ies in academic achievement is first to have a written curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12 and then to teach the curriculum effectively to all students, setting forth clear expectations and using strategies that have been proven successful for student learning. 5. Authorization by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for Little Rock School District students which incorporates the characteristics in recommendation number four. 6. Authorization by the Board to develop a comprehensive grade level assessment program to determine the extent to which our students are mastering the curriculum. 7. A revision of the District's grading policies to make them more consistent from school to school and from classroom to classroom. It should be clear that grades are to be assigned on the basis of mastery of specific curriculum content. 8. Periodic reports to the Board, preferably each semester, showing the distribution of student grades at the secondary level. These reports will indicate courses in which students have the greatest difficulty and will track the progress of individual students on a random basis from grade to grade. An ongoing review of the District's remedial a compensatory programs by the Biracial Advisory .d Committee with recommendations for changes presented to the Board yearly for the next three years. 10. The implementation of an Instructional Management System by the 1992-93 school year that will enable us to track the progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. 11. The immediate reorganization of the central office administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development and appropriate supervision of schools. To that end, the Associate Superintendent will devote her time primarily to curriculum design and development and staff development. The job roles of the curriculum supervisors will be redefined to include 7more programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum. A third administrator will be assigned to provide supervision to the schools as an assistant superintendent. The assistant superintendents will report to the Deputy Superintendent. 12. 13 . 14 . 16. The development and implementation of a leadership academy and training program for current and prospective principals, assistant principals, and central office administrators. The development and implementation of a teacher mentoring program as a key component of the District's staff development. The revision of the District's overall staff development program to provide greater concentration in the delivery of key components ro our personnel. Special emphasis will be given to effective teaching strategies and use of current technologies for teaching and learning. 15 . Development of school-based parent training programs in every school em.phasizing parent workshops and other sessions held at schools and other locations which emphasize the following: Discipline strategies and order in the home Time management for children and parents Planning and monitoring home study Building self-esteem for parents and children Communication within the home and with the school Substance abuse prevention Nutrition and health Development of an Early Childhood Education curriculum that includes components from successful programs in our District (e.g. HIPPY) and other districts. Assuming that the administration is directed to implement these recommendations and following documentation through systematic and comprehensive assessment that significant progress is being made, the Little Rock School Board should reconsider the timeframe for implementation of a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation after the end of the 1992-93 school year. The decision as to whether the requirement should be implemented and when, should be based upon the Board's analysis of how effectively the above recommendations are being followed. 8TIMELINES Proposed timelines for reconsideration of the 2.0 requirement is outlined for your consideration and approval: 1. Reports to the Board and community documenting progress made in achieving each of the sixteen recommendations in the \"Plan to Increase Learning for All Students.'    * * August 1991 January 1992 April 1992 July 1992 * November 1992 February 1993 May 1993 August 1993 and ongoing s to the Board an community regarding grade oisr bution and test scores for the Little Rock stude * * * * * July 1991 February 1992 July 1992 February 1993 July 1993 and ongoing Reports to the Board from the Biracial Advisory Committee concerning the District's remedial and compensatory programs. Should the Committee wish to make recommendations for changes, they will be included in these reports. August 1991 * June 1992 * * * 2 . 3 . * * * January 1993 June 1993 and ongoing twice yearly. 4. Reconsideration of the recommendation to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation from the Little Rock School District. * August, 1993 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Through the use of the reports outlined above, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors will have access to the data it needs to decide whether to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. graduation requirement. It is recommended that this year's as a seventh graders be used as the base population from which to crack an increase in students' ability to achieve a 2.0. If by the end of the 1992-93 seventh graders have demonstrated a 10 percent increase each year in the number of students achieving a 9C average, then it may be reasonable to assume that the 2.0 g.p.a. could be fairly required of the 1995-96 graduating class. This would extend by only one year the original time frame as described in the December report. Reports tracking the District's progress in achieving the recommendations in the report and student progress in achieving a 2.0 will be supplied to the parties in the desegregation case and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with the view that what is learned in this process will be helpful both to educators and the community at large. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent March 28, 1991 10INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN This plan was formulated by committees composed of representatives for the parties. The committees were: Student Assignments Programs/Academics Community and Board Relations School Operations The Student Assignment committee had oversight responsibilities for all others. LRSD, PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua all worked on this plan. The plan states, \"Tlie NLRSD, however has agreed to participate in those programs and efforts where the NLRSD is specifically identified by name but only to the extent that the language is specifically related to the NLRSD. The mention of the NLRSD by name in one sentence or paragraph does not imply that the NLRSD is included in preceding or succeeding sentences or paragraphs. Terms such as multidistrict the districts, etc. do not include the NLRSD unless the NLRSD so chooses.\" This plans stated objectives are to develop and implement a comprehensive desegregation plan for school districts in Pulaski County, with all schools (students and faculty) racially balanced as outlined in \"previous applicable court orders\", except as otherwise noted in this plan. INTERDISTRICT SCHOOLS There will be Interdistrict Schools with ratios of 60-40% of either race with the \"ideal goal\" to be 50-50. The responsibility for managing each Interdistrict School lies primarily with the host district. Six Interdistrict Schools will be established in the near term: Baker Harris Romine Stephens Crystal Hill Area King 1989-90 1989-90 1989-90 1990-91 1990-91 1992-93 Facilities considered for construction or establishment in the ftiture may include schools in or near Chenal Valley and the Scipio A. Jones site. The Interdistrict Schools shall be populated primarily by black students from the LRSD and by white students from PCSSD OR beyond Pulaski County. PCSSD and LRSD will engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts designed to maximize participation in all Interdistrict Schools.\"2 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS These schools are to be established for at least six years to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools of 55% black and 45% white (with a variance of 5%). Recruitment may increase the percentage of white students to 60% (page 4). The Incentive Schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish, Mitchell, Rightsell, Stephens, and Washington*. Desegregation of the Incentive Schools is to take place in phases. One phase is recruitment of white students. The other portion is to reserve seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. \"Funding for the Incentive Schools shall be set at two times the level for the Elementary Academies to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated experiences/activities. To meet that goal, the parties shall utilize the services of a consultant who has demonstrated experience in developing and successfully implementing such programs in a majority black educational setting.\" MAGNET SCHOOLS , The parties pledge to continue to operate the six present Magnet Schools with a balance of 50- 55% black. Magnets are open to students in all three districts. It further states that each districts black/white ratio goal shall conform to its plan. FURTHER SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION All construction shall be subject to the courts prior approval and shall support desegregation. TRANSPORTATION Children shall be provided transportation to schools (including its programs and activities). Transportation is provided to children who live two or more miles from school. Bus rides shall not exceed 45 minutes unless a student has voluntarily chosen an assignment with the longer bus ride. OTHER AREAS - Aim to have equal facilities. Funds for schools in lower SOCIOECONOMIC areas shall be \"at least\" equal to those in more affluent areas. - Students from outside Pulaski County may select a Pulaski County school if such selection benefits desegregation. - Racial ratios of each districts faculty shall be consistent with applicable law.. * Washington was a magnet in the Tri-District Plan. A new school was constructed and it still serves as Basic Skills/Math and Science Magnet.3 ACHIEVEMENT DISPARITIES Parties set as a high priority the elimination of achievement disparities between black and white students. The degree of disparity shall be judged by student performance on standardized tests. The ADE with the district shall evaluate all programs and personnel for effectiveness in this area. If racial disparities exist in programs and activities at any school, \"they shall be identified, analyzed for cause, and shared with the appropriate monitoring authorities\". Special attention shall be given to racial disparities in: special education, honors, GT, advanced placement, extracurricular activities, expulsions and suspensions, reward and punishment systems. A year-end determination of each districts effectiveness in implementing desegregation shall be conducted by the parties subject to the courts review. \"The parties monitors shall be provided reasonable access to records and facilities, provided the requests for access are not disruptive, unreasonable, or intrusive.\" This plan takes \"positive steps\" to ensure that community \"involvement is substantive and ongoing. The parties also establish a joint committee to review curriculum and programs.\" (page 10). INTERDISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN (page 11) Magnet schools and M to M transfers are seen as \"building blocks\" of student assignment and transfer plans. Great mention is made of themes for Interdistrict Schools, and it is stressed that their selection involves parents/patrons. Interdistrict Schools to be established are: Baker Baker is to have an extended day program. This program does exist. It has not become an Interdistrict School yet and in the current appeal, efforts are made to prevent it from ever becoming one. PCSSD attorneys state that it has become balanced by M to M transfers. They suggest that the 200 seats that were to be at Baker for black LRSD students move to Crystal Hill when it is built. Harris Despite the fact that this plan states that Harris has the immediate capacity for 2(M) LRSD black students, Harris has not become an Interdistrict School. Again, appeals are being made to remove it as an interdistrict school, and to assign the proposed 200 LRSD seats to an unspecified \"new school\".4 Romine Romine is an Interdistrict School, and James Jennings states in his report of 8/22/91 to the LRSD Board of Directors that recruitment of white students from western PCSSD is underway. He also states that Pulaski County is informing their students on magnet waiting lists about open seats at Romine. A recruitment committee \"will be formed\" of staff members and parents to recruit throughout the year. Evidently the school year will begin before the committee forms. Romine added a 4-year-old class in 1991-92. Such a program is required, under this plan, as is a theme which was to be selected as of February 24, 1989. Stephens A new Interdistrict Stephens was to be constructed by the 1990-19 school year or, \"as soon as reasonably practical\". It is to be located near the 1-630 corridor. Current plans announced in the Gazette call for an opening date in Fall 1992 with the school to be constructed at 14th and Marshall on the site of old West Side Junior High, after it is razed. Stephens Interdistrict School will have an early childhood program. Black students will be assigned from the old Stephens attendance area (near 18th and Pine/Cedar). Plans are to attract white students from PCSSD and the children of state government workers. Crystal Hill An Interdistrict School is to be located near 1-430 and Maumelle Blvd. Some PCSSD whites may receive mandatory assignments to this school from the Oak Grove and Pine Forest attendance areas. Black students are to be recruited from the Romine area and/or attendance zones. King This is a new school to be constructed as a \"downtown Interdistrict School by the 1992-93 school year or as soon as reasonably practical\". A Montessori (modified?) theme is to be explored by a committee with representatives from each party. A report/recommendation regarding this will go to the Court by February 1990. OTHER STUFF - Interdistrict magnets are open to children from outside Pulaski County. - Consider a cooperatively-operated alternative school in North Little Rock. - By the end of 1990-91, it will be determined if an interdisciplinary school can be constructed in the Chenal Valley area and remain in compliance with desegregation requirements. - M to M transfers occur only when they enhance desegregation programs.5 PETITION TO MODIFY NLR DESEGREGATION PLAN Racial Composition of NLR Secondary Schools On 9/1/88 the Court approved a request to reorganize secondary schools. Ole Main will house grades 11 and 12. Northeast will have grades 9 and 10. Lakewood, Ridge Road, and Rose City will house grades 7 and 8. The North Little Rock magnet review committee has targeted white students at Lakewood for recruitment to Mann Magnet and LRSD black students to Lakewood as M to M transfers. The parties agree to make no mandatory reassignment of students to alter racial composition of secondary schools before 1990-91 provided no school is more than 5 points outside permissible levels (on page 20, the plan states that racial composition of each school is within 25% of the school district as a whole). To aid desegregation, black students from Ridge Road, Rose City, and Central Junior High (which no longer operates as a junior high) will be recruited for Oak Grove in PCSSD. Other transfers between NLR and Oak Grove may be allowed (page 23). SOMPA SOMPA (System of MultiPluralistic Assessment) has been dropped as an instrument for student evaluation for GT. The Torrence test for creative positives has been adopted instead. The NLRSD has implemented DISTAR peer tutoring and computer-assisted instruction as recommended in the Cantalician(?) Study. Other elements recommended in the study - Adaptive Learning Environment Model (ALEM) and Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI)  have been adapted and combined with other programs (see page 24). Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) has been substituted for the Dallas Preschool Screening Test. All kindergarten children participate in the EPSF screening upon kindergarten entry. SUMMER SCHOOL Summer school programs are for both remediation and enrichment. LRSD will have a free summer program for \"a select\" number of students with achievement deficiencies in reading and math. The total number served is estimated to be 500 students grade 1-12. Summer Learning Program (Sth grade remediation) This is for students who fail the MPT. It operates six weeks during the summer in the areas of: reading, English/language arts, math, science and social studies. Students work only in areas of \"identified need\". The may work in one area for six weeks, or in two areas with three weeks spent on each area.6 JTPA Literacy Students (ages 14-21) in Summer Youth Employment Program must be assessed in reading and math, and provided remediation. Extended Year Services There are also provisions for year-round services for some handicapped children if it seems that too much skills regression can occur in the summer. Collaboration All three districts are supposed to collaborate on summer school offerings to provide information and options for students (page 32). A tuition-free summer program for primary children \"is being formulated\" as an early intervention strategy. Expected outcomes By the summer of 1993, it is anticipated that a comprehensive, equitable, county-wide summer program will be offered for students in Pulaski County. Evaluation and Monitoring Summer school enrollment will be evaluated/monitored according to grade level, gender, subject area, and race. Progress/failure will be monitored according to grade level, gender, subject area, and race. Clinical supervision will be provided for teachers. 1 Summer school staff members will complete a questionnaire at the end of each summer.78 SPECIAL EDUCATION (p. 58) The plan states that action should be taken to reduce the number of minority children in special education classes. The percentage of children assigned to such classes should be reflective of the percentage in the school population, and should be comparable to appropriate statistics of handicapped students. There are currently some collaborative efforts between the parties. Based on these successes, it is recommended in this plan that the parties work together on: I. Programs for the low-incidence handicapping conditions a. Visually impaired b. Hearing impaired c. Multi-handicapped d. Seriously emotionally disturbed 2. Staff development A. Central office staff b. Prlncipals/other school staff c. Teachers 3. Multi-district assessment committee a. establish consistent screening process b. establish evaluation instruments to be used c. establish consistent eligibility criteria for MR and SLD 4. Establish process and coordination in area of recruitment of minority teachers and support staff. 5. Establish multi-district system (forms and formats) for documenting due process procedures. Guidance and Counseling Program Cooperative Efforts (p. 83) In order to better serve minority students, the directors or coordinators of counseling for all three school districts should meet monthly to plan for areas of cooperation. To facilitate identification of all children requiring remediation, a joint testing program based on the MAT-6 will be considered. Joint test purchasing, scoring, and reporting are possibilities. A biracial multidistrict monitoring team of parents, teachers, administrators, etc., will monitor test preparation and testing conditions. Teachers will receive training in test interpretation to identify at-risk and gifted children. A system of timely transfers of records between the three districts will be developed. PARENT/COMMUNITY (See attached)well as developing new additional programs designed to facilitate substantive Involvement and cooperation of parents/citizens in the districts. The proposed plan, which will be implemented in the fall of 1989 and be an ongoing process, will include: A. Develop parent involvement/support activities which facilitate the teaching-learning process: 1. Establish Parents in Learning Program, a a community-supported effort to involve parents in the learning process which would utilize such programs as APPLE, \"Just Say No,\" and HIPPY\n2. Provide workshops for parents on such topics as discipline, learning aids, study skills. academic tutoring, etc.\n3. Parents and staff work cooperatively to develop 4. strategies to encourage positive home learning\nEach school will establish a teacher/parent committee to design and implement school-based ties\nactivi- 5. Promote multi-ethnic in-school parent/teacher mittees\ncom- 6. Develop and expand the parent volunteer programs: a. Encourage all parents to become an active member of a parent involvement program\nb. Recruit prospective committee members from diversified communities including retired teachers and community leaders\n86 01803B. utilize parents in marketing educational programs and benefits that will result from desegregation: 1. Develop a resource list of parents who are willing to be contacted to talk with potential patrons\n2. Establish parent recruitment teams in each school to encourage families to enroll in the public schools\n3 . Seek positive media coverage featuring parents from all multiethnic backgrounds: a. Work through local parent/teacher organiza- tions to encourage positive media coverage\nI C. b. c. Designate a contact person at each local school to report to an established information center\nProduce video presentations of area schools for use by real estate offices, utility panies euid day care centers\ncom- Encourage community-wide multi-ethnic citizen/parent/ teacher/student committees for input into planning and decis ion-making: Establish building, district and multi-district 1. level committees which are racially, geographically and socio-economically representative to provide input and feedback on the operations of the schools and the districts\n87 01804  D. Work, with the Chamber of Commerce Committee on Education on its advocacy for public school activities: 1. 2. 3 . Expand the school/business partnerships\nHave a multi-district event to honor business part- ners in public schools\nEncourage the Chamber to continue existing such as the teacher programs appreciation rally and the Excellence in Education Awards for educators and students. Special needs will be addressed in each school district's desegregation plan Participation and programs are contingent on additional staffing and funds in PCSSD 8S 0180509Z.T0 Ct *  MH C ! Ml -x t  n. yiu  2 s  c hPah s s nt f\u0026lt; I 8 5 2 t r  c Ui{ IK H I ? t J kr I t i ih! iin n f ! ? I 8 ,1 11 3 u 3 RX = c s t? I ii 8 1 i t s I 3 s 3 {I ? ! t o 0  t 0 XT I ' u u u b b b I L L L L L L L. r r s ( * e t r s sWWW CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AiraiNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BLTLDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone (501) 376-2011 Fix No. (501) 376-2147 Dinxt No. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: EEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a report about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that\" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Court since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: \"(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations, It On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 -- 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2Court also notified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher positions in the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. , The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). 3 (I have transcripts of almost a -9 e There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK A PARINEMHI? OF nrorVIDUAIJ AND FROFcSSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 WEST CAPITOL little ROCC, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Telephone (501) 376-2011 Fk No. (501) 376-2147 Dirset No. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a repon about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that\" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)1. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Coun since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which\n\"(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds\n(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements\n(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified\nand (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations. II On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that \"the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites\" and ordered the Little Rock School District to \"submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan\" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled \"LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97\". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2Court als^otified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher positionsf^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year \"will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts\". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern \"about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson).\" The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward \"other issues of concern to the Court\". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed, The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review em). (I have transcripts of almost 3There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immeriiare distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning e legal proceedings in this case. 4S5 a-' A, Little Rock School District issa u VED June 1, 1993 JUN 2 1993 CKics of Cesegre^ :icn Wouiionng Mr. Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent of Business Affairs Pulaski County Special School District 1500 Dixon Road P. 0. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Dear Mr. Stewart: This letter is to inform you that a meeting should be scheduled to discuss the implementation of the pooling of Majority-to-Minority funds as required by the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. I would suggest that we meet sometime during the week of June 7. Please call Carol Hughett at 324-2009 to schedule an appointment. Sincerely, Ga: Ma: E ones hager of Resources and School Support cc: Bobby G. Lester Billy Bowles Mac Bernd Ann Brown Sam Jones Chris Heller Bob Morgan 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361TJ i i o ? (S B o 3 s o 3 a 3 Q. ?   a -4 I?? a* B (Ji i o S O It G3  3 a\n1 8 1 o s 8 V il yt O g c Q. co CQ 9 9 sr \" fii vt \u0026lt; o 3 % o to a. tt 9 3 9 I s 3 3* 9  3 9 9 9 3 a - 3 3 3  s. 9 B S s 3 51 2 S 3 a ? 3 O S a -n  \u0026amp; 5- 2 3 O 3 B  ii. S. B TJ \u0026amp; 1  5  9 U 3 B O 9 3 9 o  S co 3 M o \u0026gt; c 6 3 S  - m 03 c (O 9 \u0026lt; \u0026lt; Z* Z* W 9 9 O O 9 3 9 S rp 5 S 3 a- 9 9 3 CO I-- 4k Ki r  Oi Ki   00 K3   O Ki  Ki K4   03 00 bo o o c 5 9 1 ^2 Oi 'ui cn 9 cn S QI yi SS KJ Gi co UI 82 2 hi o (0 8 OO UI o Gi o C3 b N) CO \u0026lt;5 S S O o 2 ? w B B  \u0026lt; m (n St X  B 3 3 9 9 3 9 o a 7* 7* 2  B B CD CD F 0 rt   I S-S-OOr- \u0026gt; g* S S 3 S 3 3 2 3 B B B S S 3 O 9 9 a? 3 9 9 .3 3 9 ** ** in s ? 9 s  ? 2 I S cn tn S = o Q 2 2 \u0026lt; 0 0 0 9 9 3 11 3 3 5! 3 3 9 9 2 c N) s o 3 8 3 3 2 c 9 O B 0) 'g) 00 u u fe K3 UI UI S p p p  s s s s O) 03 O) K3 Oi I 01 O\u0026gt; 0\u0026gt; K\u0026gt; flO p 00 b\u0026gt; b CD 01 M O\u0026gt; 1 I  2. 9 s m m 9 2. 3 3 2 2. a a 3 S S  c c 2 = -o 1* 9 90 CD CD  3. 3 W \u0026lt;- 5- B S 5 ? 3 3 3 .^, s 11  S s  g ? s Ti Vi C tt 3 3 9 C 0 B ? tn 3 \u0026lt; 3 9  Tn O 3 S. 9 5  \u0026gt;n *3 2. 3 ?  3 2. 3  * \"Si a w s 9 8 3  3. \u0026lt; c 3 w s. bT 9 U) 0 Ki -sj -J co UI cn 111 UI .U M 00 *03 'tn 'o s s O) UI OO co 4k N3 'kJ S3 3 B 5 T3 B  3 9 3 o o o 3 IS II Q. O CD A S \u0026amp; C a (I 2 St 3 o 2 3 3 c 3 a cn I cn  2 3 B SL 00 s N3 8  N3 UI O K3 -* 0) O) K) O M 00 S?!*2 *Q 'a O '-tJ b '-M Q U M N O S O A A 9 O A O O) yi o w a p p UI M N3 00 co \u0026lt;9 UI Ki UI cn Q cn c\u0026lt;i O Ci Gi \"si 'oo 'tn tn 5 00 O Ki Ki 4K -* -\u0026gt;4 O 03 'cn 'tn 'jK '\u0026lt;D 6 00 Ki o cn o cn 8 y i 8 o Oi cn A Gi CD 00 00  N M -k N N3 -k O OO K3 o 2 'ui b) ui - 0\u0026gt; 2 UI O\u0026gt; M a bo UI 2 co (O tn 4k 00 t\u0026gt;3 *ui '.u *oo Cj3 cn co 'o '-\"J 'co $ Oi -u *4 -k Ki CJI co 8 03 Q) S s 9 n \u0026lt;n ti le CO n 0 3- (D Q. C (D O oo 2 '6 Ki oo 'co K3 03 1 00 s M 03 o N3 UI CO C*) *00 Ki \u0026lt;O 'co M M S M S M W CD p CO Ki S S UI Ui cn o\u0026gt; UI co M CO 'oo 00 O 03 O CO co UI C^ Ci o UI co Ki co 'oo UI cn Ki K\u0026gt; 't3 *03 _ 00 00 o M lU C*i si co *4 S'cn Ki .U 00 cn ci b 2 ss Ki K .K 'Oi s UI N3 K3 03 'co 'q 00 UI cn *\u0026gt;4 w s 00 co lU 00 lU UI b 03 K3 00 St o UI M 00 N3 s g':i \u0026gt;4 O UI N3 g co 2 O 3 m 3 co \u0026lt; 2 0 fi) 3 (D 3 (O hJ  \u0026lt;O S CO  to co!' A) 8 2  6 \u0026lt; O 2 8 co w $ 9 tt 5 o 9 tt IO fo 2 2 \u0026lt; 00 9 B $ 9 -n c 3 a 0 O :o co o 2\u0026gt; CO 1*3PCSSD PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT June 9, 1993 JUN 1 1 1993 Office o( Deseycijaficn bicniiofirto Mr. Gary Jones Manager of Resources and School Support Little Rock School District 810 West Markham 1500 Dixon Road/P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 (501) 490-2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Jones: As per our conversation this morning, attached is a work sheet which shows the the 1992-93 school year of implementing the language in the Settlement Agreement regarding pooling of M-to-M funds received for students attending interdistrict schools. effect during The work sheet does not include pre-kindergarten students attending those schools. II\"f it -i-s ultimately decided that funds are to be received for those students, this calculation needs to be revisited and any necessary adjustment made at that time. The attached work sheet indicates that a check from you in the amount of $167,220 will tentatively settle this matter for 1992-93 until a decision students. is made on the funding of pre-kindergarten Please let me know if I can supply additional information. Sincerely, . Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent - Business Affairs bay Enc. 1 cc: Bobby G. Lester Mac Bernd Billy Bowles Ann Brown i/ Chris Heller Sam Jones Bob Morgan \u0026lt;*\u0026gt; s o \u0026lt;o o cn _i co o o 03 O\u0026gt; gctc Ss I O 55  LU S H t O I Q S (73 5 UL o OS O Q -Z. CO O o o 0. Q_ co 05 CO cm' c Lli oi  cn oi CM m Q cn co o z I z Q \u0026lt; 0. cn Q Z  LL cn cn O O (jy cn O \u0026lt; 0. LL 2 Q Ul _i O o 0. \u0026lt; H o LU I E^ 01 Z' Qi z\n I LU I 2 Q \u0026lt; I d co CM O cm' 05 co I co CO 051 tn _ /\\ I co co co o o co CM in co CO ee^ o o co co CM O CM cm' 05 CM CM (n cn O o cn cn O \u0026lt; a. LX. 2 CM in co CM in co CO co O CM CM co o CM CO o o o_ o o CM fA- co o CO o o m co  CE I z o G CM CO W- o 05 o' CM CO CO O o' GO e)* cn z LU 2 LU Q LU o O CL \u0026lt; 1- o LU I- \u0026lt; c o z Q Z D LL 2 Q \u0026lt; I d m CO CM CM_ oo' CO CM co co co 05 CO CM O CM m co\" in CL (n \u0026lt; t- O 1- o 05 o GO CM (A LU \u0026lt; a: LU 0 \u0026lt; CC LU \u0026gt; \u0026lt; CO 05 CM to (A co o s o o co co \u0026lt;z\u0026gt; G CO o o in co 05 CO ee\u0026gt; LO LO co' LO co o (A O z o 5  z Q cn c o H (2 LU I o\" co cn O X LU 13 tn z LU 2 \u0026amp; cn O Z O Q Q Z Q tn a: o (3 LU 5 o q' cn cn CJ 0. Cu 3 a I-  O I 2 I o T 2 Z 1 2 I o T 2 LU I- Z \u0026lt; Q tn tn tn 0 \u0026lt; H o Q W (n o 0. Q \u0026lt; CL W Q Z  LL. z o I 2 I o T 2 z I 2 I o T 2 \u0026lt; H o I- Q CO QC Q LU -I o o \u0026lt; o Q LU LU o LU Z I- Z LU Q D W * \u0026gt; z CL CO 2 Q \u0026lt; I d co CM I ijC 0 LU Q \u0026lt; q: ci o o co co co co co CO o in co cn _j O O z o (73 O cc H- W Q CC LU H Z 2 Q \u0026lt; I d m O 5 05 CM co CO co cn _i o o z o cz) H O Z 00 Q cn o CL Q tn tz -1 O) \u0026lt; t- O Q W (f) a (L CM r- 1 ic: cn LU Q \u0026lt; 0 0 co 2 UJ i d 2 LU _l LU CE LU it\n\u0026lt; m \u0026lt; O t- Q w cn o 0. Q cr LU z Q (/) E 2 LU _1 LU LU Z 2 O X \u0026lt; o Q W 0^^803 ri JSSSf' /I'-- e-,-/ Little Rock School District n June 1, 1993 JUN 2 1993 Cfiics of Cesegregsycn Woi oring Mr. Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent of Business Affairs Pulaski County Special School District 1500 Dixon Road P. O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Dear Mr. Stewart: This letter is to inform you that a meeting should be scheduled to discuss the implementation of the pooling of Majority-to-Minority funds as required by the Desegregation Settlement Agreement. I would suggest that we meet sometime during the week of June 7. Please call Carol Hughett'at 324-2009 to schedule an appointment. Sincerely, Ga: Ma: ones hager of Resources and School Support cc: Bobby G. Lester Billy Bowles Mac Bernd Ann Brown Sam Jones Chris Heller Bob Morgan 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361 EIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. IjR-C-32-865 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS, LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS IN..SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL l.ntroduction The settlement agreement in this case requires that the case smissed with prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD. settlement agreement was approved by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and by this court, but the required order of dismissal was overlooked and has not been entered. In accordance with the I-'' terms of the settlement agreement, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD are entitled to an order of dismissal. The \"RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD,\" which was appi^oved by this court and the court of appeals as Attachment B to the settlement agreement, contains the following requirement\n It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, PqoX Schgoj District -  ______ ASllftQi_Distrigt Np.Le et al. No. LR-C-82-866 and cases Western Division, entitled Xj_gulaski County Special consolidated therein and their predecessors {includincr. but not limited to. Cooper v. Aaron. Norwood Tucker v iJOOlgl P,i?trict) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed Kail vi AVdiad with 3. so  11 \u0026lt;=. Ot ' 1 iprejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of board education named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans.\" its of in Pulaski County Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, Attachment B, p. 2. The settlement agreement also requires that this case be dismissed with respect to PCSSD and NLRSD. Settlement Agreement, Attachment C, p. 2 and Attachment D, p. 2. The settlement agreement contains the following \"Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua And The Districts\": \"Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" Settlement Agreement, p. 19. This litigation ended with the approval of the settlement agreement except that this court has retained jurisdiction. in 900 accordance with the agreement. to resolve issues related to implementation of the desegregation plans and enforcement of the settlement agreement. been entered. Arqrumant An order cf dismissal, however, has not yet The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the parties' settlement agreement on December 12, 1990. LRSD V. PCSSD. 921 F.2d 1371 (Sth Cir. 1990) . The court of appeals directed the district court, on remand, \"to approve the parties' settlement agreement as written by them.\" I^. at 1394. Kl.d hV) AVGIMJ On January 18, 1991, this court 01 :il 96 OS/I I 2 \u0026amp;ordered that \"[tjhe parties' settlement agreement is hereby approved as written by them.\" According to the terms of the settlement agreement set forth above, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD were entitled to an order of dismissal with prejudice upon this court's approval of the settlement agreement. The order required by the settlement agreement will not affect this court's authority, as described in the settlement agreement, to retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the desegregation plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement or the desegregation plans. The question of whether a certain component of the settlement agreement should be implemented ha arisen once before. In LRSD V. PCSSD. 971 F.2d 160 (Sth Cir. 1992) , the court of appeals confronted the issue of whether the district court was required to extend certain millages in accordance with Item M of the settlement agreement. The district court had \"thought it 'unwise to infer from the court of appeals' approval of the settlement agreement that [the district court was] required to extend the omitted millages,\" Id. at 164. The Eighth Circuit said: \" (\"What the district court failed to recognize is that we directed it to 'approve the parties' settlement agreement ag.__written by them.\" \"[A]s written by them,\" the settlement agreement included Item M, which corrected the problem of the omitted millages The extension of the omitted millages is therefore settled as the law of the case.\" Li. at 165 (citations omitted, emphasis in original). 3  iOO haiH vj Avaiaa S6 Ot 11 11 : i IOne of the reasons the district court had given for declining o implement Item M was that even though the court of appeals had approved the settlement agreement in its entirety, it had not specifically mentioned Item M in its opinion. Xd. at 164. The court of appeals made it clear that the parties were entitled\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_720","title":"Staffing","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1989/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School employees","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Staffing"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/720"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nUA8T NAME |Banr [Wilkins [Butts [Foti Jones Bailey [Romontio iSurrough Clark [McMahan ^Bell Hilburn I, Keller jPelen Aukes [Moore Meier Talley farther 'Sykes iPace Evans [McKniflht [Frasier Batson [Person [Mangan carter jLowe Sarver McGuire Warren Guppy Roe iZollar ROCKEFELLER STAFF 89 - 90 FIRST NAME RACE SEX GRADE FULL TIME iMyrtle [Margaret iValencia Beth Lucia Angela Nina 'Mary Ann [Sarah jMariiou Priss r iKarfa [Dana .Pat k/ickie jFrancile Judy [Carolyn Kitty I Delois [Katie T Rebecha Lillie ,Doreen Ann t----------- Pam jAnn Lillie Martha Doris Steve jcindy [Georgia IMary Kay T iMargaret COUNT: W J F [Teacher-Infants \n------------------------------------------r I W I F |Teacher-3 Yr. Qins 1.00 B F Teacher- 4 YrOldi 1.00 1 00 I i I F [Teacher-4 Yr. GIdl 1.00 i 1 ~\n------------------1-------- ! W I F Teacher- 4 Yr Old: W t-B T 1.00 [ F Kindergarten t W ' F Kindergarten W__: F [1st Grade ! W F .1 st Grade i I W j F\nist Grade w t ! w I ! F iand Grade F find Grade I W j F jSrti Grade B F 3rd Grade  W I F 4th Grade I T I s I i F 4th Grade I i 1.00 I 1.00 1 I T 1.00 1.00 1.00 i 1,00 1.00 t - 1,00 i 1.00 1.00 w B 1 I I i I I 1,00 L |Sth Grade j 1.00 j I F iSth Grade I W ! F ^th Grade 1.00 J I 1.C0 B F leth Gra^ I, I a I F Gpec. Ed t T J- W W W w B W B W W w w w w I w 36 F lArt F [Music F [P. E. F Chap. 1 Math ! 1.00 i  1.00 ! 1 00 I I 1.00 i 1.00 1 F Chap. 1 Reading j F [Principal F [Asst. Principal F [Counselor F [Media Spec. M [speech Therapist F [Nurse F kSifled/Talented I 1.00 I 1.00 1.00 I 1,00 ! 1.00 j 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 \"1 F jcomputer Spec. [ 1.00 F iFamity Life Spec. I 0.25 4LRSD EMPLOYEE COUNT 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Certified Non-certified TOTAL 1,972 1,359 3,331 2,048 1,465 3,513 2,043 1,651 3,694 2,056 1,859 3,915LRSD teacher statistics 1-20-9L Democrat SCHOOL AVG. EXPERIENCE AVQ. WHITE BLACK AGE TEACHERS TEACHERS HIGH SCHOOL I other' RACES' Central Hall Mann Metro Parkview 12 9  \u0026gt;11:. 13 43 \u0026lt;-\u0026lt;\u0026gt;42. \u0026lt;' 42 \u0026gt;\n\u0026gt;.:45\u0026lt;\" 44 71 53 36 26 42 33 22 22 4 20 1 1 ! JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Dunbar Fair. \\ Forest Heights Pulaski Heights Soutnwest McClellan Henderson Alternative Cloverdale Mabelvale 7 9 10 7 \u0026lt;5 10 1 3 42 '\u0026lt;\u0026lt;v4d/:\u0026lt;'' 41 \u0026lt;'41- 39 40 40 .34 38 39 21 45 35 41 25 51 35 4 42 33 ELEMENTARY Booker Bale Brady Badgett McDermott Carver \u0026gt; Baseline Fair Park-  Forest Park Franklin  - Garland Gibbs \u0026gt; \u0026gt; \u0026gt; Western Hills - Jefferson Cloverdale Dodd \u0026gt; Meadowcliff Mitchell Rockefeller- Geyer Springs Pulaski Heights Rightsell Romine Stephens  \u0026lt; \u0026gt; Washington : Williams Wilson Woodruff Mabelvale Terry Fulbright Ish Otter Creek Wakefield Watson________ SOURCE: LRSD 7 9 1 4 13 \u0026gt;  3' 5 11 8 8 1 10 10 3 3 10 8 6 4 6 11 9 8 3 9 10 5 3 9 9 9 5 4 _5_ 40 -\u0026lt;41 \u0026lt;\n39 41 41. 35 37 \u0026lt;\u0026gt;'43 \u0026lt; 38 39 39 42 42 42 39 41 43 41 41 37 39 41 40 40 34 39 43 41 38 39 44 43 40 41 _aa___ ..... .. . 31.... : 14 22 12 24 30 15 10 13 26 15 19 14 24 11 16 18 10 21 10 18 10 13 13 ' 42 25 - :18 \u0026lt; 26 24 , W\u0026gt;23... .  ''^'''' '\"9\"  16 16 __2i_ 20 17 22 12 24 17 21 3 13 12 t 2 16 10 7 7 9 7 12 11 9 6 15 8 14 24 11 16 18 10 21 10 18 10 13 13 42 25 : 18 9 26 24 9 16 16 24 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\n : 5 J MICHAEL STOREY / Arkansas DemocratLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 February 6, 1992 TO: Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney FROM: James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services SUBJECT: Pupil/Teacher Ratios The North Central Accreditation Standards state the following concerning the ratio of pupils to teachers: 24.02 Pupli/Professional Staff Ratio. The ratio of pupils to teachers and other professional staff members shall not exceed 20 to 1. In computing the ratio, the school may include the instructional responsibilities of all professional staff assigned to the building plus the time devoted to instruction by other professional personnel. The attachment to this memo provides the pupil/teacher ratio for each elementary school in the Little Rock School District. NCA provisions listed above are used to compute pupil/teacher The ratios. The staffing information is taken directly from the NCA rts developed at the beginning of the school year. The icliowing certificated positions are included in the staffing counts: - Prekindergarten teachers - Kindergarten teachers - Grade level teachers - Special subject area teachers - Building principal - Assistant principal - Guidance counselor - Media specialist/librarianLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY PUPIL/TEACHER RATIOS School 1-31-92 Enrollment Staffing Count P/T Ratio Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Ish Jefferson Mabelvale McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Hgts. Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Stephens Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff 222 361 332 630 413 606 518 388 309 327 410 497 534 275 258 349 198 483 509 511 432 321 363 357 296 401 362 237 526 474 840 470 334 499 396 231 19 29 24 45 30 43 37 25 23 25 24 37 2 27 20 31 23 31 35 32 26 25 22 22 27 30 27 26 29 31 50 31 21 34 27 17 11.68 12.44 13.83 14.00 13.77 14.09 14.00 15.52 13.43 13.08 17.08 13.43 16.69 10.19 12.90 11.26 8.61 15.58 14.54 15.97 16.61 12.84 16.50 16.22 10.96 13.36 13.40 9.11 18.13 15.29 16.80 15.16 15.90 14.68 14.67 13.59 IA Little Rock School District November 20, 1992 RECEIVED Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation and Monitoring Heritage West Building NOV 2 5 1992 Little Rock, AR 72201 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Dear Ann: Thank you for inviting me to the meeting in your office to discuss matters related to the desegregation plan. Per our discussion, this letter is submitted to provide an update on the Staffing Committee for Incentive Schools that is required in the desegregation plan. At the inception of the Incentive Schools, the purpose of the staffing committee was to determine the staffing needs at each school and then develop criteria for principal and staff selection based on a needs assessment. An interview team was to have been selected from members of the staffing committee to interview and make recommendations to the principals. It is my understanding that although an interview team was established and recommendations were made by this committee, the contracted agreement actually dictated which teachers were placed in the schools. Therefore, at this time, Ms. Arma Hart will assist me in instituting a new staffing committee that will determine the present staffing needs at each of the schools and develop criteria for principal and staff selection needed in the future. Each principal has submitted names of patrons and staff personnel to serve on this committee. In the future, when positions become vacant, the interview team will be involved in the hiring process and will make recommendations to the principals, goal of this administration to have quality staff in the It is a Incentive Schools who are committed to the goals of the program. A District-wide Staffing Committee for Incentive Schools meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 9, 1992, from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m., in the Board Room of the Administration Building. If you need additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, Janet Bernard Associate Superintendent cc: Marie Parker 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000 {rrsw 3 a 'Is t J D APR 2 S 1553 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET Office of Desogregation ! .'io\ni! Big LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 April 28, 1993 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Mac Bernd, Superintendent  SUBJ: Recommendations Concerning Certified Staff Reemployment for 1993-94 School Year The following attachments are submitted for your consideration: 1, Section 1 is a list of certified personnel who have stated that they wish to resign or retire at the end of their current contract. 2. Section 2 is a list of intern teachers who are not being recommended for reemployment at this time. These individuals will be eligible to apply for announced vacancies for the 1993- 94 school year. 3. Section 3 is a list of certified personnel who are recommended for reemployment with conditions pending recertification. 4. Section 4 is a list of certified personnel who are recommended for reemployment with conditions pending course deficiency removal. 5. Section 5 is a list of certified personnel whose positions are funded with federal monies who are recommended for reemployment with the following conditions: Provided that if federal financial assistance for the position in which you are assigned is not forthcoming pursuant to pending applications, or such assistance as is granted for such position is less that the amount applied for as well as staffing needs, then the Board of Education may non-renew, terainate contract. or modify thisPage 2 6. Section 6 is a list of vocational teachers who do not have enough students enrolled in their classes to justify their continued employment. They are recommended for reemployment with the following condition: If a sufficient number of students fail to enroll in your progreun, the Board of Directors shall have the right to non-renew, terminate or modify your contract. It is futher recommended that contracts be renewed for certified personnel who have not been sent notification of a recommendation for non-renewal or termination and who have indicated that they wish to return to the District in 1993- 94. Final assignments will be made in accordance to staffing needs and in compliance with negotiated agreements.NAME Anderson, Jean Johnson, Nicole Raney, Sarah Scott, Susan Sprinkle, Marie Taylor, Debra White, Lynda Wooley, Angela Brewer, Rosemary Brown, Martha Calvin, Francella Davis, Carolyn Dietz, Joan Elders, Oliver Glaze, Diana Hooks, Naomi Hrishikesan, Ruth Loss, George Loss, Kathleen SECTION 1 RESIGNATIONS/RETIREES 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 POSITION SCHOOL Resignations French Gibbs Third Grade Kindergarten First Grade Fifth Grade Computer Tech Asst Principal First Grade Retirees Social Studies Media Specialist Special Education Math Home Economics Coach Principal Librarian Social Studies Coach Principal Wilson Brady Baseline Dodd Cloverdale Jr Gibbs Jefferson Hall Meadowcliff Jefferson Otter Creek/Chicot Central Hall Watson Forest Parkview Southwest Pulaski Hgts ElemRESIGNATIONS/RETIREES (Cont'd) (Section 1) NAME POSITION SCHOOL Muldrew, Jerome Palmer-Walker, Sue Rogers, Sue Tadlock, Mary Williams, Myrna Zimmerman, Earl Retirees Soc Stud Coord Fifth Grade Librarian Specialist Second Grade Director Central Rightsell Dodd Planning \u0026amp; Evaluation Meadowcliff Staff DevelopmentNAME Adams, Pamela Andrews, Sharon Battershell, Mary Divings, Mary Bradberry, Alice Buckelew, Mackie Burgess, Melissa Charles, Kimberly Clemons, Elizabeth Collins, Julie Cookus, Jerry Crommett, Joe Fleming, Brenda Ford, Roger Gates, Kathy Guinn, Hubert Hardin, Cassandra Hively, Lynn Holmes, Margaret Howard, Dianne SECTION 2 INTERN TEACHERS 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 POSITION SCHOOL Fifth Grade Math Specialist Chemistry Reading Spec Math Special Ed English Reading Art Math Asst English Math Asst First Grade Second Grade Math Asst. Fifth Grade Kindergarten Math Asst First Grade Third Grade Watson Carver McClellan Washington Franklin Forest Heights Central Southwest Woodruff Dunbar Pulaski Hgts Jr Mabelvale Jr Fair Park Ish Central Gibbs Garland Henderson Jefferson TerryINTERN TEACHERS (Cont'd) (Section 2) NAME POSITION SCHOOL Jackson, Mona Third Grade Fulbright Jackson, Vernita Special Ed Dodd Kennedy, Cynthia Math Asst Pulaski Hgts Jr Kunowski, Diane Math Asst Southwest Logan, Andrew Physical Ed Dunbar Marsh, Edward Math Central McBride, Barbara Speech Bale Merry, Susan Lrng Fnd Pulaski Hgts Jr Naylor, Sandra Fifth Grade Garland Nunn, Berthena Theme Specialist Franklin Parker, Charlotte Vocational Health Metropolitan Rhodes, Billy Sixth Grade Washington Robinson, David Band Director McClellan Saylor, Neville Special Ed Woodruff Seale, Carolyn Fourth Grade Terry Shepherd, Paula English Pulaski Hgts Jr Slayton, Pamela Civics McClellan Sproles, Tonya Second Grade Washington Taylor, Monica First Grade Garland Taylor, Travis Band Director Central Thomas, Nehemiah Social Studies Alt Lrng Center Thrasher, Eunice Speech Ish/Otter CreekINTERN TEACHERS (Cont'd) (Section 2) NAME POSITION SCHOOL Walters, Alice Kindergarten Pulaski Hgts Elem Webb, Thomas Math Cloverdale Jr All other certified personnel who were hired as intern teachers and who might have been omitted from this list due to oversight are also not recommended for reemployment at this time.NAME Condition: SECTION 3 CONDITIONAL LIST PENDING RECERTIFICATION 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 SCHOOL Completion of renewal of teacher's certificate valid for the 1993-94 school year. Alexander, Cora Henderson Bass, Mattie Central Bateman, Frances Gibbs Battershell, Mary McClellan Berman, Linda M. Woodruff Bernard, Janet Administration Brandt, Nancy Western Hills Capoot, Michael Cloverdale Jr Chambers, Anthony Cloverdale Jr Coon, Sue Central Crenshaw, Ora Ish Falls, Jacqueli Southwest Farlow, Amelia Parkview Fowler, Millicent Wakefield Hanley, Georgette Pulaski Hgts Elem Hartman, Kristi Geyer Springs Hicks, Carla Wilson CONDITIONAL LISTCONDITIONAL LIST (Section 3) NAME SCHOOL Hunter, Thelma Forest Heights James, Brenda Central Jones, Jack Cloverdale Jr Kennedy, Malinda Pulaski Hgts Jr Knight, Burl Pulaski Hgts Jr Langston, Pamela Mann Loya, Samuel Central Lusk, Jennifer Parkview Mahnken, Susan McDermott Malone, Dorothy Stephens McClendon, Joanne Central Morey, Donna Fair Parker, Marie Student Assignment Pleasant, Carwin Booker Richardson, Donald Pulaski Hgts Jr Roy, Portia Stephens Schult, Shala Shehane, Margaret Science/Envir Ed IRC Fair Shelton, Sherrie Mabelvale Elem Slayton, Pamela McClellan Smith, Harry Mann Snowden, Sherrie FairCONDITIONAL LIST (Section 3) NAME SCHOOL Talburt, Rebecca Southwest Taylor, Dianne Forest Heights Thrasher, Beverly Central Value, Terri Badgett Volsen, David Parkview Walker-Wheeler, Lisa Henderson Washington, Anne Williams Watson, Fredonia Rockefeller Wetherington, Edna Adult Education Wilder, Robert Fair Williams, Cynthia Henderson Williams, Gary Henderson Williams, Joyce Parkview Williams, Leslie Central Williams, Myrna MeadowcliffNAME SECTION 4 CONDITIONAL PENDING COURSE DEFICIENCY REMOVAL 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 POSITION SCHOOL Condition: Completion of valid courses. Acre, Glendon Counselor Dunbar Arick, Joyce Marketing Education Central Bailey, Angela Counselor Cloverdale Elem. Bailey, Jack Physical Education Chicot Banks, Rickey Elementary Garland Bettis, Paula Elementary Carver Brooks, Sharon Asst. Principal Washington Buehling, Cynthia Elementary Western Hills Burchett, Carletta Chapter I Reading Stephens Cannon, Sharron G/T Mabelvale Jr. Castell, Tony Special Education SW/Pul Hgts Jr Chambers, Anthony Coaching Cloverdale Jr. Clark, Nancy Career Orientation Mabelvale Jr. Colburn, Melissa Curr Spec/G\u0026amp;T McClellan Coleman, Jon Elementary Washington Collier, Cleophis General Science Henderson Collins, Peggy Kindergarten Pulaski Hgts Elem Copeland, Jacquelyn Elementary Cloverdale Elem. Cox, Angela Life Science MannCONDITIONAL DEPENDING COURSE DEFICIENCIES (Section 4) NAME POSITION SCHOOL Crobsy, Susan Elementary Franklin Ezell, Regina Elementary Washington Faubel, Virginia General Coop. Ed. Parkview Flanigan, Laura Mathematics Dunbar Gallant, Jennifer Health Pulaski Hgts Jr. Goodnight, Shirley V. Home Economics Pulaski Hgts Jr. Goodwin, Katherine Elementary Meadowcliff Grayson, Kayren Elementary Gibbs Hansen, Mary Ann Physical Education Mitchell Hogg, Jacqueline Geography Pulaski Hgts Jr. Hunt, Marietta Kindergarten Forest Park Hunter, Thelma Reading McClellan Ingram, Jennifer Geometry/Algebra McClellan Jacobs, Mary Health Henderson Jefferson, Cynthia Elementary Western Hills Kidd, Cleortius Coaching Mann Kinder, James Art Booker King, Jeri General Coop. Ed. McClellan Lincoln, Robert Physical Science Mann Little, Valerie Geography McClellan Lloyd, Emily Instrumental Music Mann Lloyd, Julia Kindergarten Cloverdale Elem. Malone, Dorothy Elementary Stephens Malone, Hosea General Science HallCONDITIONAL PENDING COURSE DEFICIENCY REMOVAL (Section 4) NAME POSITION SCHOOL McFadden, Charles Reading Cloverdale Jr. McSwain, Joyce Algebra Mann Middlebrooks, Susan G/T Southwest Moseley, Fran Arkansas History Cloverdale Jr. Mosley, Brenda Economics McClellan Nesmith, Estella Elementary Carver Norrell, Sherry Chapter I Reading Meadowcliff Norton, Gary Coaching Mann Pearson, Boyce Elementary Ish Peek, Peggy Special Education Geyer Springs Purifoy, Jimmy Instructional Music Stephens Redwood, Yolanda Kindergarten Ish Remley, O.C. Coaching Mann Rhodes, Billy Elementary Washington Robinson, John Asst. Principal Mabelvale Jr. Routen, Irma Elementary Woodruff Samons, Kathryn Spanish Cloverdale Jr. Shelton, Gail Special Education Rightsell Sims, Shirley Kindergarten Cloverdale Elem. Smith, Harry Health Mann Stiedle, Joyce G/T Henderson Toran, Steve Elementary ChicotCONDITIONAL PENDING COURSE DEFICIENCY REMOVAL (Section 4) NAME POSITION SCHOOL Turner, Diane G/T Mann Van Pelt, Sharon Chapter I Reading Cloverdale Elem Walker-Wheeler, Lisa Instrumental Music Henderson Wallace, Rodney Elementary Pulaski Hgts Elem Washington, Ruby Mathematics Henderson Wilson, Tammi Elementary Otter Creek Zies, Mary Physical Education WilliamsSECTION 5 FEDERAL PROGRAMS 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 NAME NAME Chapter I Reading Teachers Elementary School Averitt, Ann Mahnken, Susan Balenko, Mary Mazzanti, Hariette Betton, Ira Miller, Emma Bivings, Mary Norrell, Sherry Burchett, Carlette Odgen, Marilyn Burgin, John Person, Pam Charles, Kathleen Preslar, Kathryn Couch, Martha Rowe, Margo Davis, Dorothy Runion, Dianne Dumas, Josephine Schoemaker, Edna Finkbeiner, Debbie Schwartz, Cathy Gershner, Vicki Sebourn, Karen Ghant, Janet Shells, Geneva Gray, Lou Ann Smith, Bill Hall, Carolyn Spencer, Lynda Hays, Linda Steelman, Carolyn Hester, Susan Throneberry, Barbara Hodoway, Helen Washington, Juanita Keown, Ada Yeager, Judith Maddox, CindyFEDERAL PROGRAMS (Cont'd) (Section 5) NAME NAME Chapter I Mathmatics Teachers Elementary School Adams, Janet Kovach, Lillian Baker, Susie Lewis, Janice Beard, Elmer McGee, Suzanne Beard, Susan McDonald, Mary Bradberry, Alice Nagel, Diana Bryant, Carolyn Page, Nell Craig, Deborah Powell, Edith Daneshmandi, Kathryn Schwerin, Ruth Davis, Yvonne Snowden, Sallie Fair, Dixie Stiles, Donna Fowler, Earlene Tarkington, Susan Hall, Gracie Thompson, Sandra Hicks, Barbara Watson, Ann Jacuzzi, Marilyn Williams, Peggy James, Rita Wroten, Myrthene Jones, Docia Kodell, ValerieFEDERAL PROGRAMS (Cont'd) (Section 5) NAME NAME Chapter I Reading Teachers Secondary Schools Bass, Mattie Magee, Mildred Berman, Linda McKinney, Rebecca Carter, Mary Robinson, Susie Cobbs, Mary Chapter I Math Teachers Secondary Schools Cheatham, Guy Hively, Lynn Collins, Julie Kennedy, Cynthia Crommett, Joe McMurray, Victor Davis, Phylesia Pike, Perry Barnes, Emma Gerald, Nellie Guppy, Georgia Jones, Mary Compensatory Reading Teachers Secondary Schools Southerland, Terry Tarbot, Melinda Taylor, Dianne Thurman, Suzanne McCanell, Ethelene Van Pelt, Sharon Moore, Susanne Wickcliffe, Alice North, Morisetta Williams, Nanette Singh, DonnaFEDERAL PROGRAMS (Section 5) NAME NAME Math Teachers Dunbar, Kathy Richardson, Donald Knowiski, Diane Uketui, Ike Nichols, Robert Conditional Carl Perkins Funding Ferguson, Joseph Raymond, Diane Vocational Evaluator Vocational Counselor Swihart, Barbara Data Entry Clerk Vinsant, Marie Tech Prep Coordinator Watson, Clyde Vocational EvaluatorNAME SECTION 6 CONDITIONAL PENDING METROPOLITAN ENROLLMENT 1993-94 School Year April 28, 1993 POSITION Berry, Darrell TV Production Beyah, Rosie Word Processing Carter, Earl Auto Body Collie, Steve Printing Eackles, Victor Auto Technology Evans, Rick Printing Fornero, Dan Computer Programming Fortson, Gwyn Welding Gay, Bob Radio Broadcasting Grummer, Carl Drafting Harris, Bill Electronics Havens, Don Air/Heating Hines, Scottie Cosmetology Kirkpatrick, Terry Printing Parker, Charlotte Health Perry, Mitchell Printing Purdy, Ray Computer Roberts, L. B. Auto Technology Skipper, J. C. Auto Body Soderling, Linda Cosmetology Stroud, Royce Res Construction Thurman, Suzanne Commercial Food.X. RECE5VSP I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY 1 0 '993 Baseline Elementary School 3623 Baseline Road Phone 570-4150 Olfice of Desegregation Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Monitoring April 27, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS, I The faculty and staff of Baseline Elementary wish to issue a strong protest against the proposal to eliminate the computer lab attendant at our school. Baseline is an open-space, area school with special needs. of the instructional curriculum will be greatly diminished by the removal of this aide. the effectiveness We feel Baseline, as an open area school, already receives less funding than many district schools, and consequently has fewer available resources. The computer lab has been a great asset in attracting Southwest Little Rock residents to our school, which was designated The elimination of our computer attendant will destroy the effectiveness of one of our most productive and visible assets. a computer school. Our computer program is not a \"pull'-out\" program. Equity in education is evidenced in our computer lab where each student is working on his/her appropriate level toward a spec'i\"fic academic goal. We, as a staff, ask that you consider the special needs of our students. Even with teacher training, the students will not receive the same benefits I they have been receiving from our extremely well-planned, well-executed  computer program if our lab- atten-d---a--n--t is -r-e-m---o--v--e--d-. Our teachers and our lab attendant have a special, very productive working relationship that should not be sacrificed. Such a sacrifice would be counter-productive to achieving Sincerely, /Jn the district academic objectives at Baseline. ry- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET ---- 72201 little rock, ARKANSAS PT,KASE POST please post! TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 23, 1993 All Employees Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools BUDGET reduction recommendations As you know, the District's faster rate than its revenues. . ways to curb our expenses and bring them i annual expenditures are growing at a we are looking for For that reason, --------- - line with our revenues. would like to invite you If you have ideas I ----- cut our expenditures. . would very much appreciate having your send it through the !------ consider your suggestions may carefully of Directors. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. to ways we can to make suggestions j that might be helpful, i thoughts in writing. You I will very as You school mail to my office. and share them PACK UP THE ABACUS SYSTEM AND SEND IT BACK Do not bipy additional computers There are sell them with the Board for the reading remedial specialists currently 17 older computers in our building that are never used^ Shorten the work day of the supervision aides (assigned to playground and lunch duty) and/or decrease the number of aides assigned per school Instead of cutting the hours of the media clerks, allow them to spend 2-5 hours doing clerical work in the school office instead of hiring additional personnel to work in school offices Shorten the calendar year for administrative staff Sell Che IRC building and landApril 28, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools Izard \u0026amp; Markham Little Rock, Ar Dear Dr. Bernd: 72201 In response to your memo reguesting cuts, I would like to offer the following: First of all positions. suggestions for budget , do NOT cut the computer lab attendant These employees perform invaluable services to our students and teachers. in the efforts to meet educational needs and objectives. No amount of computer training provided by the district will equip the teachers to be able to use the computer labs at optimal efficacy. ---- These lab attendants even more providing for the have special training and. important, gj?.p.e,r.i.h.d.e, in using the labs^ special needs of individual students, monitoring the progress of students, and responding to teacher requests These Tandy computer important, ejSEexlD.S.e , regarding student needs and progress. , labs have an excellent service record and the Josten's , as implemented by our highly necessary lab programs, implementea oy nigny xau attendants, are meeting the needs of individual students. To eliminate the position of the computer lab attendants will render our computer programs ridiculously ineffective. To eliminate the computer lab attendants and turn around and buy ten new computers, complete with the necessary in-school software and training, to be used in the reading wiring, labs, seems preposterously counterproductive and wasteful. Where is some common sense? If you want to make some cuts at the building level, the instructional aide that provides P.E. Thit look at This is a non- Since certified person providing release time for teachers. teachers are already writing the lesson plans for P.E., the lesson than they they could much more readily teach the P.E. can perform the computer Let the lab attendant continue to do some of the release lab attendant functions. computer time as they have this year, also do some. and the music teachers will No further cuts should be made concerning the library clerks. programs They too provide invaluable services. Library are already diminished because of this year's requirement for librarians to provide release time, and librarians increasing are hampered in their efforts to meet the ever- library needs of students and teachers. as expanded by the new curriculum. clerks will further diminish the The hours cut from the services that the LHC can provide t o students and teachers. I'm sure addtiona] cuts Page 1in administration would be far less likely to impact on meeting the needs of students and teachers. Furthermore, why are you even considering adding new positions, assistant principals and social workers and others? be true that these are NEEDED and/or WANTED such as It may but budget matters should dictate that if you cant afford it, you cant have it. Therefore it follows, that you have to continue to do without and until you can afford it. These suggestions and comments are respectfully and sincerely submitted.  Page 2April 28, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools Izard at Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd\nThis letter is in reference to your memo soliciting ideas to make budget cuts for the 1993-94 school year.  I would like to suggest the following\nInvestigate whether or not the Abacus System can be disassembled and returned, at least in part. The only part of the system that is being used on a regular basis is in the secretary's office for keeping track of students enrolled, absences, etc. The part of the system that was purchased for teachers' use is complicated to use, does not save time and effort as was promised, and does not yet, after an entire year, have even a small percent of the test objectives in the system. objectives were loaded, totally a waste of time. With onlycone computer per school, even if the standing in line to use the computer is Why not hire one person, if the system , to generate the tests and send them to the buildings in school mail\"? must be used This is what the IRC used to do with the math I believe if you poll objective tests, and it worked just fine. the teachers, you will find that the majority feel that the district wasted a lot of tax-payer money on the Abacus System. A lot of revenue could be recovered by sending back the majority of the system. Secondly, if you must cut something from our schools, take PE teachers, rather than computer lab attendants. The computer lab attendants have special training and experience in using the computer labs to enhance student academic performance that it will take the teachers years to achieve. lab will be greatly diminished for years to come. The effectiveness of computer However, teaching PE, as done in the elementary schools, can readily be done by the classroom teachers. The teachers are responsible for writing the PE plans already anyway, so teaching the objectives they write would not be that much more difficult. Do not purchase the ten new computers for each school. We don't need them. All elementary schools have 30 computers in the labs and maximum class size is 27. be a waste of money. Purchasing ten new computers would Cut administration some more. There are still too many administrative positions. eliminated. Responsibilities could be combined and excess positionsFILED u n. onfRCT COURT EASTERI district ARKANSAS HU) -16 IMS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .. CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Cy: OEP- CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS The Joshua MOTION FOR FURTHER RELIEF Intervenors respectfully move the Court for appropriate further relief. The desegregation plan contemplates that the school district will follow all state laws and regulations of the Department of Education and that the district would not waste its resources by employing persons for administrative positions requiring State Department certification who are uncertified. The Court's budgeting concerns also contemplate that the district will not continue to waste its resources. Employment of unqualified persons in major administrative positions has been roundly condemned in this case. The Court may recall that at one time the then business manager of the district, Vance Jones, acted as superintendent. He was not certified. The district faced the loss of accreditation by his presence. He was removed. The Court is faced with a similar situation in the case of the incumbent associate superintendent of the Little Rock Public Schools. Appropriate and further relief is necessary to protect the interests of the Joshua Intervenors. For cause, the JoshuaIntervenors respectfully show the Court as follows: 1. Arkansas Code Ann.  6-17-915 provides: [The ex officio financial secretary of each school district in the state shall file on or before October 1 of each year a list of all personnel, certified and noncertified, employed by the district for the current year setting forth the annual salary of each and such other information as the State Board of Education may prescribe.] 2. Arkansas Code Ann.  6-17-919 provides: [(a) All warrants issued in teachers' salaries are void unless: payment of 3. (1) The teacher has a valid teachers' certificate filed in the county supervisor's office\n(2) The teacher has been employed by a valid written contract\nand (3) Copies of such contract are on file in the office of the county treasurer and the county supervisor. (b) The county supervisor or the district superintendent of schools and his surety shall be liable for any warrants which he countersigns in payment of teachers' salaries unless and until there is a valid teachers' certificate and contract for the teacher on file in the county supervisor's office. (c) The county treasurer and his surety shall be liable teachers' for all warrants in payment of salaries which he pays unless and until there is a valid contract in file in his office.] Arkansas Code Ann.  6-17-920 provides: (a) It shall be the duty of the county supervisor, when the teachers' contracts are filed with him as required by  6-13-620 and 6-17-919, to examine such contracts. (b) If the county supervisor finds that any board of directors has entered into contracts with teachers which total less than the amount earmarked by  6-17-905, 6-17-907, and 6-17- 908 or with a teacher who has not recorded with him a valid teachers' shall immediately notify certificate, the board he of directors in writing to correct the contract 2or contracts to conform to the legal requirements. (c) If the board does not make contracts in accordance with  6-17-905, 6-17-907, 6-17 908, 6-17-910 - 6-17-913, 6-17-918, 6-17-919, and other legal requirements, the county supervisor shall notify the county treasurer that the contracts are invalid. (d) It shall then be the duty of the county treasurer to refuse payment of warrants issued upon the contracts, and he and his sureties shall be liable for failure to do so\n(e) Moreover, the county supervisor and his surety shall be liable for any warrants which he countersigns which are inconsistent with the provisions of this section. 4. The Joshua Intervenors have an interest in insuring that the rules of law and regulations of the State of Arkansas be followed with respect to (a) school certification of Little Rock School District administrative employees and (b) whether the Little Rock School District is violating any rule or law in paying or promising to pay any uncertified or uncertifiable person for performing administrative duties. The Joshua interests are. therefore. in seeing that the financial resources of the Little Rock School District are devoted to meeting the educational needs of black children and other similarly situated children in the manner provided by law. 5. On or about August 1, 1992, the Defendant Board of Education of the Little Rock School District employed Janet L. Bernard as Associate Superintendent of its schools at an annual salary of $65,000. In addition to that amount, she was to be paid on the benefit schedule provided for district administrative employees. She was also awarded a car allowance of $1,200 per year. 36. The Defendant School Districts employment of Bernard contemplated that she would promptly obtain appropriate certification from the State Department of Education. This is a necessary contemplation of the position of Associate Superintendent of Schools in that the position ultimately supervises virtually all certified positions within the Little Rock School District. 7. Through March 10, 1993, Defendant Bernard had taken no steps to obtain either provisional or permanent certification from the State Department of Education. Moreover, Defendant Bernd, through that date had taken no steps to require Defendant Bernard to meet the educational certification requirements of the State of Arkansas. 8. The State Department of Education requires that all teachers and school administrators possess appropriate educational certification as a condition of employment for the position of teacher or administrator of matters which have educational policy import. Defendant Bernard does has not applied for and thus does not possess appropriate certification. Moreover, she has neither obtained or sought to obtain provisional certification. 9. Defendant's Bernd and the Little Rock School District are aware of the deficiencies of Defendant Bernard, and of the requirements of law cited herein, yet these defendants continue to pay Defendant Bernard. Such pay continuation is in willful and deliberate violation of law and of school district policy. Furthermore, it is in violation of the budgeting requirements of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 4Arkansas. 10. On or about October 1, 1993, the School Defendants sought to comply with the provisions of A.C.A.  6-17-915 by filing a list of certified employees. They, however, knowingly and willfully omitted the name of Janet L. Bernard. 11. Defendant Bernd is either aware or should be that Bernard's failure to obtain certification requires that the State Department of Education cite the district as being in violation of state law and, further, to either place the district on probation or to have the district lose its accreditation. 12. Defendants Bernd and Bernard have sought to avoid loss of certification for the district by the lack of qualification described, supra, by simply being silent about it. 13. The Pulaski County Treasurer continues to honor Little Rock School District warrants for Defendant Bernard despite Bernard's obvious failure to meet the provisions of A.C.A.  6-17- 919(a)(1). 14. The educational interests and needs of the Joshua Intervenors and the class whom they represent are being diminished by the defendants' faiulre to adhere to law, thus, enabling an unqualified admininistrator to administer Little Rock Public Schools. Such lack of qualification is also a reason for the school district's failure to meet the United States District Court's budgeting expectations. 16. Defendant Bernd is \"liable for any warrants which he [has countersigned] in payment of \"Defendant Bernard's salary and 5benefits\" unless and until there is a valid contract for Defendant Bernard in Defendant Bernd's office. A.C.A.  6-17-919. 17. The Joshua Intervenors have no effective recourse other than this action for further relief and for restitution. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that Defendant Bernd be personally required to repay the funds which he has allowed to be unlawfully paid to Defendant Bernard\nand that the Court further find that the school district has violated the desegregation plan by its mismanagement of funds and by its assignment of unqualified personnel, as a matter of law, to administer the school district. The Joshua Intervenors also pray that the defendants be enjoined from making arrangements to continue paying Defendant Bernard from a fund other than the salary fund while she is without appropriate certification. The Joshua Intervenors further pray that the Court determine that Defendant Bernard is not certifiable under Arkansas law for the position of secondary school administrator in that she does not have sixty (60) hours above the masters degree in school administration or a masters degree plus thirty (30) hours in school administration. John W. Walker Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of March, 1993. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 A John 'W. Walker c:Irsd.mot 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 JUN 2 5 1993 June 24, 1993 Oiiice of Desegrsgation Momtcnng TO: Board of Directors FROM: C. M. (Mac) Bernd, Superintendent of SchoolsClJ SUBJECT: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS POSITION I reconunend that Ms. Jeanette Wagner be appointed Director of Communications effective July 1, 1993 on the Administrative Non- Certified Salary Schedule at 04-7, which is a salary of $40,080.00 for the 1992-93 school year.HALL HIGH SCHOOL 6700 \"H\" STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72205 Victor Anderson, Principal (501) 671-6200 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mrs. Estelle Mathis, Superintendent vl^Victor Anderson, Principal Hall High School : Staffing of the Secondary Schools July 26, 1993 At your request I have been reviewing the master schedules of the secondary schools since July 7. The process has been to check the number of course requests for individual courses and to authorize the number of sections of those courses for the master schedules. Small courses (enrollment under fifteen) have been eliminated in most cases, unless the course was a graduation requirement, was a magnet area of concentration, or was the only option available to students. Each small class that was authorized was evaluated on its need for meeting the curricular needs of students. In a few cases a small class was authorized because the elimination of the course from the master schedule would not have resulted in any personnel savings through transfer of the individual in question. In those cases it was felt that it was more appropriate to allow the students needs to be served than to cancel the class and have the staff member do supervision or a duty assignment. After the sections were authorized, surplus individuals were identified and transferred to schools where vacancies had been created due to resignations or transfers. FoUowing the placement of surplused personnel, vacancies were filled through transfers and by hiring new personnel. These steps in the process were coordinated with the Director of Human Resources and the principals. The net changes in full time equivalents in each building were calculated. The data were provided to the Director of Financial Accounting and the Director of Human Resources. Position control forms for the addition of new positions, elimination of positions, transfers, and new employment have been submitted by the principals. After review and verification of need from position control documents, authorized position changes will be approved.1 : O o o \"S Cr: s r r , Maria Parker AssoaSuci. Oesegretaocn 'Student AseigninanI r 1 Jeanelle Wagner I CoTmunicalioro ] \"~l ToBeAnnxnced AssoixSuol. School Oparat Rudolph Howard Hearing OHcer BOARD OF DIRECTORS I Estelle Matihls interim Superintendent T i I Qrady Qadberry I labor Relatione I Little nek School District Org tional Structure JULY 1993 Q 4 Arma Hort Oaeagragallcr FadlMalor Debbie Milam Voltmtaar* In Puttie Schocia Martha Rodgai Soloro- a After tn ler-i School 0AR6'- rI Qedw Rather -Parent Recruitmen'. Coordln^or Caiherina 6l\u0026lt;T Parent Coadinclof { Alice Stovall Reading 1 E EAstseslao Ma^atil^h.b CurrtcUum I I To Bo Announced HumonRaaources 1 To Be Announced MatmRascuces and Sand Support I I ] *Fino Arts Carol Green VocalronoJ Marte Millhollon ControHar Gone Parttar J Leon Adama 3 (Maroaral CrorrittiDr Aset. Supt., Elem. leSwota r I J [Lony S. Aobertcon I Aeet. Sept., Elam. J 14S^oale I [To So. inouncad Asst. Supt.i Sao. 13 Sdioola I- La^UMaAda/ Principote Principaia D T bt Pilnclpab Teoctiara Toachon Teoohen Foreign LangLtago Donnie Glasgow Setenco Dianne Wood Malhematlcs r ineaiwlw j S^coto Repomibaily of Appfoprfaia Aaioclate Supeitaleodei.i 4r ' 1. u Linda Young New Fulurea AtWatIca Olholte Falaon Allematlvo Laamrng ^Inslrudtonal Technology Phyeical Educaiton ! i.0on Aoama ' Pedoral Prugrejna' I Gmria { Dr.PoRy.Kohlar Excedionel Chibran Doug Eoipn Focilitlos Sanrices CharSa Neal Procursment Bred Montgomery Transporlalion 4 Jo Evelyn Elston Drug Education Merlo A- McNenJ Social Studies 4___ |_Poonita Hudspeth Pai Price EaiV ChlUftood ] { Pauletto Martin Adult Education 1 Lucy Lyon I LIbwry Sarvlcoa \"'Sltt!' Development 4 Jodda BDyMn r^ood Ssrvicaa Bill Bamhouss securityyRtsk Monaaemant Dave KIngaalla WonneUonSenicei 11 i  07'20'93 16:07 301 324 2032 L R School Dlst @001 DATE: TO: FROM\nSENDER'S FEONS^\nSUET ECT: little rock school district 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501} 324-2032 ^^3 f f. SPECLAL INSTRUCTIONS: s 1 J i. Number of Pages (include Speed Dial .__ cover page Fax Phone Numl^er J? 'C)/ I F-- 1 - 2 -1 . J rBoard Of Directors I Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent I To Be AnmurKsd Special Asalstant to Supt Estelle Matthis Deputy Superintendent Dr. Russ Mayo Aaaoc. Superlmendeni lor Oes^regaten sterling Ingram lodas for IrwtnKtlon to ths Deputy Suptrintendi nt Jeenette Wagner Communications 'Student Assignment ] lihtfarst CrMDlWon Lany S. Robeitsen 1 Asst Elem. i- Astt Supt Eleni. ISSehooto KSchoote Dr. Victor .Indwaor AcBng AasL Sup., See, IS Se hook Alice Stovall Reading Arma Hart Desegregation Facilitator DebP MSam Votunteere m PutslicSdiod Bedw Rather Parent Recrvnmani Coordinator { Parent Involvement Brad Montgomery Tranaportaiion Principals Teadie rs [ Principals Piincipais Teachers Teachers Inceraive Schools Linda Yourtg New Futures 'Athletics Othedo Faison AKemativs teaming Caiw ] *Rcsponsibi]ity of Appropriate Associate Superintendent Gene Parlter Lar^uage Arts/ Foreign Language Dennis Glasgow { To Be Announced Mathematics { Marie A. McNeal Social Studies E Or. Unda Watson Hearing Officer ] ] Catherine Gil Parent Invofvementl E 'Fine Alts 'Instiudional Technology 'Physical Educational Jo Evelyn Elston Pupil Services Pat Price Early Childhood 4: I Donita Hudspeth I Staff Develojxnent Little Rock School District Organizational Structure December 2,1993 DRAFT #4 Mrk MIhollen Acting Uaieger for Support Services To Be Announced! Planning,'Research and Evaluation Carol Green Ananeial Services Leon Adams Federal Programs/ Grants Dr. Patty.Kohler btc^ion^ Chimn Pauiefte Martin Adult Education Doug Eaton FadWes Services Jadde Bo0dn Food Services Charlie Neal Procurement [ 5 I Dave Kingsell Informson Senneas lla Busness Systems ][ I Student Systems ] Brady Gadberry Labor Relations To Be Announced Human Resources 4 Lucy Lyon Lbrary Services ] BiK Bamhouse Security/Risk ManaoementBoard Of Directors I Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent I To Be AnnouiKsd Special Aufttam to Supt Estelle Matthis Deputy Superintendent Dr. Rum Mayo Asaoc. Superlmandent for Oaaag regal Ion Steiling Ingram AaaocMa lor Instruction to the Deputy Suparintandari Jeenene Wagner Communicatlona Student Assignment Margam GremlUlon LanyS. Robaitaon 1 Aaat Sept. Elem. -t- AaaL SipL Etom. 16 SctMOls KScltoola Arma Hart Desegregation Facilitator DeOtow Milam Votunteers in Public SdTOOi Bectn Rather Parent Recrunmeni Coordinaior { Parent Invotvement Prindpais Taachers Principals Teachers lincertive Schoote 4:Brad Montgomery Transportation ] *Responsibility of Appropriate Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District Organizational Structure December 2,1993 DRAFT #4 Mark Mlhollan Acting ManagerforSupport Sanricas [To Be Announced! Planning, Research I and Evaluation I [ I Dave Kingsella IntonnaSon SarvKW I J Business Systems Studer* System 3 D(. Victor Andoraor Acting AscL SupL. Sk. 13 Schools Alice Stovall Reading { Fino Arts Carol Green VocaionBi Education Principais Linda Young New Futures Athlelics Othello Faison ARenMrve Learning Centar Gene Parker Lat^uage Arts/ Foreign Language Dennis Glasgow To Be Announced Mathematics {Marie A. McNeal Social Studies {Dr. UnPa Watson Hearing Officer Instructionai Technology Physical Educational do Evelyn Elston Pupil Services Pat Price Early Childhood ] Catherine Gl\u0026gt; IParenl lnvoivement| Oonita Hudspeth I Staff DevelapirTwnl Leon Adams Federal Programs/ Grants Dr. Patty Kohler Exceptional Chi\u0026amp;ron Exc Pauietle Martin Adult Education Lucy Lyon Ubrary Sendees Rnancaal Sorvicos Doug Eaton FadMies Services Jadde Boyldn Food Services Brady Gadberry Labor Relations Charlie Neal Procurement BII Bamhouse Seeunty/Risk Martaoement To Be Annourtced Human Resources e: !(! . * !|f TRANSACTION REPORT P.Ol JUL-20-93 TUE 16:56 I I\n' D' START SENDER RX TNE PAGES TYPE NOTE I X f iXXXXXXXX ' JUL-20 16:54 501 324 2032 j3\" VE OK X X X X X X X X  U^xt,fmUi-AIOXXXX*'* \"*   .XIXXOJKIX^Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court  Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 {501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: January 12, 1994 To: Hank Williams From: n Brown Subject: LRSD Communication Assistant Position 1 wrote you on December 3, 1993 regarding the status of the unfilled Communications Assistant position, but still have not received an answer to my letters inquiries. 1 will appreciate your early response to the questions 1 posed last month in my letter: By what date can the Court expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled? Also, will this position be part-time or will it be full-time? Thank you very much. LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 143 P01 JAN 19 94 17: 13 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 19, 1994 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Dr. Mayo has been given my approval to fill the position of Communication Assistant. has concluded his interviews, It is my hope, that after he filled. the position will be I understand that he has narrowed his choices, and that filling this position is a priority. sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools /bjf 810 West Maricham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 Rscsn/en November 1, 1994 '5 1994 Oiiice 3i De. Katherine P. Mitchell, Ph.D. 1605 Welch Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206  Dear Dr. Mitchell: I am writing asking that you work for and vote for the continuation of hiring registered nurses to provide health care to our school children. Many of our students receive no health care other than what is provided at their school site. Registered nurses are qualified to provide professional assessments, emergency care and referrals, health education. and the all important mental health care. are not qualified to act in such an independent role. Licensed practical nurses In my consultation with the Little Rock School District, I have become aware of countless cases where elementary, junior and senior high students as well as faculty members have not only received excellent health care and mental health/suicide prevention/intervention but are alive today as a result of the professional assessment, quick response and committment of the school nurses of the LRSD. district should be proud! They are certainly a group of xdiich the As our society becomes more complicated, so do the lives of our students and faculty and so do the health problems demanding professional nurses in our schools. Let's not sell our kids short. Please continue your support of our registered school nurses and giving our students the quality health care they deserve. Thank you very much. * Sincerely Mary Paal, M.S.N..,R.N. ,c. Certified Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse cc: Linda Poindexter Dr. Henry WilliamsCA c? cAocAHCAacAann CsHisCZsOQCCsflsWsCS|* gZ5qg^cflK\u0026gt;g c z e 10 n Cfl CA c 0 s \u0026lt; c r M ro CA t-3 S M t-t O O O Z Z S 5fl I -fl n 1-3 O P3 n h-i 30 cn \u0026gt;o0 z (Tl UI o\u0026gt; o o o o o (7 s o o CT\\ a\\ w o o5 CM \u0026gt;H n  W CA ou h3 H o X CA a O' UI o M Co o *4  O \u0026gt; W W W o Cfl CA o w PO wo O OOMO OMI-l-OOOh-W ooooooooo OOtUOHMMOO OOOOOOOOO Ok-iMOOOOOO O Cft 00 o O h- O o o o o OO'tUOOOOOO 'jmoooooo 'fl o CA A w  CA s CMA h3 H oK \\ cs 5S r o g Cm w fl a Cfl O 3S H5 w fl Z  t* tr I I co I g \u0026lt;\u0026gt; I n I z I I 5 \u0026gt; H _ c'fyl Z ?d n es se lU 8 w n sgf D s O *9  N CA CA fl CA h3 ITE-, r, ?^z, -Atiimwiww.-r(S^mssmS^.^wsasssj^^ APR 1 3 1995 Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Office Of DescyftQSiiOd ivicniioriiio April 13, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: In John Walkers parting remarks in court Monday, he suggested that we were moving toward segregated staffs and were out of compliance with the racial balance of two of the districts departments\nthe student assignment office and information services. Since his allegations were not refuted in court, I want to offer the following information as evidence of how carefully we are balancing the administrative services of the district. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 1993-94 1994-95 POSITION B W TOTAL B W TOTAL Student Assignment Coordinator Information Management Coordinator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Parent Recruiter 2 2 1 1 2 Student Assignment Assistant Secretary 4 1 5 3 2 5 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 4 6 10 5 5 10 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 824-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 INFORMATION SERVICES 1993-94 1994-95 POSITION B W TOTAL B W TOTAL Manager - Systems Development Manager - Computer Operations Computer Electronics Technician Computer Operator Programmer Analyst Systems Analyst Training Coordinator Secretary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 6 6 12 7 5 12 If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools e 1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET To: From: Subject: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS July 28, 1993 72201 Mr. Sterling Ingram, Director - Planning, Research and Evaluation Mr. Mark Milhollen, Controller Mr. Brady Gadberry, Director - Human Resources Ms. Rita White, Administrative Assistant Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent 1993-94 LRSD Staffing Process On Wednesday, July 21, 1993, we met for the purpose of implementing a process to staff the elementary schools for the 1993-94 school As directed by the Board of Directors, year. our goal was to achieve staffing efficiency to the extent possible without sacrificing the District's ability to provide high quality desegregated educational programs. Accordingly, it was agreed that a collaborative effort on the part of the persons responsible for various components of the total process would have the greatest likelihood of success. We utilized the following data and information: 1. Actual pre-registration enrollment data for 1993-94 as of July 21, 1993, for LRSD elementary schools (area schools. magnet schools and incentive schools) . This information was contained in a computer run received from the student assignment office. 2 . 1993-94 building capacities indicating the number of classes at each grade level for 1992-93. This information projected the number of classes needed at each grade level for 1993-94 based on the assumption that all currently assigned students (except 92-93 sixth graders) would remain and advance. This information was, likewise, received from the student assignment office and compiled on individual memos from the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation to each building principal. A request was made that each principal correct or adjust the list before returning it to the Student Assignment Office.Ingram, Gadberry, Milhollen and White July 23, Page 2 1993 3. Human Resource's list of existing staffing, reguest for transfers and vacancies by school. This included: position control:alpha report as of June 21, (a) 1993, showing all positions and employees\n(b) position control site report as of June 8, 1993, showing positions and employee names by school\nand, (c) 1993 transfer requests as well as a booklet containing vacancies in the District by school. 4 . 1993-94 Payroll Budget as of May 5, 1993, listing number of kindergarten and grades 1-6 certified positions budgeted for each school. To fulfill our mandate to \"staff lean,\" building capacity forms on a school-by-school basis. we reviewed the 1993-94 We noted the number of classes needed at each grade level during the 1992-93 school year. We compared that with the number of classes requested at each grade level for the 1993-94 school year. After determining the number of students actually enrolled in the particular grade as of this staffing process, we attempted to determine whether the number of classes was reasonable available data. in light of all currently Keep in mind. in making such determinations, considerations such as applicable state standards (i.e.. important maximum class size by grade level) desegregation plan requirements (i.e., maximum individual classroom enrollments at Incentive Schools of 18 in four-year-old classes\n20 in kindergarten, 23 in grade 1-3\nand 25 in grades 1-6, etc.) and other applicable guiding principles, (i.e., use of cross-grade grouping where possible to do so within applicable class-size limitations, considered and observed. etc. ) had to be Those requests which appeared to be reasonable based on the available information were honored. out-of-line with either the available Those which appeared to be developments were adjusted accordingly. data ( However, or anticipated such was done with the understanding that adjustments and refinements would have to be made as more complete data can be made available. By using cross grade grouping in the area schools, we attempted to maximize staff efficiency by minimizing the numbers of instances where class size did not come close to the standard applicable to the particular grade level. There was not a need to make use of cross grade grouping at magnet schools as there are enough students registered and on the waiting lists to maximize utilization of staff. Further, we are currently investigating whether the same would be permissible for incentive schools.HI  \u0026gt;. o 3^ Mt^*\u0026gt;i**iI^Xk'\u0026gt;*\u0026amp;W\u0026gt;'. RECE!'\"\"'' OCT 2 1 1995 FILED u S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 2 5 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUM  -noMurir n FRK EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS^^ McCORMACK. CLER WESTERN DIVISION By:------------ clerk By: t I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 ! I PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MOTION The Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the Little Rock School defendants under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation. The problem arises from the following set of circumstances and facts. At several of the hearings before the Court, the Joshua Intervenors have objected to certain staff and faculty assignment practices of the Little Rock School District which the Joshua Intervenors contend are racial in effect. Most recently. the Joshua Intervenors repeated their criticism of exclusion or absence of staff of African American descent in the early childhood programs (infants through third grade) at Rockefeller Incentive school and at the supervisory staff level of the Little School District desegregation office (where the entire staff of seven or eight persons is white). These criticisms were first intended and submitted as constructive areas for dialogue. Then, when no changes were instituted, they were presented as areas forI direct and rather prompt action. They were also submitted as items for further inquiry or study as the district seeks to implement the plan in good faith. The parties have met with Ms. Ann Brown, ODM Director, almost weekly since on or about July 17, 1995 in an effort to reduce the areas of their disagreement and to find ways to improve the implementation of the desegregation plan. During these meetings, the above stated problems have again arisen. The positions of the two primary litigant parties are as follows: (1) Joshua contends that faculty and staff desegregation. properly defined, includes inclusion and placement of staff of both races in such way as not to allow the appearance, inference or complaint that some jobs are being intended for one race or the other, or that schools programs, programs, activities or grade levels are so intended. It includes inclusion throughout the administrative corps so that African Americans participate in leadership positions in all areas, providing open evidence to the community of the operation of a racially nondiscriminatory school system. Joshua further contends that the \"root and branch\" requirement of law requires elimination of exclusion and segregation as \"vestiges\" of discrimination. (2) The school administration contends that it is not obliged to provide a racially diverse staff in the early childhood program, at least at Rockefeller, or in the seven or eight positions of authority within the school desegregation department of the district headed by Dr. Russ Mayo. For the administration, if the plan does not specifically state a thing.Rm it is not required. The parties therefore have a material disagreement, the resolution of which is essential if the desegregation plan is to be implemented in a meaningful manner. The Court's action is therefore respectfully sought. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court for an order which either defines or interprets the obligations of the Little Rock School District with respect to faculty and staff. In the alternative, depending upon the administration's reply to this motion, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully pray for an immediate evidentiary hearing on the subject at which time the school superintendent and school desegregation assistant superintendent would be called upon to explain their faculty and staff implementation procedures. If the Little Rock School District positions are correctly stated above, then the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court adopt the ODM findings and order the Little Rock defendants to implement the remedies recommended by ODM. * Respectfully submitted. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 By: 72206 uniMi CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing was forwarded U.S. mail postage prepaid to all counsel of record on this day of October, 1995. Jo: Walker ! RR\" * OCT 2 7 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS OCT 2 5 1995 JAMES w. McCormack, clerk By:____________ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION D=P CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE WRIGHT KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REGARDING FACULTY AND STAFF ASSIGNMENT PRACTICES One need look no further than one of the precedesors of this litigation to find that it has been settled for thirty years that desegregating faculty and staff in all schools, programs and offices is an essential ingredient of the transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system. In Clark v Board of Education of Little Rock School District. 369 F2d 661, 669 (Sth Cir. 1966), the Court wrote\nwe agree that faculty segregation encourages pupil segregation and is detrimental in achieving a constitutionally required non-racially operated school system. It is clear that the Board may not continue to operate a segregated teaching staff. Bradley v School Board of City of Richmond. 382 U.S. 103... (1965)\nSmith v Board of Education of Morrilton School District. 32 No. 32, 365, Fed 2d, 770 (Sth Cir. 1966)\nKemp v Beasley, supra. also clear that the time for delay is past. It is The desegregation of the teaching staff should have begun many years ago. At this point, the Board is going to have to take excelled and positive action to end discriminatory practices in staff assignment and recruitment.I See also Green v County School Board. 391 U.S. 430, 435 (1968) (including \"existing policy and practice with regard to faculty [and] staff...[as] among the most indicia of a segregated system\"). The Supreme Court again addressed the issue of faculty and staff desegregation in 1971 in Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1. The Court reiterated the above quoted language from Green (id. at 18), and approved generally the requirement of thoroughgoing desegregation throughout every component of the faculty. 1 The Supreme Court in Swann reiterated that district courts possess broad equitable authority in the remedial phase of a school desegregation case. Swann. 402 U.S. at 15. Therefore, courts directed that a particular adminstrative position be I filled by a black person in order to further the goal of evidencing the transition to a unitary school system. See Smith V St. Tawwanv Parrish School Board. 489 F2d 415 (5th Cir. 1971) (assistant principal)\nDavis v School District of City of Pontiac. 487 F2d 890 (6th cir. 1973) (assistant superintendent). In the light of the foregoing history, the amended plan for the Little Rock School District is replete with provisions supporting the relief sought by Joshua Intervenors in the 1 See also United States v Jefferson County Board of Education. 380 F2d 385, 394 (5th Cir. 1967) (en banc) (\"forbidding discrimination in the hiring, assignment and promotion \"of teachers and other professional staff members\" and requiring that the defendants... take steps to assign and reassign teachers and other professional staff members to eliminate the effects of the dual school system\".) (subsequent history omptted).accompanying motion regarding the inclusion of black faculty and staff in every facet of the school system. Among other things, it is clear that the Court has authority to direct the Little Rock defendants to desegregate the staff of the internal monitoring office forthwith  and that authority should be exercised. See Smith and Davis. supra. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR By: Certificate of Service 72206 I do hereby state that the for to all counsel of record on this mail. igoing memorandum was forward day of October, 1995 via U.S. n W. Walker 2 See \"Desegregation Plan, Little Rock School District (April 29, 1992), at 1, first paragraph\nE.\nlast paragraph\nat 2 last \"bullet\" on page\nat 3 last paragraph at 191 C.\nat 192 A. 3. Moreover, defendants evidence their awareness of the requirements which Joshua Intervenors find it necessary to reiterate by including in each quarterly monitoring report assignment figures by race for staff at each school and in their administrative corps. r\u0026gt;Cf CC. TO: FROM: 4* DATE: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Federal Monitor RECE OCT 2 7 1993 Office of Desegregaiion M. Brady Gadberry, Director of Human Resources October 26, 1993 Number of LRSD Employees n Enclosed you will find the information you requested from me in your October 18, 1993 memo. This information was gathered from the data in the Position Control System. useful. I hope that you find it /ra 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361w o \u0026lt; 0\u0026lt; Em 3 tJ z X EM U N X o u X Em O so so rs PM U I \u0026gt;4 CD X PO tn so U o4 w 2 u U Em Q PO (A Os X J m PM X \"x. O o X w gg gg w EM X X u 3 X n CD OS co m PM r* os EM O X H X O \u0026lt;4 8 X u w X M Em UI Cm g (A Q H X EM X W O b g (fl Q H EM X H U z o z (A H M s w 8 C. Jcrf^^ 3 J .'3 5\n.-.u 0\n3 ' JOaJ.^T ' ArtrA.MSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION NOV 6 1995 '-'AiVicS n By: fr, Ujf A f neo f^, OP CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On motion of the defendants Little Rock School District without objection of the Joshua Intervenors, and for good cause shown to the court, defendants' Motion for Extension of Time is granted. The time within which defendants must respond to the complaint is extended to and including November 13, 1995. , /ha- STATES DISTRICT JI UNITED STATES DI JUDGE DATE: rWIS DOCUME^'T ENTcHED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CaVFLlAMCEiViTH RULE53 ANiWR79{a) FRCP CN BY tT' 2 5 5 9IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, A Limited Partnership Filed U S 013' iCTCCURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MAR 1 1 1996 JAMES By\n1996 -J' MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 3\\ Wl 'M cQQR\\MAICbK, MClIRrK V OEP CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court are a number of motions (listed in the order filed) which the Court now addresses: (1) motion of the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD) to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481]\n(2) motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for partial unitary status [doc.#2483]\n(3) motion of the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\") to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of Joshua [doc.#2506]\n(4) motion of PCSSD to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]\n(5) motion of Joshua for the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]\n(6) motion of PCSSD for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]\n(7) motion of LRSD for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to LRSD, PCSSD, and the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") [doc.#2573]\n(8) motion of Joshua for reconsideration of the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc,#2594]\nand (9) motion of PCSSD regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction. dated October 25, 1995 [doc.#2612], I. The Court first addresses PCSSD's motion to withdraw supervision from three discrete areas of the PCSSD plan [doc.#2481] and LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483]. The PCSSD states that it has substantially complied with plan pxQvisions regarding library media services, staff development and counseling services, while the LRSD states that it has substantially complied with LRSD plan provisions regarding Home Instructional Program for Preschool Youngsters (\"HIPPY\"), Rockefeller Early Childhood Program, Parkview Science Magnet Program, and Job Training Partnership Act/Summer Learning Program (\"JTPA\"). Both the PCSSD and the LRSD argue that the Court should withdraw supervision from these areas of the respective plans. The PCSSD's and LRSD's motions were both filed on August 23, 1995. On February 9, 1996, the parties entered into a Stipulation whereby it was agreed that the PCSSD, LRSD, and NLRSD should be released from court supervision and monitoring in certain discrete areas of the desegregation plans. The parties further stated that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the desegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans -2-remain deficient in terms of compliance. The additional hearings that were scheduled to address the motions to withdraw were cancelled at the parties' request as a result of the Stipulation. In light of the Stipulation and subsequent cancellation of the hearings, the Court finds that both the PCSSD's motion to withdraw [doc.#2481] and the LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483] have both been superseded by the Stipulation. Accordingly, these motions are denied as moot. II. On August 31, 1995, Joshua filed a motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506]. In its motion Joshua argues that (1) the LRSD had not discussed the proposed management services contract with the Joshua Intervenors, (2) the proposed management contract has potential adverse racial effect and impact, (3) the proposed management contract has not been let for bids and is not a part of the program. research and evaluation instrximent for the next five years. (4) the proposed management contract has potential adverse monetary effects upon financial resources of the district and has the potential for adversely affecting the ability of the school district to meet its a desegregation obligations, and (5) the proposed management contract was not negotiated at arms' length and was designed to provide special favor to some unknown person in the school district. -3-The Court held a hearing on Joshua's motion on Saturday, October 28, 1995, and again on Friday, December 8, 1995. At the hearing on December 8th, counsel for Joshua tendered into evidence a document entitled \"Settlement,\" which Joshua maintains constitutes a settlement offer by LRSD that was accepted by Joshua with respect to the ServiceMaster contract. Joshua claims that this constitutes an offer by LRSD to settle the matter with Joshua by having the Court enter an Order enjoining the LRSD from entering into the ServiceMaster agreement and terminating the district's liability pursuant to Paragraph 14.12 of the contract. The LRSD, however, contends that this document was not intended as an offer to settle, in that it is stamped II Draft tl and is not signed by any party or the attorney for any party. On December 11, 1995, this Court issued an Order in which it ruled as follows: This Court declines to rule on whether 'settlement' constitutes this a binding agreement on the district or on whether the board of directors delegated Mr. Malone the authority to enter into it with Joshua. The Court finds that even if Mr. Malone had the authority and even if it was an offer to settle which Joshua accepted, settlement. public This policy 'settlement' prohibits this type of purports to create a situation in which this Court, by agreement of Joshua and LRSD, would by court order declare the agreement to be non-binding on the part of LRSD and would relieve LRSD of any liability. Indeed, Paragraph 14.12 of the ServiceMaster contract provides an \"escape clause\" for LRSD should this Court terminate or ServiceMaster agreement. modify the It provides that LRSD shall have no obligation to appeal decisions affecting the contract. Therefore, it implies that LRSD will in good faith abide by the teras of the contract and will not contract with Joshua or anyone else to procure a court order allowing it to escape liability. It would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a -4-contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. This Court finds that ServiceMaster and LRSD did not intend that this clause would permit Little Rock to escape liability without a ruling on the merits. Therefore, the Court holds that this purported settlement cannot be enforced against ServiceMaster. Order, at 5-6 [doc.#2586]. On December 22, 1995, Joshua filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order of December 11, 1995, and for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594]. Joshua states they have not completed their presentation in support of their initial motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract, and they argue the Court has not ruled on the substantive grounds which it has set forth in its motion. The Court has considered the matter and remains convinced that its interpretation of the contract was correct and that it would not be consistent with public policy to permit one party to a contract to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the other contracting party. See Order, at 6. Joshua cites Union Nat. Bank v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass'n, 860 F.2d 847 (8th Cir. 1988) , in support of its motion. The Court finds Joshua's reliance on Union Nat. Bank to be misplaced, however, as that case involved a termination clause between the parties to the contract, see id. 860 F.2d at 849, while the case at Bar involves a purported settlement between contracting party and a third a party allowing the contracting party to escape its obligations unilaterally without a similar provision for the non-settling -5-party. Union Nat. Bank is thus distinguishable and provides no support for Joshua's motion for reconsideration. In any case, even if Joshua is correct that such a unilateral escape from contractual obligations would be permissible under Arkansas law, the parties in this case intended that the contract would be performed in good faith unless this Court issued an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability pursuant to f 14,12 of the contract. The Court has not and will not at this time issue such an Order allowing the LRSD to escape liability under the contract. Accordingly, the Court denies that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for reconsideration of the Court's December 11, 1995, Order. With respect to that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for completion of the hearing, the Court finds that this aspect of the motion should be and hereby is denied as moot. The Court notes that the December Sth hearing was not completed because Joshua specifically requested that the matter be continued so that it could file an interlocutory appeal of the Court's Order. Tr. at 92, 97. Indeed, Joshua stated that such an appeal would \"resolve a lot of matters.\" Tr. at 90. It was only after Joshua concluded that the Order was not appealable that Joshua now asks that the hearing be completed. However, because the Court's docket is full. the Court is unable to schedule the matter for a hearing in the immediate future. Accordingly, for administrative purposes, and because the Court in any case denies Joshua's motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes that Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following -6-bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506] should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. Joshua may refile the motion to the extent they wish to pursue the matter after reviewing today's order. Should Joshua refile the motion, the Court will schedule the matter for a hearing. III. On September 14, 1995, the PCSSD filed a motion to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520]. PCSSD seeks to clarify those parts of the plan and programs that are or were calculated to further desegregate the southeast sector schools within the PCSSD, i.e., the Talented and Gifted Program within the southeast sector. the Fine Arts Program at Landmark, the Specialty Program at Bates Elementary, and Harris Elementary. The Court has considered the motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. Joshua has not filed a response to the motion even though they would appear to be significantly affected by the matters contained therein. In any case. the status of this motion is questionable given the subsequent motions of PCSSD regarding potential school closings and new construction that would affect the schools in the southeast sector and elsewhere. Should PCSSD refile this motion, Joshua is expected to file a timely response stating their position on the matter. -7-IV. The LRSD moves for an Order dismissing this case without prejudice with respect to the LRSD, PCSSD, and NLRSD as of January 18, 1991, except to the extent the Court retains jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the plans and to conduct proceedings to enforce the terms of the settlement or the terms of the plans [doc.#2573]. The Court finds that the motion for an order of dismissal should be and hereby is denied. Let there be no mistake that, with the entry of the settlement agreement, the claims involved in this ongoing litigation were dismissed. at least as technical matter. The Court finds. however, that no useful purpose would be served by entering an order of dismissal at this time. The Court of Appeals has instructed this Court \"to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion. to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement, and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. II Little Rock School a List. V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990) . The LRSD has frequently exhibited indifference or outright recalcitrance towards its commitments and has been slow to implement many aspects of its agreements (although some improvements have been made) . Therefore, the Court finds that an order of dismissal should be deferred in order to ensure compliance with the plans and the agreement. Even had the LRSD acted in good faith throughout the years. the logistics and -8-complexity of this case are such that this Court's monitoring function would be impaired by entering an order of dismissal at this time. V. On October 25, 1995, Joshua filed a motion asking the Court to set forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544]. Joshua objects to certain staff and faculty assignment practices of the LRSD and contends that the parties have a material disagreement. Joshua seeks an Order which either defines or interprets the obligations of the LRSD with respect to faculty and staff. The Court has considered Joshua's motion and finds that it should be and hereby is denied without prejudice. The obligations of the LRSD regarding faculty and staff are clearly set forth in both the LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan and need not be repeated here. Moreover, the parties have agreed in their Stipulation that they are in the process of assessing what additional areas of the desegregation plans are ripe for release from Court supervision and monitoring and to identify what areas of the desegregation plans remain deficient in terms of compliance. Should the parties be unable to reach agreement regarding faculty and staff desegregation, Joshua may refile its motion. -9-VI. On October 26, 1995, PCSSD filed a motion for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#2546]. In its motion, PCSSD asks for permission to begin construction on one permanent classroom at Jacksonville Elementary, four permanent classrooms at Bayou Meto, seven permanent classrooms at Landmark Elementary, and three permanent classrooms at Pine Forest Elementary. On January 29, 1996, PCSSD filed a subsequent motion regarding the replacement of portable buildings with permanent construction dated October 25, 1995 [doc.#2612]. This latter motion supplements and essentially supersedes the previous motion filed on October 26, 1995. In its supplemental motion, PCSSD seeks permission to begin construction on two permanent classrooms at Cato Elementary, two classrooms at Arnold Drive Elementary, four permanent classrooms at Bayou Meto, seven permanent classrooms at Landmark Elementary, and three permanent classrooms at Pine Forest Elementary. The Court has carefully considered the matter and concludes that PCSSD's request is consistent with the district's long-range plans for replacement of portable buildings. The construction will not increase the capacity of the aforementioned schools, with the exception of Pine Forest Elementary.' Accordingly, the motions for an Order regarding portable buildings are hereby granted. 1 On September 15, 1995, the Court approved a motion granting the PCSSD permission to add a kindergarten class to improve racial balance at Pine Forest Elementary. The district has represented to the Court that one of the permanent classrooms would reflect the additional capacity resulting from the new kindergarten class. -10-VII. In sum, the Court denies as moot PCSSD's motion to withdraw [doc.#2481], denies as moot LRSD's motion for partial unitary status [doc.#2483], denies that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for reconsideration of the Court's December 11, 1995 Order [doc.#2594], denies as moot that portion of Joshua's motion which asks for completion of the hearing [doc.#2594], denies without prejudice Joshua's motion to enjoin the LRSD from entering into a service contract without following bidding procedures, requests for information and without prior involvement of the Joshua Intervenors [doc.#2506], denies without prejudice PCSSD's motion to clarify the PCSSD desegregation plan [doc.#2520], denies LRSD's motion for an Order of dismissal [doc.#2573], denies without prejudice Joshua's motion for an Order setting forth in detail the continuing obligations of the LRSD under the desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation [doc.#2544], and grants PCSSD's motions for an Order regarding portable buildings [doc.#'s 2546 \u0026amp; 2612]. 'A IT IS SO ORDERED this ay of March 1996. mis DOCLi.Mt.NT ent: :d on docket sheet in COMPUANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON BY -11- C  C/= LRSD ADMIN. BULDING Fax:1-501-324-2032 Apr 26 96 8:41 F-. 02/02 LrrrLE Rock School District LRSD Administrator Accepts Fosiiion April 26. W96 For more information Suellen Vann, .524-202.0 Tire Little Rock School Districts budget director has announced his resignation. Fred Smith. Manager of Support Services, has accepted a position uith Laidlaw Transit In addition r bis financial .and budgetaD' responsibilities, Snuih also .d sen'ices, purchasing, transportation, facilities, and safety and security for tl, RSD. I welcome the opportunity to return to the private sector, and 1 look torward to ling to be involve. th the transportation of children of the Little Rock Sc!io(.\u0026gt;i Dnnict in my nosmon wi',!i i \"  said Mr. SmitL -Mr Smith has made improvements in our budget preparation and reporting 'du'es'. said Dr Henr/ Williar''- OSD nerintendent, and I wish him well in his \u0026gt;11. '.v's District Dire ir of Opeialions for Tennessee and  effective May 15 99ti. :tle Sock, .Lrkaii^ias 721101  (50.1)334 2000 . r I. 810 Wf.,\nV a.rlii.. Ill Street 03*-26- 98 21:47 301 324 2023 LRSD COMMUNICATI -- ODM 002'008 Little Rock School District For Release\nafter 8:00 p m. March 26,1998 For more information: SueUen Vann, 324-2020 Superintendent Fills Administrative Posts The Little Rock School Dishict (LRSD) superintendent has appointed four top-level administrators. Tonight the LRSD Board of Education approved the appointments recommended by Dr. Les Camine. The four positions and appointees are\n Associate Superintendent for Administrative Sendees - Junious Babbs, Jr. Associate Superintendent for Instruction - Dr. Bonnie Lesley Associate Superintendent for Operations - Dr. Victor Anderson Director of Planning, Research \u0026amp; Evaluation - Dr. Katherine Lease \"These appointments will help us as we work with principals and other staff to improve our schools,\" Dr. Camine said, Each of these individuals brings a great deal of experience and expertise to the position, and I look forward to working with each of them as we enhance the quality of education we provide our students.' Camine explained that these are replac nent positions, not new positions, although there may be some change in responsibilities if the new Revised Desegregation and Education Plan which has been submitted to the federal court is approved. Camine added that there might be some consolidation of responsibilities and reorganization of central administrative functions later this year. (more 810 Wssf Msrkhatn Street Little Rock, .Arkansas 7220 1  (501)324-2000 03-26 98 21'. 48 0501 324 2023 LRSD C05IMUNICATI 0D3I @003-006 LRSD Administrative Appointments Page 2 of 5 Babbs position as Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services includes responsibility for desegregation functions of the district as well as other areas which will be designated following the courts action on the Revised Plan, according to Camine. Babbs Cjirently serves as principal of Parkview Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet fligh School, a position he has held since 1985. Prior to that, he served as a biology instructor at Central High (1973-79), administrative assistant at Hah High (1979-80), assistant principal at Central (1980-83), and principal at Pulaski Heights Junior High (1983-85). Babbs earned a Bachelor of Science from Henderson State University in 1973 and a Master of Science in Education Iron! Henderson State University in 1975. Lesley will serve as the districts leader of curriculum in her role as Associate Superintendent for Instruction. I am confident that Dr. Lesley will provide us strong leadership as we evaluate our curriculum and recommend strengthening our academic program, Carnine noted. Lesley serves as the .Associate Superintendent and Chief of Staff of the Kansas City, Kansas Public Schools. She previously held the position of Associate State Superintendent for Standards and Curriculum for the Delaware Department of Public Instruction\nAssistant Superintendent for Curriculum Support Services in the Austin, Texas Independent School District\nand Deputy Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum and Instruction in the Waco, Texas Independent School District (more)03 26 99 21\n49 301 324 2023 LRSD COMMVNICATI ODM @004/006 LRSD Administrative .Appointments Page 3 of 5 Lesley earned e Bachelor of Arts in 1962 from the University of North Texas, the Master of Arts in 1968 from West Texas State University\nand the Doctor of Education degree in 1989 from Baylor University. In assuming the position of Associate Superintendent for Operations, Anderson will lead business and planning functions of the district Dr. Andersons background as Assistant Superintendent responsible for secondary schools and as a building principal will help us significantly as we plan for the next several years, Carnine said. .Anderson, who .has served as Assistant Superintendent for Secondary Schools since 1995, joined the LRSD in 1970. He served as English instructor at Horace Mann High School (1970-71) and at Parkview High School (1971-74) and as Dean of Students at Dunbar Junior High (197-U77). Following a sabbatical to obtain his doctorate, .-Anderson served as assistant principal at Horace Mann Junior High (1978-80) and at Forest Heights Junior High (1980-83). He was principal at Forest Heights Junior High (1983-87) and at Horace Mann Arts \u0026amp; Science Magnet Junior High (1987-88). .Anderson served as .Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation from 1988 until 1990, when he became principal at Hall High School. .Anderson earned a Bachelor of Arts from Hendrix College in 1970\na Master of Science in English/Educaiion from th.e University of Central .Arkansas in 1974\nand a Doctor of Pliilosophy in Educational Administration frr- George Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University in 1978.03 26 '98 21:49 oOl 324 2023 LRSD COMMVXICATI ODM @005-'006 LRSD .Administrative Appointments Page 4 of 5 As Director of the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Lease will supenise the districts planning and assessment functions. Dr. Lease brings to our district a diverse background in secondary education and counseling which will help us as we review' our assessment tools and provide assistance to our teachers and curriculum specialists, Carnine said. Lease presently serves as Director of Secondary Education in the Fayetteville School District. Prior to that, she had sert'ed as an assistant principal, counselor and teacher in Hot Springs, and served as chairperson of the Guidance and Counseling Department of the Texarkana, .-Arkansas School District, Lease taught at Parkview High School from 1973 until 1975 and served as a counselor at Pulaski Heights Middle School in 1975. .Lease earned a Bachelor of Science in Education in 1971 and Master of Education in 1972 from the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. She received a Doctor of Education from the University' of Arkansas at Little Rock. Salaries have not been set for the positions, but Carnine said they would be within the advertised salary ranges. He anticipates the appointees will assume their new roles by this summer. Vacancies created by Babbs and Andersons appointments will be advertised immediately, and the superintendent will empanel selection committees to review and recommend candidates. .Additionally, the title of .Assistant Superintendent Sadie Mitchell has changed to Associate Superintendent for School Services. Mitchell oversees the district's elementary (more)' 03* 26. 98 21:30 501 324 2023 LRSD CCMMVXICATI ODM  006 006 LRSD Administrative Appointments Page 5 of 5 schools. Another Assistant Superintendent position, which also supervises elementary schools, will be advertised\nMargaret Gremillion who retired this year- formerly occupied the positioc.JIJ N - O 5 - ? WED o ? : o 1 F . 0 1 Southujcst Office Supplies j Semes * Conveaie: 4723 Bise Line Rond  L\ni  SefscaoQ R.C'Cic AR , 2209 (501)562-6621 FAX (501)562-2466 FAX COVER SHEET DATE: ^1 -4\u0026gt; TIME: z4/X FAX # CALIuED: TO: FROM: : 4 TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET\nT IF THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS RECEIVING TRA2JSMI2SI0N, PLEASE CALL (501)562-6621 REMARKS: 7J 1.1 H - O 5 - ? WED Q ? : O 1 P . 13 D Witnessing the submission of the reorganization plan to the School Boatd last Thursday night was one of the most iiTesponsible actions of the superintendent that has been done lately. Not suipiisingly, he tried to persuade the Board to approve the plan without a great deal of discussion or explanation. Tliis plan is a major play by two, maybe tluee players. The players include Dr. Williams, Brady Gadbeny, and perhaps Linda Young. None of these people actually know what the staff of the curriculum depaitments have done or attempted to do in our schools. Dr. Williams seldom goes to the IRC to discuss issues dealing with rhe curriculum, or has .Brady Gadbeny made it Iris objective to find out what goes on in the schools. Is he even qualified? Does being principal of a junior liigh make him an expert in curriculum'? Does being a Labor Relations Director make him an expert'? I don't think so. Yer, he has placed himself as Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum. 1 wonder what he knows about the National or State Frameworks for Math, Science. Social Studies, 'English, or Reading. Wliat does he know about integrating the curriculum and making it applicable for our students today? Since his illness has often sidelined him for long periods of time, I wonder what he knows about these topics or what goes on in our schools. Linda Young has been made a Director. 'What exactly does her duties as a Director of New Futures include? The Special Assistant to the Superintendent will be placed under her jurisdiction to do what duties'? Tills seems to be a lofty title for someone who was laired as a liaison for a special gi'aiic program only nine years ago. Does planning a reception tor the superintendent and solicting funds for the party deserve being named a director' .Serving on committees and advising the superintendent seems to go a long way. Does working in four' junior high schools and organizing the teaming approach for these junior high schools deserve the title of a Director? Someone seems to think so. When does dedication to schools and qualification for the job count? How has she worked with the curriculum people in reorganinzing the schools? Communication with most of the supervisors has been very limited. Gene Parker has seemed to be the only supervisor who has worked with her. 'Where does he nt into the structure? Word has it that he may resign since he was not placed in a liigh position. Sour grapes??? He is allowed to \"do ids work at home\" since the stress of the District bothers him. Ooooo, nice perks for someone who seems so tempermental at times. How cooperative a player is he? Whose team is he playing for? He often doesnt show for meetings at the time set by the group and wants the time changed for his convenience. disjomtedness. This seemed to an area of It seems as if responsibilities for the curriculum, the central theme of our schools, is getting left out of the whole plan. No one from the upper level of the administration has made it their task to find out what is going on in the trenches. Margaret Gremillion, Sadie Mitchell, and Vic Anderson are in the schools almost everyday. Ask them how much the curriculum staff works in the schools\nask the principals who haved asked for assistance. A comment which was included in the narrative of the business case states that 'the efforts of the present structure of the curriculum is disjointed. It I wonder how any one would know that as a fact. How much commumcation has been done with all the instructional supervisors or the specialists who are in the schools on a daily basis? What discussion has /J IJ N - O 5 WED O 2 taken place with the principals who requested assistance or the teachers who have been helped? Sta,ft development has been orchestrared by the various curriculum departments. This inservice has been the best in the state. No other school district in this state has specialists who can deliver inservice like the teachers in our district are receiving. Other districts must rely on coop stalT or other paid consultants. Our needs as the larcest and most integrated District in the state are special. Did any of the upper level staff see, hear, or participate in this training? No, I dont tliink so. Tliis staff development was done with a dedicated staff that planned and conducted the inservice with the iiishest level of professionalism. Teachers were provided with instruction, supplies, and guidance. Where else in this State could this much preparation be done and instruction be delivered? Planning was done jointly and cooperatively. AU areas of the curriculum were involved. Dividing the instructional staff up will be detrimental to continued joint planning. Will the current assistant superintendents continue to oversee the everyday operation of their schools, as well meet with the curriculum teams assigned to tliein, plan curriculum inservice, and advise building level administrators? Nothing was explained in the plan as to how or who would supervise, advise, or oversee the teams other than just saying they would operate under an assistant superintendent. Would the curriculum department still remain intact or would these teams by split up and placed in different areas? How can, or will, joint planning take place' Who will be placed on these teams? What personnel will be cut or moved? Nothing has been explained. Does the \"appointed\" assistant superintendent in charge of curriculum know about the strategies that have been implemented in our schools? Not since Dennis Glasgow worked as \"acting\" assistant superintendent for curriculum has the instructional staff felt as if they were a part of the school district. Issues were discussed openly, decisions were made jointly, no secrets were discussed behind closed doors, and efforts were made to do the best tilings for the students and the school district. I guess Maybe this is why Dr. Williams removed Mr. Glasgow from this position. Integrity and honesty apparently count for nothing in the eyes of our superintendent. I guess qualifications aren't worth much either, since Mr. Glasgow has the credentials needed to fulfill the position of an assistant superintendent for curriculum. I hope the Board takes a long and hard look at the reorganizaiional structure that Dr. Williams is proposing. If his contract is bought out by the Board, his structure should not be put in place for someone else to reorganize. Confusion and a feeling of being unsettled would exist again in our District. Should the superintendent and/or Board have some discussion with the staff and other people who will be affected by this plan? This District has some 25,000 students that wiU be affected by this reorganization. Is this the best tiling for our District? It seems that cutting some of the top administration would address cutting the Special Assistant to the Superintendent and some of the Director level positions. Most of the instructional staff are teachers, working at the same .salary level of the teachers in the district. Moving the instructional staff as a curriculum team under an assistant superintendent does cut cost. Many people do not realize that most of the people S'..T u N -05 WED O ? O 3 at the IRC are not on admirostratton level contracts. These people work longer hours than most classroom teachers and are paid as a teacher, The Board asked the superintedent to make cuts^ as tar away from the students as possible, but making certain people directors and retaining special assistants does cut away from the students. Our students beneht from the specialists going into the classrooms because they set special programs, and their teacheis get on the job training in the latest techniques in teaching strategies. Check into the creditiais of the specialists in our District. Most of them are award winning teachers, on the state and national level, who have continued their special training to enrich their education and provide better service for our students and our District. It seems as if the superintendent must have somethin: to hide since he wanted this plan approved so quickly. What is his underlying message? Does he ___ ____ special\" people placed in \"special\" places before he leaves? Most of the Board doesn't seem surprised at this action. Is this another one of his actions which may prove deadly to our Distnct? Does he even care? How much has he cared about our District since he want some of liis came here? Lip service doesn't show concern. The fact that this will be discussed and possibly voted on at a luncheon meeting next Thursday frightens most teachers. This should be done at a regular session. He says he has done what he was .hired to do, get us out of coun. He hasnt done that. He is riding on the coat rails of the people m the trenches who have worked with our students for many years. Who has done the ultimate work in the schools? Surely he doesn't think he has. How most teachers. many days has he spent in the schools since he was hired compared to the number of days he has spent looking fc. another job? Making token visits to a school does not help one understand what is being done on a day to day basis. Let him teach in a junior high ciass for a week, see the new strategies used in an elementary classroom, or do a hands-on activitv in a iiieh school class. He needs to understand that it has taken many people and many years to get out of coun. Tills District needs a leader who cares about all facets of leaining, visits with the st^, takes a true interest in the community, is not afraid to listen and understand, not one who acts 30 arrogant and oblivious to the needs of the entire communi tv. .3 tor Verbiage doesn't become action unless the person is truly dedicated to making this school distria the best in the State. Our students and teachers deserve the best! had the best that someone has to offer! We all wish that weJOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY LITTIDROCKARKANSAS 72206 TELEPHONE (SOI) 374-375S FAX (501)374-4187 lOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER /K KIMBERLY R. DICKSON [DELIVERED BY FAX 324-2146 \u0026amp; U.S. MAIL] December 12, 1996 E\u0026gt;r. Don Roberts Interim Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Dr. Roberts\nI do not know whether I will be able to work with you as contemplated as long as Victor Anderson, Gail Bradford and Brady Gadberry are in positions of policy and continue to manifest attitudes negative to blade students. This is a concern which I have expressed to you before and it is of serious proportion. For the moment I am going to keep an open mind, but I ask you to examine their practices from a historic perspective as well as on an ongoing basis within the context of our monitoring reports. My views are particularly important as far as Mr. Gadberry and Mr. Anderson are concerned because I believe that they will be eventual superintendent contenders. raised. I will be happy to visit with you and them as well to explore these concerns which I have Thank you for your attention to this matter. :rel \u0026gt;hn W. Walker JWW:lp cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Brady Gadberry Mr. Victor Anderson Ms. Gail Bradford 30  d 00I0IZ2 01  a  d a3~,nBn  fl nhof upaa 06:11 9661/31/3: '\u0026gt;4 3HN W. WALKER ALPH WASHINGTON ARK BURNETTE USTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 RECEIVED litC 1 5 1397 December 12, 1997 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge OFHCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LR-C-82-866 LRSD V PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find the job postings by the Little Rock School District for four positions: for Desegregation, Support Services and Instruction and Director of Planning, Research and Development. I am writing to request that you allow the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to review and study the impact of the salary structure set forth in the i.e. $70-90,000.00 plus car allowance and benefits with Associate Superintendents postings, i.c v-w --- i---_-------- position being open ended defined as negotiable. one There is We have previously had extensive budget hearings. budget that allows payment of $100,000.00 or more including benefits to any group of employees. I believe that allowing the District to make these changes without court approval will have a tendency to have an adverse impact upon the ability of the District to meet, not only its desegregation obligations, but its other obligations as well. The effect will be magnified because the concept of equal pay will mean that scores of administrators may be able to make legitimate claims for upward pay adjustments. This will include principals and other persons at the Director no level. Dr. Leslie Carnine, the new superintendent, may not be aware of the budget concerns of the Court or the history of pay to The Court is reminded that there administrators in the District. has been no showing of a dearth of qualified applicants for administrative positions and thus, that huge payment is required to attract necessary staff. The salaries are grossly out of line for this district in comparison to other districts in the State except the possibility of the Pulaski County Special School District where we have raised similar concerns regarding pay inflation for administrators, many of whom are unnecessary. Dr. Carnine's principal advisor appears to be Mr. BradyPage 2 - Letter to Juge Wright December 12, 1997 Gadberry who has expressed chagrin at being paid less money than Dr. Richard Hurley, the Personnel Director. You will recall that Dr. Henry Williams brought Dr. Hurley aboard and paid him far more than anybody else without adherence to the salary schedule in existence. That put him ahead of his supervisor, Mr. By allowing advertisement at these ranges of pay, a number of people like Mr. Gadberry will be able to make claims Gadberry. for pay adjustments. This, in turn, will generate, I believe. more contention from the teachers and the grossly unpaid services workers, most of whom are black. Because of the broad implications and the possible far reaching effect of the pay initiatives, I respectfully request that you allow ODM to review this matter and to make a prompt report to the Court before the February 1, 1998 deadline. remind the Court that such increases also will necessarily result May I in substantial budget adjustments for ODM staff, if the concept of comparability to administrative positions in the LRSD is carried forward and if the Court ends jurisdiction any time soon. For those monitors will be entitled to Associate Superintendent level pay as well. This is not a anti-Dr. Camine letter. I expect that the teachers organization will express grave reservations regarding the source of additional revenues having been told that the District is on the verge of being broke in the recent negotiations. Thank you for your attention to this request. incerely. i John W. Walker JWW:js cc: Dr. Mr. Ms. Leslie Camine Chris Heller Ann Brown i i PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year: POSITION: Associate Superintendent for Desegregation QUALICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience as an administrator in a multi-cultural setting or urban setting. 5. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality and equity in student learning and school organization. 6. Demonstrates the conviction that all children can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. 7. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision-making and communication. 8. Demonstrated knowledge of how to apply the concept of high expectations to school organizational patterns. 9. Extensive experience in organizing staff development programs with a focus on Effective Schools research. NOTE\nAPPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO\nSuperintendent of Schools'J- JOB GOAL: To assist the Superintendent in the task of the implementation of all aspects of the desegregation plan so that organizational and learning equity are achieved in the Little Rock School District. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITrES\n1. Assists with the technical implementation of the Districts desegregation plan. 2. Assumes the responsibility of developmental planning in the areas of long-range student assignment policies, magnet school development, increasing student learning in incentive schools, program placement, and equal educational opportunity planning and proposal development. 3. Assumes the responsibility of monitoring and evaluating the Districts desegregation plan with the authority to make written requests for changes in the central office or building practices which give evidence of impending implementation as well as the spirit of the desegregation plan. 4. Assumes the responsibility for the coordination of central office departments in the implementation of various policies, procedures, and practices relating to school desegregation. 5. Maintains contact with State and federal officials so as to keep abreast of statutes, regulations, court decisions, and legal options which pertain to the desegregation of the schools. 6. Assists school principals to develop a site-based decision-making process based on the Eflfective School research. This decision-making process will place high emphasis on teacher participation. 7. Assists school principals and teachers to continually improve learning quality and equity through the application of research-based instructional supervisory techniques. 8. Attends the Board of Directors meetings and prepares such reports for the Board as the Superintendent may request. 9. Other duties as assigned by the Superintendent. SALARY AND TERMS: $70,000 - $90,000 - commensurate with experience, plus benefits package, a twelve (12) month position, plus car allowance.APPLICATION DEADLINE\nFebruary 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable NOTE\nAll interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for the position. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE\nINDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Superintendent of Schools. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST  December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year: POSITION: Associate Superintendent for Instruction QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Successful experience, in an urban setting, as a principal and/or administrator with instructional program implementation responsibilities. 5. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement in decision making. 6. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Staff as may be designated by the Superintendent JOB GOAL: To assist the Superintendent in the task of providing leadership, support, and direction in the area of instruction by providing building principals with a vehicle to more effectively utilize the division of instruction to improve teaching and learning.To supervise, on a constant, ongoing basis, the translation of the Districts educational .. f! philosophy, goals, and objectives into active terms that directly benefit each individual student. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\n1. Attends Board of Directors meetings, as necessary, and prepares such reports for the Board as the Superintendent may request. 2. Serves as the chief advisor to the Superintendent pertaining to instruction. 3. Monitors instruction K-12. 4. Works with Educational Programs staff and principals to determine educational priorities and goals for the District and schools. 5. Provides leadership and support to Assistant Superintendents for School Operations and to principals so that they can conduct effective building level needs assessments. 6. Assumes responsibility for conducting the personnel evaluation of personnel as may be assigned by the Superintendent. 7. Assumes responsibility for assisting the Assistant Superintendents for School Operations, Educational Programs staff and principals to encourage and involve community, staff and students, when appropriate, in decision making related to educational programs and instruction. 8. Other duties as assigned by the Superintendent. SALARY AND TERMS: $70,000 - $90,000 - commensurate with experience, plus benefits package, a twelve (12) month position, plus car allowance. APPLICATION DEADLINE\nFebruary 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable NOTE\nAll interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for the position. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel.SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E, Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE, BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM .STR PET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST  1 5 December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year\nPOSITION\nAssociate Superintendent for Support Services QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. In-depth knowledge and experience with financial, budgeting, computer, and data processing systems and applications are essential. Evidence, through positive past accomplishments, is required to demonstrate the high level of analytical, problemsolving, and decision-making skills needed for this position. 5. A strong commitment to quality desegregated public education must be shown along with a foil understanding of the relationships required between student, parent, staff, and administration to be a highly motivated, successful school district. 6. Demonstrated ability to effectively communicate, both orally and in writing, is essential. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Superintendent of SchoolsJOB GOAL: Serves as Chief Financial Officer and Business Manager responsible for the implementation and coordination of all District financial services including budgeting, forecasting, and accounting. Provides leadership in developing, implementing, and monitoring support services and programs for the District in areas such as building construction, maintenance and operations, purchasing, accounting controls, warehousing, food services, safety and security, and risk management. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. 2. 3. 4. As Chief Financial Officer, administers all financial services for the District. Includes direction of all accounting, payroll, budgeting, forecasting, and tracking activities\ndisbursement, accountability and investment of funds\nverification of bank accounts\ndevelopment of issuance of financial reports. Manages the process whereby support services and programs needs are developed, modified, implemented, and monitored to achieve desired results, cost objectives, and District goals\nInvolves\n(A) maintaining all physical plant facilities, including the coordination of new construction, renovation, repair, and custodial services to insure that high standards of workmanship, cleanliness, and safety, are maintained in a cost-efficient manner\n(B) controlling the procurement of supplies and equipment required for operation of the District, initiation contracts and purchase orders, securing bids and quotations, insuring quality of vendors products, managing inventory levels and coordinating central warehouse operation\n(C) planning, policy formulation, and implementation of food service requirements to meet District, State, and Federal guidelines by managing financial transactions, administering lunch and breakfast programs, controlling food service equipment and coordinating the purchasing, storage distribution and accounting of food and related supplies at the various units\n(D) administering a self-insurance loss program to ensure a high level of cost efficiency while maintaining a low loss ratio\n(E) implementing and maintaining security and safety programs to provide a high standard of security and safety throughout the District. Serves as advisor to administrators in the resolution of grievances based on terms and conditions of existing collective bargaining agreements. Attends Board of Directors meetings, prepares reports and presentations to the Board as requested by the Superintendent.5. Serves as chief financial and support services advisory to Superintendent, and serves as liaison with all professional staff, students, and the community on matters relating to financial and support services. SALARY AND TERMS\n$70,000 - $90,000 - commensurate with experience, plus benefits package, a twelve (12) month position, plus car allowance. EVALUATION\nPerformance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with provisions of the Boards policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. APPLICATION DEADLINE\nFebruary 1, 1998 - starting date negotiable NOTE\nAll interested applicants must include a letter detailing how/why they feel they should be considered for this position. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Dr. Richard E. Hurley Director of Human Resources Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices.PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM. STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST December 9, 1997 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following position for the 1997-98 school year: POSITION: Director - Planning, Research and Evaluation QUALIFICATIONS: 1. Minimum of a Masters Degree. 2. At least five (5) years experience in a management capacity. 3. Must possess or be able to obtain an Arkansas Administrators Certificate. 4. Experience in research, testing, and program evaluation. 5. Evidence of successful experience in developing and implementing monitoring and evaluation of educational programs. 6. A commitment to parent and staff involvement in decision making. 7. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. 8. Ability to administer programs and supervise professional staff. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. REPORTS TO: Superintendent of Schools SUPERVISES: Planning and Evaluation Specialists and assigned clerical and secretarial support personnel assigned to the department.JOB GOAL\nTo assist the Superintendent in providing the Board of Directors with pertinent evaluation data on all programs and services (both educational and supportive) being provided by the school district. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\n1. To manage the process whereby the Board identifies, on a yearly basis, the programs and services which have priority for evaluation. 2. To supervise the development of an evaluation design for each of the programs and services which have received priority for monitoring and evaluation. 3. To supervise the implementation of planning and evaluation designs which have been approved by the school district. 4. To provide technical assistance in the compilation and statistical analysis of data that will enable the district to utilize such evaluation results in the development, improvement, and/or elimination of programs. 5. To assume responsibility for coordinating the process for selecting outside planners and evaluators when they are needed. 6. 7. 8. To supervise the design and implementation of a district-wide testing program. Serves on such patron and staff committees as the Superintendent may direct. Assumes the responsibility for developing such reports as necessary to keep patrons and staff better informed about programs and services, and to facilitate their participation in planning and decision making. 9. 10. Assumes the respo\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_755","title":"Staffing","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1989/2005"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Educational law and legislation","School employees","Educational statistics"],"dcterms_title":["Staffing"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/755"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL NOV J 3 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office Of Desegregation INTERVENORS Moniicnng RESPONSE TO ~JOSHUA MOTION... . REGARDING FACULTY AND STAFF DESEGREGATION For its response. the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. LRSD is in compliance with its desegregation plan with respect to faculty and staff desegregation. Joshua seeks to impose upon LRSD requirements which are not found in the LRSD desegregation plan. Joshua is entitled only to enforce the terms of the LRSD plan. The court must reject Joshua's efforts to impose upon LRSD obligations which are not contained in its desegregation plan. In exchange for the \"commitments set forth in the Plans 2. and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement, II Joshua agreed to release all claims against LRSD and to dismiss this litigation. The district court retains authority to monitor the implementation of the desegregation plan and the Settlement Agreement, but not to impose additional obligations on Iaihy\\LRSD-Fac. Reathe parties. The relief requested by Joshua goes well beyond the requirements of LRSD's desegregation plan and should be rejected by the court. 3. The LRSD has long been unitary with respect to its faculty and staff. Vestiges of discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable. Unless Joshua can prove that new constitutional violations have occurred concerning faculty and staff within LRSD, the court is without authority to impose additional remedies. WHEREFORE, for the reason set forth above and in the accompanying brief, Joshua's \"Motion\" concerning faculty and staff desegregation within LRSD should be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Christopher Heller John C. Fendley By: Christopher Hellerf Bar No. 81083 kaihyUlSD-Fac.Rai 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Joshua Motion Regarding Faculty and Staff Desegregation has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 13th day of November, 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller liuhyXLKSO-Fac.Ra 3IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL RECEIViO DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL NOV 1 3 1995 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL Office of Desegregation Mom wring INTERVENORS MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN RESPORSg TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION REGARDING FACULTY AND STAFF ASSIGN P PRACTICES I. Introduction. In their Motion, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua) complain that the staff of the early childhood program at Rockefeller Elementary and of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Student Assignment Office do not include a sufficient number of African- Americans. Apparently referring to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring's (\"ODM\") September 15, 1995 \"Status Report on Staffing, Joshua prays that this Court adopt \"the ODM findings\" H and \"implement the remedies recommended by ODM.\"' Joshua's Motion, p. 3. In effect, Joshua is asking this Court to require that every 1 LRSD does not intend to suggest that it opposes the recommendations set forth in ODM's September 15, 1995 monitoring report. LRSD's position is that although LRSD may choose to accept those recommendations. desegregation plan recommendations. and the recommendations are not part of its it cannot be ordered to accept the louhyM-RSD-Fac.Nllschool, grade level and administrative department within LRSD meet some unspecified racial quota. The LRSD Desegregation Plan contains no such requirement. To impose such a requirement on LRSD would constitute a modification it the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Because Joshua cannot establish changed circumstances justifying modification, Joshua's motion should be denied. See Crumpton v. Bridgeport Educ. Ass'n, 993 F.2d 1023, 1028 (2nd Cir. 1993). Likewise, there is no constitutional requirement that every grade level and administrative office of LRSD have some quota of African-Americans. See Quarles v. Oxford Municipal Separate School Dist^, 868 F.2d 750, 756 (5th Cir. 1989)(\"[S]tudents do not have a 'constitutional right to attend a school with a teaching staff of any particular racial composition. t II ), quoting Oliver v. Kalamazoo Bd. of Educ.. 706 F.2d 757, 762 (6th Cir. 1983). Because LRSD has fulfilled its constitutional obligations with regard to faculty and staff, this Court lacks the authority to order additional remedies in that area. See Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436-37 (1976). II. Background. In 1971 the district court in Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, 328 F.Supp. 1205, 1211 (E.D. Ark. 1971), held that LRSD had fulfilled its obligation to desegregate its faculty and staff. For more than two decades. LRSD has aggressively recruited qualified African-American teachers and administrators. As part of 1973 agreement in Clark which a k\u0026gt;lhy\\LRSD-F\u0026gt;c.NI3 2resulted in a seven year moratorium on litigation, the parties stipulated that: \"The Little Rock School District is an equal opportunity employer and its goal has been and continues to be, through normal attrition and consistent with the hiring of qualified individuals, to achieve total administrative and teaching staff ratio of one-third black personnel.\" Exhibit A, Stipulation filed July 6, 1973. In 1982, the district a court in Clark concluded, \"[T]he Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system . fl Exhibit B, Memorandum and Order filed July 9, 1982, P- 16. The court specifically found that LRSD had complied with the court's orders regarding faculty and staff. See Exhibit B, p. 13. The district court in Clark rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the proportion of African-American faculty and staff should mirror the proportion of African-American students in LRSD stating, \"The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. II Exhibit B, p. 13. According to Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\"), African-Americans constitute less than 10% of the relevant labor market. See Exhibit C. LRSD has had at least triple that percentage for more than 20 years. See Clark v. Bd. of Educ. of the Little Rock School Dist., 465 F. 2d 1044, 1048 (Sth Cir. 1972)(\"The record shows that the faculty of the Little Rock School District consists of 70 percent white and 30 percent black k*tfay\\LRSD-Fac.N 13 3teachers.\"). Currently, 35 Q. 'o of LRSD certified personnel are African-American. See Exhibit D. LRSD's superintendent is African-American, and three of seven board members, including the board's president, are African-American. LRSD's history of exceeding the legal requirements relating to faculty and staff explains why the LRSD Desegregation Plan contains no specific obligations in this area. with the exception of staffing at incentive schools. Moreover, LRSD's outstanding record with regard to faculty and staff is evidence of LRSD's good faith commitment to a constitutional course of action. See Freeman v. Pitts, 306 U.S. 467, 491-92 (1992). III. The LRSD Desegregation Plan. The LRSD Desegregation Plan provides: The superintendent and school board must examine the racial makeup of all categories of employees including the administrative, teaching and support staff so that future recruitment and placement of persons to fill positions will be done on an equitable basis. LRSD Desegregation Plan, p. 2. As ODM has recognized, \"The LRSD plan . . . makes only a philosophical commitment to 'equity' in staffing and reviewing staffing patterns.\" ODM Monitoring Report, September 15, 1995, p. 9. The LRSD Desegregation Plan does not define equity.^ For the purpose of interpretation and enforcement. consent decrees are to be construed as contracts. U.S. V. City of Fort ^See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. 660 F.Supp. 637, 642 (E.D.Ark. 1987)(\"'Equity' is simply not a synonym for desegregation.\"). k\u0026gt;ihy\\LRSD-Fc.NI3 4Smith. 760 F.2d 231, 233-34 (Sth Cir. 1985). Accordingly, words used in the LRSD Desegregation Plan should be given their \"plain. ordinary meaning. II See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Milburn. 269 Ark. 384, 386, 601 S.W.2d 841, 842 (1980). Webster's Dictionary defines \"equity\" as \"freedom from bias or favoritism.\" Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1986). Therefore, LRSD's obligation with regard to faculty and staff is to hire and assign faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. LRSD has complied in good faith with its obligation to hire and assign faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. does not allege that LRSD has discriminated with regard hiring and assignment of African-American faculty and Joshua to the staff. Rather, Joshua complains that LRSD has failed to take affirmative steps to ensure that the early childhood program at Rockefeller Elementary and the LRSD Student Assignment Office include an unspecified quota of African-Americans. Because the LRSD Desegregation Plan contains no such requirement, Joshua's motion must be denied. See Crumpton. 993 F.2d at 1028. IV. Remedial Authority of District Court. Joshua argues that this Court has \"equitable authority\" to grant them the relief they seek. This argument fails for two reasons. First, Joshua has agreed that the LRSD Desegregation Plan is their complete and final remedy for the past discrimination of Webster's Dictionary defines \"equitable It as II having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned.\" Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1986). kBtfay\\LRSD-Fc.N13 5LRSD. The creation by this Court of new obligations beyond the plan would constitute a modification of the plan which would require proof of changed circumstances. See Crumpton, 993 F.2d at 1028. Second, because LRSD is unitary with regard to faculty and staff, this Court is divested of authority to order any additional remedies relating to this aspect of school operations. See Pasadena City Bd. of Educ. v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 436 (1976). Each of these reasons for denying Joshua's motion will be discussed in detail below. A. Modification of a Consent Decree. As a part of the September 1989 settlement of this case. Joshua agreed that the LRSD Desegregation Plan would be the complete and final remedy for all past acts of discrimination by LRSD. See Exhibit E, Release of All Claims Against the LRSD. Joshua agreed to the dismissal with prejudice of this case and all consolidated cases involving LRSD, with the exception that this Court retained jurisdiction \"to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. II Exhibit E, Release. The Settlement Agreement further provides: \"Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised, in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the Districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans.\" Exhibit E, Settlement Agreement, p. 19. Like LRSD, Joshua is bound by the terms of the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the September 1989 settlement agreement, and this Court has no authority to expand the lathyVLRSD-Fac.NlS 6obligations of LRSD over its objections. See Crumpton. 993 F.2d at 1028\nsee also U.S. V. Overton, 834 F.2d 1171, 1173 (Sth Cir. 1987) . In Crumpton. SUpra, the defendants in school desegregation case filed a motion asking the district court to \"clarify\" a consent decree to make clear that the defendants were to give an absolute preference to minorities when laying off teachers. The district court granted the defendants motion and approved of the preference in favor of minority teachers. The teachers' association appealed contending that the preference constituted an impermissible modification of the consent decree. The first issue for the court of appeals was \"whether the clarification was in fact a modification.\" Crumpton. 993 F.2d at 1028. In resolving this issue, the court first recognized that: While a consent decree is a judicial pronouncement, it is principally an agreement between the parties and as such should be construed like a contract. contract, the scope of consent decree [LJike a \"must be discerned within its four corners. II United States v. Armour \u0026amp; Co.. 402 U.S. 673, 682, 91 S.Ct. 1752, 1757, 29 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971), and, hence, a court construing such a document is \"not entitled to expand or contract the agreement of the parties as set forth in the consent decree.\" 1985). Berger v. Heckler. 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir. a a Id. Applying these principles, the court of appeals found that the \"clarification\" was in reality a modification because the consent decree made no mention of layoffs. Id., at 1029. In remanding the case for determination as to whether modification was a permissible. the court noted that \"one party to a consent decree cannot unilaterally rewrite the agreement over another party's objections, in order to pursue a course of action favored by it ... katfay\\UtSD-Fftc.N13 7where the course of action IS not authorized by the consent decree.\" Id., at 1030. As in Crumpton, Joshua requests that this Court 'define[] or interpret[] II the LRSD Desegregation Plan to require that LRSD maintain an unspecified quota of African-Americans within every area of its faculty and staff. There is no requirement in the LRSD Desegregation Plan that every administrative department and every grade level have some quota of African-Americans, and nothing within the four corners of the plan can reasonably be interpreted to create such a requirement. Therefore, Joshua's request for an interpretation is in reality of request for a modification. In Rufo V. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail. 502 U.S. 367 (1992), the Supreme Court set forth the standard for modification of consent decrees: [A] party seeking modification of a consent decree bears the burden of establishing that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree. moving party meets this standard. the court If the should consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance. Id., at 393. Joshua does not allege changed circumstances which justify modification of the LRSD Desegregation Plan, and as a result, Joshua's motion must be denied. B. LRSD Is Unitary With Regard to Faculty and Staff. Once segregated by law, LRSD is obligated to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination to the extent practicable. Bd. of Educ. V. Dowell. 498 U.S. 237, 250 (1991). LRSD has met that obligation with regard to faculty and staff, and consequently, this Court kalhy\\LRSD-Fac.NI3 8lacks the authority to order additional remedies in that area. See Spangler. 427 U.S. at 436-37. 1. Eliminating the Vestiges of Discrimination. The requirement to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination with regard to faculty and staff is three-fold. First, a school district must assign faculty and staff so that the racial composition of the faculty and staff of each school is substantially the same as the racial composition of the faculty and staff in the district as a whole. Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School Dist., 419 F.2d 1211, 1218 (Sth Cir. 1970). In 1971 the district court in Clark, 328 F.Supp. at 1211, held that LRSD had fulfilled its obligation to desegregate its faculty and staff. Second, following the initial reassignment of faculty and staff, a school district must hire, fire and assign faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. See, e.g., United States v. Desoto Parish School Bd., 574 F.2d 804, 819 (Sth Cir. 1978). Since at least 1971, LRSD has hired, fired and assigned faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner. This fact distinguishes the cases cited by Joshua in support of its Motion. The orders in Davis v. School Dist. of the City of Pontiac. 487 F.2d 890 (6th Cir. 1973), and Smith v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd., 448 F.2d 414 (5th Cir. 1971), requiring that a particular position be filled by an African-American were part of a comprehensive remedy which included desegregation of the faculty and staff. Because the faculty and staff of LRSD has been desegregated since 1971, these cases are inapposite to the case at hand. Compare Cunico v. Pueblo School Dist. No. 60, 917 F.2d 431, 437 (10th Cir. 1990). 4 louhyUJtSD-Fac.Nn 9There is no requirement that a school district maintain the racial composition of the faculty and staff of each school at the district wide ratio. The Fifth Circuit noted in Desoto Parish, SU pra, that \"Singleton does not require that such ratios be maintained permanently\nrather, it contemplates an initial reassignment so the racial ratio at every school reflects the systemwide ratio, followed by the utilization of nona discriminatory hiring, firing, and assignment policy thereafter.\" Desoto Parish School Bd. , 574 F.2d at 819. That no such requirement exists is demonstrated by recent cases granting school districts unitary status. See Coalition to Save Our Children v. State Bd. of Educ., ___ F.Supp. ___ ___ , slip opin. p. 49 (D.Del. 1995)(granting unitary status where \"[ajpproximately 80% of the schools in the 4 districts have fallen within a [plus or minus] 10% variance each year. With the exception of 1981, over 9 0% have fallen within a [plus or minus] 15% variance.\")\nStell v. Bd. of Educ.. 860 F.Supp. 1563, 1584 (S.D. Ga. 1994) (granting unitary status where 80% of schools in the district fell within a plus or minus 10% variance and 98% fell within a plus or minus 15% variance)\nand, Tasbv v. Woolerv, 869 F.Supp. 454, 470 (N.D.Tex. 1994)(granting unitary status where 97 of 191 schools fell outside a plus or minus 15% variance). Finally, a school district must make a sustained, good faith effort to recruit African-Americans so that the proportion of African-Americans on its faculty and staff approximates the proportion of African-Americans in the relevant labor market. See kBQQr\\LJ\u0026lt;SD-Fc.N13 10United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, (1987)(relevant labor market)\nOliver. 706 F.2d at 763 (6th Cir. 1983)(\"The record indicates 'the type of sustained good faith effort to recruit minority faculty members so as to remedy the effects of any past discriminatory practices.' [citation omitted] This is all the remedy to which the Kalamazoo students were entitled.\"). See also Fort Bend Independent School Dist. v. City of Stafford, 651 F.2d 1133, 1140 (5th Cir. 1981). For over two decades, LRSD has aggressively recruited African-Americans for faculty and staff positions. These efforts have resulted in the proportion of African-American faculty and staff of LRSD far exceeding the relevant labor market. For the 1995-96 school year, 35% of LRSD's certified personnel are African-American compared with 10% in the 5 relevant labor market. See Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, F.Supp. , slip opin. P- 44 , (D. Colo. 1995)(granting unitary status where \"the District has achieved minority faculty percentages that far exceed those that exist in the available labor pool\"). Therefore, LRSD has desegregated its faculty and staff\nhired. fired and assigned faculty and staff in a nondiscriminatory manner for over 20 years\nand recruited and retained African-Americans faculty and staff members well in excess of their proportion of the The parties recently met and agreed that the relevant labor market is certified personnel in Arkansas. The racial composition of the certified personnel in Arkansas was provided by the ADE. Although invited to participate, counsel for Joshua did not to do so. kallv\\LRSD-F*c.NI3 11relevant labor market. In other words, LRSD has eliminated to the vestiges of discrimination with regard to faculty and staff to the extent practicable and is unitary with regard to this aspect of school operations. 2 . Equitable Authority of a District Court. Because LRSD is unitary with regard to faculty and staff, there is no constitutional violation for this Court to remedy and no basis for this Court's exercise of its II equitable authority. II A district court's equitable authority \"may be exercised only on the basis of a constitutional violation\" and the \"nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy.\" Swann v. Charlotte- Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 16 (1971). Once constitutional violation has been remedied. a district court's equitable authority ends. See Spangler. 427 U.S. at 436-37\na Authur V. Nyguist, ___ F.Supp. ___ ___, 1995 Westlaw 646372, p. 1 (W.D.N.Y 1995)(\"In supervising a desegregation case. a district court's authority is limited: 'A remedy is justifiable only insofar as it advances the ultimate objective of alleviating the initial constitutional violation'\"). It is irrelevant that LRSD has not yet requested unitary status with regard to faculty and staff. See Hull v. Quitman County Bd. of Educ.. 1 F.3d 1450, 1454 (5th The LRSD Desegregation Plan is a six year plan. and the September 1989 settlement agreement releases LRSD from an further desegregation obligations at the end of those six years. Exhibit E. Thus, the September 1989 See settlement agreement contemplates that LRSD will be completely unitary after the six years of implementation of the LRSD Desegregation Plan. Overton. 834 F.2d at 1173. See Ialliy\\LRS[\u0026gt;-Fc.N13 12cir. 1993) (district court may decline to order additional remedies where a school district is unitary despite the fact that school district has not requested unitary status). IV. Conclusion. Therefore, Joshua's Motion must be denied for two reasons. First, to grant Joshua's Motion would constitute a modification of the LRSD desegregation plan, and Joshua fails to allege changed circumstances which would make modification permissible. See Rufo, 502 U.S. at 393. Second, LRSD has fulfilled its constitutional obligation in desegregating its faculty and staff. and consequently, this Court lacks authority to order additional remedies with regard to that aspect of LRSD. Accordingly, LRSD prays that Joshua's Motion be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Christopher Heller John C. Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 kalhyVLRSD-Fac.NB By: 13 Christopher Hei Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 13th day of November, 1995: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 kthyUJlSD-FK:.N13 c\n^istopher Heller\u0026lt; 14IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION RECEJVED DELORES CLARK, et al.. Plaintiffs, Vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., ) ) ' Defendants. ) STIPULATION NOV I 3 1995 Office of Desegregafion Moriiicnng No. LR-64-C-155 3 DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT f A Plaintiffs and defendants hereby stipulate as follows: 1. Defendants shall implement and administer for the 1973-74 school year and thereafter the student and faculty assignment procedures set forth in their Report about December 22, 1972 and in their Motions filed in this case on or about May 9, 1973. However, although the parties to this litigation believe that the ratio of black to white students in the district has now stabilized, if at the end of the 1974-75 school year, the overall proportion of black students then attending the primary schools in the western area of the city equals or exceeds two-thirds of the total student enrollment at such facilities, then the defendants will at that time re-evaluate the student assignment procedures and the grade structure presently in use for the purpose of formulating a procedure which would achieve the most equitable and efficient method of desegregation under the circumstances then existing. 2. Assignments of pupils to kindergarten facilities will be made on the basis of geographic attendance zones designed to assign such students to the facility which is generally closest to their residence. A kindergarten student may however elect to exercise a majority to minority transfer pursuant to which he or she may transfer from a facility in which his or her race is in the majority to a facility in which his or her race is a minority. A kindergarten student may also elect to attend a kindergarten facility located at a school where such student's brother or sister Is assigned to an elementary grade and insuch event, the kindergarten child will be eligible for transportation to the same extent as his or her brother or sister. 3. If permissible under applicable state and federal law, and if funding can be obtained, the defendants will, on an experimental basis. establish in 1973-74 a kindergarten program at selected eastern school facilities to serve four year old children residing in the vicinity of such kindergarten facilities. 4. The Little Rock School District is an equal opportunity employer and its goal has been and continues to be, through normal attrition and consistent with the hiring of qualified individuals, to achieve a total administrative and teaching staff ratio of one-third black personnel. 5. The defendants are opposed to, and do not employ, the concept of \"tracking\" of students. For purposes of this Stipulation, the term \"tracking\" refers to the labeling of students according to ability and on that basis permanently assigning them to a course of study to be followed throughout their secondary education. The defendants do however endorse and utilize the concept of \"achievement grouping\" in the elementary schools, and to a limited extent, in the secondary schools. Any achievement grouping in elementary schools will be carried out in the framework of presently existing heterogeneous student groupings. 6. The parties shall establish a bi-racial advisory committee composed of an equal number of black and white persons to aid the district' In resolving desegregation problems. The parties will determine the exact function, scope and composition of the committee at some date prior to the beginning of the 1973-74 school term. 7. For at least two years from June 28, 1973 or for as long as the defendants adhere to the commitments contained in this Stipulation, the plaintiffs and their counsel commit that they will Initiate no further legal proceedings concerning matters covered Page 2I by the terms of this Stipulation or the issues raised by the Report and Motions mentioned in Paragraph 1, and the objections to them heretofore made by plaintiffs, and further agree to assist the defendants in the defense of any litigation, initiated by others, which would tend to impair or hamper the successful operation of the desegregation program described herein. Plaintiffs and their counsel further commit to cooperate with the Board of Directors and administrative staff of the school district in promoting the successful operation of the district's educational program for the maximum educational advantage of all students in the district. Executed this day of June, 1973 by counsel of record for the parties, it being expressly understood that this Stipulation will be void and of no effect until ratified by the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. JOHN W. WALKER Attorney for Plaintiffs ''ROBERT V. LIGHTS Attorney for Defendants The foregoing Stipulation was ratified by a vote of the majority of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District in its regular meeting on June 28, 1973 . ATTESTlT^ - . ( 1,. Secretary President Page 3 received NOV 1 3 1995 FILED U.8i OISTRCT COURT eastern district ARKANSAS M 91982 Otiioe 01 Desegregation MOnilwin^N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS - - WESTERN DIVISION Ci Byu R. S, CLERK DEP. CLERK DELORES CLARK, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS VS. NO. LR 64 C 155 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has petitioned the Court for approval of a revised elementary school student assignment plan, the \"Partial K-6 Plan\".^ The plan is referred to as In 1973, after years of litigation. 2 the plaintiffs and the school district reached a mutually satisfactory agreement involving a number of issues, including a student assignment plan, and a moratorium was declared with respect to further litigation. Beginning in the school year 1973-74, the elementary schools were essentially desegregated. Because the eastern parts of the district are essentially black residential areas and western parts of the district are essentially white residential areas, it has been necessary to employ extensive bussing to achieve school desegregation. Over the years, there has been a steady trend of increasing black enrollment and decreasing white enrollment in the elementary schools. The trend is present, although less pronounced, in the upper grades. 1. DX 20. 2. The original desegregation case against the Little Rock School District was filed in 1956. was The pending case, which in 1964. simply a continuation of the original litigation, was filed j DEFENDANTS I EXHIBITThe following chart 3 illustrates the trend which has been established and maintained since 1971: Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-12 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of Whites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent Decli In Whites 1971 13,413 9,814 1,256 b. 1972 11,926 9,909 1,487 11.1% 1973 10,999 10,096 927 7.8% 1974 10,303 10,246 696 6.3% 1975 9,760 10,730 543 5.3% 1976 9,320 10,991 440 4.5% 1977 8,708 11,089 612 6.6% 1978 7,979 11,142 729 8.4% 1979 7,454 11,517 525 6.6% 1980 6,806 11,780 648 8.7% 1981 6,291 11,813 515 7^5%' The trend is generally explained by a number of demographic factors, such as population shifts by whites to the suburbs, increase in black population in the district, differences in birth rates, and, to some extent, the element of \"white 4 flight\". As previously mentioned, the increasing disparity in the ratio between black and white students attending the district is most pronounced at the elementary school level. 5 The following chart illustrates that trend. 3. DX 19, page 17. 4. DX 19, pages 12-28\ntestimony of Dr. Dewitt Davis. 3 . Composite from Exhibits 2 through 13. 2Little Rock Public Schools, Grades 1-6 Change in Student Enrollment, Fall 1971 to Fall 1981 Year Number of V/hites Number of Blacks Decline in Whites Percent Declir in Whites 1971 7,283 5,712 1972 6,497 5,933 786 10.8% 1973 5,700 5,822 797 12.3% 1974 5,012 5,805 688 12.1% 1975 4,560 5,864 452 9.1% 1976 4,374 5,928 186 4.1% 1977 4,066 6,022 308 7.1% 1978 3,871 6,218 195 4.8% 1979 3,459 6,637 412 10.7% 1980 3,152 6,661 307 8.9% 1981 2,501 6,953 651 20.8% During the 1977-78 school year. it became apparent that the student assignment plan implemented in earlier years was not accomplishing the desegregation goals established by the district. 7 The district took the initiative in correcting the problem. A \"Reorganization Committee\" was formed which studied various proposals and, as a product of that work. the district adopted a reorganization of the student assignment plan which was implemented in the 1978-79 school year. 6. The Court was given two sets of figures for student enrollment in the 1979-1980 school year. This chart is basea on the figures contained in Defendant's Exhibit 12. 7. Testimony of Dr. Leonard Thalmueller. 3Under the 1978-79 reorganization plan, the first three grades were designated primary grades and grades four through six were designated as intermediate grades. At that time blacks accounted for 63% of the students in grades one through six. One of the goals of reorganization was to maintain a black-white attendance ratio at each school which was within a ten percent variation from the district average at the elementary school level. 8 For example, as a result of the 1978-79 reorganization plan. Forest Park School had the lowest percentage of black students at 53% and Garland and Mitchell Schools had the highest percent at 70%. By 1980-81 the declining white enrollment, particularly in the primary grades, again resulted in significant deviations in the black-white ratio at a number of schools. For example. at Williams School, which is located in a predominently white residential area, only 8 white children enrolled in the first grade for the 1981-82 school year while 117 black children enrolled. There were seven schools, grades one through six, which had black enrollment of 80% or more. one in excess of 86%. Although the School District has been conscious of the trend of decreasing white enrollment and taken some measures to curtail the erosion. 9 nothing has significantly affected the trend. All of the persuasive evidence indicates the school district will have an enrollment which is essentially all black, particularly in the elementary grades, within the next few years. 8. Testimony of Dr. Thalmueller. 9. The administration has done an admirable job of offering quality education. Considerable effort has been directed toward providing curricula calculated to attract whites who have left the district's schools because of a oelief that the district was not offering quality education. These efforts include honors classes, ability grouping. emphasis on improvement in basic skills, etc. Addi- tionally, the administration has worked with the civic community and volunteer groups in efforts to encourage support for public schools and improvement in the quality of education provided. 4Faced with a significantly reduced white enrollment the primary grades and a vocal protest by white parents in against white racial insolation in some of the primary classes, the School Board adopted a \"65-35\" classroom assignment plan in the fall of 1981. The plan was a hurriedly conceivea stopgap measure to appease white parents of primary age children. The plan required that white children be assigned to home room classes with other whites until the percentage reached 35% in each class. The plan had the effect, of course, of creating some all black classes. The plan was disapproved by this Court following an evidentiary hearing in September, 1981. In the fall of 1981, the Little Rock School Board faced a host of problems which prompted reconsideration of the school attendance plan. For example, a significant disparity had developed in the black-white ratio of attendance at the various elementary schools and there was reason to believe the ratio would increase. Some of the black parents complained that their children were being bussed across the city to attend all black classes. Additionally, the last two milleage increase proposals had been defeated by the electorate and the district is faced with severe financial problems and an eroding financial base. The overall declining enrollment in the district and financial considerations dictated the closing of some school buildings. The Board took several steps in response to the problems. A \"Patrons Reorganization Committee^ was appointed to receive and review various proposals for pupil assignment plans and determine the feasibility of implementing the proposals. The Committee was asked to conduct public hearings 10. The committee was a twenty member committee composeu of 10 blacks and 10 whites, 10 who were males and 10 females. 5in various parts of the city in order to get as much input from the public as possible. The Board arranged for a study of the district's desegregation efforts by the Technical Assistance Center of Stephen F. Austin State University. This \"Desegregation Assistance Team\" submitted a report of its findings and conclusions to the Board in December, 1981. 11 The Biracial Committee, which is an advisory com- mittee formed as a result of the agreement in 1973, was asked to review the various plans and proposals for changes in the attendance plan. The administrative staff was assigned the task of compiling information and lending support assistance to committees. The Board also investigated the possibility of seeking an interdistrict remedy through legal proceedings against the adjacent County School District and has hired a law firm to pursue that remedy. Some 15 proposed plans or concepts for elementary pupil assignment were submitted to the Board, Patrons Committee and Biracial Committee for consideration. The plans were reduced to three, and finally \"Partial K-6 Plan\" was adopted by the Board after a number of minor modifications. The Board apparently views Partial K-6 as a temporary plan which provides the best chance for maintaining an integrated school system pending a decision in the interdistrict remedy suit. Partial K-6 Plan produces a number of results the Board views as preferable over the present plan. 1. The plan eliminates the primary-intermediate grouping, (or 3-3) plan (or has the same effect by pairing schools). Apparently one of the recurring complaints about the present plan is that students are moved from school to school too frequently. 11. DX 19. 6and their classmates change every three years. K-6 permits elementary age children to attend the same school or at least attend with the same schoolmates for six years, thereby fostering a sense of security, continuity and stability. 2. Partial K-6 permits the organization of nine neighborhood schools. 3. Approximately 1,000 fewer students will be bussed under Partial K-6. The number of bus routes will be reduced from 104 to 72 with an estimated immediate savings of $132,000. Furthermore, the number of school opening and closing times can be reduced. 4. Two elementary school buildings will be closed under partial K-6. 5. Partial K-6 employs the concept of a magnet school with a curricula attractive to some parents who are concerned about the quality of education. 6. The number of schools with a black ratio of 80% or more will be reduced from seven to four. Plaintiffs oppose the plan for several reasons. The \"objections to petition\" will be discussed in the order raised in plaintiffs' response to the Board's petition. 1. The \"plaintiffs object to additional black school closings\". This objection revolves around the part of Partial K-b which proposes that Booker Junior High School be changed to an elementary school. Although it is asserted that Booker will be \"closed\", such is not the case. 7Because of declining enrollments in junior high school, the Board concluded that one junior high facility was not needed. Booker had the fewest number of students ana reassignment of its students to other schools caused the least disruption. Thus, Booker was selected for conversion to an elementary school. Under the final plan, the schools which will be closed are Jefferson and King. Jefferson is in a white neighborhood and King is in a black neighborhood. The Board commissioned an evaluation of school physical plants and a report was submitted to the Board (the Leggett report) which indicatea that the cost of refurbishing and repairing King Elementary would be $1,500,000. On the basis of that estimate. King was selected for closing. Plaintiffs' argument that converting Booker to an ele- mentary school causes a \"burden\" on blacks is puzzling, is the claim that such a move is calculated \"to further as relieve white stufendts (sic) of educational presence in the Black community.\" First, if there is a burden on black junior high students, there is a corresponding buraen on white elementary students who will be transported to Booker. Second, the black neighborhood will certainly have the \"presence\" of those white elementary age students who attend Booker. Third, while black junior high students may be transported from the Booker neighborhood to other areas. black elementary age children will be relieved of that burden. It would seem that bussing older children is preferable to transporting elementary age children. With respect to the general allegations that school closings have, over the years, had the effect of relieving the \"propo-rtionate burden\" upon white children and enhancing it for black children, such is simply not supported by the evidence. First, all site selection for construction has 8been the subject of court approval. (Testimony of Lacey). Second, plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence tnat a school has been \"closed or downgraded\" because of improper consideration. Third, if there has been a \"disproportionate burden\" caused by transportation of students, it has fallen on white students, not black, and such will continue as the case under Partial K-6. (Testimony of Thalmueller and Lacey). The only bases for this objection are conclusory allegations which are not supported by persuasive evidence. 2. \"Plaintiffs object to the efforts to develop four 'segregated' or 'racially' identifiable\" schools. Under Partial K-6, four elementary schools will have a black enrollment of 90% or more. These schools are located in black residential areas. The black enrollment in the eighteen remaining elementary schools will range from 60% to 77%. Currently, the average black elementary enrollment in the district is 76%. Plaintiffs contend that creating four schools which have a black enrollment in excess of 90% is simply an effort to establish segregated schools and, that if allowed, \"there will be no prohibition upon the defendants in establishing them for white school children\". Plaintiffs further argue that by simply \"adjusting\" the attendance zones of the present plan a racial balance can be maintained in each school. The Board's decision to depart from the present plan was prompted by a number of factors. First, the present plan is not working. Although attendance zones can be drawn based upon school age census in the zone, predictions as to the number of students who actually enroll in school from that zone cannot be made with any degree of accuracy. Predictions as to enrollment by grade from a zone are even more troublesome. A good example of the problem is the 9situation last school year at Williams Elementary where b white children and 117 black children enrolled in the first grade. The problem of maintaining a racial balance at each school is compounded by the declining white enrollment at the elementary age level. In 1981-82, only 2,501 white elementary age students enrolled. This was a decline of 651 from the previous year. Obviously, if the trend continues. and there is no reason to believe otherwise, in a matter of two or three years there will be no \"critical mass\" of white students in any elementary school for the purpose of meaningful integration. Under the present plan, seven schools have a black enrollment of 80% or more. The Board's conclusion that \"meaningful integration\" did not exist at those schools is apparently supported by a majority of authorities on the subject of desegregation. Those authorities think that in order to have meaningful integration, 20% of the students must be of the second race. 12 Given the difficulties in predicting enrollment and the sharp decline each year in white enrollment, there is no reason to believe that a simple \"adjustment\" in attendance zones will reduce the number of schools with a black enrollment in excess of 80%. 3. Plaintiffs argue that Partial K-6 is \"reimposition\" of the concept of separate but equal. This argument would have some persuasiveness if there was any realistic hope of stabilizing the ratio of blacks and whites enrolled in elementary schools. Such stabilization plus a reasonable degree of predictability as to enrollment 12. DX 19, pages 7, 8. Testimony of Orfield, page 28. 10by grades from an attendance zone may permit the maintenance of a \"balanced ratio\" at each school. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Partial K-6 is simply recognition of the fact that a substantial number of black students are now being bussed across the district to attend classes which are essentially all black. Although maintaining a \"balanced ratio\" at each school IS a worthy goal of any desegregation plan, it is not the sole criterion. Most importantly, the four elementary schools in question are not part of a separate school system for blacks. Attendance is determined by neighborhood, not by race. Fur- thermore, under a modification to the plan, black students are given the opportunity of transferring from those four schools to other schools in the district. 4. Plaintiffs make a number of general objections to the plan which will be discussed collectively. Plaintiffs contend the plan violates a part of the moratorium agreement which required that the primary grades would be located in the black community when the black enrollment reached 65%. lished by the evidence. No such agreement has been estabFurthermore, if there was such an agreement, it has not been enforced because black enrollment in the primary grades has been in excess of 65% for several years. In any event, any informal agreement between the Parties reached in 1973 cannot reasonably be applied to dictate the terras of an attendance plan in 1982.- - so as During the evidentiary hearing plaintiffs contended that the facilities at the four essentially all black schools would be \"overcrowded\". Defendants' witnesses denied the 11allegation and contend that guidelines in the plan are calculated to insure quality education at the four schools. The Court is unwilling at this point to predict failure or the Board's stated goals of insuring quality education at the four schools. If any disparity develops in the facilities or the quality of education offered at the four schools, the plaintiffs can always file a motion seeking correction of the disparity. Plaintiffs contend the Partial K-6 plan is actually the same as the \"65-35\" plan offered by the Board and rejected by this Court in September, 1981. The argument is made that Partial K-6 effectively segregates by placing blacks in separate school buildings instead of separate classes, which was the effect of the 65-35 plan. There is little parallel between the two plans. The 65-35 plan was an ill-conceived reaction to vocal white parents who were alarmed about racial insolation in the primary grades. The partial K-6 plan is the product of a reorganization project which utilized the Patrons Committee, Biracial Committee and administrative staff in an effort to seek community involvement in a student attendance plan. Moreover, the factors influencing the adoption of the plan are legitimate considerations for any student assignment plan. The only weight which can be given the 65-35 plan in any evaluation of Partial K6 is on the issue of the Board's motive. The Court concludes that the Board is not motivatea by a desire to resegregate the schools in adopting.Partial K-6. Finally, plaintiffs contend that the district has not achieved unitary status in that \"vestiges of discrimination\" have not been totally eliminated. Particularly, plaintiffs claim that discrimination persists in the \"faculty, staff. programs, activities, discipline and site selection policies and practices of the district\". Since this same argument 12has come up at the last three hearings, the Court will address it although resolution is not essential'to the issue at hand. The claim is asserted that administrative and faculty positions are filled in a discriminatory manner. The issue regarding the recent employment of_a white superintenaent over plaintiffs' objections was decided following our evidentiary hearing in February, 1982, and need not be reviewed again. The question of faculty and administrative staffing has been monitored for years by Dr. J.J. Lacey, a black who is Special Assistant to the Superintendent for Desegregation in the district. Dr. Lacey knows and understands the require- ments of the Clark decrees and, without reviewing the details, the Court accepts Dr. Lacey's testimony that the district has been, and is, in compliance with those guidelines. Plaintiffs suggested, during the evidentiary hearings, that the black-white faculty and staff ratio should coincide with the ratio of black to white students. The Court concurs with Dr. Lacey's view that the available labor market more appropriately determines the racial composition of the faculty and staff than does the ratio of students. Plaintiffs claim all the \"heads of departments\" are white. This is not a fact but, in any event, the supervisor of all the academic department heads is Dr. Benjamin Williams, a black. The argument is made that currently there are no black principals of any of the three high schools, white principals and one position is vacant. There are two A black woman 1 J was recommended by Dr. Masem for the vacant position, but she was not hired by the Board. Plaintiffs also argue that 13. Dr. Paul Masem was Superintendent of the District for a little over three years and the Board voted to replai him. Dr. Masem's departure was not an amicable one am ce and he harbors some bitterness toward the District. 13Dr. Ruth Patterson was denied a position because of racial reasons and that racial considerations influencea personnel decisions involving William Thrasher and Paul Margrow. These arguments are supported solely by conclusions ana opinions of the witnesses. In any event, the opinions ana conclusions from such witnesses as Dr. Patterson, who can hardly be characterized as a disinterested witness, are not persuasive evidence that the district pursues discriminatory personnel practices. 14 Plaintiffs point to the fact that whites predominate in the honors courses, advanced academic courses and language courses as a \"vestige\" of discrimination. While it is true that whites predominate in those courses, there is absolutely no evidence that such enrollment is the product of any discriminatory policy or practice pursued by the Board. To the contrary, advanced academic courses and language courses are \"open\" to anybody who elects to take the courses. 15 There is no evidence that the honors program is administered in anything other than an objective fashion. According to br. Benjamin Williams, the administration has been conscious of the disproportionate numbers of whites in these programs as well as the fact that blacks are represented in disproportionate numbers in the basic courses. If there was any explanation grounded in racially discriminatory practices. surely those reasons would have been produced. Reference was made to disciplinary action and.the claim that blacks are disciplined in disproportionate numbers to 14. Dr. Patterson has a lawsuit pending against the district asserting her claims that she has been subjected to discriminatory treatment. 15. Testimony of Dr. Williams. 14whites. Dr. Lacey monitors the discipline situation and says that he makes \"every effort\" to see that discriminatory practices play no part in disciplinary procedures. Plaintiffs produced no evidence that any practice or policy regarding discipline was discriminatory or applied in a discriminatory manner. The suggestion has been made that one vestige of discrimination is the fact that whites are represented in disproportionate numbers on the cheerleader squads. A reference is also made to discrimination in \"extracurricular activities\". There is no evidence before the Court as to how cheerleaders are selected, the composition of the cheerleader squads or even a description of the policy or practice adopted by the district which is supposed to discriminate against black students. The Court has no idea what other extracurricular activities\" are involved in the allegation. Site selection for school closing and construction is alleged as a vestige of discrimination. That allegation has been discussed in preceding sections. Plaintiffs point to the fact that the Board has only one black member. 16 Plaintiffs claim the \"at large\" election procedure discriminates against blacks and that under Arkansas law the Board has the power to change the procedure so that members will be elected by wards. The Board's failure to ao so is asserted as further evidence of official discrimina- tion. Although plaintiffs' attorney assured the Court at trial that an Arkansas statute exists which confers that power upon the Board, he has been unable to furnisli the citation to the statute and the Court cannot find any sucn procedure in the Arkansas Code. In any event, the Board 16. T.E. Patterson, a black, had been a Board member for at least 10 years. In 1981, B.G. Williams, a black, ran against Patterson and defeated him. 15can hardly be criticized for failing to employ a proceaure which is nonexistent. Plaintiffs are critical of the Board for failing to take affirmative measures to halt the trend of increasing black enrollment in the district and stop the decreasing white enrollment. Specifically, plaintiffs' attorney re- peatedly asked witnesses if the Board had taken any steps to \"de-annex\" black residential areas from the district. Changes in district boundaries require, under Arkansas law, concurrence of the electorate in the affected districts. Arlc. Stat. 8 0-404, et seq. Unilateral action taken by the Little Rock School Board is ineffective. The surrounding Pulaski County District has publicly announced that it has no interest in merging with the Little Rock District. Aside from the legal impediments, it would seem that \"de-annexing\" black residential areas in order to deliberately get blacks out of the district is unprecedented and, undoubtedly constitutional. unIn summary, the Court finds no evidence of vestiges of discrimination in the district policies or practices. The Court adopts the opinion of Dr. Orfield and the Austin Study Group that the district has done an admirable job in the task of desegregation. Doubtless, there will always be allegations of racial discrimination when any school decision is reviewed in an adversary setting, particularly when there is an integrated enrollment of almost 18,000 pupils and 1,250 teachers and administrators operating under court order. Nevertheless, the Little Rock School District has operated in compliance with court decrees for nine years as a completely unitary desegregated school system and isolated complaints of discrimination without persuasive specific evidence to the contrary do not detract from that recora. 16Conclusions of Law The only serious question in this case is whether that portion of Partial K-6 which produces four elementary scaools with black enrollment in excess of 90% is unconstitutional. Although racial balance in each school is one method which may be used for dismantling dual school systems, there can be no serious claim that \"racial balance\" in the public schools is constitutionally mandated. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-741 (1974)\nSwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 22-25\nand Pasadena City Bd. of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 434. Furthermore, a small number of one-race, or virtually one-race, schools within a district is not in and of itself the mark of a system that still practices segregation by law. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, supra at 26. This is particularly true where, as here. the one race schools are the product of demographics over which the Board has no control. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, supra at 436. As a tool for accomplishing desegregation of elementary grades, the present plan has, perhaps, outlived its usefulness. The dual system has long since been eliminated and the Board should be permitted to consider factors other than balance\" in structuring an elementary attendance pl \"racial an. Neighborhood schools, a magnet school, financial considerations, and the desirable are legitimate factors which the educational benefits of : aspects of a K through 6 grouping 1 may be considered when weighing one attendance plan against another. Given the declining value of the present plan for desegregation purposes, the Board is certainly entitlea to adopt an attendance plan which meets constitutional standards and permits the district to achieve other educational goals. 17Under the circumstances of this case, Partial K-6 Plan is a constitutionally sound plan which may be implemented by the Little Rock School District. Dated this day of July, 1982, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 26 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 39 36 37 33 39 DRAFT ANALYSIS OF ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CERTIFICATION DATA (AUGUST 17,199S) CEHTIRi ARTK-M i Jki wHrre BLACK STATE ION AREA UAI g 302 BUSINUa eOUCATIOM BNOUiH joumiAuui arcecM pmmcm ap ANISH HEALTH RHYSJCAL eOUCATlON COAOtlHS mOUSTRIAL ANTS MATHEMATICS VOCAL MUSIC K-1\u0026gt; INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC K-1E GUIDANCE ELEMCNTARV GUIDANCE SECONOARY SOCIAL STUDIES OAT TRACE K-aaMENTARY 1.4 SLEMENTARV SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY SPEa GIFTED AND TALENTED ADULT ED. RSADING MEDIA SPECIALIST HOME ECONOMICS GENERAL SCIENCE BIOLOGY CHEMISTRY PHYSICS PHYSICAL SCIENCE SPECIAL EOUCATlON SPEECH PATHOLOGIST ADMINISTRATOR ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL SECONDARY PRINCIPAL CERTIFICATION AREAS (ABOVE) ALL CERTIFICATION AREAS 21 640 59 129 48 73 1091 2983 1227 292 1187 298 544 127 441 2802 960 63 1137 61 79 86 31 88 1 1388 1021 297 178 391 173 29 1132 586 1512 20938 33921 FEMALE MALE 840 1514 4030 176 433 347 444 668 1182 373 4 1673 315 481 962 938 2476 34 7241 14449 329 880 232 1080 1479 1195 1333 1108 238 81 283 1293 742 234 1137 307 50877 82782 12 42 0 10 8 2 95 256 74 47 134 31 58 8 43 194 26 7 ^77 2 12 a 3 0 144 94 29 3 61 20 3 83 79 167 1976 3142 FEM AL ?\u0026lt;r TOTAL 1117 231 330 3 SO 36 13 52 103 2 2 120 58 SO 114 111 248 __8 438 1825 18 50 62 89 118 150 143 120 37 5 71 161 42 29 180 88 5308 8608 2013 5082 243 M2 439 S34 1886 4529 1708 306 2888 1203 1113 1201 1538 6721 448 7748 17588 411 1023 371 1168 1888 1346 3011 2343 681 277 811 1647 816 1478 1992 2074 79200 123454 S DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT % BLACK 1iO% - 84% 34% 84% 10.0% 24% 7.8% 3.01i 16.1% 84% 7.4%' 8.7% 104%' 104% 7.7% 7.2% 5.7% 11.4K 5.1% 54% 194% 9.2% 7.2% 11.1% 9.7% 9.1% 10.1% 24% 164% 11.0% 54% 7.6%l 13.8% 123\u0026lt; 9.1 9.1 WOV I 3 Office of Desegregation Monitoringf 5 receive LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FACULTY \u0026amp; STAFF 1995-96 AZOV 1 J Office of ^esegregaticn Monii SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS nk^ VARIANCE Central High School Fair High School Hall High School McClellan Community High School Parkview High School Metropolitan Vocational High School Cloverdale Junior High School Dunbar Junior High School Forest Heights Junior High School Henderson Junior High School MabeIvale Junior High School Mann Junior High School f:\\home\\fl oa(w\\lrsd2.cha 63.62% 72.74% 67.57% 80.91% 51.65% Not Available 87.29% 60.56% 76.70% 78.21% 74.27% 53.81% 37.96% 41.43% 30.99% 29.87% 32.84% 21.74% 45.28% 51.92% 39.06% 50.70% 28.85% 40.00% \u0026lt; 6.23% 9.70% .74%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 1.86%\u0026gt; 1.11% \u0026lt; 9.99%\u0026gt; 6.45% 13.09% .23% 11.87% \u0026lt; 9.98%\u0026gt; 1.17% 73.81% 72.41% 66.67% 65.71% 59.26% 80.00% 88.89% 81.82% 52.00% 71.43% 52.38% 70.83% 5.02% 3.62% \u0026lt; 2.12%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 3.08%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 9.53%\u0026gt; 11.21% 18.18% 11.81% \u0026lt;18.01%\u0026gt; 1.42% \u0026lt;17.63%\u0026gt; . 82% 3 DEFENDANTS f EXHIBIT I .SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Forest Park Elementary School Franklin Elementary School Fulbright Elementary School Garland Elementary School Geyer Springs Elementary Gibbs Elementary School Jefferson Elementary School M. L. King Elementary School Mabelvale Elementary McDermott Elementary School Meadowcliff Elementary School Mitchell Elementary School f:\\home\\lloaiw\\lrsd2.cha 47.71% 92.75% 48.85% 91.50% 74.17% 54.61% 43.08% 55.04% 68.71% 53.13% 76.18% 98.34% 31.03% 46.34% 27.78% 61.54% 45.83% 26.67% 19.44% 37.21% 27.27% 24.24% 18.52% 44.44% 3 \u0026lt; 3.83%\u0026gt; 11.48% \u0026lt; 7.08%\u0026gt; 27.00% 10.97% \u0026lt; 8.19%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;15.42%\u0026gt; 2.35% \u0026lt; 7.59%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;10.62%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;16.34%\u0026gt; 9.58% 64.29% 91.43% 69.57% 82.14% 64.71% 81.25% 81.82% 52.38% 68.75% 55.56% 88.89% \u0026lt; 7.31%\u0026gt; 19.83% \u0026lt; 2.03%\u0026gt; 10.54% \u0026lt; 6.89%\u0026gt; 9.65% \u0026lt; 4.93%\u0026gt; 10.22% \u0026lt;19.22%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 2.85%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;16.04%\u0026gt; 17.29%% SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Pulaski Heights Junior High School Southwest Junior High School Badgett Elementary School Bale Elementary School Baseline Elementary School Booker Elementary School Brady Elementary School Carver Elementary School Chicot Elementary School Cloverdale Elementary School Dodd Elementary School Fair Park Elementary School f:\\hofnc'.f1oa(w\\lrsd2.cha 56.35% 80.87% 78.92% 70.85% 75.47% 53.19% 63.57% 51.52% 78.85% 85.16% 58.97% 'll .62^^ 21.88% 48.98% 42.11% 29.63% 44.00% 38.00% 25.00% 26.09% 33.33% 53.33% 32.00% 50.00% 2 \u0026lt;16.95%\u0026gt; 10.15% 7.25% \u0026lt; 5.23%\u0026gt; 9.40% 3.14% \u0026lt; 9.86%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 8.77%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 1.53%\u0026gt; 18.47% \u0026lt; 2.86%\u0026gt; 15.14% 73.68% Not Available 75.00% 68.42% 75.00% 93.75% 89.47% 62.50% 46.67% 73.33% 64.71% 71.43% 3.67% Not Available 3.40% \u0026lt; 3.18%\u0026gt; 3.40% 22.15% 17.87% \u0026lt; 9.10%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;24.93%\u0026gt; 1.73% \u0026lt; 6.89%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; .17%\u0026gt;SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Otter Creek Elementary School Pulaski Heights Elementary School Rightsell Elementary School Rockefeller Elementary School Romine Elementary School Terry Elementary School Wakefield Elementary School Washington Elementary School Watson Elementary School Western Hills Elementary School Williams Elementary School Wilson Elementary School f:\\home\\floatw\\lrsd2.cha 41.95% 46.27% 95.54% 64.87% 71.76% 44.44% 85.41% 64.75% 80.00% 65.82% 51.10% 77.69% 20.83% 26.92% 56.00% 18.42% 39.29% 30.30% 58.62% 42.86% 26.67% 36.36% 27.03% 32.14% 4 \u0026lt;14.03%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 7.94%\u0026gt; 21.14% \u0026lt;16.44%\u0026gt; 4.43% \u0026lt; 4.56%\u0026gt; 23.76% 8.00% \u0026lt; 8.19%\u0026gt; 1.50% \u0026lt; 7.83%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 2.72%\u0026gt; 63.64% 84.62% 95.24% 82.35% 76.19% 57.89% 66.67% 86.11% 75.00% 46.67% 60.00% 68.42% \u0026lt; 7.96%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 3.02%\u0026gt; 23.64% 10.75% 4.59% \u0026lt;13.71%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 4.93%\u0026gt; 14.51% 3.40% \u0026lt;24.93%\u0026gt; \u0026lt;11.60%\u0026gt; \u0026lt; 3.18%\u0026gt;SCHOOL PERCENTAGE BLACK STUDENTS PERCENTAGE BLACK CERTIFIED POSITIONS VARIANCE PERCENTAGE BLACK SUPPORT POSITIONS VARIANCE Woodruff Elementary School Alternative Learning Center (Junior High) Total All High Schools Total All Junior High Schools Total All Elementary- Schools Total LRSD NOTES: (1) (2) (3) (4) f:\\home\\floatw\\lrsd2.cha 66.93% 41.67% 66.75% 69.55% 64.83% 66.28% 38.89% 55.56% 31.73% 38.83% 34.86% 35.16% 4.03% 16.73% 50.00% 80.00% 68.79% 70.01% 71.60% 70.91% \u0026lt;21.60%\u0026gt; 9.99% Percentage of black students will be based on Little Rock School District tenth day enrollment count 1995-96. Percentage of black certified positions and support positions will be based on Little Rock School District staffing/school personnel as of 10-13-95. Certified principal, positions classroom include teachers, principal, vocational assistant teachers, counselors, media specialists, resource/teacher, speech therapists, music, art, and P.E. Support positions include attendance clerk, cafeteria workers, custodians, media clerk, registrar, secretary, nurse, security instructional aides, and supervision aides. officer, 5RECEfVEO NOV I 3 J995 Office of Deseflregation l^onitcrin^ PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989) 2 defendants I exhibitPULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT March, 1989 (As Revised September 28, 1989)PULASKI COUNTY SCHOOL DESEGREGATION CASE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONTENTS Page I. Introduction 1 II. General Provisions 2 III. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Magnet Funding Calculation .............. Magnet Surplus Credit.................... Magnet Operational Charge................ Restrictions on Funding Magnet Schools . . Continuation of Existing Funding ........ Compensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs . . Conditions to Settlement ................ Act 34 Exemption ......................... Staff Development........................ Recognition of Autonomy.................. District Budgets ......................... Prohibition of Punitive Action .......... Rededicated Millages .................... Limit of Liability ....................... Majority to Minority Provisions.......... Consent Order............................. 2 2 3 4 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 10 11 11 12 State's Role in the Desegregation Process . . 13 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. . L. M. Monitoring Compensatory Education........ Statement of Support for the Plans .... Petition for Election..................... Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegregation............................. Elimination of the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative....................... Commitment to Principles ................. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement............................... Test Validation........................... In-Service Training....................... Recruitment of Minority Teachers ........ Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates ............................... Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff .... School Construction...................... 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 18 11IV. Dismissal of Litigation 18 A. B. C. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release................................... Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts......................... Reserved Issue ........................... 18 19 19 V. Attorneys Fees 20 VI. The LRSD Settlement 22 VII. A. B. Payment Schedule and Terms Loan Provisions.......... The PCSSD Settlement A. B. C. D. Financial Settlement 1. Magnet Payments . 2. Other Payments. . Staff Development. . Food Services. . . . Housing............ VIII. The NLRSD Settlement A. B. C. D. Magnet Payments....................... Compensatory Education Payments. . . . Additional Payments................... Description of Additional Compensatory Education Programs .................. IX, Execution ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Release of Claims Release of Claims State LRSD Release of Claims' - PCSSD Release of Claims NLRSD 111 22 24 27 27 28 28 29 30 30 30 30 31 31 36 36I. Introduction The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Desegregation Plan (January 31, 1989) , the Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") Permanent Desegregation Plan (October 3, 1988, as supplemented February 15, 1989) , the North Little Rock School District (\"NLRSD\") Desegregation Plan of March and October, 1986 (as amended or modified through February 15, 1989 or by operation of this settlement agreement) and the Interdistrict Desegregation P2an (February 15, 1989) (the \"Plans\") hold excellent promise for achieving unitary school systems in these three districts which are free from the vestiges of racial discrimination. Continued litigation regarding funding and other issues may make more difficult and further delay effective implementation of the constitutional obligations of the State of Arkansas and the three Pulaski County school districts (the \"Districts\"). This settlement of the issues concerning the Districts, the Joshua Intervenors (\"Joshua\"), the Knight Intervenors (\"Knight\") and the State of Arkansas in Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (\"this Litigation\") is in the best interest of the students, patrons and staffs of the Districts and the people of the State. 1The superintendents of the Districts support the settlement and it has received the unanimous approval of their respective boards of directors. The business community as represented by the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce also supports the settlement and the Plans. That group has pledged the strong support of its membership to help the Districts achieve many of the goals of the Plans. The black plaintiff intervenors (\"Joshua\"), the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Little Rock and North Little Rock chapters of the NAACP and the Greater Little Rock Christian Ministerial Alliance pledge their support to the Plans and this settlement. The settlement is also supported by Knight (LRCTA, PACT, NLRCTA and the AEA) . The Arkansas State Board of Education, the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") and the Governor of Arkansas support the settlement. 1-AII. General Provisions A. Magnet Funding Calculation Each Districts magnet students will be included in the calculation of that District's table rate in determining State aid to be paid under the MFPA formula or any future funding formula. B. Magnet Surplus Credit Any cash surplus remaining in the magnet school fund for given fiscal year after all expenses and receivables for that fiscal year have been accounted for (including payment to the host District for administrative costs) will be returned to the a a Districts and ADE as follows: (1) NLRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year to the extent surplus funds are available\n(2) If additional surplus funds exist following the payment to NLRSD, PCSSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available\n(3) If additional surplus funds exist following the payments to NLRSD and PCSSD, 2LRSD will receive the difference between its table rate and $1,550 multiplied by its average daily membership in the magnet schools for the fiscal year, to the extent surplus funds are available. (4) If additional surplus funds remain following the payments to NLRSD, PCSSD and LRSD, the ADE will be refunded its magnet operation payments to the extent such funds are available. This provision will remain in effect for seven years beginning with the 1988-89 school year. The payment to the host District for administration of the magnet schools for the 1988-89 school year will be 3.09% of the magnet school fund. In future years. the payment to the host District for the administration of magnet schools will be the same percentage of the magnet fund as the state-determined percentage of the host District's budget attributable to administrative costs. C. Magnet Operational Charge The current per pupil operational charge for magnet students ($3,100) will remain in force until changed by the Magnet Review Committee, or in the event the Magnet Review Committee is restructured or eliminated, then by agreement of the parties, subject to the review of the district court in any event. 3The parties will review the operational charge on an annual basis but will not increase the charge solely for the purpose of creating a surplus. Calculations in paragraphs II.B., VII.A.1. and VIII.A assume a $3,100 operational charge. D. Restrictions on Funding Magnet Schools The State will have no further obligation to contribute any additional funds to magnet schools other than under paragraph II E. below. The Districts' obligation to contribute funds to magnet schools shall be limited to their paying their portion of the costs of the six existing magnet schools pursuant to the Court's order of February 27, 1987. Any reference to the six existing magnet schools in this settlement shall mean, for funding purposes, up to their present seating capacities. Those seating capacities are as follows: Carver 613 E. Williams Gibbs Booker Mann Parkview 515 351 660 935 991 Continuation of Existing Funding In addition to any payment described elsewhere in this agreement, the State will continue to pay the following costs: 4(1) The States portion of magnet school operational costs for the six existing magnet schools (Gibbs, Booker, Carver, Parkview, Mann and Williams) using the formula employed by the State during the 1987-88 school year modified by the inclusion of the number of students from each District attending magnet schools in the calculation of that (2) District's table rate for distribution of MFPA\nMajority to minority student transfer incentive payments to the host and home Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation\n(3) The State's share of Magnet Review Committee expenses as currently allocated\n(4) Transportation to the six existing (5) magnet schools\nTransportation of majority to minority transfer students between the Districts as described in the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation\nand (6) The State's share of any and all programs for which the Districts now receive State funding. 5The funds paid by the State under this agreement are not intended to supplant any existing or future funding which is ordinarily the responsibility of the State of Arkansas. F. Compensatory Education, Early Childhood Education and other Statewide Programs The settlement payments described in this agreement are exclusive of any funds for compensatory education, early childhood development or other programs that may otherwise be due LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which students residing in territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of such students if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for their education), PCSSD or NLRSD under present and future school assistance programs established or administered by the State. The State will not exclude the Districts from any compensatory education, early childhood development. or other funding programs or discriminate against them in the development of such programs or distribution of funds under any funding programs. G. Conditions to Settlement This settlement is conditioned upon approval by the Districts' boards of directors (already done) and the State Board of Education (already done), the certification of the classes and class representatives by the court (already done), the 6execution of the releases attached hereto as Attachments A, B, C and D, the dismissal of the State from this Litigation with prejudice consistent with the terms of Attachment A, the approval of the terms of the settlement by the court and the enactment of legislation prior to August 15, 1989 either (1) making provision for the funding of the Settlement or (2) authorizing the Arkansas State Board of Education (State Board) to enter into a consent order which directs the State Board to make the payments which would fund the obligations of the State under the Settlement (already done). As used in this agreement, \"final approval\" means after all these conditions have been satisfied. If final approval of this settlement agreement is not obtained. no statement in the agreement may be used for or against any party as an admission of liability or intent. H. Act 34 Exemption No sums received by the Districts pursuant to this settlement shall be regarded as included within the definitions of total local resources, net local resources, gross current revenue. or miscellaneous funds pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. Section 6-20-301, et seq. or pursuant to any amendments to those sections which may hereinafter be enacted. 7All funds received by the Districts pursuant to this agreement, including any interest or earnings thereon, will be exempt from Sections 8 and 11 of Act 34 of 1983 (A.C.A. Sections 6-20-307 and 6-20-319) as amended or as may be amended, with the following exceptions: (1) For the 1989-90 and later school years, all MFPA funds received by the Districts, as calculated in accordance with A.C.A. 6-20-302 (1987 Supp.), including the portion of that calculation represented by the Districts' magnet students, will not be exempt\nand (2) the funds received by the Districts for any compensatory education. early childhood education. and other statewide programs contemplated by paragraph II.F. will be exempt only if the funds are exempt in all other districts in the State, and if so, those funds which are exempt cannot be counted by the Districts as expenditures satisfying Act requirement that 70% of net 34' s current revenue be used to pay certified personnel. I. Staff Development To facilitate the Plans, the ADE authorizes each District up to four \"release days\" per year for the 1989-90 and 1990-91 school years. Those would be divided as two release days per semester. Further, two such release days. one per semester. shall be provided for the 1991-92 school year. 8These \"release days\" will have the effect of shortening by four days in each of the first two years and two days in the last year, the student contact/instructional days contained within the Districts' school calendars. The parties recognize that any detriment which might result from the reduction of contact days will be outweighed by the benefits derived from the staff development training (which will include all appropriate desegregation training and specialized training in strategies designed to reduce the level of achievement disparity between black and white students) and the increased efficiency and competence of the trained teachers. It is further understood and agreed that these release days shall be in addition to any staff development days currently required or which might be required in the future by ADE or other State authority. J. Recognition of Autonomy The State, Joshua and LRSD recognize that PCSSD and NLRSD are independent, sovereign desegregating school districts operating pursuant to court orders and agreements and that this agreement is both necessary and desirable to facilitate their desegregation activities as well as their cooperative desegregation activities with the LRSD and others. 9K. District Budgets The Districts may utilize the receipt of funds paid pursuant to this settlement to balance previous years budgets and if this is done. neither the previous years deficit nor such fund usage will be regarded as a violation of State law. L. Prohibition of Punitive Action The State shall take no action (including the enactment of legislation) for the purpose of retaliating against the Districts (including retaliatory failure to increase State aid and retaliatory reduction in State aid) because of this Litigation or this settlement. The State will enact no legislation which has a substantial adverse impact on the ability of the Districts to desegregate. Fair and rational adjustments to the funding formula which have general applicability but which reduce the proportion of State aid to any of the Districts shall not be considered to have an adverse impact on the desegregation of the Districts. M. Rededicated Millages The court ordered on December 29, 1986 (reinstated Jan. 7, 1987) the rededication of certain millages of the Districts. It was the intent of the Districts and the court that all millages due to expire before the year 2007 be rededicated. The motion seeking the extension, however, failed to list 10all of the millages and consequently not all of the millages sought to be rededicated have actually been rededicated. The parties agree that the courts order of December 29, 1986 (reinstated January 7, 1987) should be corrected to include all millages of the Districts which would otherwise expire before or during the year 2007. Pursuant to this settlement, a corrected order has been submitted to the court for approval following final approval of the settlement. Upon approval, the order will be delivered to the responsible county officials. N. Limit of Liability The State's financial liability under this Settlement beyond that set forth in II.E. and II.F. shall be limited to $129,750,000 to be paid as set forth in Sections V, VI, VII and VIII herein. 0. Majority to Minority Provisions (1) In any application for aid pursuant to Section 6 of Act 24 of the 1989 Regular Session of the Arlcansas General Assembly, the receiving district for M to M students may include in such application any M to M students it hosts who are eligible for participation pursuant to Section 6(A) of said Act. (2) The State will continue to ma)ce payments under the August 26, 1986 M to M stipulation so that the host district receives its average cost of 11educating a student for each M to M transfer student enrolled in the host district. (3) When at least one Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and in PCSSD, all M to M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payments to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets of the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each districts obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. The State payments for M to M students not enrolled in Interdistrict Schools will continue in accordance with paragraph (2) above. (4) Beginning the first year an Interdistrict School is operating in LRSD and PCSSD, PCSSD will contribute $200,000 per year for five years to the pool of funds to be used by both districts to operate Interdistrict Schools. P. Consent Order The parties consent to the entry of an order containing the requirements of Act 1 of 1989, Second Extraordinary Session, to the extent it is not inconsistent with this settlement. 12III. State's Role in the Desegregation Process A. Monitoring Compensatory Education The State shall be required (as a non-party) to monitor. through the ADE, the implementation of compensatory education programs by the Districts. If necessary as a last resort, ADE may petition the court for modification or changes in such programs being implemented by the Districts (but not for a reduction in the agreed level of State funding). If such petitions are filed. the undersigned parties will not object based upon lac)c of standing. ADE shall provide regular written monitoring reports to the parties and the court. Monitoring by the State shall be independent of that of the other parties. It is being done to ensure that the State will have a continuing role in satisfactorily remediating achievement disparities. Any recommendations made by ADE shall not form the basis of any additional funding responsibilities of the State. A State plan for monitoring implementation of compensatory education will be submitted to the parties within 60 days following execution of the settlement agreement. B. Statement of Support for the Plans The State, Districts and Joshua will provide to the court a statement of full support for the Plans 13upon final approval of the settlement. This statement of support will not be construed to burden the State with additional funding obligations beyond those existing at the time of the execution of this agreement except those specifically set forth in this agreement. C. Petition for Election The State will join LRSD if LRSD petitions the court to allow it to hold a millage election. D. Statutes and Regulations Affecting Desegregation The ADE will research and list laws that impede desegregation and submit legislation to repeal such laws to the General Assembly as soon as practicable. ADE will not knowingly promulgate or retain any regulations which impede desegregation. and the other parties will notify ADE of any regulations which they believe would have such an effect. If any regulation is demonstrated to have such an effect, the regulation will be modified or repealed or an exemptioA will be provided. The Districts, Knight and Joshua will assist the ADE in identifying existing and proposed statutes and regulations that impede desegregation.  E. Elimination of State Funding for the Pulaski County Education Service Cooperative State funding for the Pulaski County Education Service has ceased and the funds were reallocated 14to the Metropolitan Supervisor by order of the Court. Should these funds no longer be required by the Metropolitan Supervisor, they will be used to assist the ADE in securing the services of trained consultants to develop effective compensatory, remedial education programs designed to eliminate achievement disparities between black and white students and for other purposes intended to enhance desegregation. F. Commitment to Principles The State remains committed to the following principles: a. There should be remediation of the a racial academic achievement disparities for Arkansas students. b. Special education classes and gifted and talented classes should not be racially identifiable. c. The ADE and the Districts should work cooperatively to promote the desegregation goals of the State and the Districts and to ensure educational excellence in the public schools in Pulaski County and throughout the State. G. Remediation of Disparities in Academic Achievement The ADE, with the assistance of the Court's desegregation expert(s), will develop and will search 15 ifor programs to remediate achievement disparities between black and white students. If necessary to develop such programs, the ADE will employ appropriately trained and experienced consultants in the field of remediation of racial achievement disparities and/or hire as staff members persons with such training and experience. The remediation of racial achievement disparities shall remain a high priority with the ADE. H. Test Validation ADE will conduct periodic reviews of tests used in the States testing program to determine if students race. sex, or culture adversely affect their test scores. If bias is found in any test. that test will not be used unless modified to eliminate the bias. I. In-Service Training ADE will establish in-service programs to assist in providing training for the staffs of desegregating school districts. Such programs will first be made available to the Districts. J. Recruitment of Minority Teachers The Districts will annually supply ADE information identifying the subject areas in which they have actual or foreseeable shortages of minority teachers. The ADE will then obtain from higher education sources information by race on new teacher 16graduates in those subject areas and make such information available to the Districts. ADE will seek to increase the pool of minority teachers available to the Districts and to other districts in the state through recruitment efforts both in and out of state, and at the same time shall develop annual profiles of teachers available by race, specialty. subject area and area of certification. K. Financial Assistance to Minority Teacher Candidates The ADE will work with the Arkansas Department of Higher Education to reduce any racial disparity that may exist in the distribution of existing scholarships and to secure passage of legislation to financially assist minority students attending Arkansas colleges and universities who commit to become teachers in Arkansas, including scholarships for freshmen and sophomores who are committed to pursuing a teacher-training program and juniors and seniors who have been accepted in teacher education programs. L. Minority Recruitment for ADE Staff The ADE will develop and implement a plan to identify jobs and consultant positions within the Department in which minorities are underrepresented and will recruit and employ minority applicants for those positions so as to create balanced. a desegregated staff at all levels. 17M. School Construction The ADE will develop criteria for site selection of new schools. major school expansion and school closings. ADE will require that a district applying to it for approval of new construction or major school expansion provide desegregation impact a statement setting forth evidence that the proposed improvements do not have a segregative effect. ADE will not recommend or approve the site of any school in any county contiguous to Pulaski County if the construction or expansion of the school at the requested location of such school will have a substantial negative impact on any District's ability to desegregate. IV. Dismissal of Litigation A. Dismissal of the State with Prejudice and Release The State conditions this settlement upon its dismissal from this Litigation with prejudice in accordance with the terms of Attachment A. The settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of and compliance with the terms of the release of all claims against the State affixed hereto as Attachment A. The settlement of the State's liability, while contingent on the district court's approval, is not contingent upon court approval of any District's plan or finding of 18 aunitary status for any District. Further, the settlement is contingent upon a determination by the district court that the settlement is binding on the classes of all current, past and future LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD black students. their parents and next friends. As part of this settlement. the parties stipulate that the Joshua Intervenors are proper class representatives under and otherwise meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) and {b)2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and support their approval. The settlement is also conditioned upon the full execution of the releases of the Districts attached as Attachments B, C and D. The parties pledge to diligently pursue acceptance of the settlement by the court. B. Agreement Regarding Litigation Among Joshua and the Districts D Joshua releases the Districts of all liability for issues which have been raised, or could have been raised. in this Litigation and commits that there will be no further litigation among or between Joshua, Knight and any of the Districts, other than proceedings to enforce the terms of this settlement or the terms of the Plans. C. Reserved Issue / J The Districts and Joshua contend that ADE has the authority to regulate private schools and should exercise that authority to insure that private 19schools comply with the same educational standards that are applicable to public schools. ADE is not persuaded that it is vested with such authority. The parties therefore agree that the issue of State regulation of private schools is not settled by this agreement and may be presented to the court for resolution at a future date. As this settlement provides for the dismissal with prejudice of the State as a party to this Litigation, the ADE agrees to make a special appearance following such dismissal for the sole purpose of responding to a motion filed by any of the Districts or Joshua seeking the resolution of the single question of its legal authority to regulate private schools and require them to comply with certain educational standards. A finding that the ADE has such authority shall not be used by any party as the basis for any State liability for the period prior to such finding. V. Attorneys' Fees LRSD agrees to make no additional claims for attorneys' fees and to hold the State, PCSSD and NLRSD harmless for all pending LRSD claims for attorneys' fees against the State, PCSSD and NLRSD. If necessary to enforce the hold harmless agreement, the State will be entitled to deduct the amount of any payment for LRSD attorneys' fees made after the execution 20of this agreement from any payment due from the State to LRSD under this agreement more than five months after the attorneys' fees payment is made. The State, LRSD, PCSSD and NLRSD will pay attorneys' fees and costs to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF). The fees will be paid upon terms set forth below for the work performed in this Litigation and other litigation which preceded this Litigation beginning with Aaron v. Cooper, Graves v. Board of Education and their progeny. The payment to LDF is on behalf of, and for the work of, all attorneys who have worked with LDF on behalf of the interests of black children in the Districts, to desegregate schools therein. over the duration of the Litigation. The amount is exclusive of the payments heretofore made by any of the parties. The State's portion of the fee will be $750,000 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars)\nthe LRSD's portion shall be $2,000,000 (Two Million Dollars)\nthe PCSSD's portion shall be $300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Dollars)\nand NLRSD's portion shall be $100,000 (One Hundred Thousand Dollars), which shall include settlement of fees for the voting rights action also pending in this court of which settlement on the merits is contemplated shortly. All such payments shall be due and payable on final approval except for the payments due from the PCSSD and NLRSD. The PCSSD payment shall mature six years from the date of final approval of the settlement. The NLRSD shall make two payments each in the amount of $50,000 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) no later than 10 days of final approval of 21the settlement and July 1, 1990, respectively. The State will advance LRSDs share of the fees and reduce total payments due LRSD under this agreement by that amount. The amounts will be deducted in the final years of payment to LRSD. The parties are satisfied that over the thirty-three years of this Litigation, Joshua and its predecessor parties, all of whom have been represented by attorneys for the LDF have expended time and incurred costs for which they have not been compensated. The parties are also satisfied, upon a review of their own time records and costs in this Litigation over the last five years, that the payment is fair and reasonable and consistent with the payments made over that period of time to counsel for the other parties. The parties also agree for purposes of this settlement that Joshua is a prevailing party for purposes of relief. VI. The LRSD Settlement A. Payment Schedule and Terms The State will make the following payments to the LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for the education) on or before the dates indicated\n22(1\u0026gt; Payments for compensatory education programs and other desegregation expenses will be as follows: Within 10 days of Final Approval $4,475,000 January 1, 1990 3,475,000 July 1, 1990 4,609,250 January 1, 1991 3,609,250 July 1, 1991 4,747,528 January 1, 1992 3,747,528 July 1, 1992 4,889,954 January 1, 1993 3,889,954 July 1, 1993 5,036,652 January 1, 1994 4,036,652 July 1, 1994 4,057,460 January 1, 1995 3,057,460 July 1, 1995 2,985,131 January 1, 1996 1,985,131 July 1, 1996 1,844,811 January 1, 1997 / 844,811 -V July 1, 1997 1,266,770 January 1, 1998 266,770 I I July 1, 1998 152,387 I January 1, 1999 152,387 $59,129,886 23 (2) The State will make additional payments to LRSD totaling $13,870,114 over a seven year period as set forth below: Within 10 days of Final Approval $2,000,000 7/1/90 $2,000,000 7/1/91 $2,000,000 7/1/92 $2,000,000 7/1/93 $2,000,000 7/1/94 - $2,000,000 7/1/95 $1,870,114 These payments are cash equivalent payments in lieu of formula guarantees for LRSD provided for in an earlier signed version of this settlement. B. Loan Provisions In addition to the above-mentioned payments, the State agrees to provide loans to LRSD (or any successor district or districts to which the territory now within LRSD may be assigned or for the benefit of the students in such territory if the State or any other entity becomes responsible for their education) between July 1 , 1989 and July 1, 1999 in cumulative amount of not more than a $20,000,000.00 on the following terms: (1) Each loan will be amortized over a 20-year period to be paid in full to an escrow account established by the parties as described below with 20 24equal annual payments of principal beginning seven years following the execution of the loan\n(2) No more than $6,000,000 will be loaned in any biennium and no loan will be made before July 1, 1989\n(3) Each loan will bear interest beginning seven years following the execution of the loan at the rate of three percent (3%) per annum. such interest to be paid annually at the time of the annual principal payments to an escrow account established by the parties as described below\n(4) The proceeds of the loans shall be made payable to a trust governed by a trust committee consisting of the Director of the Department of Education (or designee), the LRSD Superintendent (or designee) and a designee of Joshua. The loan proceeds shall be used for desegregation purposes including, but not limited to, school construction or renovation, salaries of instructional personnel, purchase of instructional equipment and supplies, program development and implementation costs. 25consultants' fees and and staff development training of LRSD principals and teachers to promote desegregation. The loan proceeds will not be utilized directly or indirectly as a vehicle for generating income for LRSD through higher interest rates\n(5) The loan(s) will be secured by a first lien in favor of the State on existing. extended or new millages (whichever the State chooses) , such first lien to be assured by an opinion letter to the benefit of the State from LRSD's bond counsel\n(6) LRSD and the State will establish a joint escrow account into which all principal and interest due on loans made under this agreement will be paid. If at any time between the date of this agreement and December 31, 2000 the composite scores of LRSD black students (excluding special education students) on a standardized test agreed upon by the State and LRSD are 90% or greater of the composite scores of LRSD white students (excluding special education students) , the escrowed funds will be 26paid to LRSD and any outstanding loans will be forgiven. If the 90% goal is not reached by December 31, 2000, the escrow funds will be paid to the State and any outstanding loans will continue to be repaid according to the schedule set forth in this agreement. The intent of this subsection is that LRSD will receive twenty million dollars plus any accrued interest if its goal of increasing student achievement as described in this subsection is reached and that the State will be repaid in full amount of all loans plus interest if LRSD does not reach its goal. VII. The PCSSD Settlement A. Financial Settlement PCSSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of PCSSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA, the State's role in the Granite Mountain transfer and compensatory education needs. The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by PCSSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of PCSSD students. 271. Magnet Payments The ADE shall, beginning with the 1989-90 school year, make payments of school aid for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD which shall in turn reimburse LRSD at the rate of $1,550 per PCSSD magnet school student being educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may. at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for PCSSD magnet students or may make such aid payments for PCSSD magnet students directly to PCSSD. If the latter option is selected, then PCSSD shall make total payments to LRSD of $3,100 per year for each PCSSD magnet student or the appropriate pro rata share of said $3,100 if such students are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available under II.B. herein. 2. Other Payments (a) The State shall make the following six scheduled payments to PCSSD: Within 10 days of Final Approval $3,000,000 07/01/90 $3,000,000 07/01/91 $2,500,000 07/01/92 $2,500,000 07/01/93 $2,500,000 07/01/94 $2,500,000 28as (b) The State shall make the following payments cash equivalents in lieu of the Temporary Formula and the transportation aid adjustment set out in an earlier signed version of this settlement\nWithin 10 days of Final Approval $1,000,000 B. 7/1/90 7/1/91 7/1/92 7/1/93 7/1/94 7/1/95 Staff Development $1,500,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 $2,700,000 PCSSD is exploring the utility of a program under which all certified staff would experience three college hours of course work in Black History or other similar course offering. PCSSD IS exploring and evaluating this concept to facilitate its efforts to reduce the achievement disparity between black and white students. ADE and PCSSD recognize and understand that such a program, if it required PCSSD to fully fund presently prevailing college tuition charges, would be prohibitively expensive. ADE pledges to use its best efforts to work with appropriate Arkansas colleges and universities to facilitate a special arrangement which would significantly reduce the cost of such a program to PCSSD and 29make it financially possible to implement. ADE assxunes no additional financial responsibility pursuant to this commitment. C. Food Services LRSD agrees to contract with PCSSD for any food products which LRSD can obtain from PCSSD at the same or lower cost than LRSD can obtain the same quality products from other vendors. D. Housing ADE agrees to use its best efforts to influence appropriate state agencies to assist PCSSD in its efforts to promote and secure scattered site housing in the PCSSD by securing and providing, to the extent feasible, state owned or controlled land suitable for such use. VIII. The NLRSD Settlement NLRSD and Joshua have asserted claims and potential claims against the State on behalf of NLRSD students relating to miscalculation of MFPA and to compensatory education needs. The following provisions are made to settle all such claims and any others which have been or could have been made by NLRSD or Joshua against the State on behalf of NLRSD students. A. Magnet Payments The ADE shall, beginning with the 1989-90 school year, make payments of school aid for NLRSD magnet students directly to NLRSD which shall in turn 30reimburse LRSD at the rate of $1,550 per NLRSD magnet school student being educated in LRSD magnet schools less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. The State may, at its option, continue the direct payment to the LRSD of the remaining $1,550 of magnet school operational costs for NLRSD magnet students or may make such aid payments for NLRSD magnet students directly to NLRSD. If the latter option is selected, then NLRSD shall make total payments to the LRSD of $3,100 per year per each NLRSD magnet student or the appropriate pro-rata share of said $3,100 if such students are magnet students for less than the full school year less any magnet surplus credit available under paragraph II.B. herein. B, Compensatory Education Payments Beginning with the 1989-90 school year and continuing through the 1995-96 school year, the State will, on July 1 of each year, pay NLRSD $389,025 (a total of $2,723,175 for the seven year period). C. Additional Payments As additional compensatory education assistance. beginning with the 1990-91 school year and continuing through the 1996-97 school year. the NLRSD will receive payments to support the reduction of the percentage of the total black student population that 31is in its special education program. The formula for such payments is as follows: (1) The first step is to determine a Base Year, or starting point. to which placements in further years will be compared. The October 1, 1987 general enrollment data and the December, 1987 special education count will be used to establish this base and calculations pursuant to this formula will be based on those counts in future years. On October 1, 1987, the NLRSD had 4083 black students, including those attending magnet schools. (Total Black Population \"TBP\") and 805 black students were in special education, including those attending magnet schools, (Blacks in Special Education \"BSE\") in December, 1987. Thus, 19.72% of the District's total black population was in special education (\"Black Placement Rate\"). (2) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) below and solely for determining the amount of these formula payments, the NLRSD will receive the State Base Equalization Rate (SBER) multiplied by the special education weights for the difference between the number of black students actually in special education and the number that would have been in special education if there had been no reduction in the BPR since the Base Year. Because of delayed year financing, the student counts will be taken in school 32years 1989-90 through 1995-96 but payments for those counts will be made in 1990-91 through 1996-97 using the payment year's SBER. By way of illustration. if the TBP in 1989-90 is 4212, applying the BPR for the Base Year would result in .1972 X 4212, or 830.6, black students in special education. If the actual number is 772, the District would be entitled to payment for the special education weights (average .714 per student) for 58.6 students. which would result in 41.8 weights. (3) Since the District cannot control placement decisions in other districts, for purposes of this formula black students who transfer into the NLRSD already placed in special education by their original school district will be excluded from the count of TBP and BSE for their first year of enrollment in the NLRSD to the extent that those incoming transfers exceed black students in special education who transfer from the NLRSD to other districts. For example, if 52 black special education students transfer into the NLRSD between the 1988-89 and 1989-90 school years while only 37 transfer out. 15 black students would be excluded from the TBP and BSE in 1989-90 for the purpose of this formula. Thus, the NLRSD would be counted as only having 4197 TBP instead of 4212 and 757 BSE instead of 772 and would be paid for the special education weights associated 33with the difference between 827.6 and 757 BSE, i.e., 70.6. (4) As further support for the reduction of black students placed in special education and solely for the purpose of determining the amount of the payments, the NLRSD will be entitled to payment for the special education weights associated with the difference between the number of students removed from special education in the NLRSD and placed in the regular program in the NLRSD and those moved from the regular NLRSD program and placed in special education in the NLRSD. For example, if between 1988-89 and 1989-90 the District removed 83 black students from special education and placed 64 in special education. the District would be paid for the special education weights for an additional 19 students, which would result in 13.6 weights. (5) A list of names (and identification numbers. if available) of the special education students referred to in paragraph ,3 and 4 above. will be provided to the Arkansas Department of Education, before any payment is made under these provisions. (6) Because of delayed year financing, the operation of this formula will not result in any additional funds until 1990-91. Presently, the SBER IS $1,944.55 and. assuming $74.00 per year 34 aincrease, it would be $2,018 in 1990-91. Using the above examples, this would generate $129,757. (7) The District may continue to receive payments under this formula only through the 1996-97 school year (inclusive) but in no event will the District receive more than $2,344,055 cumulatively through the operation of this formula. The limit of the State's obligation under this formula IS $1,276,825. If the eimount of the payments exceeds $1,276,825, LRSD and PCSSD agree to pay those excess amounts up to the point that either (a) the over-all payments to NLRSD under this formula reach $2,344,055 or (b) the expiration of the formula, whichever comes first. (8) Any payments required of LRSD and PCSSD under paragraph (7) will be shared on the basis of 75% for LRSD and 25% for PCSSD. (9) If, when the formula expires, the formula has generated less than $1,276,825, the State will pay the difference between what it has paid and $1,276,825 to LRSD and PCSSD on the basis of 75% to LRSD and 25% to PCSSD. (10) Any payments made pursuant to this formula will be separate from the District's usual MFPA payments. 35D. Description of Additional Compensatory Education Programs Within fifteen days of the final approval of this settlement, the NLRSD will develop a description of the compensatory education programs to be developed with the additional compensatory education funds made available through this settlement and will petition the court to amend NLRSD's Plan accordingly. The State, Joshua, and the Districts will support the NLRSD in this effort. IX. Execution A. This Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, is executed as revised by counsel with authority of their clients this 28th day of September, 1989. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTR: By(r Christopher Helle, One of Its Attorneys PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO._1 By:_ M.^^amue jOne of I 1 Jones . / ts Attorneys 36 * * * NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRIC By: StepW^n W. Jones One of Its Attorneys * ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Z}  By: H. William Allen One of Its Attorneys JOSHUA INTERVENORS By: C6hn W. Walker One of Their Attorneys KNIGHT HT ^TERVENORS By: Pau^J. Ward One'^of Their Attorneys 31 /Shn M- WalkiPKRELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE STATE For and in consideration of its payments and commitments set forth in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration\"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the State of Arkansas, its constitutional officers, elected officials, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors including, but not limited to, the Arkansas State Board of Education and its members (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination or segregation in public education in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas or to the violation of constitutional or other rights of school children based on race or color in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond ATTACHMENT A2 the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al. No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the Arkansas State Board of Education and the former and current members of that board named in the Litigation. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced payments or commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign. EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 200 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 By:_____________________ Christopher Heller One of its Attorneys LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By______________________________ President, Board of Directors3 EXECUTED THIS day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 By:____________________ M. Samuel Jones One of its Attorneys By______________________________ President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By:____________________ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT By______________________________ President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS By____________________ Norman J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys By__________________________ LRSD Class Representative By.____________________________ President, Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP and JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. By_____ NLRSD Class Representative 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By__________________ John W. Walker One of its Attorneys By___________________________ PCSSD Class Representative4 * * EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR By____________________ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys KNIGHT INTERVENORS 72201 By____________________ LRCTA Representative By___________________ PACT Representative By_____________________ NLRCTA RepresentativeRELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE LRSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release IS attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration\"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the LRSD, its directors, administrators, appointees. employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination. segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children, based on race or color. in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration IS not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and ATTACHMENT B 2 that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that thelitigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Cooper V. Aaron, Norwood V. Tucker and Clark v. Board of Education of the Little Rock School District) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the LRSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding the implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign.3 EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: ALLEN LAW FIRM A Professional Corporation 1200 Worthen Bank Bldg. ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION Little Rock, AR 72201 By_____________________________ Chairman, Board of Directors By:____________________ H. William Allen One of its Attorneys EXECUTED THIS day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 Little Rock, AR 72201 By:_____________________ M. Samuel Jones One of its Attorneys By______________________________ President, Board of Directors EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: * WITNESSED AND APPROVED: JACK LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3400 TCBY Tower Little Rock, AR 72201 By____________________ Stephen W. Jones One of its Attorneys By______________________________ President, Board of Directors * * EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: (NAACP) LEGAL AND EDUCATIONAL DEFENSE FUND, INC. THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS By____________________ Norman J. Chachkin One of its Attorneys By__________________________ LRSD Class Representative and By_____________________________ President, Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP/ 4 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 By____________________ John W. Walker One of its Attorneys By_____________________________ NLRSD Class Representative and President of the North Little Rock, Arkansas Branch of the NAACP By___________________________ PCSSD Class Representative EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: MITCHELL \u0026amp; ROACHELL KNIGHT INTERVENORS 1014 W. Third Little Rock, AR 72201 By___________._________ LRCTA Representative By____________________ Richard W. Roachell One of its Attorneys By___________________ PACT Representative * By_____________________ NLRCTA RepresentativeRELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THE PCSSD For and in consideration of its relinquishment of claims and commitments set forth in the Plans and the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement to which this release is attached (hereafter, \"the Consideration\"), the undersigned parties do hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the PCSSD, its directors, administrators, appointees, employees, agencies, departments, their predecessors and successors (hereafter collectively referred to as \"the Released Parties\") of and from any and all actions. causes of action, claims and demands which the undersigned now have or may hereafter have arising out of or in any way related to any acts or omissions of any and every kind to the date of the execution of this release by the released parties which in any way relate to racial discrimination, segregation in public education, or to violations of other constitutional or statutory rights of school children. based on race or color. in the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. It is understood and agreed that the Consideration is valuable and is given in full and final compromise of disputed claims and that the giving of the Consideration is not to be construed as an admission of any liability on the part of any of the Released Parties beyond the liability found to date by the United States District Court for the Eastern ATTACHMENT C2 District of Arkansas and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and that the terms of this release are contractual and not a mere recital. It is further understood and agreed that the litigation now pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, entitled Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al, No. LR-C-82-866 and cases consolidated therein and their predecessors (including, but not limited to. Zinnamon v. Pulaski County School District, LR-C-68-154) (the \"Litigation\") is to be dismissed with prejudice as to the PCSSD and the former and current members of its board named in the Litigation. This dismissal is final for all purposes except that the Court may retain jurisdiction to address issues regarding implementation of the Plans. We have read this release and had it explained to us by our attorneys who have signed as witnesses hereto and we understand that the above referenced relinquishment of claims and commitments are in full and final compromise of any and all claims and causes of action. We understand that in the event all parties for which there is a signature blank below do not sign this release, the release is effective and binding on those parties that do sign.3 EXECUTED this day of , 1989 by: WITNESSED AND APPROVED: FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 By:____________________ Christopher Heller\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_752","title":"Summer school","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1989/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School boards","School superintendents"],"dcterms_title":["Summer school"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/752"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["newspaper clippings"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nArkansas Democrat Gazette WEDNESDAY. SEPTEMBER 23,1992 I Superintendents tactics cause teacher unrest I do not feel that Little Rock teachers have been getting a fair shake in the media. News stories make it appear that teachers are so selfish that they refuse to give 10 additional minutes to the district for supervisory duties. The sticking point of contract negotiations is not whether teachers are willing to give another 10 minutes, as has been reported. Rather, it is the dictatorial nature of a superintendent who has not taken the time to reflect upon the problems of the district, who issues directives without regard to the consequences. During in-service days in August, the superintendent referred to Little Rock School District as one big, happy family. Yet he has been maligning teachers for their refusal to buckle under to his pressuring tactics, representing them as selfish and uncaring.  This is not the action of one with an attitude conducive to keeping family together. The explanation offered by the administration for their demands for more supervision is that teacher visibility will reduce the number of problems. This does not stand to reason, since students with the most severe discipline problems have no respect for teachers either in the classroom or on the playground or campus. The administration maintains that the 10 minutes will come from time that teachers already spend at school and that it is not a demand for additional time. This would be plausible if teachers were known to use their preparation time kicked back in the teachers' lounge, reading the newspaper, smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee  or eating peanuts. Teachers use this time for grading papers and making lesson plans If it is stolen from them under the guise of providing additional supervision, the work has to be added to that which is taken home each evening. So, yes, it is a demand for additional time. DON WILLIAMS Little RockArkansas Democrat (gazette WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1993 Cooyngnt  1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. Board compiles list of 4 educators to replace Bernd BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Board has come up with names of at least four potential candidates for superintendent of the states largest school district. One is from Arkansas, but the others are from out of state, Dorsey Jackson, the boards vice president, said. Jackson would not reveal the names and said he is unsure whether the administrators would apply. He said the board may know more Thursday, when it hopes to discuss the the status of the search for Dr. Mac Bernds permanent replacement. Bernd left after only a year as superintendent to take a similar position in Newport Beach. Calif. Were probably most interested in a person that has been a superintendent of a large-size school district or a district as big as this one, said Jackson, a member of the boards ad hoc committee that is guiding the search for a new Little Rock School District superintendent. The board is also interested in anyone who has been at least an assistant superintendent or associate superintendent in a large district, Jackson said. The board has set up a three- member ad hoc search committee that includes Jackson, John Riggs and Dr. Katherine Mitchell. John Moore, school board president, said board members have come up with names themselves or received names from other people of potential candidates or administrators that ought to be considered. Once it is certain that those people are not interested anymore, the board will go to a major national search with assistance from a recruiting firm that helped find Bernd, Moore said. Estelle Matthis, the interim superintendent, has said she doesnt want the job permanently. No matter how the board finds its next superintendent, it will tell candidates everything it can about the negatives surrounding the job, Moore said.' Although Dr. Bernd walked into this job with his eyes wide open, we want to make sure that whomever we hire knows what the job will be like, Moore said. As John Riggs, my fellow board member says, we want to make sure the next superintendent Imows every wart on this school ' district. We want to talk them out of the job before they take it. Bernd has said that, although he did a lot of homework to become familiar with the job, he f never anticipated spending as much time in court over the de-  * segregation case and other litigation. Moore refused to identify any of the people the board is considering for the position. But he said the person chosen will be someone with community support.Arkansas Democrat (i^azette   TUESDAY. JUNE 15, 1993 Copyright 0 1993. Little Rock Newspapers. Inc. Board, Bernd ready to wrap up Outgoing schools chief asked for list of district priorities BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School Board plans to meet this week to go over a list of pressing matters with outgoing Superintendent Mac Bernd and discuss whom to bring in as its next chief. Bernd, who became Little Rock School District superintendent last summer, said Friday he is leaving to head the Newport-Mesa Unified School District in Newport Beach, Calif. Our number one priority is finding someone either within or outside the district to run toe superintendents office during the transition, said John Moore, school board president. Moore said the board might meet any day during the week. Moore said Bernd will develop a list of what the district must handle immediately as well as offer board members his timetable for leaving. Some of the matters before the district may include budget hearings before U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, her approval on a proposed site for a new Stephens Elementary School, concluding the unfinished suspension hearing involving Central High School Principal John L. Hickman Jr. and any staff changes for the new school year. On Monday, Bernd handled routine business, including his weekly Monday morning appearance on the Pat Lynch show on KARN 920 AM. Bernd said later in the afternoon that his main interest right now is just closing out the districts fiscal year and getting things finished. He said that he would work closely with the board and help it in any way he could. Bernd also said he would hand over to the district an Oldsmobile Delta 88 and a computer purchased with school system money. Besides Bernds job, the district has a high-level associate superintendent vacancy. Associate Superintendent Janet Bernard, who worked under Bernd in the San Marcos Unified School District, is also leaving for another position in California. Bernard is going to become regional coordinator of the Poway Unified School District in San Diego. f Bernd and Bernard came to' the Little Rock district last sum\nmer. The board met in executive session June 10, one day before Bernd accepted the job in CalE\nfomia, but reached no decision! about how to proceed in th. event that he decided to leave. J At first, I was concerned, bui\nafter the initial emotion of Macs resignation, I realized there are a lot of good people either in the' district or who have left in the last year or two who could helt us. There is real education going on in the schools and we will be all set for the start of classes in the fall. |TUESDAY, JULY 20. 1993  3B  Four apply - for top job '\nof LR schools At least four people have applied for the job of superintendent of the Little Rock School District, the chairman of the search committee said Monday. The Little Rock School Board has invited Dr. Henry P. Williams, superintendent of schools in Syracuse, N.Y., to come to Little Rock to talk about the job. The board recruited Williams last year, but he turned down the job.   Dorsey Jackson, Little Rock School Board vice presidentand chairman of the committee\n.said unsolicited applications have come in from\n.  Mary Jane Cheatham, a longtime district official. Cheatham was principal of Dodd Elementary School from 1989-92 and was on sabbatical last year.  R.B. Lynn Johnson,1hu- man resources consultant jvith ProMax Human Resource Consultants in Little Rock. Shewas a teacher, counselor and pr\u0026amp;ici- pal before joining the Ljjtle Rock district in 1989-90, where she worked in programs for gifted and talented students. '  1  Dr. Howard E. White st., president of D\u0026amp;H Associates Inc., a consulting firm in Stone Mountain, Ga. White has been.a teacher, principal and school , district administrator in BalH- more and Seattle and an administrator with the New Jersey De- i partment of Education. ' :  Floyd Wood, Amerfcan School of Kuwait teacher. Wood was superintendent of the Nevada School District (1987-88i\nin Nevada County and the Des Arc School District in Prairie County.Arkansas Democrat \"^(gazette MONDAY, JUNE 21, 1993 Copyright O 1993, Uttle Rock Newspapers, Inc. LRSD gropes for key to stop revolving door  7 superintendents bail out in 11 years BY DANNY SHAMEER Democrat-Gazette Education Writer If you offer a $110,000 salary plus bonuses worth a potential $100,000 over five years, superintendents will come. But will they stay? Dr. Mac Bernd is the seventh Little Rock School District superintendent, including interim ones, to come and go in the last 11 years. He is leaving after just a year despite generous financial incentives to stay. His contract terms and fringe benefits exceeded the compensation given to previous superintendents. Why cant the states largest school system keep a superintendent? Interviews with a variety of people  former superintendents and board members, headhunters and policy-makers  suggest:  Little Rocks complex federal court-imposed desegregation arrangement means superintendents must sell their programs not only to the school board, but also to a federal judge. Bernd said he was leaving because he wanted to spend more time in classrooms than in federal court.  Potential candidates across the country have heard about the constant turnover in Little Rock. They tend to arrive with expectations that become a self-fulfilling prophecy and that set a tone for the way people interact with them.  A Little Rock superintendent must deal with the districts vastly different constituencies  all of which have their own agendas.  The idea that high pay will keep superintendents on the job is flawed.  The district has looked for See DISTRICT, Page 8A District  Continued from Page 1A superintendents with demonstrated ability who fit the classic model of an education system administrator. That model doesnt exactly fit the Little Rock superintendents job. However, no consensus emerged for the model of the next superintendent. Some suggested the next superintendent must focus on academics because that will drive out other issues. Others said de-. segregation should be the ultimate focus. Several people said the next superintendent must be part politician, part corporate executive and part educator. Otherwise, the turnover will continue, they said. All agreed a solution was needed. The historical turnover in the Little Rock superintendents office is being noticed across the country, and the long- running desegregation case may affect the candidate pool.\nGreat superintendents are attracted  not repelled  by problems, said David McCarthy, a Philadelphia-based director with SpencerStuart Associates, an executive search firm that looks for chief executive officers\nfor corporations as well as nonprofit organizations such as  school districts. They want to sink their teeth into a situation, McCarthy said. But they dont want to feel there is no way out of the morass. They want to see that there is light at the end of the tunnel. A member of the Little Rock' business community who asked not to be identified sounded pes- simistic about Bernds departure because the situation appeared to be deteriorating a few years into the $129.75 million financial settlement to the desegregation lawsuit. The corporate executive said the court, the various sectors of the black community, the various sectors of the white community, teacher unions, the Pulaski County and North Little Rock school districts and others needed to push aside their personal agendas and agree to let a superintendent run the city school system. We are trying to do the desegregation plan like its a contract, the executive added, echoing the opinions of others. Plans, by their very nature, must be fluid and changeable and must adjust to changing circumstances. Dr. Paul Masem, the citys school superintendent from 1978-82, said shortly before his departure that he planned on being an educator again. He is now superintendent of the Alexandria City Public Schools in suburban Virginia, outside Washington, D.C. He wasnt surprised about the latest superintendent shuffle in Little Rock. Masem said superintendents could get exhausted over the desegregation issues. Superintendents who are tied up and wrapped up in federal court cases and have not focused on other things wont be successful, Masem said. You have to do both. You cant ignore the fact that you are in court, but you must stay focused on offering a quality education for kids and one that produces equity. I think the new superintendent should keep plug^ng away, no matter what the sideshows are. All school systems have distractions, Masem said. But nothing compares to the long history of dese^egation in Little Rock\nhe said the problems magnified after years of not having a sincere effort made to desegregate schools. Dr. Ed Kelly, who served as superintendent in Little Rock from 1982-87 and is now in his sixth year as superintendent of the Prince William County School District in Virginia, another Washington suburb, said the job in Little Rock became emotionally and physically tiring after a short time. There are a lot of demands and expectations and not any consistency, Kelly said. Kelly suggested that the next Little Rock superintendent candidates learn as much as possible about the issues and community before deciding to takeI i i LRSD superintendents Little Rock School DFstrict superintendents during the past TSyMWj Dr. Paul Masem Aug. 1978-May 1982 (Acting) May 1982 - June 1982 July 1989-June 1992 Dr. Ed Kelly June 1982 - June 1987 \u0026lt; Js Or. George Cannon 'Mi-'-- .j\u0026lt;wi Vance Jones Dr. Mac Bernd (Acting) July 1987 - Oct. 1987 (Acting) Oct. 1987  Dec. 1987 July 1992  July 1993 Dec. 1987 -Aug. 1989 Source: Little Rock School District .4 7^. w the job. Dr. George Cannon, who became acting superintendent two months before taking over as superintendent in December 1987, said the Little Rock job was packed with challenges. The court case is itself long, and it is costly in a number of ways, said Cannon, who resigned in 1989 and served on the Little Rock School Board for a short time until he became: superintendent of the Monroe. La., City School District, which is itself under a court order. *  It takes the energy of everyone churning away, and it can be real frustrating at times, Cannon said. It is all-consuming. Dr. Ruth Steele, who was interim superintendent in the spring of 1982 and superinten- , ,dent from July 1989 to June 1992, took over after a stint as director of the state Department of Education General Education Division. The state position was a Cabinet slot under then-Gov. Bill Clinton, who focused on education in Arkansas before moving to Washington as president Both jobs were very stressful at times, but for me the Little Rock superintendency was the most stressful, Steele said. Steele, now a consultant in the Searcy School District, said one reason the desegregation case had been so involved was that in the last 11 years there had been four major desegregation plans to contend with a consolidation plan, a settlement plan, a tri-district plan, and then a revised settlement plan. Bernd said the position would be a challenge for anyone who took it. ? ' Superintendents tend to be big-picture people who paint broad strokes and set major goals, Bernd said. But the Little Rock'superintendent has to be immersed in detail. - He said the next superinten-\n. dent ought to. read the current desegregatioh plan, look over previous court decisions and even read one or two court transcripts to get an idea of the situation. And the next superintendent must take the job realizing that the school board wont be the final say on anything, including budgets and teacher contracts, Bernd said. The courts have the final say, he said. He said the constant turnover in the district was setting a self-fulfilling prophecy of people thinking no one would stay and superintendents doing just that. Bernd also said money wouldnt entice superintendents to stay. Money is an issue for every- . one, but for most folks in this  profession, there has to be job , satisfaction, he said. Within reasonable limits, money is not going to make up for it. Its not going to compensate for it. You have to feel like youre making a difference. He suggested that anyone in the community who criticized the school district ought to balance the criticism by saying something nice. One blow, one grow, he said. Mike Usdan, president of the Institute for Educational Leadership, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, said school desegregation and court orders compounded problems for urban school superintendents. Politics, management and running a big business are frequently not the issues a superintendent learns as he or she climbs the school ladder, he said. Someone can be a wonderful educator, but not be able to handle the broader set of issues, and maybe school boards need to broaden the pool into these jobs. Some school board members are picking up on Usdans message. In recent executive sessions concerning the latest vacancy, Little Rock board members have brainstormed about hiring two top people 4)ne to manage the districts nonacademic side and another, perhaps a deputy, to focus on education. Dorsey Jackson, the boards vice president, said he was optimistic the district would find someone to take over, I am optimistic because Little Rock is the ultimate challenge, and there will always be people out there who want to prove they can climb Mount Everest and want to take on that challenge for personal satisfaction and to further advance as a professional, Jackson said. Aikansas Democrat (gazette SATURDAY, JUNE 26. 1993 Copyright  1993, Little Rock Newspapers, Inc. LR seeks interim superintendent Hopes to name replacement from LR area within week BY DANNY SHAMEER Oemoerat-Gazette Education Writer V Little Rock School Board members said Friday they hope tO-name an interim superin- ' tendent within a week, but they  dont know who. \" - Dr. Mac Bernd, who became superintendent July 1,1992, is taking a similar job with the Newport-Mesa Unified School District in Newport Beach, Calif. f' - \u0026gt; I think we need to have someone in before Dr. Bernd\nleaves, said John Moore, board -president. - Moore said the search for an interim chief encompasses\nthose already employed by or -in'close contact with the district.  - John Riggs IV, a board mem-  her from northwest Little Roct . said such knowledge will help the district get through the summer and into the new school year. He said the board is not just thinking of hiring a traditional superintendent, but would even consider someone from the cor- porate world who could be available to help out the states largest school district. I think we would prefer having someone who is familiar with the dese^egation plan, the school district and Little Rock, Riggs said. Riggs said he hopes the board can find someone to fill in as early as next week. Pat Gee, a board member from Southwest Little Rock, said she also hopes a decision can be reached soon. I think it is imperative that we find someone with strong leadership as soon as possible so that the district wont flounder, Gee said. Were getting down to the finish line. Our time is running out. We dont have a choice in the matter. Although some board mem- bers reportedly have sent out feelers to potential candidates, the board appears to have no commitment from anyone yet. The board said one of the challenges in finding an interim superintendent  especially on short notice  is getting someone who is not only available right away but someone who would agree to stay on until a permanent selection is made. Board members said they ' are open to the idea of an interim chief coming from non- , traditional ranks, such as business. The problem, some board members said, is finding someone willing to sacrifice the time away from their current positions. The board has discussed the possibility of establishing a two-member search committee for a permanent replacement after an interim is named. IzVrkansas JJcniocrat (bazcUc  TUESDAY, JULY 16. 1996   Discreet group starts superintendent search BY JULIAN E. BARNES DemrKfal-Oazetli Staff Writer A committee that has met in closed sessions since its appointment in April likely will take the lead in deciding how to replace the Little Rock School District superintendent, school board members said Tuesday. candidates for the job. Rett Tucker, Contingency Committee co-chairman and spokesman, said it would be up to the board to make the panels meetings open. But several board members, including Sue Strickland, .John Riggs and Pat Gee, said closing the meetings was the Board members said Monday committees prerogative. Iheir search for a successor to Su- The coininiltec is led by Tuck- perintendent Henry Williams er, chairman of the Greater Little must balance openness with dis- cretion. The school board was criticized for shutting out the public from the decision Rock Chamber of Commerce, and Dr. Roosevelt Brown, a Little Rock physician. Other committee members are civil rights attorney to hire John Walker, Parent-Teacher As- Williams and, more recently, from  - a decision by President Linda sociation Council President Deb- . bie Glasgow, Classroom Teachers Pondexter to negotiate to buy out Association President Betty Ins contract. ............................... In August 1993, Pulaski County President Mitchell, businessman and for- mer school board member Skip Rutherford, and Mann Magnet School Junior High Principal Marian Lacey. Board member Judy Magness said she wants the comiuitlce meetings open to the public If work expands beyond considering potential interim superintendents. 1 am for a very open process, Magness said. It makes it more complicated sometimes, but in the long run it benefits all of us. Riggs said any specific names the committee discusses should remain private. But if the committee discusses criteria it might like to see in a new superintendent, those meetings could be open to the public. Riggs said it is important to balance discretion with openness\nif names are released too early, potential candidates could be scared off. But Riggs said once a list of finalists is drawn up, the list should be released to the public. Riggs said he would like the board to hire a private search firm to create a list of finalists for the board. Such firms typically keep their work secretive. The Little Rock School Board hired an outside search firm in 1992 to find a replacement for Superintendent Ruth Steele. That search produced Steeles successor, Mac Bernd. When Bernd left a year later, the board went back to the firms list of candidates and decided to hire Williams. Gee and, Strickland said they dont want to use a search firm. They said they want to hire a lo\ncal candidate , who understands the history of tlie district and has a vested interest in the city. Strickland said she would like to see the citizens committee become an advisory search committee. Gee said the school board anc the Contingency Committee should move slowly to judge theJ feelings of the public. Gee said! there should be a wider interview\nprocess than when the board\nhired Williams in 1993.  I feel like the board was crili-I cized for the manner Dr. Williams\nwas hired, Gee said. It just\nseemed like wham bam.  \u0026gt; Prosecuting Attorney Mark Stodola wrote a letter to the - school board, criticizing an un- publicized trip by two board members to Syracuse, N.Y,, to in- teniew Williams about the Little Rock job. Stodola said the trip likely violated state law regarding open meetings. The Contingency Committee, a citizens committee named by Pondexter to draw up a plan of action in the event of Williams' departure, has conducted its meetings in private, including a Monday gathering called after * Williams confirmed he is accept- i ing a job in Kansas City, Mo. Pon- dexter set up the committee after Williams announced he was applying for other jobs. Pondexter said shell ask the committee to recommend how the superintendents position should be filled. Other board members said the committee could take a wider role, suggesting potentialAikan^ Democrat [ MONDAY. JULY 15. 1996. LtWe Rock's superintendents since 1982 Williams' tenure i ' Estelle Matlhis 'I Mac Bernd Lillie Hock supennlendenls and interim supenntendenis who have served since the cunenf desegregation suit was filedin 1982. Henry F. Williams, October 1993 to July 1996. Estelle Matthis, July to October 1993 (interim). Cloyde McKinley \"Mac\" Bernd, July 1992 to July 1993. Ruth Steele, July 1989 to June 1992. George D. Cannon, October to November 1987 (interim)\nNovember 1987 to July 1989. 7^1 Ruth Steele George Cannon Vance Jones Ed Kelley Vance Jones, July to October 1987 (interim). Ed Kelley, June 1982 to July 1987. Dr. Henty Williams' stoimy tenure:  Oct. 1, 1993  Williams assumes the Little Rock School District superintendency with the announced intention of removing the school system from federal court control stemming from a desegregation case..  June 24, 1994  Embroiled in debate over the reassignment of 15 principals without consulting parents or the school board, Williams says at a board meeting that parental involvement isn't needed to operate successful schools. He later says his comment was misconstrued.  Oct. 17, 1994  After almost two rnontfis of debale, tfie school board votes to extend Williams' contract by one year, through June 1997.  Jan. 27, 1995  Williams announces a no-tolerance policy to rid schools of disruptive students.  Feb. 8, 1995  Williams' candidacy lor the superintendent's post in Rochester, N.Y., is reported.  Aug. 5, 1995  Tfie Kansas City school board identifies Williams as one of three candidates for the superintendent's job there,  Oct. 31, 1995  Tfie Little Rock school board votes not to extend Williams' contract. Dec. 29, 1995  Tfie Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports Williams has not paid property taxes since moving to Little Rock. That afternoon, Williams angrily confronts a photographer outside the county treasurer's office after paying his taxes. He says moving to Little Rock was a mistake. He later issues an apology to tfie public and says he likes Little Rock.  Jan. 12, 1996  Williams tells school board members in a letter that he suspects they are trying to build a case to fire him.  Feb. 18, 1996  Williams is tick-eled by a Little Rock police officer for speeding and failure to carry his  driver's license, proof of insurance , and auto registration. Christopher\nAllen Jarvis reported that Williams * was belligerent and said, All of you officers are racists!\"  March 18, 1996  Williams fails to appear in court to face traffic  charges. He appeared for a subse-.  quenl dale. ''  May 8, 1996  Williams an-\n\u0026lt; nounces at a news conference that  the Little Rock district has subslan^ tially complied with 96 percent of its obligations under a federal court-monitored desegregation agree-. ment.  July 9, 1996  The Little Rock Al-,, liance for Our Public Schools issues , a report on the school district that Includes a recommendation for profes-  sional mediation for administration ' and board officials. Democral-Gazene Staff Board to act swiftly to replace Williams, will meet Thursday BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democral-Gazetti? Educalion Wriief The Lillie Rock School Board will Irv lo move swiftly lo replace departing Superintendent Henry Williams. Board President Linda Pondexter said Sunday that she'll call a special board meeting for 5 p.m. Thursday lo deal with the void in llie district's adminislrative leadership. Williams departure will leave the three lop positions in the district vacant. Fred Smith, the district's chief financial officer, left in May lo work for Laidlaw Transit Inc. in Memphis. Dr. Rus.s Mayo, associate su{)erinlendent for desegregation, became superintendent in Columbia. Mo., earlier this month. The district had a deputy superintendent until last year, but that position was eliminated as a cost-cutting measure. At Thursday's meeting, Pondexter said, sheTl call on a citizens committee, created earlier this year, to recommend to the board how the superintendent's post should be filled, both in the shoit term and permanently. Pondexter also saiil she'll ask about Williams future in the dis trict. Williams doesn't inteml to begin work full time in Kansas (.ity until September, but Pondexter .said the Little Rock district needs a full-time administrator on hand to oversee the opening of schools. District teacliers return to work Aug. 13, and students start classes Aug. 19. One of the outstanding tasks facing the district is negotiating a teacher contract for the coming year. The citizens committee, more commonly referred to as the districts Contingency Committee, was appointed by Pondexter last spring when Williams wa.s an unsuccessful finalist for superintendent in Si. Louis. The eomniiticc was charged willi developing rec-oininendation. s for filling the su-perinlcndenis position if it be came vacant. Dr. Roosevelt Brown, a Little Rock physician, and Rett Tucker, a real estate agent and chairman of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, are co-chair-nieii of the committee. Tucker said Sunday evening tliat Uie Contingency Committee will meet a couple of limes tliis week, stalling today, l^ast spiing. the committee developed plans to deal witli various scenarios. The committee will (lust oIT those plaits and tailor one to the current situation. One option mentioned last spring called for a nianagemmil team of as many as three people to operate the district in the short term. Some team members would  be educators, and otliers would be business executives on loan to the district. Coinmittee members include civil rights attoniey John Walker, Parent-Teacher Association Council President Debbie Glasgow, Classroom Teachers Associa-\ntion President Betty Mitchell, businessman and former school board member Skip Rutherford, and Mann Magnet Schoo! Junior High Principal Marion Lacy. \"We can't have a body that is more representative of what is  good in tills eoinmunity, Pendexter said. I hope their recommendation will carry' some weight.\" Arkansas Democrat ((5azcUe  TUESDAY. JULY 16. 1996  LRSD awaiting citizens panel on Williams job BY CYNTHIA HOWSJ. Demxrat-Gazsiie EoucaDon wmer Little Rock School Board members said Monday that they are unsure how to go about replacing Superintendent Henry Williams, although they have anticipated his departure for months. The board has scheduled a . iong-term solutions only if asked meeting Thi^day, and members by ^he board to do so. Williams' said they will await recoi^enda- departure will leave the Little tions from a seven-member cia- \"  . .  zens contingency committee before deciding what to do. See BOARD, Page 8A DiSCREET group starts search (or superintendent Page SA . Board  Continued from Page 1A Williams announced Sunday that he is accepting a job in the 37.000-student Kansas City, .Mo., School District. The contingency committee met privately Monday evening. Board co-chairman Rett Tucker said the group would meet daily until it delivers recommendations to board Thursday. Tucker said after Mondays meeting that the committee is interested primarily in filling any short-term vacancies in district I leadership and would propose Rock districts top three administrative positions vacant. The committee was appointed earlier this year by board President Linda Pondexter. It is led by Tucker and Dr. Roosevelt Brown to develop various plans for filling the position when Williams leaves. One option is to form a man- , agement team of educators and ! business people to oversee the i district until an interim or full-time superintendent is appointed. The three-member team would board member Pat Gee said Mon-split duties. One person might day about the search for anew su-oversee the day-to-day operation perintendent. \"Lets try someone of the district: another, schools close to home.\" and c--u--r-r-i-c--u--l-u--m--: and .t.h..e.. ...t.h..i..r.d . Gee'said she didnt have a par-communications with the public ticular' local candidate in mind and media. Names mentioned for such positions included Dr. Vic Anderson. an assistant superintendent in the district\nMarian Lacey, a ju-nior high principal: and Skip see in a superintendent Gee said Rutherford, a former school she wants someone with a vested board member who works for a public relations and advertising miliar with the districts history agency. Lacey and Rutherford are  ----------1--........--- members of the contingency comm- it--te--e--. was more open to the possibility Timing is the key to what op- of hiring a firm to assist the dis-tion the committee recommends. Williams has said he will leave around the first of September but expects to work some in Kansas City in the interim. Pondexter has son,\" Magness said, adding that questioned the feasibility of thaL any search would likely take saying a full-time administrator longer than the two months be-should be on hand to open schools for the coming fall term. School board members gave seats will be up for election. Indifferent views of how to proceed in finding a replacement for ine Mitchell have said they are Williams, who earns S115.000 annually. Arxansas Oemocral-GazeneaeNJAMIN KRAIN Little Rock School District Contingency Committee Co-chairman Rett Tucker (left) and colleagues meet Monday to discuss selecting a successor for Superintendent Hen-ry Williams. Panel members are (from left) Tucker, Debbie Glasgow, John Walker, Marian Lacey, Skip Rutherford, Setty Mitchell and Dr. Roosevelt Brown, co-chairman. We've tried the West Coast, and weve tried the East Coast.\" but is confident there are capable individuals in Arkansas. She wants to use a national search company only as a last resort. Asted what she would like to interest in the district who is fa-and cares about the community. Board member Judy Magness trict in hunting a new administrator. \"I dont want to rush. I want to take time to find the right perfore the Sept 17 sc.iooi board election. Two of the boards seven cumbents Pondexter and Kather- ......... ..................  board members begin raising of Monroe, La., schools and a for- ner said Williams isn't entitled ta undecided about running for re- .questions. As a result many su- mer board member and superin- compensation for unused sick election.....................................................perintendenu dont last beyond lendent in Little RocL  days. ' Magness said she would like school board members to reach an agreement on the type of people they would like to have as superintendent. That agreement should be based on community input. She wants someone capable of causing systematic change in the district and more schoolbased management One factor the board may have to deal with in a search for a replacement is a national scarcity of superintendents. Jay Goldman of the American Association of School Administrators said Monday that a growing number of educators are shying away from superintendent positions. Many are content to remain deputy or assistant superinten-dents. He noted a growing trend intendent search because most vacation days a year, and he could among supenntenaents to give up candidates are hired in the spring get paid for unused days when he high-profile jobs in favor of jobs ^ke the transition to their leaves. When Williams moved tp new districts tn the summer in Little Rock in 1993, he left the vv-x-., XV..U XV ua.c time to prepare for the opening of Syracuse, N,Y.. school district grand expectations when they school. with a bill for $77,734 in unused u:------------- IM... \"The most important Step the dek and vafalinn timp among superintendents to give up such as school principals. \"School boards tend to have hire superintendents. Those ex- . . _______ _____________ pectations are not always realis- school board can take is to reach Two weeks ago. Williams had tic or fair. Goldman said. When a consensus on what they want in 36 unused sick days and 60 vaca-changes dont materialize in a dis- a superintendent,\" said Dr. tion days, said Richard Hurley,'  trict within one or two years, George Cannon, superintendent human resources director. Gardi their first contracts with districts. Goldman predicted that the Little Rock district will attract applicants if it conducts a nationwide search. But he said, the number of applicants will not be as high as it might have been in past years. That's true in most districts these days. He also said potential applicants will look at the boards relationships with past superintendents. \"People who want a real longterm relationship may not be inGardner said the board, at terested, he added. Timing also Thursdays meeting, will review board, its options regarding Williams.' Goldman said. Midsummer is not planned September departure. is working against the board. the best time to conduct a superschool superintendent Williams, board at odds over contract BY CHRIS RSNOLDS DefTKKiat-Oune Slart Writer Attorneys disagreed Monday over what compensation the Little Rock School District must pay Superintendent Henry Williams as he departs for a job in Kansas City, Mo. Williams' attorney. James H. Penick said the district must settle with his client on bonuses ini eluded in Williams' contract\nwhich expires in June 1997. \"It's a legally binding part of the contract, and we intend to pursue it\" Penick said Monday.  But Price Gardner, an attorney for the district familiar uiih Williams contract, said goals and bonus procedures mentioned in general terms in the contract were never developed. The parties failed to agree.'' Gardner said, \"so theres no obligation on either partys side,\" The contract called for the board to establish written goals and objectives within 90 days of his hiring in October 1993 and each subsequent year. The goals were to be used to evaluate him and form the basis for bonuses. ' Board members have tried to establish goals and financial in\ncentives for Williams but have never agreed on specifics. Board President Linda Pondexter said in January she would appoint .a committee to draw up goals, but there was never action. Wiiliams contract gives him 20 Vic Anderson Arkansas Democrat a^dfiazede THURSDAY, JULY 18. iqqR. ____________________ _____ With school chief Jodie Carter IGene Jones Estelle Mathis Sadie Mitchell on his way out, the hunt begins LR district board agrees first task means appointing interim management BY KAREN McALLISTER AND SANDRA COX Democrat-Gazette staff Writers .'. Now that Little Rock School , District Superintendent Henry Williams has announced hes leaving the district for Kansas City\n: Mo., in early September, board members are considering how to replace him. ' Board members differ on conducting the search but agree an interim superintendent or tempo-rSry management team will be needed. A handful of current and former administrators and a for-iher board president have been mentioned as possible candidates for an administrative role. L The list includes\n : 'Vic Anderson. :  Jodie Carter. :  James Jennings.   Gene Jones. Marian Lacey. T  Estelle Mattbis. Sadie Mitchell. Don Roberts. :.  Skip Rutherford.\n Angela Maynard Se-wall. 1  Beverly Divers Skip Rutherford White.  Gene Wilhoit. :. Anderson, the dis-trtets assistant superintendent for secondary schools, said his being mentioned made him uncomfortable and such speculation is premature.- :iTm a very private person, he said. I dont want my stuff in the paper and all that. I really dont want to talk about iL:-\nJAhdersoii, 48, said he has been with the Little Rock', School District 26\nGene Wilhoit principal  at . Hall High School i'ahd 'Mann iahdj Eore'sV^Helghts, ijiinioiih hlghkch6ols.-' -T  years. He is a formers Arkansas Deniotrat i^dpazellc THURSDAY, JULY 18, 1996 pal at McClellan High  worked | ., '!\"rfbrd, 46Js a seSchool in Southwest Little Rock in 1990 aRer two years as assistant principal there. Carter worked at McClellan in 1981-82 trict. Matthis, 59, ended 29 years with the district when slie retired Feb. 1. Mitchell, the Little Rock districts assistant superintendent for elementary schools, said she with the Little Rock dis- I trict and was siinerintoti. superintendent in Newport News, Va., and Amarillo, Texas. Rutherford, a longtime supporter of tlie disaS a roacli and hirtnrv sciluuis, saio sne supponer oi uie dis- teacher He also worked ''T 8**   hesitated to speak leacner. He also worked up temporarily. Mitchell, 39, had-\nabout his eligibility He nt lieard that she might be invit-\nsaid it would be pre- ed to assume an interim position | sumptuous to comment.*\n' but said she couldnt accept the * Earlier this year, Ruthef-. rffie of interim superintendent if i ford - joined a/ citizens offered It. ! committee formed to de-  f doing. she veiop recommendations said. It gives me the opportunity  for the school board in ' to work with all the building prin- d\u0026gt;e event Williams left. ,.' cipals. Id rather remain assistant The coinniittee, ap- superintendent. pointed by school board Mitchell helped open the Dr. President Linda Pondex- Martin Luther King Jr. Magnet El- ler, will present recom- ementary School in 1993 and re- niendations to the board mained there a year as principal, tonight. She also is a former principal of I dont want to specu- Cloverdale Elementai-y late on anything at tliis School. point Rutlierford said. I Roberts, state Depart- kaow theres a lot of spec- nient of Education direc- elation about me and otli- tor from 1979 to 1984, said or-. 1 think at this point its he had spoken to some all just speculation. ' members of a citizens ! in several schools in the Pulhski County Special and Little Rock school districts.  Carter, 44, serves on the board of trustees at Henderson State University. : Jennings has taught at Hendrix College in Conway since 1992. From 1987.to 1992, he was the Little Rock School Districts associate superintendent for desegregation. For several months in 1993, the district hired Jennings as a consultant to write an alternative student assignment plan.\nA message left at his Hendrix office brought no response. : Jones, an associate monitor in the federal Office of Desegregation Monitoring, said a few friends had mentioned he was on the short list of candidates. But Jones stressed that he hadnt heard anything official andrthought it was premature to discuss. ' \"I really dont know enough to say what my attitude would be if it iiicuiueis UI a citizens committee but didnt I want to say much more, i Roberts, 61, retired as superintendent of the Fort Worth, Texas, School District in 1994 after 7% years and still lives in Fort Worth. nior vice president at Cranford Joiinson Robinson Woods advertising agency and a former Little Rock School Board president. Sewall is an associate , professor of education administration and su- pervision at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, She is attending a workshop this week and could not be reached for comment Wednesday. In 1989, Sewall took a sabbatical from her position as the Little Rock School Districts associate superintendent to complete her doctoral studies. In 1990, she returned to the district as a special assistant for ac- countability and alternative learning programs. White resigned as superintendent of the Lee  Counts' School District in 1992 and became senior program manager for the Foundation for the Mid South in Jackson, Miss. The foundation is a privately financed agency that focuses on economic was offered to Jones said. me, ' Jones, .56, joined the Office of Desegregation Monitoring last year. Before that, he worked as assistant superintendent for instruction for the Pulaski County district and for the North Little Rock School District. Jones also worked as associate director of instruction for the state Department of Education. i Lacey, 56, has been principal of Mann Arts and Science Magnet School since 1988 and a district employee since 1974. L Before that, she was principal at Dunbar Junior High School and assistant principal at Central High School. She also taught at schools in Helena, Eudora and Clarendon. : Messages leR for her at home apd work werent returned.  Matthis, a former deputy superintendent, said she thought it would be inappropriate to comment. But she Said she hadnt heard development, education and families and chil- dren in the Mississippi River Delta regions of Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. White, 50. worked for 21 years in the Little Rock district, her last position being associate superintendent. She still has a residence in Little Rock. She could not be reached for comment Wednesday? Wilhoit lias been director of  the state Department of Education General Education Division since September 1993. Wilhoit, 53, did not return a phone inquiry. Before relocating here from Maryland, he was executive director for the National Association of State Boards of Education, a panel that works closely with state and national leaders. Previously, Wilhoit worked as a teacher, a consultant and an ad- Jninistrator.Arkansas B -) Arkansas Democrat ^(^razelk |-------- THURSDAY, JULY 18, 1996  I , ULit_ I I u, i27x7V Copyright O UH1e Rock Newspapers, Inc. LR schools weigh chiefs post Citizens panel will list recommendations today on replacing Williams BY CYNTHIA HOWELL asticallv c , 0aX3az.,Ed,ataw,i,0, N.n.L nf lepreseiitatives [he committees membership The Kansas City board voted 5-4 includes civil rights lawyer John Sunday to offer Williams the job Walker, the president of the of administering the 37,0(X)-stu- teachers union, educators a for- dent district with a salary and -----------'  benefit package of up to $200,000. A committee of some of the citys most influential residents will present to the Little Rock School Board at 5 p.m. today a series of recommendations for temporarily filling the superintendent's post once Henry Williams vacates it to go to Kansas City, Rett Tucker, co-chairman of the contingency committee and chairman of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, mentioned for a repeatedly de- role. Page 2B dined this ---------------------- this Nanie.s of several possible Interim .superintendents have surfaced in recent days and weeks. One of those, Dr. Don Roberts, a native Arkansan who most recently was superintendent in Fort Worth, Texas, confirmed Wednesday he had been contacted by committee members. But, Roberts, a former Arkansas Department of Education director, HANDFUL of Would reveal nothing else about current and lornier the nature or outcome of tile conmembers. mer school board president, par- ''\"wTiT ''\"'s- F 7 .pz.uu,uuu. ent representatives and business , -.I\n \"! superintendent in people. Besides Tucker.Dr. f salary Roosevelt Brown is a committee ot $115,000, has accepted the posi- ' ------- tion pending the outcome of a Besides Tucker,' Dr. co-chaimian. administrators among those \"I ------ 'I' group has been meeting background check and contract daily since Monday to prepate its npnnt,.t,c n i. ,,j u. proposal, focusing solely onTill- ing a vacancy in the short term negotiations. He has said he intends to begin full-time work in week to reveal what the committee might propose. However, he said he is cautiously optimistic that the proposal is one the board and the city wiilembrace entliusi- Post  Continued from Page 18 By Wednesday afternoon, the contingency committee had obtained commitments for service if called on. The committee's recommendations to the school board are not binding. The board may choose I to adopt, reject or modify the pro- I posals. Committee members have kept their work confidential, saying that revealing parts or all of the recommendations before they are formally presented could cause the proposal to unravel. The committee declined to interview candidates during their meetings to avoid revealing the identities of candidates. Tucker said the series of recom- versations. Those mentioned as possible candidates are people who have been associated with the district, - either currently or in the past, in - a variety of capacities. ! While the committee has been : preparing its proposal, Williams I has been negotiating terms of a - contract with Kansas City,'Mo., cludetl Assistant Superintendent Vic /Vnderson. Mann Magnet Principal Marian Lacey and Skip Rutherford. a former school board president and public relations executive. The only information Tucker would reveal was that committee members plan to be complimentary of Williams, who has been controversial at times during his three- year tenure in the district. It was unclear whether Williams will attend the session tonight. He is planning to return to Kansas City at some point this week. Edward Newsome, president of the nine-member Kansas City board, said Wednesday that work on a contract for Williams is proceeding on schedule. He expects a settlement to be , . ----------------------v/viyvi-LO a OCLtlCilieill It, , tions to be presented tonight announced by early next week, will deal with more than just per-  \" *    sonnel matters. They will also In- clude employee issues, lie said.\nThe committee's recommendations depend in part on when Williams will leave the district. While Williams has said he antici- Earlier this week. Kansas City ' board members obtained news sto- ' ries about Williams tlirough an electronic database search. In addition, Newsome directed the law firm of Spencer Fane Britt and Browne to investigate Williams background to verify information pates six more weeks of employ- ment in Little Rock. Pondexter has that Williams had provided, suggested that the district needs a * '  full-time administrator on hand to oversee the opening of school this year. Newsome said the news accounts and the investigation had not revealed any problems to dale. Kansas City board members have There was speculation earlier been quoted in The Kmisas City Star ,eo,. ,f n..u. 1.0------- newspaper this week as saying that they are familiar with Williams ex- this year that if Williams left very quickly after finding a job. a man- agement team might oversee the district for a veiy short time until a person selected to be an interim administrator could get on board. Names mentioned for that team in- periences in both the Little Rock and Syracuse. N.Y,, districts and have heard nothing that would cause them to reconsider their decision. I Tz-_ .. ~ ~  Yovojivj 111 me biiuii term Kansas City the first of Septem- while the board seeks a perma- ' nent replacement for Williams. Williams departure was widely anUcipated, and Little Rock .u. jui a lew weens or lor board President Linda Pondexter several months, depending  oil earlier this year appointed the -------  An interim superintendent might serve for just a few weeks or for seven-member contingency committee to recommend how tlie district might fill any vacancy in the superintendents position should Williams leave. how the board decides to conduct its search for a chief executive. It is not uncommon for a national search to take an entire school year. See POST, Page 8B! Roberts ! __Arkansas Democrat '^(Dazclti' FRIDAY. AUGUST 16, 1996 School chief hits the ground running BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Oemonal-Gazette Education Writer Little Rocks new school superintendent started his job at a frantic pace 'Ihursday as he conferred with administralors. visited three schools, monitored successful teacher contract negotiations and look part in a special school board meeting. ^il.s been a fairly active day for TEACHERS, sdiool board agree on contract. Pago 30, me, Dr. Don Roberts told reporters at an impromptu midafter- noon news conference in a Central High hallway. I hope there won't be quite as much driving me tomorrow as there was today.\" j^Ibiberts, 61. came out of retire- ment to take the Little Rock job on an interim basis. He has a one-year contract that can be extended. A native of Columbia County, Roberts was once an assistant superintendent in the Little Rock district, but he left 22 years ago for an assortment of jobs  including director of the Arkansas Department of Education and su- See ROBERTS, Page 16A  Continued Irom Page 1A perintendent of the Fort Worth. Texas, school district, which is three times Little Rocks size. He retired from Fort Worth in 1994 after eight years on the job. Roberts succeeds Dr. Hen^- Williams, who left the district this month to assume the superintendent's job in Kansas City, Mo. Roberts started his workday shortly after 7:30 a.m. Thursday. T did get up a little early today, trying to decide exactly how to get back into this.\" he said. The district has brought me right back into it though. It seems like I never left. Among the first items on his agenda were meetings with top administrative staff members and with the five-member management team that supervised the district during the transition between Williams and Roberts. Those meeting were followed by a get-together with district principals. During that session, Robeils asked employees to send him anonymous two-page memos describing what they believe are the districts strengths, as well as the barriers in their efforts lo educate students. The memos are only for me to read, to help me understand what is happening and focus on the good things. he said. Maybe there are some things that some of us can do in the communit} that would allow a principal to have a better chance of being successful. Accompanied by Assistant Su- I perintendent Vic Anderson and -VoK^pl, '3 S!3 .4 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette/CHRIS JOHNSON Nancy Rousseau, Central High assistant principal, talks with the Little Rock School District's interim superintendent, Dr. Don Roberts, as he tours the school during his first day on the job Thursday. Communications Director Suellen Vann. Roberts left the administration building for a few hours Thursday to visit Central, McClellan and Hall high schools. He planned to visit as many as 11 schools Thursday, but that itinerarj' was scaled back as he focused, instead, on the teacher contract negotiations. Roberts is planning to spend time today getting reacquainted with the districts 50 schools and their locations. His top priority throughout the day Thursday was to ensui'e that Uie teacher contract was settled so schools can open Monday. Negotiators worked all night Wednesday to reach a settlement and tliey finally agreed late Thursday afternoon. It was ratified by both teachers and the school board by 7 p.m. I'm very pleased about the contract Roberts said. I had hoped it would have been done this morning before I got here, but they couldn't quite get there. We just kept at it today. A lot of people helped, and we got an agreement. My major desire is that we tell people that there will be school in the Little Rock School District on Monday. I wanted to get the contract settled so we didn't keep send1 ing the message that we didn't know whether we would have school Monday or not\" Brady Gadbeny. the district's director of labor relations, said the district will have to draw about S3 million from a state desegregation loan to meet this year's expenses, including salary- increases. Roberts said he wasn't fully knowledgeable about the district's financial condition. But finances are a long-term problem that can't be solved unless we improve the image and the perception and the quality  if it is lacking  in the district he said. I don't know about all that I just know we can't solve the long-term financial problem until we work together to get it done, and this is a first step, the first evidence, that we are going to work and get it done.\"Arkansas iJeinocrat f  WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 12. 1997  .  Ruth Steele, educator, dies at 55 Steele  Continued from Page 1B dren, Hamilton said. Ill always women in tlie state to hold positions above elementary school principals. We were friends, and I will miss her. Steele was bom July 22.1941. in Praised as healer, held LR, state posts BY LINDA S. CAILLOUET ARKANSAS DEMOCRATXjAZETTE Willle other children asked for fairy tales, Ruth Steele delighted in having her grandmother read aloud from old textbooks. From childhood, Steele knew she wanted to be a teacher. xAnd she did. But she didnt remember her as being one who Alexandria, La., to Nellie B. and .prepared for tlie task she had Roy Smith. She grew up with her ahead of her. All of us who knew parents and four younger brothers her and worked closely with her in nearby Ball, where her parents will remember her for many still live. She attended school in 'strong attributes. neighboring Tioga. . Lynda White, a friend of ILn* school, she sang .i.n. tlie c..h..o^- Steeles, recalled a comment from rus, played basketball and attend-  a Little Rock School Board meet-ing. .: Ella Carpenter said it all when ed Girls State. But she was most dedicated to the newly formed Future Teachers of America club stop at the classroom. She went on to she went up to the microphone that she joined in the nintli grade, and said, 1 know for sure Dr. sening as the clubs president as a \" Steele is a Christian because she junior and senior. ......... ...... ... ............. ...... She attended Louisiana Baptist ^alL..............................................................College in Pineville, La., where ... Tony Wood, Searcy School Dis- she planned to one day teach high-trict superintendent, was deputy school English. ...................... ''  /After marrying a Baptist minis-talks the talk and walks tlie superintendent in Little Rock un- . der Steeles leadership. Steele al- ter, David Steele, she moved to Lit- .ways put the children first. Wood tie Rock In 1962, she received her said. bachelors degree in education rules later. As a teacher, Steele worked to make learning fun, to give the lessons on a level her students would enjoy. If they wouldnt come to her, she went to them. While at Cabot High School. Steele helped begin the schools first literary' magazine so her students work could be published. At the vocational school in Little Rock, she had food service students plan and prepare a menu for a geographical area they were studying in literature class. The printing students typeset and printed Beoieidf in fancy script. In 1973. as a student project, Steele obtained a grant to develop an educational radio station. KLRE-FM. She became the Little Rock School Districts director of communications in 1975 and continued working with the district until 1986, when the State Board of Edu-teach and lead Ruth Steele other educators as the Little Rock School Districts first female superintendent and the Arkansas Department of Educations first female director. And while reading was her first love, she also had a soft spot for radio  she started KLRE-FM, 90.5, now affiliated with National Pu^ lie Radio. Steele, who was diagnosed about six weeks ago with lym- , phoma, died Tuesday in Little Rock at Baptist Medical Center. She was 55. ' Every decision she ever made from Little Rock University, now was based on the children, he the University of Arkansas at Lit- .said. She was an extraordinary tie Rock. She later received a mas- educator, and the state has lost a ters degree in English from Ar-great leader. kansas State Teachers College in  Even her adversaries admired Conway, now the University of her. John Walker, the civil rights Central Arkansas, and a doctorate attorney representing black chil- in educational administration at dren in the three Pulaski County the University of Arkansas at Fay- . districts in a federal desegregation etteville.  lawsuit, sparred' with Steele but At age 21, she began teaching : speaks hi^ly of her today.  She was an honorable educator with whom I had some dis- English at Cabot High School. She remained there for three years. In 1965, she began working at cation appointed her deputy direc- tAonHr of (tLh. eA rD\\ epartmAe ..n. *t of EdIu I Ac na-  I In recent years, Steele worked as a consultant, creating curricula for several school districts around the state. She continued that work even while in the hospital. W.D. Bill Hamilton, a former teacher who is a director with the state Department of Health, served on the school board in the 1980s when Steele was Little Rock superintendent. \"She was a very quiet, deepthinking person who was concerned with the needs of the chil- See STEELE, Page 9B agreements, Walker said, but Metropolitan Vocational High  one who I always felt was devoted School in Little Rock and contin- ' to improving the education of chil- ued teaching until 1970. dren, especially poorer ch i\"l d ren. B,y h...e...r.. ..o...w...n... ..a..d...m....i..s..s..i.o...n... Steele and providing them with the tools was \"a pretty tough disciplinari- -they need to become educated, contributing citizens. ' She was a healer, a progressive superintendent and a pio-an. I always started out very tough,\" she said in a 1988 interview featured on the cover of the neer, Walker said. Her leader- _A_r_k_a_n__s_a_s_ _D__e_m__o_c_r_a_t_'s H. igh... ..P...r.o...f..i.l..e '.ship opened the doors for a lot of section. You can always relax the tion. The next year, Steele was named director of the department She said then that she didnt i want to micromanage the states school districts. Instead, she wanted to provide ways for the schools to improve and to hold them accountable not for how they do things, but what they do. Steele returned to the Little Rock School District in 1989 as superintendent. In November 1991, she announced that she would retire the following June. At the time, she noted personal losses  her husband had died of heart attack complications in April, and Dr. Herb Cleek, a longtime friend and the districts deputy superintendent, had also died of a heart attack. She also cited a lack of support from the school board.  Arkansas Democrat (Gazette  TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1997  Board puts headhunters on trail of superintendent LR schools hire Illinois search company BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANS.AS DEMOCR-AT-G.AZETTE Little Rock School Board members Monday selected Hazard, Young, Attea and Associates, an executive search firm based in Northfield, Ill,, to assist them in hiring a replacement for Interim Superintendent Don Roberts, who wants to retire later this year. In literature presented to the board, company officials estimated that more than 90 percent of the people they have helped get jobs since 1988 are still in place. Of about 100 searches done during the last five years, firm officials said they are aware of three superintendents no longer in the position for which they were hired. The companys clients since 1994 include the Hamilton County- Chattanooga, Tenn,, school system. Louis St. enrollment 46,0(X)\nschools, enrollment 43.000\nPlano, Texas, schools, enrollment 36,500: San Antonio schools, enrollment 60,000: and Columbia, Mo schools, 16,000 students. Other clients have included school systems in Grosse Pointe, Mich,\nKalamazoo, Mich.\nPalo Alto, Calif,\nand Scarsdale, N.Y. The Hazard firm was one of five considered by the Little Rock board, including two local agencies, Gilbert Associates and Exec- Personnel Recruiters utive Agency Inc, Other applicants included the National School Boards Association and Sockwell \u0026amp; Associates, the North Carolina firm the district used in 1992 when future Little Rock Superintendents Mac See SEARCH, Page 2B Search  Continued from Page IB Bernd and Henrj Williams, both now gone, were identified as candidates. Hiring the company is expected to cost about $15,000. plus $4,000 for travel, postage and telephone expenses and another $3,000 for advertising and a brochure to be developed about the district. Costs for candidates to travel to Little Rock and for board members to visit candidates' hometowns could not be estimated. The firm expects to send letters and brochures about the district to about 600 initial contacts, including superintendents of about 200 districts, state and national educa- Our examination of the finalist candidates  backgrounds is discreet, but rigorous, reaching personal and professional references beyond those provided by the candidate w in many cases. William J. Attea j tion associations, universities and ' foundations. Members of the firm i will contact prospective candi- i dates who meet the criteria estab- i lished by the School Board and ! will actively recruit candidates. i At the close of the application i process the company will select 12 i to 18 candidates for further consid-  eration. Those candidates will un- j dergo further background checks j in conjunction with an initial inter- i view with Hazard representatives.  Our examination of the finalist ! candidates backgrounds is dis- i creet, but rigorous, reaching per- i sonal and professional references . beyond those provided by the can- 1 didate in many cases, William J. Attea, a company officer, wrote the Little Rock board. Attea has suggested a timetable for conducting the search that calls for initial meetings with School Board members possibly as early as this week. The timetable also suggests board interviews of candidates by May 19 and selection of a superintendent by June 2.Arkansas Democrat ^(jrazclk  WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 1997  Group sets high ideals for chief of LRSD BY CYN IlUA HOWULL ARKANSAS I)l.M(K R,\\ I -(iAZt. I 11- A Little Hock School District coiiuiuiiiity group decided 'I'licsday  mostly in jest, that the district's next superintendent of scliools ought to be a Jtazorback fan who can walk on water. Levity asi((e, the approximately 40 teachers, business leaders, parents, student^ and representatives of community organizations made it clear in a three-hour-meeting that they iiave high expectations for Uie successor to Superintendent Dpn Robeils, w^io plans to reUre. The gi'oup identified 46 desirable characteristics in Uie seven categories of educational philosophy, leadership and management, creativity, people skills, stability, inclusiveness and personal attributes. Humility, honesty, charisma, iib telligence, patience, detenuination, a sense of fairness and optimishi were listed under personal attributes. Tho group members called for a visionary, a confident decisionmaker. a team builder, someone who leads by example, a motivator, a skilled negotiator, a person who understands staff needs and will work lo carry out the districts mission. The community members were nominated by school board members last month to identify what they would like lo see in a now chief executive. On Tuesday. Ann Brown temporarily put aside her role as federal desegregation monitor to serve as a facilitator for the discussion.  -' The groups conclusions will be submitted later this week to the school board, which has hired-an Illinois search firm lo help select a I superintendent.\nThe community group concluded that stability in Uie district could . be promoted by a new superinten- dent who is healthy and energetic, is committed to the city and to staying in the job. anil may be home- grown and qualified, The group called for both an educator and an administrator who puls children first and promotes educational excellence while maintaining a strong instructional program. The group said llie board should seek someone who can think outside the box and be a risk-taker and problem-solver who values school and community pari- nerships. A communicator with interpersonal skills, a consensus-builder and a politically astute healer were terms describing the desired executive. Other desired characteristics included sensitivity lo cultural diversity, color-blindness, celebration of diversity and respect for vaiying viewpoints. There is no way any man can be all of that and be humble,\" Central High Principal Rudolph Howard qui pped at the end of the session., . But a woman can,\" oUiers responded.Arkansas Democrat \"ST (5azcllc  FRIDAY, APRIL 18, 1997  LRSD hopes to hire chief by late June Search Firm expects to oll'er 6 candidates BY CYN IIIIA IIOWIJ.l. ARKANSAS W-MtKRA I t 1 AZh11 li Ihe Little Rock School Board, seeking a new superintendent, established a tentative timetable es- 'fhursday that calls for naming one by the week of June 22. School board members began deciding some of the parameters for the search in a meeting wilh Dr. Charles Young, a partner in the Hazard, Young. Attea and Associates executive search firm. The board had voted Monday to hire the Illinois company to aid in its elTorts to replace interim Superintendent Don Roberts, who wants to retire. Young is an Illinois native who earned a bachelors degree in 1950 at tlie University of Arkansas, which he attended on an atliletic scholarship. He and Charles Almo, a distinguished professor of urban education at Roosevelt University in Chicago and a fonner longtime administrator in the Chicago public schools, will be Uie principal agents working on tlie Little Rock search. I take personal pleasure in working in Arkansas, Young told the board. This is our companys first assignment here. I owe this Young told the board that the company, to be paid about $15,000, will work with the district until it finds the right person. state a lot and I am happy to try to return some of what I owe by helping this district with its search. Young told the board that the company, to be paid about $15,000, will work with the district until it finds tlie right person. If the new superintendent is dismissed for cause or resigns during the first year, the firm will conduct a new search at no cost except expenses. The company also pledged not to recruit the new superintendent for another position for five years unless the board authorizes it. National advertising for the job is tentatively set to begin April 30. Regional advertising for the post also will be done. The heart of our work is to bring into candidacy those people who are not actively looking for a job, Young told board members. He predicted that 0 percent of the candidates ultimately presented to the board will be on the list through nomination or solicitation. Young and Almo will begin screening applicants May 19 and will present at least six candidates to the school board June 3, at which time the board will begin conducting two rounds of inter- view.s with the candidates and making visits to the candidates home districts. Young said his firm closely\nrntfiniyp? (ho onnrli/lnfoe \u0026gt;iA ' scrutinizes the candidates and ! their qualifications. We pour acid j on all the superlatives to see what holds up, he said. The consultants will give applicants brochures about the Little Kock district and advise board members how to interview and evaluate the candidates.Arkansas Democrat I  WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 1997 LRSD knows Search  Continued from Page 1D 72.000-student Fort Worth district. it cant dawdle in hiring a chief Board may lay out search route to Roberts successor this week BY CYNTHLA. HOWELL AR-K-ViSAS DEMOCR.AT-G.AZETTE The Little Rock School Board may decide as soon as Thursday on how to proceed with a search for a superintendent to succeed Don Roberts, interim superintendent since mid-.August Roberts will stay on the job until a replacement is hired. Earlier this year, board President John Riggs IV asked board members Katherine Mitchell and Larry Berkley to consider the range of options in conducting a search. The two are to make a recommendation to the board at its meeting at 6 p.m. Thursday. Riggs said Tuesday he anticipates a national search for a chief e.xecutive. But board members Sue Strickland and Mike Daugherty have said they would prefer to hire from within the state. If the board is to find a superintendent this year, the search must begin soon. Riggs said. Most superintendents sign contracts with their school districts in the first half of summer, making it difficult to hire well-qualified people during the summer. Riggs said he would like to have the new superintendent employed by September so he can work with Roberts for at least a couple of months. Roberts said this week that he intends to assist the School Board in finding a permanent superintendent by personally recruiting qualified people to apply for the job of overseeing the states largest school district. He said he wont participate in interviews or any other part of the actual selection process. he was superintendent in Newport News. Va.. and Amarillo. Texas. , Riggs called Roberts a terrific ap^ed in the^wor^U^e. leader and communicator. He has unified our board, strengthened our district and uplifted our community. Riggs said. ---------- - H vvnTnovv^sist us in locating mously to hire the interim superm- his permanent successor and will tendent on rccommend^-n ,nf continue to work with us on a con- suiting basis. In many ways, this mav be the best of both worlds.\" One of Roberts most significant accomplishments this year has been the decision to seek a hiatus When I returned to Little Roc.k of uP to nine montto in toe fede^ as interim superintendent in .Au- momtoring of the distnct s aese^^ gust. I pledged to help better posi- gation efforte. He smd the tion the district so that it could re- vvould give distnct officials time to strengthen the distncts academic emit an outstanding permanent su- perintendent and to assist in that program and Propo^e improv^ recruiting effort, Roberts said. \"I nients to the 1989 desegreoauon am now confident Little Rock can plan- , . , , . , .A federal judge has granted the moratorium, and eight different and will attract several quality applicants.\" Roberts, 62, who retired from the Fort Worth. Te.xas, school district in 1994. took the interim position last summer. He said then that he would serve for at least one year and possibly two at an annual salarv of SI15.000. He succeeded Henrv Williams, who left the district after three years for the superintendents job in Kansas City, Mo. Roberts recently asked School Board members to begin a search for his replacemenL with the understanding that he is willing to stay in the job for a couple of months after his successor is chosen so the newcomer can become acquainted with the system. Roberts also said he is willing to work with the district on various projects, but he does not want to continue as full-time superintendent. \"This district needs a superintendent who will stay five or more years.  he said. I cant last that long? Roberts, an Arkansas native, previously worked in the Little Rock district in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He is the former director of the state Department of Educations General Education Division. Before serving more than seven years as superintendent of the See SEARCH, Page 4D teams are at work developing proposals in a wide range of subjects. 'The teams will report to the board by the end of June, and the district vrill report to the court by September. , Riggs said that Roberts will be available to help oversee that work and to testify in court or negotiate proposals if he is needed. Roberts may also be used to oversee the Vital Link program, which will be implemented for the first time this summer, Riggs said. More than 500 sixth-graders and their teachers will spend a wees in various businesses and industries to see how tlieir class lessons are The pro^am is similar to an award-winning program started in Fort Worth during Roberts tenure. The School Board voted unani- the recommendation of a residents committee that the board had appointed to make recommendations on filling the vacan- cy. Rett Tucker, one of that commit- tee's co-chairman, said Tuesday that Roberts has done a superb job and that he is grateful Roberts will continue to work wnth the distnct. Roberts and his wife, Jan, moved from Fort Worth to Little Rock so he could take the interim position. They intend to remain in central .Arkansas, either in Little Rock or Hot Springs, or both. The Roberts two sons and their families live in Little Rock. .A daughter lives in Fort Worth. Roberts predecessors. Williams and Mac Bernd, were both finalists in a national search the district conducted in 1992 with the help of a executive-search firm based in North Carolina. Bernd was hired. He stayed one year, after which the board pursued and ultimately hired Williams.Arkansas Democrat -^(Oazcllc J  FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1997 Search firm, panel of locals to heln r LRSD find chief BY CVTsTHIA HOWELL ARMNSAS DtMOlRAT-GVI 'E Tlie Little Rock School Board will use both a communitv- committee and a national search firm to seek a successor to Superintendent Don Roberts, who has said he wants to retire by the end of this calendar year. Board members' initial division Tliursday over whether to employ a search firm ended when Roberts, who has said he will personally urge qualified people to apply for the job. spoke in favor of the move. \"I have a lot more respect for the people that you will recommend to us than I do those from a firm.\" board member Sue Strickland told Roberts. I'm wondering if we could take some of those applications in the beginning without the assistance of a firm and bring the firm in later if necessary. Would that be feasible? \"You would be limiting yourselves. Roberts said. \"You need to have a buffer.' If the board takes applications, the names will become public information immediately  which will discourage some potential candidates from entering the pool. Roberts said. .A national search firm knows where to advertise the job and can send out applications, receive completed forms and privately narrow the field of applicants to a pool of finalists for the board to consider, he said. i \"Tve told you from the day I was I selected that one of the things I want to help you do is get into the position to hire a good superintendent. Roberts told the board. He also told board members they should publicize that theyre interested in considering applicants from Arkansas as well as nationwide. Board members agreed they would select a search firm by April 17. giring preference to locally based companies. The firm selected must be able to provide data regarding the length of service of su- perintendents it has placed in jobs. Board members also agreed to immediately form a communitv committee to establish criteria that they and the search firm should use in selecting a superintendent. Each of the seven board members will nominate four people to serve on the committee. .After that, if the board finds that an organized group active in the district is unrepresented on the committee, representatives will be added. Board member Pat Gee said she wanted to use the citizens contingency committee that recommended hiring Roberts as an interim superintendent last summer. \"Those people feel verv- strongly about the district, and they have some idea about what is involved.\" Gee said. \"You ask someone who has no idea, they can come out with something in left field.\" That committee included co- chairmen Rett Tucker and Dr. Roosevelt Brown, as well as civil rights lawyer .John Walker, the presidents of the Classroom Teachers .Association and the Parent-Teacher Association Council, a junior high principal, and former school board member Skip Rutherford. Also Thursday, a group of black parents from Hail High School submitted a petition asking the board for a special meeting over their concerns about the school's administration and what they called a disproportionate number of disciplinary sanctions against black students. The board took no immediate action on the request.Arkansas Democrat 7^ (IjjazelU' |  SATURDAY^APRIL 5, 1997 45 are nominated for panel to land hew school chief UR board advertises for national firm to hunt for replaeement for Roberts BY CYNTHIA I(OWBLl. '  ARKANSAS OliMlM RA I ( iAZI i 11. ' Korty-five people, including educators, government leaders and neighborhood representatives, have been nominated to serve on a committee to search for the district's next superintendent. ' Tlie Little Rock School Districts Advisory Committee for a Superin- terident Search was created by the on Friday to formally notify them of the April 15 meeting. Committee members and the organizations they represent are\nDr. Charles Donaldson, University of Arkansas at Little Rock vice chancellor\nJoa Humphrey, Southwest Neighborhood Association\nDoris Iones, John Barrow Neighborhood Association\nLinda Joyce, Little Rock Board of Directors\nBarb 'board to advise it on tlie criteria tlie Kennedy, teacher, Baker Kurrus, board should use in hiring a re- Little Rock Alliance for Our Public placement for Superintendent Don Schools\nDonna Massey, Little Rock Roberts, who has said he would like New Party\nRohn Muse, New Parly\nto retire by the end of the calendar Paula Patterson, parent\nBenny year. Tlie advisory committee has Smith, Parents for Public Schools\nonly one scheduled meeting, at (1 Andy Teny,UALR department of fi- pjn.,April 15 in tlie district adminis- ir^tion building's board room. / ..Aim Brown, the federal desegregation monitor who also is a trained bf^anizational facilitator, will over- the three-hour session, School ppard President John Riggs IV said this week. Also, a national superin- 'terident search linn could call on the advisoiy committee for consultation. The board is advertising for a ftmp to assist in soliciting and screening applications from superintendent candidates. Search firms nance\nDiane Vibaker, Parents for Public Schools\nDoug Buford, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce\nRett Tucker, chamber and alliance\nDoris Williams, PTA Council\nKevin O'Malley, former school board member\nbeta AnUio- ny. Leadership Roundtable\nDale Charles, NAACP\nDon Wilson, Black Developers\nDelia Moore, United Way\nDoroUiy Nayles, New Futures for Little Rock Youth\nCharles Johnson, Stephens School neighborhood\nVernell Bowen, principal of St. Ed- haVe sought to meet with community wards School, and Tom Brock, Gey- groups to familiarize Uie firms' executives with the conununity and its .edutational needs. :\n.-.The seven board members decid- Rudolph ,ed to nominate four people each to er Springs First Baptist Chiu'ch. Also, Nolan Purtell, grandparent\nDelores Edgeston, Parkview PTA\nIloward, Principals .serve on the committee. More people were nominated to ensure broad Roundtable\nPam Marshall, MidTown and Franklin School neighborhood\nRev. Don Gibson, Minister- gepresenlation from organizations ial Alliance\nFatima McKendra, Cen- iptprested and involved in the operation of the school district  the largest district in tlie state. .Committee niembei's include Lin- -da Joyce, a member of tlie Little Rock tral High student\nClementine Kelley, Eleanor Coleman, Betty Mitchell and Fay Parker, Classroom Teachers Association\nLee .Iones, Little Rock Housing Authority\nBrenda Board of Directors\nDale Charles, Gregoiy, Resident Council for Uie lifesident of Uie Little Rock chapter of Uie National Association for llie Advancement of Colored People\ntwo former Little Rock School Board Little Rock Housing AuUiority\nAdriene Goodman-Chandler, parent involvement coordinator\nEUiel Ambrose, Coalition of Little Rock niditibers\nUie current and immediate Neighborhoods\nTommy Dodson, past presidents of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and Uie parent\nVicki Armstead, Little Rock Association of Educational Office principal of a Catliolic elemenhuy Professionals\n'Phaddeus Leopoulos, school. District students and employ- Parkview Magnet High student\n^S also are represented. Mozella Johnson. Stephens Neigh- Many of the committee members borhood Association\nW.D. Bill serve dual roles as parents and or- Ilamillon, fonner school board ganizational representatives. member\nIjOU Ethel Nauden, All nominees are eligible to Parkview teacher, and Bitty Martin, ,\nserve if tJiey accept tlie nomination. Capitol View/Stifil Station Neighmember\nLexers were sent to the nominees borhood Association.Arkansas Democrat 'Jv (Oazcltc , FRIDAY, MAY 23, 1997  Search firm for LRSD superintendent promises candidate list for June session BY PATRICK HENRY ,\\RKA\\SAS DEMOCR.AT-Ci,\\ZETTE The firm the Little Rock School District hired to conduct the search for a new superintendent plans to present the School Board with a slate of up to eight candidates at a meeting June 3. Dr. Charles Young, a partner in the Illinois-based firm Hazard, Young, Attea and .Associates, told a special board committee Thurs- - day that he had aggressively gone after\" some 19 candidates and\nwould continue to screen candidates until the board decides on ' one. Young briefed the board on  strategy for the which begin June 4. Board members will interview two candidates each day through June 7. At a June 8 meeting the list of contenders will be cut to three, a second round of interviews following from June 9-13. The board intends to name a new superintendent by June 22. Interim Superintendent Don Roberts. 62. told board members in March that he wanted to retire and asked them to find a successor. Young was hired to conduct the search in mid-April. Also, the board got an expen- sive wake-up call Thursday when the technologi- work team. a committee formed in March to develop a plan for bringing the district's schools up to date with computer technology, announced that its plan would cost up to $30 million  money the district doesn't have. \"This will be expensive, team member Rich Kennedy, a University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences professor, told the board, but we needed technologj in the schools yesterday, not in two to three years, so we've got to move\non this.\" The committee will recommend that the district outfit a few model schools with state-of-the-art tech- nologj- to let the public know of the need for new technologj and to raise funds from tlie private sector.National search chalks up 7 prospects to lead LRSD BY CHRIS REINOLDS ARKANSAS OEMOC!IAT\u0026lt;5A21TE Seven educators, including two wiUi Arkansas backgrounds .and a university dean, have ap- plied for the Little Rock School IV. .-.1. Board members plan to inter- District superintendent's job. The school district hired the Hazard. Illinois-based firm Young. Attea and Associates to search for a new superintendent. Dr. Charles Young, a partner in the search firm, said he pursued 19 candidates. The School Board will receive tendent by June 22. information about the candidates Candidates  Continuedirom Page 1A , Interim Superintendent Don Roberts. told board members in March that he wanted to retire and asked them to find a successor. Roberts became the districts seventh superintendent in 10 years. The search firm was hired in mid-April. The applicants are Leslie V. Camine of Wichita Falls. Texas: John M. Folks of Weatherford. Okla.\nPeter P. Horoschak of Albuquerque. N.M.: Kenneth James of Batesville: David E. Lee of New Roads. La.: Mary Guinn of Monroe. La.\nand Jim Scales of College Station. Texas. Camine. 55. has been superintendent of the Wichita Falls Independent School District for 10 years. 'The district has about 15.750 students and operates on an SS9 ------------------------------------------- During his tenure at Wichita million budget He earns S105.000 Falls, the district has entered into annually. Camine received his doctorate desegregation case, from the University of Arkansas - and worked as superintendent of of Education at Southwestern Ok- the Texarkana School District lahoma State University. He re- from 1981 to 1987 and as assistant ceived his bachelor of science, superintendent from 1979 to 1981. master of arts and doctoral de- He also was a high school prinei- grees in education from the Unipal in Harrison. He received his master's degree from Central Missouri State Uni- versity in Wanensbuig and his tendent for six years at Midwest bachelors degree from Buena City-Del City public schools east of Vista College, Storm Lake. Iowa. at today's meeting. Five of the applicants have sent resumes and other background information through the search firm to School Board Chairman John A. Riggs view two candidates a day Wednesday through Saturday. At a Sunday meeting the list of contenders will be cut to three, and a second round of interviews is scheduled June 9-13. The board intends to name a new superin- See CANDIDATES, PageiOA Applicants for LRSD superintendents job AppHcanis tor ihe btUe Reck School District superintendenrs iCO: Leslie V. Camine. 55. superiniertclenl of Wienita Falls. Texas, ind^ndent Sefwot District lor 10 years. Oodoiate degree front University of Aikansas at Fayettevitle. Su- penntendeni of the Texarkana. Ark.. School District front 1981 to 1987 and assistant su- pentttendwil from 197910 1981. Dr. John M. Folks, dean of School of Education al Southsvestem Oklahoma State University al Weathsiford since 1994. Bacheloi's. master's and doctoral degrees in education from Umversity of OWahoma in Norman. Dr. Mary Guinn, associate supenntendent for Monroe. La.. City Scftool Disina. Former Little Rod\u0026lt; Settooi Oisirici teacher, principal at Carver Elementary and Pulaski Heights Elementary and spe^ assistant to the supenntendent. Dr. Peter P. Horoschak. superiniendertt of an agreement to end a 27-year-old Folks. 49. is dean of the School versity of Oklahoma, Norman. He has served as dean since 1994. Before that he was superinOklahoma City. Enrollment was Abuguerque. N.M.. Public SiSiools for three yeare. Bacheloi's degree in general engineering from U.S. Mibtaiy Academy al West Pcani. N.Y.. master's in educational admin- isiraiion from Boston University, doctorare in educatioh from Harvard Uraveisity at CamBndge. Mass. Dr. Kenneth James. Batesville School Ds- Inct supenntendent for four years. Bachelor's degree in education from Arkansas Slate University at Jonesboro, master's degree in educational adminisiretion from Northern Arizona University at Aagsialf. ano doctoiaie in education from U.S. tnter- national Univeisity at San Diego. Dr. David S. Lee. suoenntendent of Poirrte Coupee Pansh School in New Roads. La., for three years. Dcdcrate from Louisiana Stale University. Dr. Jim Scales, supenntendent al College Station School District in College SlaSon. Texas. about 15.000 with a budget of S60 million. Folks was elected by Oklahoma voters to sen-e as Oklahoma superintendent of public instruction, who oversees the state Department of Education. He held that position for four years. He also worked as associate deputy state superintendent director of secondary education, controller, assistant controller at the state department a total of 12 years. Before his work for the state he was a math teacher at Oklahoma and Texas high schools. _Aikansas Democrat^^^itp~ TUESDAY, JUNES, 1997 The third applicant is superintendent of the Albuquerque (N.M.) tuoii ....----------------- Public Schools, which has about in his district when he refused to velopment and strategic planning\n89.000 students. Horoschak gradu- let them wear ceremonial dress assistant principal for me San Die- ated from Harvard Universitj-. under their graduation robes. Die guito High School. Encimtas. Calif.. Cambridge. Mass., with a doctorate Santa Fe New Mexican reported.  \"\"H crUnni , ....rv-------------------------- Die Tinies Union newspaper in in education. He received his masters degree in educational admin- istration from Boston University -----------o -------yw and a bachelor's degree in general with the Albuquerque School New Roads, La for three years, engineering from the United Board over his 5115,000 salaiy and His salary is 576,000 to m^age a  benefits package. Die Dmes Union districlof4.^studentsandabud- PointNY ' ' also reported that Horoschak has get of 521 million. The Albuquerque school sys- clashed with the Albuquerque He earned his bachelor's de- tem has a budget of 5600 million School Board over educational gree from Mississippi SUte Uni- and 7,041 teachers. Horoschak has philosophy. versity, his masters de^ee from ........................................- ' - - James. Batesville School Dis- Mississippi College and his doctor- trict superintendent, said in a let- ate from Louisiana SUte Universi- ter to the board that he is comfort- tj-. States Militaiy Academy- at West been superintendent for three years. He served two years as superin- ------------------------------------------------ tendentofStamford(Conn.)Public able in his current job but he ...................................... Schools. with' an enrollment of would be interested in Little Rock, was supenntendent of DeSoto 13 300 From 1988 to 1992. he was James earns about S75.000 as chief Parish schools in Mansneid. La., superintendent of the Pittsford of the Batesville district with 2300 for four years. Central School District in Pitts- students and a budget of S10.7 mil- He also has worked as a high Central School District in Pitts- students and a budget of S10.7 mil- ford, N.Y., which has about 5200 lion. He is in his fourth year as su- students. Horoschakspentsixyearsassu- --------------------------------- perintendent at Shaker Heights gree in education from Arkansas Citv School District in Ohio and State University in 1972. Later he three vears at Poughkeepsie City received a master's degree in edu- _______________ , school principal, director of in- perintendent ' struction and administrative perJames earned his bachelors de- sonnel as well as a teacher in Louisiana and Mississippi. Resumes weren't available uixvv ________r_____-V _______________ - Monday for Guinn and Scales. School District in New York. He cational administration from Guinn, associate superinten- has worked for the Connecticut Northern Arizona Universi^ and dent for the Monroe City School SUte Department of Education as his doctorate of education from District in Louisiana, was a princi- deputy commissioner and assistant United States International Uni- pal at Carver and Pulaski Heights secretaiyforthe state Board of Ed- versity in San Diego. elementary schools in the mid ucation. He also served the Boston The Batesville native was assis- 1980s. She also served as special School System as an administra- lie Batesville native was assis- live assistant and was involved in .... r-.----------.---r\n- - - - the initial three years of desegre- Union High School District Escon- gation of the Boston Public Schools. San Diego Countj' Office of Educa- Horoschak recently upset more -----------o--------- -......................... than 100 American Indian students tion as a coordinator for staff de- and the Calexico Unified School District Calexico. Calif. Lee has been superintendent of Albanv. N.Y.. reported that ------------------------------------------- Horoschak had been squabbling Pointe Coupee Parish schools in Before going to Xew Roads. Lee tant superintendent and a high assistant to the superintendent for school principal for the Escondido a short time before leaving in 1989. .. . I-\" Scales is superintendent of the dido. Calif., with an enrollment of College Station School District in 10.060. James also worked for the College Station. Texas.Ark^sas Democrat  WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1997 List of 7 school superintendent candidates pleases board Little Rock School Board meni- I . __  J ^*-*1 o co u 11 UI ik/1 Oil bers said Tuesday that they liked ementary school principal and the slate of seven superintendent ' .................... candidates presented to them this week by consultants from an Illinois-based executive search firm. The board hopes to hire a new . -- -..........-  Louisiana. Folks is a one-time matli superintendent to replace Interim teacher and school district superin- Superintendent Don Roberts by tendent elected by 67 percent of Ok- J une 22. lahoma voters to serve as state su- Board members met almost four perintendent of public instruction, hours Tuesday with the consultants Young told the board that one ad- Dr. Charles Young and Dr. Charles mirer of Folks called him the best Almoin preparation for candidate package wall-to-wall that you can interviews that begin today. get in a superintendent. Dr. Ken James, superintendent of the Batesville School District, will meet privately with the board two hours beginning at 5 p.m. Dr. David Lee. superintendent of the Pointe Coupee Parish School District near Baton Rouge, La., will follow at 7^0 p.m. Dr. Jim Scales, superintendent of schools in College Station, Texas, and Dr. Peter Horoschak, superintendent in Albuquerque. N.M., are to meet with the board Thursday. Dr. John Folks, dean of the School of Education at Southwestern Oklahoma State University, and Dr. Les Gamine, superintendent in Wichita Falls, Texas, and former Texarkana superintendent, will be interviewed Friday. years as a speech pathologist, an el........ superintendent of the Boston ^sistant to the superintendent, will schools, a former commissioner of nrk intnnnAioo/J Cl,., 1, . . . an be interviewed Saturday. She is associate superintendent for Uie Mon- roe City School District in Six of die seven candidates are men. Five are white and two  Scales and Guinn  are black. James, a Batesville native and one of three candidates with strong Arkansas connections, comes from the smallest of the districts, but he also has experience in Escondido and San Diego County, Calif. James' references include the education in Kentucky and Skip Rutherford, a former Little Rock School Board president. Horoschak is from the largest district. Albuquerque, which has 89.000 students. Young described Horoschak as visionary, tireless, compassionate and analytical but also as someone who is figliting with his board and is unhappy with his $115,000 salary. Although Little Rock pays a similar salary. Young said, Horoschak finds the fringe benefit package attractive. Scales is the first black superintendent in College Station, where an all-white board hired him in Riggs initially closed Tuesday's 1994, Young said. Scales previously board meeting with the consultants sei-ved as an area superintendent in in violation of the states Freedom Tulsa, a district of 45,000, and a of Information Act, but he opened it  1,^. r n,-ii I. J on the advice of the boards attorney after the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette teacher, football coach and princi- pal in Oklahoma City. He is a for- mer member of the Oklahoma objected to the private session. Board of Education, appointed by die governor. IBoard hears Lee. 48, left a superintendent's This is the second time since You have to be very cognizant of ...........  --------  ------ the needs of all people. You do that James came to Batesrille in 1993 two seeking LRSDjob job in Mansfield, La., in 1987 for oth- ----------------.'t cl ' er, more profitable endeavors. But with what you do and not what you in 1995 he returned to tlie trenches say,\" Lee said, \"\\ou have to estal\u0026gt; -- -- when he took the Pointe Coupee lish credibility and you do that by thesupenntendentsjobmFajette- job. being very up-fronL no hidden agen- *'\"* ......... Ididitbecauselhadthisempty das. I ve never had a problem with I r--------*------- that whcrever I've gone. that he has been recruited for a job. Last year he was in the running for nlle but withdrew when his mother ' feeling inside that I was not pursu- ing my passion, which is to help See INTERVIEWS, Page 58 Cliiefs from Louisiana, |ntArviow Batesville first of 6 due , He has worked in all levels of ed- lucation. including teacher, coach ' and principal in districts in both Louisiana and Mississippi. He has died just before the interviews. James is paid about $75,000 to oversee a sjstem with 2.300 students After three years of blood. I Little Rock board members said sweat and. yes, tears. the school j after the interviews that both candi- was recognized as a High Perfor- dates were credible and knowledge- mance School by the San Diego ' able about education. Board chair- BY CHRIS REINOLDS AND CYNTHIA HOWELL ARWNSAS DEMOCRAT-OAZETTE  Tlie Little Rock School Board on Wednesday began in earnest its search for a new superintendent, interviewing two candidates for the job  one ftrom Batesrille, a 2,300- student Arkansas district, and another fYom a district of 4,530 students in New Roads, La. The board will interview two more candidates tonight and another two Friday to find a replacement for Don Roberts, who has served one year as an interim chief execu-  Continued from Page 18 people be better at what they do and plan programs in which students cannot only achieve success man John Riggs IV said it could be an advantage that both candidates came Ibom districts smaller than the Little Rock district, because they were more familiar with the total operation of a district than superintendents of l^e districts. \"We're going to have a hard time picking three and then picking one. Riggs said. County Office of Education and then received a California Distinguished School award. James' resume said. James also worked for the San Diego County Office of Education as coordinator of planning and assessment for one year. He said his experience in California included extensive dealings with diverse populations. Before the San Diego position. and a budget of $10.7 million. o---------------------r.------------- When he accepted the Batesrille versity and Mississippi College and job. the district was on the verge of  arim.nic. bankniptcy and distrust was ram- pant among staff, faculty and the community, he said. Enrollment teacher and assistant principal at was declining, the budget was un- '      - - \u0026gt; - - degrees from Mississippi State Uni- a doctorate in educational achninis- tration from Louisiana State University.  The author of the book Tlie Moti- James had 14 years of experience as . Arkansas Democrat (gazette but be more marketable when ffiey voting Admmistraior. Lee has served get out of school. Lee said in a as a conference speaker and consul- lengthy letter last week to a Little tant on school organizational sys- Rock district consultant terns across the country. Lee said both national and state I do not believe that we should teach the best and shoot the rest, test scores had improved in his dis- Lee said. We must proride quality trict through the increased use of a for all students. curriculum aligned with state and At Pointe Coupee. Lee initiated national tests, new technology and ah alternative education program extensive staff training on test-tak- called the School of Hope, which ing strategies. balanced and teacher morale was low. James said he worked with others to return the district to financial stability, added a more comprehensive and relevant training program for teachers and revised the curriculum to make sure students learned what they needed to know a high school in Calexico, Calif. As for applying for the Little Rock job. James said. I love a challenge and this is a monumental one. Little Rock has all the ingredients to be the flagship school district of this state. It takes more than one person to  THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1997  uses a computer-based curriculum He m^es efforts to stay in con- and 35 computers to serve people tact with his community, he said. of 1997^ wants to retire by tlie end gj^gj. dropped out of I call approximately M parents  One of the original .seven randi . ^chool, are on the verge of dropping each week to tell them something dates, John Folte of Oklahoma i out or need updated job skills The good about their children, Lee niii-ciiinffink in 21 program, funded by Formosa Plas- said. He ho ds pub ic forums and of Louisiana, is beins duplicat- Tites a weekly newspaper column ?o^ derE SKE cEunity Questions. aUOn in Little Kock. Th\u0026lt;3 Pninte rniineo ie fi.I XTv nhilnsnnhv ic fhot whon niai-inlft who have either dropped out of before graduating. manage a district and James promotes cooperation amor^ the school board, the community and everyone -----   Doara, me communny ana everyone We were assessing stodente on , improving UMe Rock inae we wpron t tparhinff or ex-  , , ... ____ things weren't teaching exposing them to. he said. Thats education malpractice.\" invoiveu. liiipiovuig uiuc nuiA schools will require mending fences, and that takes time, James said. j Board members hope to narrow the list of semifinalists to three by early next week and call those people back for second interviews. Board members will then visit the top three candidates' home districts before making their final selection by June 22. In spite of the relatively small size of their districts, both candi- The Pointe Coupee district is 65 My philosoplv is that when people percent black and 35 percent white see good things happening, then and has an annual budget of $21 they will support public schools. million. Lees salary is $76,000. Everyone wants to improve but Pointe Coupee, which was operat- hardly anyone wants to change. Lee ing at a half-million-dollar deficit said. \"I take pride in being able to three years ago. has a $1.5 million promote change, but in a way that is surplus this year as the result of acceptable by others. he said, measures such as reducing workers Chjuige cannot be forced, but dates interviewed Wednesday can cite a broad array of experiences.  Ken James, Batesville superintendent, was formerly employed in San Diego and Escondido, Calif, in various administrative jobs before compensation claims. . The Little Rock district enroll- need for it rather, people must be shown a ment 25.66o. has a budget of about James. 46. is a Batesville native $1^ million and in recent years has but spent most his life in C^ifbmia. I paid its superintendents $115,000 He comes from a family of educa- annually plus fringe benefits. tors, but he dreamed at first of be- taking the Batesville job in July 1993. David E. Lee, superintendent of the Pointe Coupee Parish School District near Baton Rouge, is a former depub' of the Louisiana Department of Education and previously operated his own school systems consulting firm. Lees district is operating under coming a major league baseball a' federal school desegregation or- player, der that is about 15 years old. Lee  James has a history degree from said he anticipated asking the court Arkansas State University, which he for release in the near future. He is attended on a baseball scholarship, endorsed by the immediate past He has a masters from Northern president of New Roads chapter of Arizona University and a doctorate the National Association for the Ad- from U.S. International University vancement of Colored People. in San Diego. James also shut down an unneeded elementary school and opened up a new one that had stood vacant for two years. He said the process was difficult but he worked with the communitj'. He describes the district as a mix of mostly white students with 8 percent black enrollment and a 2 percent growing Hispanic population. The relationship between the district and business includes a monthly meeting with James and local business leaders. That partnership has enabled the district to obtain financial support from the local companies. he said. In California. James was assistant superintendent and a high school principal for four years in Escondido, a district of about 10.000 students. The staff and community were in turmoil and uruest when he started at the high school, he said. Many of the nation's urban su- ' perintendents rotate between dis- , tricts every two or three years, and\nthat doesn't help a district James ' said. You can never make substantial , changes, he said. I did not come j back here to do job-hopping. I came  here to do the job and put in the ! time and effort it takes to do the | job. I James is somewhat familiar with J the desegregation case in Little Rock and said the methods used to  address problems might need to be changed and updated. The case has also damaged the district's repuU- tion statewide among school districts, James said. His leadership style is involved and risible, he said. And although he is managing a smaller district than Little Rock, that should not make a difference, he said. There are different magnitudes of problems and different levels of complexitj ... but a school is a school is a school,\" James said.Arkansas Democrat\n^(l\u0026gt;nzcUc ) o THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1997 Superintendent candidate meets LR ffiakers  including Walker I know youve talked to some in- RY CYNTHIA HOWELL I know youve talked to some ings for the superintendent AND SUSAN ROTH chamber of commerce people, but dates wiUi other city group^ in- ARKANSAS DEMfX RAF-uAZF.nE you havent UilRed to us and Uiats a eluding the PTA. the Little Rock Kpn lames the Batesville real omission, Walker said. This Classroom Teachers Association scltoo?superintendent and one of was clearly an effort by the school and the chamber of connnerce, but three candidates for the Little district to keep us out of the toni. S^SS^toS^d^- '\"SXShandandsaid, Ri^ day to his first conversation with I didn't design the process. It's ed U.em all to come here, to the re- John Walker. I didn't design the process. It's ception. The 5 p.m. event was a chance for James and his wife. Sandra, to good to meet you. Walker, an attorney who repre- tW alker th en spo- ke briefly with Co\"unfrJ''dSXS S'io^.nEiffis fv bX leaving meeTtomerSchoopoard memcase Sid who has had a combative the reception at the school district S^m^s'^tl'TuW walker believed that Little Rock political a^d business the School Board had set up meet- ___________ See CANPlUAi b, nage^ Candidate  Continued Irom Page 1B leaders. More than 50 attended, lining up to greet the Jameses. The candidate spoke for a few  minutes, telling the group Uiat he believes the job would be a inonu-mental challenge, but I am firmly convinced that you have all the ingredients if everyone is willing to come to the table and make that happen. It will take a communitywide coalition. . In response lo questions, he said ,be supports neighborhood involve- nient in Uie schools, sees the aiis as an integral part of the curriculum .and would favor a more focused character development curriculum. Bob Morgan, a school supporter , .-r ) ' scnoui huppvicvi PriiM-inal Mona Briqqs (with back to camera) talks and former employee of tlie federal Pulaski gg superintendent of the Batesville School District, nOmffizcpe ooff TDleossecgerreeggaattiioonn MMoonniittoorriinngg,, ggnma, during a lour of Lillie Rock campuses. He is one of three tasked James how he would handle tlie distiicts uncoinfoilable position !as the target of animosity in education circles tlirougliout Uie slate.  Morgan pointed out Uiat Batesville was one of 211 school districts Uiat sued Little Kock over stale funding because of a perception 'that Little Rock gets more than its J Arkansas Democtal-Gazelle/CHRIS JOHNSON VVMV, OoHMi a, * I * * lor the Little Rock superiolendent s post. does. But he said that came about recently alter voters approved a 1 mill tax increase dedicated lor lech- ''\"SumXplioii. .lames met , finalists Principal Vernon Smith Jr. talked lllllCiptii yciiiwK about a new instnictional approacn the schools staif will Uy next lall. UpUidLli*^ OV41WV, -  mciited Principal Sharon liroolK on the liitiiM.j I-- building and questioned her ahoui the success the school has had in raising student test scores. At Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Magnet Elementary, the di.stncts newest school, Janies mai-veled al the high shine on the hallway iioois. .1 , I... .i.w\u0026lt;i..z\\zi 11 l or-national Eleuien- Stability and needs in this district, Janies said al 'sliare. . ,   Of the 311 districts in the state. '^Ihave animosity toward Little\nRpck, James acknowledged. The answer is mending fences. That is a key^ssue across the state. Fhis dis-trict has been isolated unto itself.... - -------------- We have to address perceptions similarly, he admired Gibbs Intcr-y/ hether theyre real or not. I want national Studies Magnet Elemen-to work with you, but not witli the at- School. iCitude that we dont need anyone stability leadership m-e else out there. , , James at Earlier, James toured schools end of the school tour. But, to and met community members  - - \u0026gt; .oh.my nerr at tlie Terrace restaurant in west Little Kock. This is like dating. You want U) put your best foot foi-ward, sanl board member Pal Gee, referring to the board. , , . So tills is our second date, Ken James replied as the rest of the board members laughed. James. 46, was bom in Batesville and lived there until he was 9 y^ars old. Then his family moved to Cali-enu oi lilt stiivui vMit*. Thesonofajumorhightea^r lesi, uitn UI ...... , wKia ----- wwaanntt uto s'ayJ  .i.t..'.s.. .t..i..m....e... .t..o... .g...e...t. .o. .n with tiiQd with the School Board. what we are here for. 1 here is only 4miny superintendent o goi,jg i,, happen, Tr,_11___ Qfhnu that d, o :iit c..o..IlIl.ec.Itii.v,zerlhyl, bbyildl ^( ' a coalition and make it happen. James ol-and met commuiiiiy n.u..u. me, the greatest neeu is oi j of a iunior high teacher Wednesday as he and Uie School (.ommunity and getting . administrator. Janies also was a j^oald continued their courtship. players to the table and saying,   pi incipal, prin- \u0026lt;i3esides the tours and a publ c |,.,vc been throui^li x superintendent teception, .lames spent Wednesday immber of years of wliatevei adjei- 1.  -.i become su , Ijiedting with retiring Supeinitcn- want to use  turmoil, tin-  ,,, San Diego County dent Don Roberts\ntlie sc lool dis^ |. siability, whatever you PJ: ' R\"' selected as superin-tnits attorney, Chris Heller\nand ,yan say-it's time to get on will eS,els h, 1^  tiy with the School Board. what we are here for There is only tendcut ol schools in i J)nimy Scales, supeniilendent of gig to haiipeu, and in IIW.!. the'iCollege Station, Texas, school gi^t is if we do it collectively, build  .,(xi students'Little Rock distlict will go a coalition and make it happen ' net ^\"n i. bout 50 routine today. Leslie Cannne su- ja,cs said Batesville schools of- has .^,1^ siuuci perhitendent of WiUiita 1'alls, fer tlicir students more advanced ,t-X Te\n^, schools is scheduled for h ri- systems than Little Rock dents $n5.000 in \u0026gt;____ _____ -^Roard inembers plan to visit tlie tone districts of the candidates qsm week and pick a new duel ex-ettilive around June 22. X*Accompanied by School Board nSe^ber Judy Magness, James, who hA\u0026amp;een Batesville superintendent TofTour years, visited five\nschools jWe3nesday, introducing himsell to ptincipals and assistant principals who were still in the buildings. \u0026gt;V'^t Forest Heights Junior High, Janies joked about the hot-pink wa-t^ fiun in the principals ollice\n1 ^ee\u0026amp;ou have standard junior high ^qippment. Later, he nodded as Arkansas Democrat i'^OrtZcllc X.  SUNDAY, JUNE 22, 1997  Wholl guide LR schools? Board meets today BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Tlie Little Rock School Board is . divided going into tonights scheduled selection of a new superintendent, but not to the point of fighting about the two finalists. Board and community members have said either would serve the district of 25,000 well. The candidates are Leslie V. Gamine, superintendent of Wichita Falls, Texas, public schools, and T. Kenneth James, Batesnlle School District superintendent Jim Scales, superintendent at College Station, Texas, and the only black finalist, witlidrew more than a week ago, saying the Little Rock job is fraught with more difficulties than he cares to face. John Riggs IV, board president said he expects the first item of business of the 6 p.m. meeting will Superintendent amount. Gamine heads a district of 15,000 students and earns $105,000  Continued from Page 1A annually. James heads a district of violate the .Arkansas Freedom of In- 2.300 students and makes ^5.000. formation Act , One state-level educator who knows both candidates and IS not Gee and Sue Strickland trav- ------------------- eled to Wichita Falls to question directly connected to the LitUe residents about Gamine. Magness Rock district said Gamine, oo. and Riggs spent a day in Batesville probably is the more impressive -   -    candidate on paper. He has been a superintendent in two districts for a total of 16 years, most recently in a district of 15.000 students that is be a discussion of information i about tlie candidates collected i over the past two weeks. i Earlier this month, tlie seven board members took turns escort- i ing tlie candidates to functions in : Little Rock, For example, Judy I Magness took the candidates to i visit schools. Katlierine Mitchell  sat in on the conversations each 1 candidate had with Interim Super- ! intendent Don Roberts, and Pat And while James has only four years' experience as superintendent in a small, rural district, he has worked as a school administrator in urban Southern Galifomia. Gamines references include the Boston superintendent in who once was superintendent in San Diego, and former Little Rock School Board president Skip Gee accompanied the candidates to luncheons with the districts top achninistiators. Last week, board members visited tlie finalists home districts, altliough a similar mission when the board hired a Syracuse, N.Y., candidate in 1993 provoked a stem warning from then-PuIaski County Prosecuting Attorney Mark Stodola that the trip appeared to See SUPERINTENDENT, Page 16A to gather information on James. Riggs said the board may vote to hire someone tonight, but likely will merely select its first and second preferences, delajnng the vote until Monday or Tuesday night. In that case, he will contact the candidates in 1-2 order to ask whether operating under a federal school desegregation order. But James. 46. is articulate and knowledgeable about instructional matters, said the observer, who thev will accept. The selected can-   didate may want time to consider spoke on condition of anonwin. Rutherford. Riggs said Friday the board is divided over the candidates. Other board members confirmed that privately, but they would not say which members favor which candidates. \"Either of the candidates will be excellent, Strickland said. \"We can't lose. his decision. The person hired will succeed Roberts, who has served as interim superintendent since last August. Roberts. 62. has said he wants to retire and that the district needs a chief executive who can stay in the job at least four or five years. Roberts has offered to continue to suy on a few months to help with transition. replaced Roberts Henrj- Williams, who left after three years to become superintendent in Kansas City. Mo. In the decade before Williams, the district had five superintendents and two interim superintendents. Roberts and Williams both earned $115,000 a year, plus benefits. The new superintendent is ex- pecteci to be paid a similarDcinocral WtOazdlr *   SUNDAY, JUNE 22, 1997  Batesville man\nChanging lives is teachers task James  Cootiiiued Irotn Pago lA throw in eight or 10 and lell.s BY CYNTHIA IKJWl'LL ARKANSAS DLMIX RA I -(iAZ). 111-\nBATESVJLIJC  T. Kennelh Janies, Balesville School District superintendent and one of two ti-nali. sLs for the .superintendents job in Little Kock, sports a gold starfish lapel pin. Its a reminder for him and bis stall that they can change the lives of children. He tells this story: A boy walks along the beach, sailing .starfish back into the ocean. This other guy sees him him, You cant j .starfish. Tin* Ixiy ave all the .says, 'No. I know that. But for every one 1 throw bm.-k, Ivi' made a difler-enc(!.  I he analogy for educalion, of .course, is that for every child that we touch, we make a difference. 'J'hree years ago, every Bales- .yille faculty member got a .starfish pin and a copy of the sl.o-iiieiiiher ,ry a.s part of a training program. ,Tjie pins were to serve as catalysts for the redesign of the 2,168 student district in the Ozark Mountain foothills. But.James, not Ihe jewelry, i.s Atknusnr. bciiKx\ntal-G.azellC'CKniS JOHNSON See JAM^, Pago 16A j the catalyst for educalion innovation in the \u0026lt;listricl he ha.s su Ken James ' - ______ -.E- ' pervi.sed sinct* 1993. Now he and members of Ihe rJItle Bock School Board are try ing to decide whether lii.s skills can be applied a.s well in a capital city district more than 10 lipies the size of Balesville. Mary Faulkenherry, a junior high English teacher and presi- .clent of tlie Batesville Education . Association, calls .James a co.s moimlile  a citizen of the world. He would be comfortable in an igloo or in the While House, she said. Some people teasingly refer to him a.s Malibu Ken because of his California background. But the most common assessmcnl is that he is financially cautious and work.s too hard. 1 know he starts work early. Central Elementary Principal Joyce Richey said one day last : week. He called me at 7:30 this Kenneth James, picluiod wilh his wile ol 10 yonis. Sandia, believes that lor eveiy lilo cducalois touch, \"we make a dillcieuce.\" Evidence of James influence on Ihr? llalesvillo School Disliict since taking over as supenntendent in 1993 includes H\nilesvillr? 11th-giaik'is last year scoiing among the top schools on the sInUf now hiqh school oxaiii. gai hli and ptx'school cenler, and the new Eagle Mountain Elemenlary finally opened. District nuances improved al though the enrollment of just over 2,11)0 ha.s not really recovered from stmhml migrations it promoted. In 1991), the district had 2,475 students. In 1995, it was 2,28\u0026lt;{, aeeording lo figures from Ihe Arkansa.s Department of Ed-yXbsent were the television lights and cameras and (he disputes common al Little Bock board meetings. Tlie districts award winning boys' soccer club and girls' sollball team, which won a slate championship, were honored, dames helped establish the girls sport and attended some of the games in Pine Blulf. 'Ihe board Ihcti zippeil ucation. Wilh a Innlget of about tluough its list of business items. $10.7 million, Ilie di.strict will end this year wilh about $900,1)00 in the bank. All teachers got in eremcntal raises for experience in recent years. The dist\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_790","title":"Summer school","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1989/2004"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School management and organization","School superintendents","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning"],"dcterms_title":["Summer school"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/790"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nAssociate for Instruction to the Deputy superintendent REPORTS to\nDeputy Superintendent JOB goal\nTo assist the Deputy Superintendent in the task of providing leadership, support, and direction in the area of instruction by providing building principals with a vehicle to more effectively utilize the division of instruction to improve teaching and learning. This will be accomplished at the direction of the Deputy Superintendent through staff development, school improvement, inservice education, safety and security, development of programs, and allocation of resources. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES\n1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Attends Board of Directors' meetings, as necessary, and prepares such reports for the Board as the Deputy Superintendent may request. Serves as the chief advisor to the Deputy Superintendent pertaining to instruction. Serves as a member of the Superintendent's Cabinet. Monitors instruction K-12. Works with Educational Programs staff and principals to determine educational program priorities and goals for the district and schools. Provides leadership and support to assistant supertindents for schools operations and to principals so that they can conduct effective building level needs assessments. Assumes responsibility for conducting the personnel evaluation of personnel as may be assigned by the Deputy Superintendent. Assumes responsibility for assisting the Assistant Superintendents for school Operations, Educational Programs staff and principals to encourage and involve community, staff and students, when appropriate, in decision making related to educational programs and instruction.PU^E POST .JTTI.K KOCK SCHOOL DISTRlCi 810 WE.9T MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 PI .EASE POM April 6, 1989 rhG Little Rock School District is ing position for the 1989-90 now accepting applications for the fol I school year\now - POSITION: Deputy Superintendent QUALIFICATIONS: Minimum of a master's degree\ndoctorate preferred. 1. 2. tion from the State of Arkansas. certificate m school adnlnlstra- 3. High personal and professional integrity. 4. Successful setting. experience as an administrator in an integrated urban 5. Strong management credentials in the area of finance operations, and long range planning.  personnel, 6. Demonstrates an administrative style which is flexible preceptive of the views of others. rrexioie ) open, and 7. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality integrated education. REPORTS TO\nSuperintendent JOB GOAL\n( __________   ^dtlCStlOnsl phi 10 S OOhv 205]? u J. 3 that directly benefl? each indiyiduil on a constant, ongoing basis, the translation of the dis- SALARY\nAnnual twelve (12) month contract comms responsibilities plus benefits package. commensurate with experience and EVALUATION: Performance of this position will be evaluated orovi o -47 t\"yannually in accordance Personnel?  policy on Evaluation with the of Administrative DEADLINE FOR RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS: Apr I I 21, 1989Pago Two (2) Deputy Superintendent SEND LETTERS OF INQUIRY TO: Harold Webb Associates Attention: 525 Winnetka Avenue Suite 1 Houston Conley (Little Rock) Winnetka, Ill. 60090 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: qualifications, application setting forth in detail personal interest in the position, experience, reasons for and most significant accomplishments as a school administrator. Send current resume and a list of four personal references who can be contacted including names, titles, addresses and telephone numbers. Request that your university credentials be sent to Harold Webb Associates. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYERLittle Rock School District January 7, 1992 a sOSl Ml J7=5n n Mrs. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 JAN 1 5 OuiCu Cl 'ioi'idcnng Dear Mrs. Brown: The Board of Directors will Superintendent of Schools to succeed Dr. soon begin searching for Cl Ruth Steele, who new has announced her plans to retire at the end of this school year. The nationwide search will be conducted by co-consultants, Jan Cummings, president of C-Net\nand Susan Jernigan of Sockwell \u0026amp; Anderson. Ms. Cummings and Ms. Sockwell will be in Little Rock on January 17 and 18 to gather information about the school district and the type of individual the community wants the Board to employ. To that end, the co-consultants and Board members have scheduled private meetings with groups closely associated with the school district to receive information concerning the qualifications, both personal and professional, superintendent of schools. that the community desires in a You and your staff are cordially invited to attend a meeting with the co-consultants and Board members on Saturday, January 18 at 1p.m. to share your thoughts. This meeting will be conducted in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 810 West Markham Street. This will be an informal, roundtable discussion, so please feel free to dress casually. Sincerely, O. G. Jacovelli, President J Board of Directors J- 810 West Marhham Street Little Roch, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-2000May 5, 1992 Ms. Pat Gee Arkansas State Highway Dept. 10324 Interstate 30 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 Dear Ms. Gee: As taxpayers in the Little Rock School District, we feel that now is the time for the Little Rock School Board to deal effectively with the needs of the district as well as being sensitive to the needs of the majority of the patrons of the district. The Board must hire an African American Superintendent. It is because of the current high rate of failure for African American students in the Little Rock School District that we support the hiring of an African American Superintendent. There are many factors which have resulted in this very high statistic. Realizing that all of the blame does not belong to the schools, the schools must share some of the responsibility for this problem. There have not been programs or directed curriculum which have dealt with the problems of our children effectively. The fact that the district is 68% African American is a most prevalent statistic which should be considered in the hiring of a Superintendent. We need a Superintendent who can relate to the majority complexion of the district, as well as addressing the most urgent needs of our educational system. At this time, the hiring of a Superintendent who can alleviate our problems and bring our district into focus is most imperative. You must consider the most urgent needs of the district, as well as doing what is best to bring the majority on equal standards as the minority. For too long, the School Board has addressed the needs of the minority and neglected the needs of the majority. The solution for a district such as ours demands special cons ideration. You must consider the fact that African-Americans represent the majority of students in the Little Rock School District, and black patrons and students should be given special consideration in light of the years of neglect. Very truly yours.1. 2 . 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. Patron's List 9 10, 11V 12 . 13. 14 . 15. 16. ( 17. 18 . 19 . 20. 21. 22 . 23 . 24 . 25. - H2 /z I i 1 I  '. iRECEIVED MAR 1 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTER DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. Wed U.S.OISTHICTCOURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS DEPENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. - \\ -co:\nJ 7 J INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. :7r3, CLERK INTERVENORS Ey:. D.-.CL\nMOTION TO REQUIRE THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DEFINE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SUPERINTENDENT'S CONTRACT AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OR PROMISED BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS TO SAID CONTRACT The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move the Court to require the Little Rock School District to set forth the terms and conditions of the employment contract between it and Superintendent Cloyde \"Mac\" Bernd. Although that contract is a public matter, the public records regarding same are uncertain. The Joshua Intervenors also request that the Little Rock School District disclose whether it has entered into an contractual arrangement or other arrangement with any group of private citizens to supplement the pay of Mr. Cloyde \"Mac\" Bernd. Joshua is concerned that where private money is paid to public officials without there being public accountability, the public officials may be subject to undue influence of their private benefactors. In this case, the private benefactors, on information and belief. are a group of wealthy citizens from the business sector of the community which is historically all white, but is now tokenly integrated by the presence of black businessman. The School District has a a /7\u0026lt;^/the community and to do the bidi opposition to the more legitimat school children. The Joshua i because the school district, in superintendent's position, did nc $50,000.00 supplement to the pay private group. This factor may h 6 in Lty ist\nhe a by .on of the school board's first cht ird members Jacovelli and one other-of a person of African American descent who rejected the position. The Joshua Intervenors contend that there was a different offer made to that person than to the Superintendent Bernd and that this constitutes a further act of discrimination in addition to being without appropriate legal authority by the school board. WHEREFORE, premises considered. the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the court to have the school district of Little Rock set forth the terms of the offers made to Superintendent Bernd and to applicant Williams from Syracuse, New York for the position of Superintendent\nto advise whether the district entered into a private arrangement with the group known as \"Fifty for the Future\" to supplement the pay of any person employed by the Little Rock School District and the terms and writings thereof\nand to determine the extent to which payments have been made by Fifty for the Future to Cloyde \"Mac\" Bernd, or on his behalf. Respectfully submitted. the community and to do the bidding of those interests often in opposition to the more legitimate interests and needs of minority school children. The Joshua interest is also being manifest because the school district, in soliciting applications for the superintendent's position, did not disclose that there would be a $50,000.00 supplement to the pay of the superintendent selected by private group. This factor may have been decisive in the decision of the school board's first choice-without the votes of board members Jacovelli and one other-of a person of African American descent who rejected the position. The Joshua Intervenors contend that there was a different offer made to that person than to the Superintendent Bernd and that this constitutes a further act of discrimination in addition to being without appropriate legal authority by the school board. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Joshua Intervenors respectfully request the court to have the school district of Little Rock set forth the terms of the offers made to Superintendent Bernd and to applicant Williams from Syracuse, New York for the position of Superintendent\nto advise whether the district entered into a private arrangement with the group known as \"Fifty for the Future K to supplement the pay of any person employed by the Little Rock School District and the terms and writings thereof\nand to determine the extent to which payments have been made by Fifty for the Future to Cloyde \"Mac\" Bernd, or on his behalf. Respectfully submitted.By: JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (5 w. 72206 Walker, Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel,,sn thi February, 1993. n W. Walker11 RCEjVED D MAY 2 5 1993 Office of Desegregation Mcnitcnng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 2 1 1993 Ci,Ml \u0026gt;X LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER There are pending before the Court numerous motions filed by the Joshua Intervenors. Some of the motions have been responded to\nothers have not. In reviewing the motions, it appears to the Court that the motion for hearing on the PCSSD's proposed -i  reorganization filed May 20, 1992 [Doc. #1597] and the motion for extension of time to submit statement of costs and fees filed August 17, 1992 [Doc. #1657] are moot. It also seems, considering the motion. response, and subsequent monitoring report on the North Little Rock High School cheerleaders and drill team, that the issue of the cheerleaders and drill team at the NLR High School-West Campus filed July 20, 1992 [Doc. #1637] has been resolved and that motion is moot. The Joshua motion for extension of time to respond filed August #1655] is also moot. 13, 1992 [Doc. It further appears to the Court, in light of the fact that no response or further pleadings have been filed, that the following motions are moot and are denied as such: 1. Motion to intervene and for preliminary injunction 4 concerning the selection of cheerleaders at Pulaski Heights Junior High School filed June 24, #1622]\n1992 [Doc. 2. Motion for Defendants PCSSD and NLRSD to make adjustments in their school lines to comply with one man - one vote principles of 14th amendment and Voting Rights Act filed August 17, 1992 [Doc. #1658]\nresponses filed August 28, 1992 [Doc. #1665 \u0026amp; #1666]\n3. Motion to compel the LRSD to consult with Joshua and other parties prior to making desegregation plan alterations which require court approval filed February 2, 1993 [Doc. #1745]\n4. Motion to require the LRSD to define the terms and conditions of the superintendent's contract and to determine whether payments have been made or promised by private individuals to said contract filed February 26, 1993 [Doc. #1764]\nMotion for further relief regarding employment of unqualified persons in major administrative positions filed March 16, 1993 [Doc. #1777]\n5. Also before the Court is a motion by the LRSD for an extension of time to file its plan for the construction of the Stephens Interdistrict School filed September 3, 1992 [Doc. #1673]. That motion is moot because the LRSD filed the Stephens School plan on September 8, 1992. The Clerk is directed to remove the above motions from the pending motions report. The Court has stated in the past that it expects the parties to confer in good faith on issues in dispute and to consult the monitor in an attempt to resolve their differences without the intervention of the Court. While many of the motions brought before the Court in this case involve issues requiring Court approval, others concern disputes that could be resolved by a good -2-faith effort at communication and cooperation. In the future, the Court will require that those motions contain a statement that the parties have conferred in good faith and that the issue cannot be resolved without the intervention of the Court. In addition, the Court expects the parties to comply with Local Rule 20 concerning the filing of briefs in support of motions. SO ORDERED this day of May, 1993. UNITED JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET 9HffiT M COMFUIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ON -3-e Dear Mrs. Ann Brown: June 25, 1993 JUL 1 1993 Ofiice of Dessgregation Wo: i.g I have worked as a volunteer in the LRSD for many years. I have a son at Central High School and two children who are graduates of Central. My two graduates have been admitted and are attending very prestigious colleges with academic scholarships due to the quality education they received in the LRSD. I am deeply concerned with the fate of our district and the selection of top administrators for superintendent and associate superintendent. Many other patrons are concerned about the stability of the LRSD which seems to be getting worse instead of better. I sat with a group of parents this past weekend who discussed growing concerns about moving their children to private schools if competent educationally centered leaders are not selected to run the LRSD. The discussion began focusing on the lack of knowledge of the present Superintendent in knowing the background of people in the present administration who are secretly pushing to be recommended as interim superintendent. These concerns originated from several patrons of Forest Park Elementary School as well as myself, who were asked to support the recommendation of Forest Park's former principal as interim superintendent or associate superintendent to the school board. Arma Hart. This past principal is For those of us who know Ms. Hart's self serving nature, we were outraged to know that she is being secretly considered for one of the top administrative positions. We became aware of this woman's manipulative techniques when she used some influential patrons to promote her personal agendas while disregarding the true education needs of our children. In various social settings she has reminded people of how the best qualified person was not chosen for the Desegregation Monitoring Office. She indicated how friendships and the desire to keep the power in certain circles kept her from being selected for the Desegregation Monitor's position. She has said the LRSD would definitely be forced to comply with the desegregation plan if a competent and qualified person was in charge, continues to unrelentlesSly push for power by supplying inaccurate information to uninformed people in strategic She positions that will promote her agendas. She pretends to support causes that these people believe in, in order to gain their confidence and support. Mrs. Hart has, again, seized the opportunity to take advantage of the disarray in the top administrative vacancies in the district to promote her own agenda of gaining power without regard for the needs of our children.  Mrs. Brown, there are people who have found Mrs. Hart difficult to work with and are fearful of this woman's unrelenting push for power to gain control. Even concerns have been voiced from certain Pulaski County administrators about remaining top administrators left in our district as possible candidates that they hope will not be placed as interim Superintendent, Mrs. Hart's name led the list. We are hoping that someone who was familiar with Mrs. Hart's professional background would listen and act upon this information before Mrs. Hart's name is recommended publicly. If her name is mentioned publicly, that obnoxious John Walker would find another means to discredit our district publicly with another discrimination accusation. This action would cause more disarray and more tax paying patrons may choose to leave our district. cc: Mr. Riggs Mrs. GeeRECE-' CONTINGENCY COMMITTEE REPORT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT JULY 18, 1996 r ti'irid JUL 1  5 ' - - - d Office a Deaeflregasion Monitc\n. Rett Tucker and Roosevelt Brown, Co-chairmen Debbie Glasgow, Marian Lacey, Betty Mitchell, Skip Rutherford, John Walker Members of the School Board and citizens of Little Rock, my name is Rett Tucker and I am Co-chairman of the Contingency Committee approved by this Board earlier this year. Other members, who are present, include Co-chairman Dr. Roosevelt Brown, PTA Council President Debbie Glasgow, Mann Principal Marian Lacey, CTA President Betty Mitchell, fomier school board president Skip Rutherford and attorney John Walker. On behalf of Dr. Brown, let me begin by thanking the Board for putting your confidence and trust in us. We also want to thank thQ committee members for their dedication and hard work. We met numerous times in the spring and put together the framework of a contingency plan in the event it was needed. We have had almost perfect attendance at every meeting. We took this assignment very seriously. We considered it an honor and an opportunity to participate in this very important process. We resolved from the beginning that we would put our differences aside and work toward consensus. When we were notified Sunday that Dr. Williams was going to Kansas City, we were prepared. To finalize our recommendations, we have met every day this week and now come before you with a recommended plan of action. 1This plan comes to you with our unanimous support. In fact, I must say that our committee-with strong wills, strong personalities, strong views and all the diversity we prize in Little Rocknever once had a split vote and never met an issue that we didnt resolve in a civil and thoughtful way. I have been part of many committees both personally and professionally, but this one has represented the best and most gratifying experience Ive ever had. Lets clarify first what we did not do. Although there has been a great deal of speculation, we did not consider the selection of a permanent Superintendent. That was not our assignment. We do believe, however, that this is a very important decision in its own risht because it comes at such a critical time. We focused on the short-term, although we define short-term as one to two years. Tonight, we have two major recommendations. Our first deals with getting through the next several days and weeks. In this regard, we congratulate Dr. Williams on his new position and wish him well. We thank him for his leadership and his service. This is a tough job. We recognize that and appreciate all he has done. Although Dr. Williams will remain on the payroll until September 1, we know that he will be spending a great deal of his time, his talent and his energy-as he should-on Kansas City and the future. 2While he will still be a very valuable resource for this school district, we propose-from tomorrow through August 14, the formation of a five-person management team which would report directly to the Board. This team would operate in the same spirit that our Contingency Committee has operated: successfiilly addressing a short-term assignment. We spent a great deal of time and thought on the membership of this team. We looked for people with experience, with dedication and who had the energy to take on extra assignments. We recommend the following individuals: Dr. Victor Anderson would serve as the daily operations officer.' He bitings a wealth of experience as a principal, an administrator and, more importantly. as a person who is recognized as both a consensus builder and a team player. He would be in charge of day to day administration. Joining him on the team will be Sadie Mitchell, a former teacher, a former principal, and now an administrator, who has worked very closely with the elementary schools. Also, Jodie Carter, the principal of McClellan High School, who from first hand experience understands both the challenges and the opportunities of our senior high schools. Sadie will be in charge of all elementary schools and Jodie will have the responsibility for the senior high schools. The two other members come from our Contingency Committee. Let me add that neither sought a position on the team. In fact, both had to be drafted. 3Marian Lacey is the principal of Mann Junior High School. She is a principals principal and was such a positive voice on our committee. Marian knows the junior highs and her outstanding record at Mann speaks for itself. She will focus on all aspects of the junior high schools. Skip Rutherford, the only non-educator on the team, understands the school board better than most. He served on the Board from 1987 to 1991, as its president in 1989 and 1990 and coordinated two victorious millage campaigns. He will supervise communication and student assignments and will serve without pay. All of these members will continue to perform their current responsibilities. Marian Lacey will still be the principal at Mann and Jodie Carter will still be the principal at McClellan. Skip Rutherford will still work at Cranford Johnson Robinson Woods. Vic Anderson and Sadie Mitchell will still be district administrators. All of them, however, for the good of the district, will work on the management team which means extra duty and long hours for each of them. Please note that all four educators are or have been successful principals and the non-educator is a former school board member and president The team is experienced. It needs to be because much will be happening over the next four weeks-including the opening and beginning of school. We simply cant put this district on hold for that time period. This professional team addresses that issue. 4The second part of our recommendation relates to the position of Interim Superintendent. We considered many people and possibilities. We listened to board members and to interested citizens. We wanted to recommend someone who could provide effective, steady, experienced leadership\nsomeone with local tics who understands Little Rock, Arkansas and state school funding\nsomeone who could help this district and the Board in its search for a permanent Superintendent. We believe we have found that person. Tonight, we unanimously recommend to you. Dr. Don Robens-the former Director of the Arkansas Department of Education and the former Assistant Superintendent of the Little Rock School District.-Dr. Roberts is an Arkansas native and was educated at Henderson State and the University of Arkansas. He served as State Education Director during the administrations of both Governor Bill Clinton and Governor Erank White. He has been a successful Superintendent in three urban school districts. We recommend him to you as Interim Superintendent for a minimum of one year and a maximum of two. This will give you the time, the breathing room and the opportunity to find the best Superintendent possible. As we know from experience, finding a Superintendent is not always a quick process. Dr. Roberts can and will help you in the search. He is 61 years old and retired in 1994 after seven years as Superintendent of the Eort Worth School District. This is a district with 72,000 students and 9,000 employees. Since that time, he has been doing consulting work with school districts across the country. 5He loves Little Rock, loves Arkansas, knows Little Rock and knows Arkansas. We sought him out for this position. He has always been dedicated to high quality desegregated education and seeks to build cooperation across racial lines. He is known as a person who keeps his word and works in good faith. He is an educator, an administrator and, we believe, a healer. He did not seek the job. We went after him. Dr. Roberts can be here tomorrow to meet with you individually and as a group. He can be in Little Rock and on the job no later than Ausust 15. I We also recommend the following\nWhen Dr. Roberts arrives on August 15, the management team will become an advisory team to him. Dr. Roberts would, of course, take over the day to day operations, but we envision the advisory team helping him on both a regular and as-needed basis. Their assistance in this transition will be invaluable. As I noted earlier, we believe Dr. Roberts should be given a one- year contract with the possibility of another year if needed. He has indicated he is not interested in the full-time Superintendents position, but, again, that subject is a matter for the Board to discuss at the appropriate time. We believe his compensation package should be comparable to that of Dr. Williams. 6Dr. Roberts said it is extremely important to him that the citys leadership, the business community and other groups come together in support of the public schools. We've seen a sreat deal of that happening already and tonight we have with us Mayor Dailey, other elected officials, city leaders, school patrons, parents and interested citizens who are here in support of quality desegregated public education in our city. As chairman of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, I can pledge to Dr. Roberts, the board, and the management team, the Chambers continued support. The next two Chamber Chairmen, Doug Buford and Janet Jones, are here to back me up. Finally, and this is very important\nto provide tfiis district with stability as it works its way through some difficult problems and prepares for the 21st century, our colleague and fellow committee member John Walker, has agreed-in good faith-to a two-year moratorium on initiating any new legal action against the school district related to the settlement agreement. Dr. Roberts expressed reservations to our committee about accepting a position in a district embroiled in litigation and controversy. This offer was made by Mr. Walker to Dr. Roberts because of Dr. Roberts past record in the Little Rock School District and the State Department of Education. This means that the Board, Dr. Roberts and the employees in the District, for the first time in almost 40 years, can concentrate totally and fully on educating our children and on implementing and, if necessary, modifying the current desegregation plan and getting out of court. 7These are our recommendations. We believe they serve as a sound and reasonable short-term plan. We also believe they serve as a new beginning for the district and a bridge to the future. It is amazing what we can accomplish when we work together. Madame President and members of the Board, the Contingency Committee respectfully requests your approval of these recommendations. Havina discharaed our duties and responsibilities, we have concluded our assignment and will disband as a committee following tonights meeting. We thank you for this opportunity to serve our school district and our citv. Dr. Brown and I as well as members of the committee available to answer any questions you might haye. are now Thank you. C:\\wpwin6 l\\wpdocsUucker\\SupenntendeRL78 8@002 002 810 \\Sest Nlu-rkbiitn Stv I Ic Kock, .\"8'3 2.i '9\" 14:41 .ini ,324 202\n* I.RSD COM'li XrCATl fWM 602 004 'nBain4|aais^ fditKaUtU^ imOKn^ Little Kock School District .iJTTLE ROCK TO BEGIN SEARCH LOR PERMAuNENT SOPER INTET^ENT March 2.5. 19.97 boi Immediate Release tor more information Snellen Vann, 324-.2ri2(j The Littie Rock School District will begin its search for a permanent superhiteQaent m the next few weeks, according to Dr. Don Roberts, interim suoennteadent. who will assist the school board in the search process. \"Wtien I rerarned to Littie R.ock as interim superintendent in August, I pledged to help better position the district so that it could recruit ar, outstanding permanent superintendent and to assist in that recruiting effort.\" Dr. Roberts said. \"I am now centident Uttls ftoc.k can and will attract several quality applicants, and I will work very closely with the boai'd until the new' superintendent is on tlie job and is famihar with the .districts operation\n\"We knew Dr. Roberts would be here in a hill-time role for an interim rime,\" sai.d John PJggs. president of the school board 'But whai a terrific leader and eo.mmunicator he ha.s beer.\" i'liiore) 810 West Markham Street Little Kock. Arkansas 72201  (.50.1)32.4-2000   (W 97 4:42 .-lO) 324 2023 I.RSD COM'II \\ 1 CATf ODV Ei003 004 LR.SD Superintendent Search Rage 2 of 3 \"He has unified our boar d, strengthened our district and uplifted our community.\" Riggs said. \"He will now assist us in locating his pennanent successc\u0026gt;r and will continue to work With us on a consulung basis. In many ways, this may be the best of both worlds. Both Dr. Roberts and JRiggs said the riming was right to begin the search tor a permanent superintendent. If we wait any longer,\" Riggs said, \"the good candidates will be signing contracts elsewhere,'' \"We hope to have the new superintendent in place this summer so that ne or she will nave .several months as superintendent-designate to work with Dr. Roberts If Riggs adaed. \"It the search goes weii. a.s vze e.xpect, Dr. Roberts will step down as superintendent sometime before the end iif the year.\" Rett J ucker, immediate pant chakman ot the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce who co-chaired the district's contingency committee which recommended Dr. Roberts interim appointment, said, \"Ilie transidon is working exactly as we had hoped. Ur. Roberts has done a superb job, and I am grateful he will continue to help the Little Rock School District mov fonvard.\" Riggs said he has asked school board members Dr. Kaiherine Mitchell and Larry Beridey to wo: with Dr. Roberts in coordinating an.d recomn-iending the superintendent selection process. Riggs .-iaid he anticipated the district retainiiig a national search firm. (more) 0.3, 25 97 14-43 SC.l 324 2023 I RS!) f'iniMi \\rc4Ti ODM 1^004^ 004 LRSD Supeimnendent Searci? Hage J cif 3 L'nder Dr. Roberts leadership, the .Little .Rock School District was granted a nine molitli monncnum from federal court monitoring. The district, folio wing Dr. Roberts recomrr.endauon. has established school and community work team.s to m.3ke recoromeiidalions m the areas of student assigEment\neumculum, school revitalization\ndiscipline and alternative education\nleader.sh.ip and staff development, technology\nincentive schools and classroom-coramiinip.' links Dr. Roberts has committed to as ist foe district through rhe nine month process of recommending change.s in the district destgieganon pian to the coimt. \"While foere is always work to os 'lone and improvement to be made in education, Dr. Roberts saio, ['m ver\n- proud that the Little Rock Schoo) District continues to ourpertorm other urban dislricts and to set the pace in Arkansas when, it comes to National Merit and National Achievement Semifjnali.5ts as well as numerous other .academic and athletic competitions. Dr. Roberts sard he and his family would continue to 1 iI'e in the central Arkansas area and mat he would be available to the school district on an as-needed basis in the liiture.11 S\"'' T EY: 4- 7-9' : lb ISAM :.jA RiCGS LiTTLE RXK- -3013710100\n# 2/ 2 April 3, 1997 rMaiiic Addresji Cits. State .Zip \u0026gt; ht. Luue Rock Sciiool D.islrict Board of Directoi's is beginning the search for a new supermuinderu As pa/ t of the seiechon process, the Board is forming a C\n(izefis ' d'u.soiy foimmttee. T OU have lieen nonunated to serve as a member on the Citizens Advisory \u0026lt;. oi!Hnntee, The charge of Viis cominittee is to generate a list of qualifies and characteristics that the cominittee feels are essentia) for potential superintendent eandidates The work of the committee will be completed in one 3-bour meeting. i he comraitwc will meet Rom 6:00 p.rri. to 9\n00 p,n. on Tuesiiay, April 15*''' in (he i.V oai j Room of die .Administration Biuiding, 81.0 West Markham A lijrdat dinner Vv'.t! '\u0026gt;0 fved i 5 JO p.in Drvss Wi! be casual t he Board of Directors hopes you are w'iliing and able to pailicipate in this important meeting. Please caU-Swi^G*ifffir. at 32420 i2 to confimi your pdrt)Cip\u0026lt;U)on tAS soon as possible , i \\ -f i i'hanks lor yon oonynued support of oar public schools. Siiiccrely .ii.!bi! Riggs. iV, President ERS1..\u0026gt; Board of Directorsco nj 1T. 0 a !.iTTLE ROCKSCHOOI. DISTRICT Advisory Committee for Superintendents Search J Revised 4/9/97 April, 1997 o '9 NAME i ! Humphrey, .loa I .Innes, Doris Ui i j Joyce, Linda Hi^iinendy, Rarh Kiirrus, Baker GENDER Male Pcmalc Female Frraak Female I U) Q' j Massey, Don na I\nMuse, Itohn I i iatierson, Paula I Male Feniah Male ifACE y Klack While lllaek White While White Blaek OlwiANiZATION ALR - Vive Chanectior HoiKhwest Neighborhood Assoc -f I .Idhu Barrnw Neighbvrbnnd ! I Assoe, City Hoard Parent/Ccaeiier (arent/Aliiance New Party.laren t r. ' Smith, Benny .1 Female -----j. Whitt Black Male Black .New Party Parent [Pa renlZrarenfTforTubJic Schools i ( 'xr V-/a -r/Ij eer. AdvUoiy (.'omjuittce Superintendents' Search pauc 2 'l erQ, Andy T ISI 'AJ Cl J^^kcr, Diane Li' u. Malt Female Wilde i White Buford, Doug Tucker, Rett Williams, lluris \u0026lt;\u0026gt;*Mncy, Kevin Anthony. Leta ( harks. Dale Wd.svn. Do\nMoore, Delia T Male Male r, i Female ! Male Female Male Mak i Female White White Black ' White Kiack Black Blaek Black l i Nayies, Dorothy Female Block I hALR-Dcpt. 'if Fiaunre and Ecology I'strcnls for PuWk Schools I-R Charitbcr f^niberZAlliance FTA tjouneil Palx^nt ' leadership Riiitmitable _____developers ____^D^ted Way/Slrategie New Futures f Charlt 1 Male Black I ! liowen, Ver neH L Brock, 1'oni j_Fcniale White White Stephens Scbooi ____J Frm\u0026lt;^al-St^E(I^an Schooi Parent/ Geyer Springs First Baptist _____ .. 4_'Cf- Crj cf' Ct b? Advison- Cnmntittce Superintendents Search April, 1997 page 3 T T U' U'l ir PoreeH. Nolan ! Delon s f' ! Howard, Kiidnlnh -X j Marshall, Pam j Gibson. Don Rt-,, jVleRejio', a. Faeinta OUman, Flea nor Mitchcd, Bey p/aaWe Fee I ftregory, Brenda X\"i Co.idman-CiiaiidJer f /tdriene Male Female Male j ]'Van:i]k* Femafu Feniale Fcniak J Frniak __ j\nFeinjue _________[Mate Fetnak- ____j retr ! Female ! Whiiit Kiack Bfark Black j Black j Black Wck I Black ____\nWhite ___Black I Widu Bhirk Biack _ Grandparent i*TA/larkvie5v Principals fo)u,ii(tablc _____Mtdtown/yrKkJiw SchwiJ Ministcdal AJIiann \u0026lt; Airtra? High Srhcol Student \u0026lt;Tz\\ \u0026lt;1.1 GT7I __________J CTA I I 1 1 I ---------------------- 1 -------1 ) ____i j Fxec. Dir. I.K Housing /Parent Authorifj' ____I PareiiUjivfllyemcBt Crtiinatr Jtz Cl Advisiu-y C'nnupittee Superintendents Search April, 1997 page 4 Revised 4/9/97 j Ambrose, Ethel I PFemaic I'Whiu\" u\n Ood.sont Tommy Armstead, VIeki : Leopoufos, rhuddeus '^^loiiRson. Mozeila i HamiUnti, Wilijam (Uii!) i Nauiifn, Lon Eilic!  Marlin, Bitty R^'\u0026lt;*sevrt?, Dr. i Williams, SJacy CaratliRc, Btibra I ' Benjamin, Wieke, Dr cz_z Mak- Fem.Tile j Mak j i Female }  Mak I Femak Female Male pMalc I i I Kemak : Eeuhik I Black I Black 7\"'wi!)tn _\nBbek Biaik I Black TCoalition nl Little Rock j Ncithborhoods Tp^-nt^ightsvll Pritsident- LRaIXH* I SEwJcnVParkview Majiuet ' ' 'j Stephens S'cighlHirknnd Associalini^ j Prcshlenl  I I eaclier/Parkvicw Magnet f'*'* t Vicw/S(iff Station  Black j I I Blai-k h White ! White i Association^ l\u0026lt;esi\u0026lt;knt N/VACP .Arts \u0026amp; Htiinanities/Slrakgic 1 J 1 1 H i H ___J05 2i 97 11:10 Q50I 324 2023 I.kSD COM'irXICATI - . OOM Soo? 002 Little Rock School District Special Board Committee Meeting For Immediate Release May 21,1997 For more information: Snellen Vann, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors v,TJl meet as a committee at 4:30 p.rn. on Thursday, May 22, 1997. The Board will receive infi-irmaTinn from Hazard, Young, Attea \u0026amp; Associates, the firm which is assisting in the search to fill the supermtendents position. The meeting will be foEowed by the regular monthly Board meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. 7Tr^ 1 06 03. 97 10:17 501 324 2023 I.RSD COMMCMCATI -\u0026gt; ODM @002'002 Little Rock School District Special Board Meetings For Immediate Release June 3, 1997 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold special meetings this week to conduct interviews with candidates for the position of superintendent. .Tne meetings are scheduled are: Tuesday, June 3, 1997 5:00 p.m. Board Room LRSD Administration Building 810 West Markham Wednesday, June 4, 1997 5:00 p.m. Board Room Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce 101 South Spring Street Thursday, June 5,1997 5:00 p.m. Board Room Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce 101 South Spring Street Friday, June 6, 1997 5:00 p.m. Board Room Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce 101 South Spring Street The meetings will be conducted in executive session. fj 11 jj }f ii n Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT St^.- RECEIVED JUN - 1997 RECEIVED June 5, 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORIMQ JUN 5 - 1997 OfflCEOF DESEGREGATION MONITORING The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is hosting three informal receptions to provide an opportunity for you to meet the three finalists for the position of superintendent of schools. These receptions are open to the public, but especially to members of the Advisory Committee for the Superintendents Search who developed the criteria for the selection process. The receptions will be held:  In the Administration Building Board Room 810 West Markham Street June 9, 11 and 13 (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday,)  5:00 - 6:00 p.m. \\Ne look forward to seeing you there! 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 BJJuDI Fa'/: 1 ?d-2932 Jun 9 9^ \u0026gt; I P. 02/02 Little Rock School District Rtccptions for Superiatendent Candidates Rescheduled For liLmediate Release June \u0026lt;, 1997 For more infonnation. S'uellen Vann. 324-2020 Receptions tor the three finalists for the position, of supenntendent of the Little Rock Schcol fiJistrict (LRSD) have been postponed . i he revised schedule tor the candidate lecev-tions is' Wednesday, June 1 . 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. Kenneth James Thursday . Jtme 12, .S.OO - 6:00 p.m. Jimmy Scales Friday. June 13. 5\n()0  6-00 p.m. Leslie Carnine J he receptions will he neld in tne Board Room of the LRSD .Administration Budding. 810 West Markham. The public is invited to meet the finalists during this time. The monthly Board agenda meeting which was to be helo. on June 12 lias ocen piistponed tinti! Thuisday, Jvme 19. at 5'00 p.m. Sio West Markham Street Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 * (501)324-2000 LRSD SORT'S OFFICE 414 FOO TON :o \u0026lt; \u0026gt; ? s * J h- 1 I J s*\" ' : 1 Lhtle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT June 12,1997 Mr. John Walker, Attorney 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Dear Mr. Walker: This is to advise that the finalists for the position of Superintendent of Schools were provided with a copy of the Desegregation Plan by Federal Express prior io their arrival in Little Rock. if we can provide additional information, piease advise. Sincerely, // Don R. Roberts Superintendent of Schools cc: John Riggs, iV 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 3iil-2000OR-^0 97 10:38 501 324 2023 I.RSD COM'irXTCATJ ()T)M 002/002 Little Kock School District Speciai Board Meeting For iramediate Retcase Jiuie I 1997 For more information\nSuellen Vann, .124-202{l dhe L ittle Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors wi ll hold a special meeting at 6\n00 p.m. Sunday, June 22, 1997. The special meeting wil.' be held to discuss cantiiiiates ..dr the position of superintendent. Ine meenngs will be held in the Administration Building, 810 West Markham. MEDIA NOTE\noir.ce this is a personnel issue, the Beard wil! conduct much of the meeting in executive .session. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock. Arkansas 72201  ntc 4-2000 Little Rock School District Superintendents Since 1982 Ed Kelley June 1982 to July 1987 Van Jones July to October 1987 (interim) George Cannon October to November 1987 (interim) November 1987 to July 1989 Ruth Steele July 1989 to June 1992 Mac Bernd July 1992 to July 1993 Estelle Matthis July to October 1993 (interim) Hank Williams October 1993 to July 1996 Don Roberts August 1996 to August 1997 (interim) Leslie Carnine August 1997JOHN W. Walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JHN W. WALKER -ALPH WASHINGTON\naRK BURNETTE USTIN PORTER, JR. RECEIVED ^tc 1 5 1397 December 12, 1997 Honorable Judge Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LR-C-82-866 LRSD V PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed please find the job postings by the Little Rock School District for four positions: Associate Superintendents for Desegregation, Support Services and Instruction and Director of Planning, Research and Development. I am writing to request that you allow the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to review and study the impact of the salary structure set forth in the postings, i.e. $70-90,000.00 plus car allowance and benefits with one position being open ended defined as negotiable. We have previously had extensive budget hearings. There is budget that allows payment of $100,000.00 or more including benefits to any group of employees. I believe that allowing the District to make these changes without court approval will have no tendency to have an adverse impact upon the ability of the District to meet, not only its desegregation obligations, but its other obligations as well. The effect will be magnified because the concept of equal pay will mean that scores of administrators may be able to make legitimate claims for upward pay adjustments. This will include principals and other persons at the Director level. a Dr. Leslie Carnine, the new superintendent, may not be aware of the budget concerns of the Court or the history of pay to administrators in the District. The Court is reminded that there has been no showing of a dearth of qualified applicants for administrative positions and thus, that huge payment is required to attract necessary staff. The salaries are grossly out of line for this district in comparison to other districts in the State except the possibility of the Pulaski County Special School District where we have raised similar concerns regarding pay inflation for administrators, many of whom are unnecessary. Dr. Carmine's principal advisor appears to be Mr. Brady Lexington Herald-Leader | 04/23/2003 | Let's hope James is as good as they say Page 1 of3 REAL Otm Click here to visit other RealCities sites New! Browse and Search Adt from The Herald-Lea ly fv.1 a\u0026lt;kc Great Grandparents Grandparents Your Parents  Who are your ancestor\nI \"YaurFamilv Name  '^i Seat V \u0026lt;:?!?: I I j' (:) r I iolS:DiLjK\\a^. I Our Local Channels + . News j Business j Sports j Entertainment v Living Search Back to Home \u0026gt; News \u0026gt; I Help I Contact Us I Site Index I Archives I Place an Ad I Newspape Wednesday, Apr 23, 2003 Shopping \u0026gt; Search the Archives News Breaking News Columnists Local Nation Obituaries Photos Politics Weather Weird News World Our Site Tools Weather Lexington Jackson, Breathitt County Louisville (Standiford) Local Events go + 54+34 + 51+38 + 58*38 Yellow Pages Discussion Boards Maps \u0026amp; Directions Subscribe to The Lexington Herald- Leader Have The Lexington Herald-Leader delivered to your home everyday  Subscribe today CATCH FREE LEGENDS Posted on Wed, Apr. 23, 2003 Local Find a Joi an Aparti a Home, Let's hope James is as good as they say By Cheryl Truman HERALD-LEADER COLUMNIST After a search most notable for what it didn't offer the public  an opportunity to meet the candidates  Fayette County's school board made the safest pick of the bunch: a middle-aged white male, fluent in the language of management-speak and team-building. You might have thought the board would have gone for candidate Joyce Bales, who is nationally recognized for narrowing the achievement gap. The board could have finally broken the race barrier in the superintendent's office with either of two other candidates. But it didn't. It picked an apparently nice guy with a clean record and an acquaintance with Kentucky Education Commissioner Gene Wilhoit. The board says Little Rock Superintendent Ken James is the best. We'll have to take board members' word for it, since nobody got to meet either James or the others, all but one of whom were identified by the newspaper. Board chair Kathy Lousignont said that Lexington citizens were ready to take the search \"to the next level\"  secrecy  which she contends was necessary to get the best candidate. Board member Angie Tedder opined that only the Herald-Leader was offended by the search being conducted behind closed doors. They're wrong. The public may cut the board a little slack about its search style as long as it delivers a genius superintendent who will deliver immediate, dramatic results that make everybody happy. But no superintendent is perfect, and the board has set up James to take a potentially dangerous fall. Come spring 2004, Lexington citizens may well doubt the board's judgment about James, and James may http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/local/5694508.htm V w. BKEAK Updated V 23, 2003  Mounta Named 11:53 Pr  Mounta Named 11:53 pr  Russia: MHtion I - 11:39  Malays! Rejects 11:33 Pr  U.N. In to Retui 11:12 pr 4/23/2003 Lexington Herald-Leader | 04/23/2003 | Let's hope James is as good as they say TICKETS Page 2 of 3 wonder why he left Little Rock. Enter to win 2 free tickets to any Lexington Legends home game.  Enter Legends contest % For the sake of the schools, I hope James is the best. And for the sake of that $195,000 a year he's getting, I hope his superiority and brilliance assert themselves within a few weeks of when he starts work. Because of the exclusionary way he was selected and the inflated salary he's making while the rest of the school system battles for pocket change, a performance that's only competent just won't cut it. Because if James takes a wrong step  if he cuts the wrong program, closes the wrong school, refuses to build the right school in the right place - the impact will be like walking into a propeller. And the school board, which is so immensely satisfied with itself just now, will take a public relations hit that will make the messy Robin Fankhauser resignation look like a garden party. Reach Chery! Truman at (859) 231-3202 or 1-800-950-6397 Ext. 3202, or ctruman @herald-!eader. com. RELATED LINKS  More School news  B email this | print this | license this | reprint this Re you by ui in 8i First N LastN State jChoo Email PHOTOS \u0026lt;  more pt FRi http://www.kentucky.coin/mld/kentucky/news/local/5694508.htm 4/23/2003 DATE: 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone\nFax\n(501) 447-1030 (501) 447-1161 5 [Z ^Iq3__________ TO: FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Spe\u0026lt;^ I fy}ec'l^i MESSAGE: /he bJI Il k^[J) /b\u0026lt;f o r\u0026gt; 1 S j\u0026gt;oie cr(~ 4^ te C2T\u0026gt;n~^ g- 03 Cyy\\ S\n'Tly^ Pages (including cover) To Fax # An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge 06/02/2003 16:55 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS (i: PAGE 01/01 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 For Immediate Release June 2, 2003 For more information\nTony Rose Board Vice President 569-8122 School Board Narrows Superintendent Candidate List The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has narrowed the list of candidates for the position of Superintendent to six, according to Board Vice President Tony Rose. The six, in alphabetical order, are: Donald Carlisle - Miller Place, New York Jack Clemmons, - Lubbock, Texas Mary Guinn - Gary, Indiana Joan Kozlovsky - Pylesville, Maryland Stan Mims - New York, New York T. C. Wallace, Jr. - Macombe, Michigan During the next week, the Board will continue to gather information on the six candidates. Rose, who is leading the Superintendent search, said the Board will begin to arrange interviews next week, ### 06/12/2003 17:49 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 For Immediate Release June 12, 2003 For more information: Julie Davis, 447-1025 School Board Names Interim Superintendent The Board of Education of the Little Rock School District has named an Interim Superintendent of Schools. Dr. Donald M. Stewart was named to lead the district while the Board continues its search for a permanent replacement for Dr. T. Kenneth James who accepted the superintendent position in Lexington, Kentucky. Stewart has served as the Chief Financial Officer of the Little Rock School District for three and one-half years. Prior to that period, Stewart was Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs for the Pulaski County Special School District and for the North Little Rock School District. Stewart has worked for the Arkansag Department of Education and has served as Superintendent of Schools in Gentry, Arkansas and in Norfork, Arkansas. Stewart began his career as a fifth grade teacher in the Fort Smith Public Schools. He holds both the Arkansas Administrator Certificate and Teacher Certificate. In 1976, Stewart earned the Doctor of Education Degree from the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. Additionally, he earned the Educational Specialist Degree and the Master of Education Degree from the University of Arkansas. He also holds the Bachelor of Science in Education Degree from Arkansas State University. ### Media Note\nDr. Stewart will be out of town on Friday, June 13\ntherefore, if you wish to interview Dr. Stewart, you may contact him the week of June 16 through his assistant at 447-1011. 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 For Immediate Release May 21, 2004 For more information\nSuellen Vann, 447-1030 School Board Sets Superintendent Candidate Interviews The Little Rock School District Board of Directors has selected five candidates to interview for the position of Superintendent of Schools. The itinerary for each candidate will be as follows: Public reception Interview with Board Dinner with Board 5:00 p.m, 6:00 p.m. Board Room, LRSD Administration Building SupeimJmdartsCcifaenceRDoni,LRSDAdiiiin.Bldg. FoUowinginlerview Undetermined location TourwithBoard member Nexlmcming Sites throughout the city The dates for the interviews will be June 1, 2, 3,4, and 7. The five candidates selected for interview for the position of Superintendent of Schools arc: Roy C. Benavides Roy Gregory Brooks Libby S. Gardner Stan Lamar Mims Jim V. Scales Odessa, Texas Sorrento, Florida Pflugerville, Texas Grayslake, Illinois Dallas, Texas The specific date when each candidate will be interviewed has not been finalized.06/01/2004 17:30 501-447-1161 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS RASE 01/01 -Rn -------- 1^/ /^r/ ISgf 310 ^^est Markh Little Rock, AR Direct Phone: m I (501) 447-1030 (501) 4474025 rwx XZ*' DATE: June 1, 2004 TO: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat'Gazette FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Special School Board Meeting MESSAGE: The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting on Tuesday, June 8, at 5 p.m. The meeting will be held in response to a petition by Concerned Citizens United (CCU) requesting that the Board hold a special meeting for the purpose of discussing the appointment of Dr. Morris Holmes as the permanent Superintendent of Schools. Dr. Holmes currently serves as Interim Superintendent of Schools. In announcing the special meeting, School Board President Tony Rose said that the CCU will have 45 minutes in which to present to the Board, followed by seven minutes for each of the Board members to provide remarks. The meeting will be held in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. # Pages (including ccner) 1 To Fax # An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge06/01/2004 11:05 501-447-1161 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE DATE: 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Direct Phone: Communications Office- (501) 447-1030 (501) 447-1025 TO: FROM: June 1, 2004 Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazeite Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Press Conference MESSAGE: Tony Rose, president of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors, will hold a press conference at 3\n45 p.m. today to respond to the Concerned Citizens United petition for a special meeting of the Board. The press conference will be held in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. # Pages (including cover) 1 To Fax # An Individual Approacli to a World of Knowledge 1_I\\OV rwuc. 01/ Oi //V\" ___ West Markham 1^1 S Liftle R.ock, AR 722QI For Immediate Release June 2, 2004 For more infonnation: Qi iaT1o^ vuxix, /lUJV Superintendent Candidate Withdraws from Consideration Dr. Roy Benavides of Odessa, Texas has withdrawn his name from consideration for the position of Little Rock School District Superintendent of Schools. Therefore, the reception and interview scheduled with Dr. Benavides for Friday, June 4, have been cancelled. ftrrff06/11/2004 11:51 501-447-1161 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 810 West Markham Linle Rock, AR 72201 Direct Phone\nCommunications Office: (501) 447-1030 (501) 447-1025 DATE: June 11, 2004 TO: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas DemGcrat-Gazetie FROM: Suellen Vann. Director of Communications SUBJECT: Special School Board Meeting MESSAGE: The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors Uld a special meeting th., Friday, Junt 11,, discus, candidate, for the position of Superir,tcndct of Schools. The meeting wiU begin at 5,00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 WeM Markham. * Pages (including cover) 1 To Fax # An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge RECEIVED AUG 1 2000 OFRCEOF DESEGBEGATOOOfflTORiNG NARRATIVE EVALUATION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT'S 1999-2000 PERFORMANCE GOALS July 2000 OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT Date: July 11. 2000 To\nMembers of the School Board Re\nNarrative Evaluation of the Superintendents 1999-2000 Performance Goals The 1999-2000 District Performance Priorities were an ambitious plan to provide foundational support for the changes that have been recently implemented in the Little Rock School District. Those changes are a direct result of the LRSD Strategic Plan and Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Based on those two plans, of which the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan is an outgrowth of the Districts Strategic Plan, the District is on course to (1) have increased success rate for all students, and (2) be declared unitary by the Federal Court. We have established a priority to insure that a compliance plan for the Revised Desegregation and Education plan is in place and functioning. II. We are continuing efforts to provide technology and support its utilization by teachers and students. III. A cornerstone process of Campus Leadership is the Districts accountability plan that will become operable during the 1999- 2000 school year. IV. The Instructional Division has established a series of implementation goals to ensure the comprehensive standards- based system for the Little Rock School District. V. The operations component has established a variety of goals to support the overall mission of the District.1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 2 Goal I. The Superintendent will provide facilitator and coordination support to achieve the goals as outlined in the District Performance Priorities for 1999-2000 school year. Evaluation: The Critical Performance Priorities report/evaluation, given to you under separate cover, was a very ambitious undertaking for the 1999-2000 school term. We are reminded that many of the goals are multi-year issues. However, we are very pleased with the progress that has been achieved. I salute the staff, particularly the lead individuals on each of the sub-goals, fortheir leadership. I was particularly pleased with the response that was generated by three special publications.  First, the first Annual Report to the Community in several years was produced and published as a newspaper supplement to the Arkansas Democrat - Gazette. The date of issue was September 1999.  Second, we developed a report on Plan Talk which was well received by the authors at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. The original report was controversial and the response / report by the District went a long way in establishing a professional basis for progress among the academic community. That report was completed in January 2000.  Finally, the compliance report to the community was produced and mailed to households in Little Rock in April 2000. The report was titled Good News from Good Schools and was an executive summary of the compliance report that was filed with the federal court in March 2000. The report, though not required, was complimented by all parties as a precursor to the report that is required to be filed in March 2001. We have noted to you that we are preparing the results or the impact of the Critical Performance Priorities. We have called this the Annual Report. In the near future this will become known as the District Report Card. Based on the trend analysis that we publicize on a quarterly basis, the District had a tremendous year in almost all categories. The report will be given to you under separate cover.1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 3 Goal II. The Superintendent will provide necessary technical support and guidance for District Accountability to become operational during the 1999-2000 School year. Evaluation: A. Quality Initiative: The District obtained the first level and is working toward The Arkansas Quality Award. We have filed an application to move to the next level and a group of examiners will be here in late August to review the application and the progress of the District. Based on the change that has occurred, and the progress of the District in obtaining positive student results, we believe we will be moving to the next level. This is a comprehensive evaluation process and I have outlined generally the review areas. The following areas are reviewed: 1. Leadership a. Senior Leadership Direction b. Organizational Performance Review 2. Public Responsibility and Citizenship a. Responsibility to the Public b. Support of Key Communities 3. Strategic Planning a. Strategy Development Process b. Strategic Objectives c. Strategy deployment, action plan development \u0026amp; deployment 4. Customer and Market Focus a. Customer Relationships b. Customer Satisfaction Determination1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 4 5. Information and Analysis Analysis of Organizational Performance 6. Human Resource Focus a. Work Systems b. Employee Training and Development c. Employee Well-Being and Satisfaction 1. Work Environment 2. Employee Support Environment 7. Process Management a. Design Process b. Production and Delivery Process 8. Business Results a. Customer Focused Results b. Financial and Market Results c. Human Resource Results d. Supplier and Partnership Results Note: The District became the first school District in the State to be recognized for quality practices and we anticipate being recognized again for additional achievement in October 2000. B. Campus Leadership Handbook The Campus Leadership plan has already become a very important part of the Districts development. The utilization of the Campus Leadership Team as an important part of the development of the millage program gave the team credibility in a very real way.1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 5 The participatory decision-making or site-based decision-making model that is being utilized will become stronger and more effective with time and training. As a reminder, we previously indicated that normal implementation of a site-based decision-making model is five years. This is the second year of implementation. The teams will play a very important role in their own restructuring and the implementation of technology and renovation plans for their particular facilities. The Leadership Handbook is an outline for achieving a quality school program with ample input and quality checks to ensure not only continuous improvement but also the bottom line of improved achievement for all children. (You have copies of the handbook and we are currently updating for distribution to principals and team members in July. The Cluster Coordinating Committees agreed on several edits and additions for the 2000- 2001-school term. c. Incentives and Sanctions (Campus Leadership Handbook pages 46-54 and Arkansas Comprehensive Testing. Assessment and Accountability Program pages 11 \u0026amp; 12) I have attached the section from the Campus Leadership Handbook for your information. I also recommend to you that the Incentive Plan that was approved by a 4-3 margin at the May regular meeting by the Board be reconsidered. It is vitally important that there be a super majority in consensus on the plan for Little Rock. There are two very important facets to accountability - - rewards and sanctions. Rewards and/or incentives are there for celebration and motivation. They must be based on a non-competitive plan, whereby you do not pit campus against campus. As I listened to the discussion, it was obvious that not enough time had been given for the Board to become familiar with the philosophy or why this plan is an important aspect of the accountability system for Little Rock. Essentially, it is part of a positive strategy for Little Rock to cope with the State Accountability Plan. What you saw was the initial phase and the other quality indicators will be added as the State Accountability Plan is implemented. We have emphasized the State Accountability Plan, but I also want you to know that we have coordinated this incentive plan with all of the other accountability features of the Districts Strategic Plan, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and a variety of federal initiatives such as IDEA /Title I. If you have reviewed the information in the Campus Leadership Handbook, you will note that the sanctions are tied to the State Plan. Hopefully, you will also note that the District is being much more proactive in providing1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 6 assistance and calling for change than is the State. As you know, the District has a significant number of schools with well below average student achievement. It is without a doubt the most important challenge this District will face over the next several years. Lack of progress would certainly negatively impact the strides the District has made over the last three years. Many, if not all, of the Critical Performance Priorities have been directed at making improvements in the core program, which translate into achievement improvements for all of the District students. What you should be able to discern is that the Accountability Plan which is being proposed by the state has been interwoven into the Campus Leadership strategy, of which the basic structure is in place in the District. There will be modifications and additions as the State Plan comes into being. Also, as has been previously stated, it is consistent with the Districts Strategic Plan and the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Goal III. The Superintendent will provide the necessary leadership to continue the trend for: Evaluation: A. Improved academic performance We will be reporting areas that are familiar and in some instances new areas of assessment. 1. SAT 9 Growth Data: As previously reported to you, the growth rate for District students is similar to that of students nationally. The average percentile for District students is below the state and national averages. We do, however, have a number of students who do exceptionally well and, on the other hand, we have a significant percentage of students who score in the lowest quartile. As you see and review the results of K-2 Developmental Reading Assessment / No. 2, they are exceptionally promising and will have an impact on the SAT 9 averages in the near future. Based on previous improvement initiatives, you will see a change in that data during the A* and 5* years of the change process. We are currently in the 2\"'^ year of the emphasis on the core academics with ELLA and the new math programming.1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 7 2. K-2 Developmental Reading Assessment: This may be the most important news the District has received in several years. The attached chart indicates strong growth in each of the primary grades. The chart also indicates the gap being reduced for the racial identities. The focus that has been achieved on staff development and monitoring is only at the 70% level and over the next couple of years we should approach 90% with the faculty. (Some may debate the percentages, but I am much more conservative on the effects of staff development within the first year of implementation.) It is very important for us to maintain the focus. Normally, it takes five years from this point to reach the average norm for accelerated achievement. As a final note, as you read the numbers it emphasizes even more that remediation is singularly the wrong concept. What we must be about is providing enrichment exercises that allow children to develop a vocabulary that is based on that enrichment. And finally, a reminder that we must stay the course and resist the temptation to modify or change programs. At least not for the next five years! 3. 4 Grade State Benchmark Assessment-ACTAAP: The District strategy has been to emphasize elementary / primary staff development and curriculum. The results, which were just noted to you in No. 2, are for the first full year under the new program. As I noted to you, we are not 100%... and as you review the data it suggests that real improvements have been made. We must caution however, that trends are not necessarily based on one year, but we can say it was a watershed event. Preliminary results from the District criterion assessment data suggest that we will have double-digit gains in the 4 grade ACTAAP / reading and mathematics. I have looked at several indicators that are normally very predictive and they all point to that result. If that becomes reality, it will be the first major positive academic event recorded since the-mid 198Os. We expect the official results to be here in early August. If you will remember, we expended significant effort installing the new Northwest Evaluation/Achievement level assessment program last year. All of us were concerned because even though there was tremendous involvement (numbers of teachers), it did push everyone close to overload. The process gives us a reliable and valid view of what is happening with the student. That level of predictability will provide the District with untold opportunities not only to fine tune instruction, but also to level up the curriculum as the improvement trend is established.1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 8 4. Enrollment in Upper Division Classes, AP Enrollment and Successful Completion: Again, a success story like the Developmental Reading - - a watershed event. We had significant overall growth in numbers, but what was especially important was the number of African-Americans who not only enrolled, but who also were successful in the upper division classes. The total enrollment in AP Classes rose to 1,791 from 1,435 in the 1997-98 academic year, which translates to a 25% INCREASE. African American enrollment increased to 695 from 471 in the 1997-98 academic year, which translates to a 48% INCREASE. We do not necessarily predict that these numbers will continue to increase so dramatically\nit would be our assertion that they will plateau until the middle and elementary school programming produces an increase in numbers. What we do predict is that this will have a very positive effect on the college qualifying scores of the ACT and the SAT. There is an extremely high correlation between classes taken and scores on the ACT and SAT and success in post-secondary education. Please note that we had an additional 135 students in 8 sections of the UALR / Hall High University Studies program. We would note that 93% were successful and that African Americans made up 57% of the class participants. Since the Hall numbers could have been added to the college equivalency AP, the increase is even more spectacular. The total number of students participating in the college equivalency programs INCREASED 34% and African American student participation INCREASED 64%. We would also remind you that we had significant increases in upper division math and science classes, which parallel those college equivalency numbers. If you look at all upper division math and science classes we experienced a 20.6% INCREASE in students. 5. Enrollment in Algebra I \u0026amp; II and Biology: As you know, research has overwhelmingly confirmed that algebra has been described as a gatekeeper course because it has a high correlation with success in many of the other core academic programs. Algebra is required for high school graduation in Arkansas and the student will have to pass the new end-of-course benchmark test. There will also be an end of course biology test as part of the state accountability plan.1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 9 What we do have is the number of students who move on to take Algebra II successfully. In 1997-98 there were 386 students and in 1999-2000 there were 533 or a 38% INCREASE. Biology is the twin of algebra as a gatekeeper and it, along with the new 9*\" grade physics program, will expand many more opportunities for students to complete a much more rigorous science curriculum. It should be noted that biology and Pre-AP biology had significant increases in enrollment. Biology INCREASED 29% over 1997-98 and the Pre-AP biology INCREASED 7%. 6. Duke University Talent Search Data: The Duke Talent Search Program is an important barometer for the academic student. As we work to improve the general education for all of our students, it is equally important not to forget the students who excel academically. In 1998-99 we had 12 students who were honored by the Duke Talent Search. This year we had 27 students who were chosen to participate in the state recognition ceremonies. The District had approximately 100 students who qualified to take the SAT or ACT in an effort to qualify for the State and National recognition. The initial qualifying standard for a student is to score at or above the 95*^ percentile on the SAT 9 or similar norm referenced test. As an additional thought, of which you may or may not be aware, there is a high predictive correlation on the number of National Merit Finalists which may be produced based on the Duke Talent Search identification program. We have had excellent numbers and it should be a stated objective to increase these numbers and especially to have additional minority students identified. B. Improved learning climate as shovi/n by: 1. Expulsion Data: The numbers continue to look good, if not great. As you know, we went from 119 to one last year, and this year three expulsions. But as you know, the three are currently enrolled in the Juvenile Justice Center and actually remain in an instructional program. We continue to think we will be able to maintain the low numbers in the future.1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 10 2. Reportable Offences: Suspensions The numbers continue to drop and that decline should continue. I will say that the Middle School initiative was an important ingredient in that decline. Numbers are important and, noting that, we had 6,247 suspensions in 1997-98, and dropped to 4,926 this year. What is more positive is that all the long-term suspensions are continuing their education at the Alternative Learning Center. Long term suspension numbers also have decreased by 29% since 1997-98. Secondly, we have also a decrease in the percentage of children who were engaged in negative behavior, from about 6% to slightly less than 2% of students receiving a reportable sanction. We are moving aggressively to develop more alternatives for special needs students and for middle school students. This effort will also drop these numbers significantly. What is the goal and what is the reasonable expectation? Slightly less than 1% appears reasonable for suspensions. What is vitally important is that these numbers not be a reflection of misbehavior not being addressed. We will be doing more numerous quality checks with staff and parents to maintain the credibility of the information. 3. Student ParticipationCo-curricular Activities: The area of student participation has been devastated by budgetary woes in the past. Research has been overwhelming regarding students who participate in the co-curricular areas of the arts and athletics - - they have fewer academic and citizenship problems. There are ways to increase participation, and we have been on a mission to improve the overall quality of the programming. I know you understand that learning climate issues are very complex and this is yet another way of creating a more positive learning climate. We do not have good numbers for fine arts participation, but an analysis of the class enrollments indicate a significant increase in interest. We must recognize that part of the change is due to the new middle school programming and the 9 grade move to the high schools. We have 8,077 students participating in a fine arts program. In some instances, much like athletics, a student may be participating in one to three activities or classes. Most students, however, are engaged in no more than two. As mentioned, we have the data on athletic participation for both boys and girls. As you would suspect, some of the increase of the past year would be because of our move to middle school. However, though it1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 11 does explain some of the gain, the analysis by grade indicates significantly more participation by both boys and girls. The only grade level that was somewhat flat, was the 12*^ grade, and we would expect that for athletics. The participant INCREASE was 43%, which is excellent. In 1997-98 we had 3,497 young people participating in secondary athletic activities. The number of participants INCREASED to 5,002 in 1999- 2000. We also saw the initiation of an activities advisory committee of parents, sponsors, and students. As has been previously stated, many of the activities are woefully under-funded and we all recognize we must solve some of the equity problems before we can fully realize the potential of co-curricular programs and activities. We believe that with the assistance of the activities advisory committee we can start to see positive improvement in the program over the next several years. We will be recommending a Director of Fine Arts be appointed. 4. Average Daily Attendance\nAn excellent barometer for learning climate is the attendance of students. We believe that attendance of teachers is also a major issue, but this particular item is specific to student attendance. Research has confirmed what most teachers already know - - those who miss a lot of school have lower academic achievement. There are a lot of reasons for non-attendance, but a primary reason is the lack of interest and the relevancy of instruction as perceived by the student. If you review successful schools research, it becomes quite obvious that their average daily attendance is also above average. You cant teach children who are not there. In 1997-98 the Districts percentage of attendance on a daily basis was 92.35%. In 1998-99 it had inched up to 92.44% which, though appearing small, was fairly significant because the number of days multiplied by the number of students is very significant. However, we are pleased to report that we INCREASED to 94.09% in 1999-2000. The goal is to be at 96%, which appears reasonable, but will still be very difficult to achieve. This is another indicator that the learning climate is becoming more normal. 5. Parent support and involvement: The model which the District is utilizing makes community / parental support a major component. If you will remember, there are six components to the model, and the involvement factor is a key ingredient to quality schools and improved student achievement. As1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 12 we entered the school year the strategy employed was to increase the amount of involvement in the following ways: a. Include parents and community members on the campus leadership teams and as a part of the school decision-making model. As previously noted, they played a key role in creating the basis for the millage campaign. In the future they will have a much larger role in the school improvement process. b. The second strategy employed was to capitalize on the vitality of the VIPS and PIE programs by increasing the amount of volunteer and mentoring time at the individual schools. Debbie Milam and the advisory board have been key to increasing the activities which bring the public into the schools. Note the increase in the community volunteer hours in the schools. The numbers have increased from 187,881 hours in 1997-98 to 255,937 in 1999-2000. This is a 36% INCREASE in community volunteer hours. c. The third strategy was to increase the involvement and participation of the PTA. The membership growth and revitalization of a number of the campus units has created a new level of excitement and participation at the school level. It was very exciting to see the State PTA recognize Little Rock in almost every category for exemplary performance. The District received 38% of all awards at the State Level. Membership INCREASED by 36% and we are establishing a goal to pass 20,000 members for 2000-2001. d. The fourth strategy was to develop a new organizational structure for parental participation and involvement. Bonnie Lesley has done an excellent job of bringing together the various groups and this new plan creates the possibility of substantive growth in involvement. As a side note, the prevailing research recognizes that teachers are the most satisfied where parent participation and support are strong. And without belaboring the point, student achievement is also maximized by that same participation and support. 6. Reduction in the dropout rate: This priority is a major quality issue. As you know, the District experienced a higher than average dropout rate for a significant number of years. In 1997, the District started the ACC Program at Metropolitan to assist with the non-traditional student who was in1999-2000 Performance Goals July 2000 Page 13 danger of dropping out The average number served in 1997 was 100. In 1998, the program was expanded and the evening high school program was consolidated with the ACC Program. The average number served rose to 200. In 1999, the program was expanded again at Metropolitan and a site-based program utilizing PLATO software was initiated at all high schools except Parkview, which is a traditional magnet high school. The average number served again increased, to approximately 400. We anticipate that the program will continue to expand in the year 2000 with the option of serving overaged sophomores. Currently, the program at Metro is open to students needing to make up credits who are either 11* or 12*^ grade in age. Evaluation: In 1997-98, the reported dropout rate was 8.7%, or 926 students who left school. That rate is equivalent to slightly less than 40% who started O* grade, but did not finish. The figure improved to 6.8% in 1998-99 with the utilization of the alternative programs mentioned above or 689 students. The estimate for 1999-2000 is 4.46% or 550 students, which is a considerable improvement. Since the final rate is not established until school has started, it may drop to the 4% level primarily by returning students. We will make a push to recover several of these students. The goal for 2000-2001 is to be in the 3.4% range, or less than 400 students. As a final note, the drop out improvement is estimated to have generated $1,7 million in state monies. The dollars generated easily pay for the operation of the ACC and ALC. We have placed two alternative programs on probation for the coming year. Both have suffered from small enrollments and the challenge will be to increase their enrollment and the student achievement levels. We are recommending that this be a critical performance priority.APPENDIX I GOAL I : Critical Performance Priorities End of Year Report 1999-2000 Provided under separate cover.APPENDIX II GOAL II : Campus Leadership Handbook Pages: 1. 46-54 2. 11-12I I 1 I i Rewards for Schools The District shall develop a system to reward (a) Quality Schools - schools absolutely meeting all the performance indicators established by the Arkansas Department of Education and (b) Improving Schools - schools demonstrating improvement, meeting a preponderance of the trend and/or improvement goals established by the Arkansas Department of Education and LRSD. The following points are established for each indicator. They will be added to determine a schools total score. 0 1 2 3 Declined in performance from previous year or semester Maintained last years performance and/or improved but did not meet trend/improvement goal Met trend/improvement goal Exceeded trend/improvement goal A definition ofpreponderance and the number of minimum points required for rewards will be established. Quality Schools and Improving Schools Quality Schools and Improving Schools may be recognized and rewarded in the following ways, as determined by the Superintendent: 3. A presentation will be made to the Board of Education on the schools achievements involving both staff and parents, a press release commending the schools performance will be issued, and schools will be featured in District publications, on cable television, and on the web page. b. The school may be designated as a mentor school and granted resources to provide technical assistance and support to another school in the District identified for improvement. { 3 s c. As appropriate, the District will support a schools application for state and national recognition in the national Blue Ribbon School program. d. The District will collaborate with the community to identify other possible recognitions of the schools progress and achievement. e. Schools will receive a grant to encourage and facilitate further improvement. The amount of the grant will be determined by annual budget appropriations. Awarded funds will be used for innovative programs, to provide additional materials and supplies, to support technology enhancements, to improve meaningful parent involvement, and/or for professional development of the staff. f. Each school will receive a banner/flag that celebrates its success. 5Rewards for Staff and Students Each Quality and each Improving School is encouraged to design, in collaboration with parents and the community, celebrations of success and recognition for contributing teachers, teacher teams, other staff, and parent/community volunteers, as well as students who meet the performance goals. Sanctions According to ADE and the State Board of Education, sanctions in the ACTAAP system are applied for the purpose of improving teaching and learning, not for punishing schools or the people in them. The LRSD supports this view. Each Arkansas school is expected to achieve annually a minimum percentage of its total possible points assigned for the performance indicators in the ACTAAP system for accountability. Failure to do so will result in the following designations, as determined by the Arkansas Department of Education: First year: Second year: Third year: Fourth year: Fifth year: Sixth year: High Priority Status Alert Status Low Performing Status Academic Distress Phase I Status Academic Distress Phase II Status Academic Distress Phase III Status To be eligible for removal of any sanction designation, leading up to, but not including. Academic Distress Phase I, a school must attain the minimum percentage of its total possible points for two consecutive years.  Once classified as Academic Distress Phase I, a school must comply with the rules and regulations to be promulgated by the ADE in order to be removed from this category. Failure to do so will result in the designation of Academic Distress Phase II, and so forth. The District will not identify schools for sanctions. Rather, the District will ensure the following levels of technical assistance and/or corrective actions for schools identified for improvement by the Arkansas Department of Education. In other words, the District will form a partnership with each school in need of improvement and will assist and support that school in its improvement efforts. To that end, the District has reorganized staff in the Division of Instruction to form a multidisciplinary School Improvement department. A common mission for all Division of Instruction teams will be to help schools help students achieve the challenging standards established by the Arkansas Department of Education and the LRSD and as measured by the various performance, trend, and improvement indicators. The assignment of a Broker for each school is another level of support. 47 I ii I ) The following technical assistance and support services are established for schools requiring improvements\nTechnical Assistance and Support for Schools Identified for Improvement Year/Status/ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support Assigned Responsibility YEAR ONE: WARNED The first year that an LRSD school fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: 1. Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation of the school and its implications. Testing and Program Evaluation Team 2. Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the school as it develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance problems and includes waivers of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to education its students. Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team 3. Conduct a School Improvement Audit to determine the extent to which the Campus Leadership Plan is being implemented at the school. Technical Assistance Team 4. Require the recommendations from the School Improvement Audit to be addressed in the following year's School Improvement Plan, if not possible to do so immediately. 5. Monitor regularly and conduct formative evaluations of the implementation of the School Improvement Plan, reviewing with the principal and the Campus Leadership Team formative data and making suggestions for modifications and adjustments to the implementation plan. 6. Provide the principal, the broker, members of the Campus Leadership Team, and other appropriate staff opportunities to participate in professional development activities that should lead to school improvement. i I i Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services Professional Development Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team\nAssociate Superintendent for School Services 48I YearZStatusZ Definition LRSD AssistanceZSupport Assigned Responsibility YEAR TWO: HIGH PRIORITY STATUS The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: A school identified by ADE that for two consecutive years fails to meet the performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 1. Inform the principal, the central office broker, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation of the school and its implications. 2. Provide appropriate levels of technical assistance to the school as it develops and implements its School Improvement Plan so that it addresses specific elements of student performance problems and includes waives of any policies or regulations that impede the ability of the school to educate its students. 3. Conduct a comprehensive Curriculum Audit to determine the extent to which the school is implementing the District curriculum and the quality of its interventions for students not meeting the standards. 4. Require that the recommendations from the Curriculum Audit be addressed in the following years School Improvement Plan, if impossible to do so immediately. Possibly mandate the implementation of specific actions, professional development, or programs to address needs identified in the Curriculum Audit and/or the analysis of disaggregated student performance data. 5. The District shall take corrective action during the High Priority Status Year through one or more of the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) Decrease the decision-making authority of the Campus Leadership Team. (b) Require participation in remedial training or professional development, and then implementating the necessary changes. Reflect the school's low performance in the evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. Replace the school principal. Testing and Program Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Curriculum/ Instruction Team\nPlanning and Development Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Associate Superintendent for School Services 49 i3 Year/Status/ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support Assigned Responsibility :i Year Three: Alert Status The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to: s I i t 1 J \u0026gt;{ - .3 A school identified by ADE that for three consecutive years fails to meet the performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 1. 2. 3. Inform the principal, the Campus Leadership Team, the Cabinet, and the Board of Education of the designation and its implications. Conduct follow-up or monitoring of implementation of School Improvement and Curriculum Audit recommendations. Mandate appropriate specific actions, professional . development, and/or programs to address student needs. 4. Continue to provide appropriate technical assistance as the school develops and implements its School Improvement Plan. 5. The District shall take corrective action during the Alert Status Year through one or more of the following: (a) Decrease the decision-making authority of the Campus Leadership Team\n(b) Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes\n(c) (Reflect the schools low performance in the evaluation of the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance of the school. (d) Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Testing and Program Evaluation Team Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services 50Year/Status/ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support Assigned Responsibility Year Four: Low Performing Status A school identified by ADE that for four consecutive years fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to apply one or more of the following sanctions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services 51Year/Status/ Definition LRSD Assistance/Support Assigned Responsibility YEAR FIVE: ACADEMIC DISTRESS PHASE I STATUS The Superintendent will ensure that staff are designated to apply one or more of the following sanctions: A school identified by ADE that for five consecutive years fails to meet its performance, trend, and/or improvement goals. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Revoke the authority of the school to design its School Improvement Plan. Require participation in remedial training or professional development and then implementing the necessary changes. Reflect the low performance of the school in the performance evaluations of responsible staff, including the principal, as well as teachers and other staff who contributed to the low performance. Conduct follow-up audits to determine the extent to which the school has effectively implemented the recommendations of the School Improvement Audit and the Curriculum Audit conducted in years one and two. Reconstitute the school staff by replacing the principal and up to 50 percent of the teachers and other staff, as appropriate. Sanctions for Central Office Associate Superintendent for School Services Technical Assistance Team\nCurriculum/ Instruction Team Associate Superintendent for School Services Effective Year Two, upon the Superintendents recommendation, the performance evaluations of central office staff designated to provide leadership in human resources, teaching and learning, school improvement, school services, administrative services, and technology, including members of the Superintendents Cabinet, shall also reflect the schools low performance if it can be determined that they shared responsibility, through their decisions or actions, or lack thereof, for the low achievement of schools identified for sanctions. Sanctions for the Superintendent will be determined by the Board of Education. 52School Role When Identified for Sanctions Each school identified for sanctions shall\na. b. c. d. e. f. In consultation with central staff and the Campus Leadership Team develop or revise a School Improvement Plan in ways that have the greatest likelihood of improving the performance of all children in meeting the expected improvement goals outlined in ACTAAP and the Quality Index. Align all the schools systems and resources behind the effective implementation of the plan. Submit the plan in a timely manner to school and District-level staff for review, feedback, and approval. Implement the plan, conducting self-monitoring on a frequent basis to determine success and then making appropriate adjustments. Consult frequently with District-level staff assigned to support the school and to provide technical assistance. Improve the skills of its staff by providing effective professional development activities. At least ten percent of the Title 1 funds (if received) shall be committed over a two-year period to professional development\nor the school must otherwise demonstrate that it is effectively carrying out professional development activities from other funding sources. Decisions about how to use the professional development funds shall be made by teachers, principals, and other school staff in that school during the first year a school is identified for sanctions. Definitions School Improvement Audit^This audit will include a review of the meeting minutes of the Campus Leadership Team, the participation level of CLT members, quality of the School Improvement Plan, use of disaggregated data for decision-making, action research projects underway, sense of collective responsibility, quality of professional development, etc. If the school receives Title 1 funds, the audit will include determinations of the extent to which the school is in compliance with federal regulations and expectations. The audit team will be composed of staff from both the central office and campus levels. A written report will be compiled by the audit team and then approved by the Assistant Superintendent for School Improvement and the Associate Superintendent for School Services. It shall be provided orally and in writing to the Assistant Superintendent for School Services, the principal, the broker, and the Campus Leadership Team. Copies will be provided to the Superintendent, the Cabinet, and other appropriate central office staff who need to be involved in the school's improvement efforts. 53J Curriculum AuditThe comprehensive curriculum audit will include a review of the schools master schedule, its curriculum maps, its ACSIP plans and processes, observations of classrooms, the extent to which the District curriculum is being implemented, the professional development experiences of the staff, the quality and use of instructional materials, learning climate, academic guidance, etc. The audit will include interviews with most staff and representative numbers of students and parents. The curriculum audit team will be composed of both central office and campus-level staff. A written report will be compiled by the audit team, approved by the Associate Superintendent for Teaching and Learning and provided orally and in writing to the Associate Superintendent for School Services, the Assistant Superintendent for School Services, the principal, the broker, and the Campus Leadership Team. Copies will be provided to the Superintendent, the Cabinet, and other appropriate central office staff who need to be involved in the schools improvement efforts. 6 I  2 54Campus Leadership Team Calendar The calendar is approximate of the activities that you consider as you work together to create a more effective school. The asterisk (*) denotes where a form or additional information exists to accomplish the task or confirm the activity. January Campus Leadership Team has initial meeting* a. b. c. d. Introduction to the process orientation activities for new members team expectations planning process reviewed Review and interim evaluation of campus plan activities. Consideration of modification to current year campus plan and submit to designated individual for review. Discuss plans for update of needs assessment. February Campus Leadership Teams work with developing skills in problem solving and consensus building, conflict resolution and communication. Request specific type of technical assistance. March Monitor and adjust campus plan  Draft action plan due to Assistant Superintendent Begin process of working with the campus community to address perceived needs of campus for following year April Discuss and start evaluation of Campus Leadership Teams problem solving process and team effectiveness. Start Evaluation of current year campus plan and establish timelines for completion of evaluation and communication with stakeholders. Create strategy and set in motion the collection of published research and data collection requirements for discussion and analysis by Campus Leadership Team in preparation for next years campus plan. May Evaluate assessment results Campus Leadership develops and communicates draft of focus areas based on assessment results. 11June July August September October November December Submit evaluation of campus plan (There is a recognition that current year results of ACT / SAT would not be available or certain other current year results. The incentive plan will indicate those particular areas and that the previous years results will be utilized in those cases.) District-wide Campus Leadership Team Meetings Campus Leadership Team refines initial draft of campus goals and further starts development of action plans on determined focus areas. District wide Campus Leadership Team Meetings by Cluster Opening of School Campus Leadership Team meetings with faculty on Campus. Share recommend goals for current year and draft of action plans. Confirm goals. Designate problem solving and action teams for accomplishment of goals Communication with all stakeholders the goals of the campus*. Prepare final action plans and submit to Superintendent and Board for final approval. Acceptance or modification required goals and action plans. Hold public meeting and share results of previous years campus goals and action plans Inform public and staff of opportunities to serve on the Campus Leadership Teamshare Leadership Team membership expectations. Receive nominations for membership on the Campus Leadership Team for each membership category*. Current Leadership Team checks on implementation of action plans. Problem solving teams Election of Leadership Team members* Collection of data to ascertain effectiveness of action plans and problem solving teams Initiate mid year report of progress * Appointment of members to the Leadership Team* 12APPENDIX III GOAL III : K-2 Developmental Reading AssessmentK-2 Developmental Reading Assessment Scores, 1999-2000 2 = Proficient LRSD Average = 4.43 16 = Proficient LRSD Average = 19.06 24 = Proficient LRSD Average = 30.18 Kindergarten Badgett_____ Wakefield Garland Baseline Chicot Cloverdale Woodruff Franklin Watson Romine Wilson Mabelvale Geyer Springs Mitchell Bale Western Hills Fair Park Brady_______ King________ Rockefeller Meadowcliff Booker Otter Creek Rightsell_____ Forest Park Washington McDermott Williams Dodd Pulaski H. Gibbs Terry________ Carver Fulbright Jefferson 1.26 1.29 1.40 1.84 1.99 2.10 2.10 2.30 2.30 2.91 3.06 3.09 3.11 3.33 3.57 3.68 3.75 3.84 3.90 4.30 4.37 4.53 4.77 4.92 4.98 5.63 5.85 5.96 6.39 6.41 6.46 7.71 7.91 9.70 9.89 Grade 1 Badgett_____ Garland Chicot Wakefield Cloverdale Watson Mitchell Brady Rightsell Baseline Washington Pulaski H. Romine Terry_______ Geyer Springs Meadowcliff Dodd Mabelvale King_______ Booker Gibbs Bale Wilson Fulbright Otter Creek Rockefeller Franklin Western Hills Carver Fair Park McDermott Woodruff Forest Park Jefferson Williams 6.29 10.79 11.28 11.38 12.20 12.40 12.42 13.52 14.00 14.18 17.08 17.09 17.44 17.65 18.54 20.05 20.14 20.24 20.42 20.72 20.79 21.33 21.89 21.98 22.05 22.07 22.21 22.44 22.72 22.73 23.81 24.08 25.70 25.90 30.12 Grade 2 Badgett Garland Wakefield Dodd Chicot Meadowcliff Mabelvale Mitchell Baseline Watson Pulaski H. Wilson Washington Brady______ Bale Cloverdale Fair Park Rockefeller Geyer Springs Gibbs_______ McDermott Woodruff Otter Creek Booker_____ Terry_______ Jefferson Forest Park Franklin_____ Romine_____ Carver______ King________ Williams Rightsell Western Hills Fulbright 8.14 18.50 20.24 22.78 23.35 23.56 24.67 24.71 24.94 26.30 26.55 26.57 27.56 27.55 28.30 28.36 28.97 29.02 29.79 30.70 31.00 32.60 32.86 32.92 33.00 33.20 34.09 34.13 34.18 34.71 36.39 38.13 38.16 38.97 39.1506/09/2003 09:00 501-324-2023 _^LRSD COMMUNICATIONS\n! /LZZy 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Direct Phone: Communications Office: (501) 447'1030 (501) 447-1025 ^Ot DATE: June 9, 2003 TO: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Special School Board Meeting MESSAGE: The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will hold a special meeting Monday, June 9, to consider candidates for the position of Superintendent of Schools. The meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. # Pages (including cover) 1 To Fax # An Individual Approach to a World of KnowledgeI\n'?! \\\\ 810 West Markham Little R^ock, AR 72201 For Immediate Release May 26, 2004 For more information: Suellen Vann, 447-1030 School Board Finalizes Superintendent Candidate Interviews The Little Rock School District Board of Directors has selected five candidates to interview for the position of Superintendent of Schools. The itinerary for each candidate will be as follows: Public reception Interview with Board Dinner with Board 5:00 p.m. 6:00 p.m. Board Room, LRSD Administration Buildmg Supeintendasts ConfasneeRoom, LRSD Admin. B Idg. Following interview Undetermined location Tour with Boaiu member Nectmoming Sites teou^ut the city The dates for the interviews will be June 1-7. The five candidates selected for interview for the position of Superintendent of Schools are: June 1 June 2 Roy Gregoiy Brooks Jim V, Scales June 3 June 4 June 7 Libby S. Gardner Roy C. Benavides Stan Lamar Mims Sorrento, Florida Dallas, Texas Pflugerville, Texas Odessa, Texas Grayslake, Illinois fffj ft ftfi ff\nThis project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "}],"pages":{"current_page":147,"next_page":148,"prev_page":146,"total_pages":155,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":1752,"total_count":1850,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":1843},{"value":"Sound","hits":4},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":3}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","hits":289},{"value":"Arkansas. Department of Education","hits":220},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":179},{"value":"Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","hits":69},{"value":"United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit","hits":30},{"value":"North Little Rock School District","hits":12},{"value":"Bushman Court Reporting","hits":11},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":6},{"value":"Joshua Intervenors","hits":5},{"value":"Arkanasas State University. Office of Educational Research and Services","hits":4},{"value":"Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators","hits":4}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"Education--Arkansas","hits":1745},{"value":"Little Rock School District","hits":1244},{"value":"Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","hits":1207},{"value":"Education--Evaluation","hits":886},{"value":"Educational law and legislation","hits":721},{"value":"Educational planning","hits":690},{"value":"School integration","hits":604},{"value":"School management and organization","hits":601},{"value":"Educational statistics","hits":560},{"value":"Education--Finance","hits":474},{"value":"School improvement programs","hits":417}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Springer, Joy C.","hits":6},{"value":"Walker, John W.","hits":3},{"value":"Heller, Christopher","hits":2},{"value":"Wright, Susan Webber, 1948-","hits":2},{"value":"Armor, David","hits":1},{"value":"Eddington, Ramsey","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Joshua","hits":1},{"value":"Intervenors, Knight","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Sam","hits":1},{"value":"Jones, Stephen W.","hits":1},{"value":"Joshua, Lorene","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":6},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":2}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":1849},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":1836},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":1799},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":1539},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, North Little Rock, 34.76954, -92.26709","hits":10},{"value":"United States, Missouri, 38.25031, -92.50046","hits":5},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Maumelle, 34.86676, -92.40432","hits":4},{"value":"United States, Missouri, Saint Louis City County, Saint Louis, 38.65588, -90.30928","hits":3},{"value":"United States, Kansas, 38.50029, -98.50063","hits":2},{"value":"United States, New York, 43.00035, -75.4999","hits":2},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Chicot County, 33.26725, -91.29397","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Arkansas","hits":1836},{"value":"Missouri","hits":5},{"value":"Kansas","hits":2},{"value":"Massachusetts","hits":2},{"value":"New York","hits":2},{"value":"Connecticut","hits":1},{"value":"Illinois","hits":1},{"value":"Maryland","hits":1},{"value":"Michigan","hits":1},{"value":"Ohio","hits":1},{"value":"Oklahoma","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1994","hits":385},{"value":"1995","hits":376},{"value":"1996","hits":334},{"value":"1993","hits":312},{"value":"1992","hits":292},{"value":"1999","hits":273},{"value":"1997","hits":268},{"value":"1991","hits":255},{"value":"2001","hits":252},{"value":"2000","hits":251},{"value":"1998","hits":245},{"value":"2002","hits":182},{"value":"1990","hits":173},{"value":"2003","hits":164},{"value":"2004","hits":148},{"value":"1989","hits":134},{"value":"2005","hits":119},{"value":"2006","hits":86},{"value":"2011","hits":62},{"value":"2010","hits":60},{"value":"2007","hits":57},{"value":"1988","hits":51},{"value":"2008","hits":47},{"value":"2009","hits":47},{"value":"1987","hits":35},{"value":"1986","hits":30},{"value":"2012","hits":30},{"value":"1984","hits":27},{"value":"1985","hits":23},{"value":"2013","hits":19},{"value":"1983","hits":16},{"value":"1982","hits":15},{"value":"1980","hits":13},{"value":"1981","hits":13},{"value":"1974","hits":12},{"value":"1975","hits":12},{"value":"1976","hits":12},{"value":"1977","hits":12},{"value":"1978","hits":12},{"value":"1979","hits":12},{"value":"1973","hits":11},{"value":"2014","hits":11},{"value":"1967","hits":9},{"value":"1968","hits":9},{"value":"1969","hits":9},{"value":"1970","hits":9},{"value":"1971","hits":9},{"value":"1972","hits":9},{"value":"1954","hits":8},{"value":"1966","hits":8},{"value":"1950","hits":7},{"value":"1951","hits":7},{"value":"1952","hits":7},{"value":"1953","hits":7},{"value":"1955","hits":7},{"value":"1956","hits":7},{"value":"1957","hits":7},{"value":"1958","hits":7},{"value":"1959","hits":7},{"value":"1960","hits":7},{"value":"1961","hits":7},{"value":"1962","hits":7},{"value":"1963","hits":7},{"value":"1964","hits":7},{"value":"1965","hits":7},{"value":"2017","hits":6},{"value":"2015","hits":5},{"value":"2016","hits":5},{"value":"2018","hits":5},{"value":"2019","hits":5},{"value":"2020","hits":5},{"value":"2021","hits":5},{"value":"2022","hits":5},{"value":"2023","hits":5},{"value":"2024","hits":5}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"1950","max":"2024","count":5114,"missing":0},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":904},{"value":"reports","hits":255},{"value":"judicial records","hits":232},{"value":"legal documents","hits":207},{"value":"exhibition (associated concept)","hits":67},{"value":"project management","hits":62},{"value":"budgets","hits":38},{"value":"correspondence","hits":23},{"value":"handbooks","hits":20},{"value":"agendas (administrative records)","hits":17},{"value":"handbills","hits":16}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Office of Desegregation Management","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":1850}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}