This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.
A CURRICULUM AUDIT OFTHE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Little Rock, Arkansas Little Rock School D1str1ct Board of Educauon Center Conducted Lnder the Auspices of the NATIONAL Ct:RRICULUM AUDIT CE TER Na110nal Academy for School E.tccu11vcs 180 l orth Moore Street Arlington, Virginia 22:0Q R. Gerald Melton Executive Director c C.-1.C/NASE December, 199\l AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS NATIONAL ACADEMY FOR SCHOOL EXECUTIVES NATIONAL CURRICULUM AUDIT CENTER Members of the Audit Team: William K. Poston Jr. Lead Auditor Department of Professional Studies Iowa State University Larry E. Frase Professor, Educational Ad.ministration San Diego State University San Diego, California 92116 Charlsie A. Hina Director, Principal Assessment Kentucky Department of Education Frankfurt, Kentucky 41014 Michael K. Maryanski Deputy Superintendent Ravensdale School District Ravensdale. Washington 98051 Mada Kay Morehead Director, Research and Evaluation Kyrene School District Tempe.Arizona 85284, Ames, Iowa 50011 Jayne Hartman Director Research and Evaluation St. Lucie County Schools Ft. Pierce, Florida 34947 Glenn Holzman Research Associate School Improvement Model Projects Ames, Iowa 50011 Clifford E. Mohn Assistant Superintendent Independence Public Schools Independence, Missouri 64055 Constance M. Pace Principal Niagara Falls High School Niagara Falls,NY,14301 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. Background, Purpose and Scope of W orlc Background Purpose Scope of Work II. Methodoloc
y PAGE 1 2 3 4 The Model for the Curriculum Audit 5 Standards for the Auditor 5 Data Sources 6 Standards for the Curriculum Audit 7 III. Findings of the Auditors 8 Standard 1: The School District Demonstrates Control 8 Finding 1.1: Administrative Stability Has Been Sparse 10 Finding 1.2: Line of Authority is Fragmented and Disordered 12 Finding 1.3: Long Range Planning is Inadequate 17 Finding 1 .4: Board Policies are Outdated 19 Finding 1.5: Board Member Relationships Disrupt Operations 23 Finding 1.6: Board Members Intrude Into Administration 25 Finding 1.7: Professional Negotiations Agreement Limits Control 29 Standard 2: The School District's Objectives for Students 32 Finding 2.1: Melange of Curriculum Guides Exists 33 Finding 2.2: Curriculum Documents Inadequate for Instruction 35 Finding 2.3: Curriculum Development and Revision is Faulty 44 Finding 2.4: Written Curriculum Procedures are Deficient 44 Finding 2.5: Articulation and Coordination is Ineffective 45 Standard 3: The School District's Program Consistency 48 Finding 3.1: Allocation of Resources Inconsistent and Inequitable 49 Finding 3.2: Monitoring Practices are Inconsistent 54 Finding 3.3: Placement of Students is Inconsistent 55 Finding 3.4: Promotion-Retention Practices are Faulty 64 Finding 3.5: Staff Development is Inadequate 65 Finding 3.6: Collection and Use of Data is Erratic 67 Section Standard 4: The School District Use of Results finding 4.1: Testing Program is Inadequate Finding 4.2: Test Scores Show Mixed Trends Finding 4.3: Assessment Program Delimits Decision-Making Standard 5: The School District's Productivity Finding 5.1: Revenues Exceed Expenditures Finding 5.2: Budgeting Limits Participation Finding 5.3: Management Shows Inadequate Control Finding 5.4: Budgeting Follows Traditional Format finding 5.5: Disparities Exist Among Schools Finding 5.6: Productivity is Jeopardized TV. Recommendations of the Auditors Page 68 70 72 86 90 91 92 93 94 94 97 100 Recommendation 1: Create a Sound Board Policy Framework 100 Recommendation 2: Reorganize the Administrative Structure 101 Recommendation 3: Establish Management Stability and Integrity 105 Recommendation 4: Adopt Policy For Improved Governance 107 Recommendation 5: Purge Parts of Professional Negotiations Agreement 108 Recommendation 6: Improve Educational Facilities 109 Recommendation 7: Develop and Implement Functional Curriculum Documents 110 Recommendation 8: Develop Process for Participative Curriculum Management 112 Recommendation 9: Consolidate Curriculum Functions 114 Recommendation 10: Establish Functional Assessment and Expand Testing 115 Recommendation 11: Establish Consistency and Equity in Programs 117 Recommendation 12: Modify Budgeting Practices 119 Recommendation 13: Develop and Use Long Range Planning 121 V. Summary Appendix A: Curriculum Management Policy Model Appendix B Background of the Auditors 123 124 126 Table of Contents: Lanie Rock Cumrulum Audit Pagdi O December 21. 1990 Exhibit Number: Il.1.1.1 Ill.1.1.1 lll.1.2.1 III.1.3.1 ill.1.3.2 III.1.4.1 Ill.2.1.1 III.2.2.1 III.2.3.1 III.3.1.1 III.3.1.2 ill.3 .1.3 IIl.3.1.3 III.3.3.1 Ill.3.3.2 Ill.3.3.3 Ill.3.3.4 III3.3.5 ill.3.3.6 IIl.3.3.7 III.3 .3.8 III.3.4.1 IIl.3.4.2 III.4.1.1 III.4.2.1 III.4.2.2 III.4.2.3 III.4.2.4 III.4.2.5 III.4.2.6 III.4.2.7 III.4.2.8 III.4.2.9 III.4.2.l 0 IIl.4.2.11 Ill.4 .2.12 III.4 .2.13 ill.4.2.14 III.4.2.15 III.4.3.1 Ill.5.1.1 III.5.1.2 TABLE OF EXHIBITS Title o[ Exhibit Page A Schematic View of Quality Control 5 Little Rock Superintendents 11 Current Table of Organization 16 Employee Percentage of Black Children 18 Employee Percentage of White Children 18 Individual Board Requests 28 Rating of Curriculum Guides 37-40 Summary of Curriculum Guide Ratings 42 Distribution of Curriculum Guides 43 Comparisons of Library Books 50 Comparisons of JHS Faculty Racial Composition 52 Comparisons of Teacher Experience in Selected Schools 53 Comparisons of JHS Student Racial Composition 54 Placement Criteria Comparisons: HS Gifted and Talented 56 Placement Criteria Comparisons: Elementary Gifted and Talented 57 Regular and Enriched JHS English Racial Distributions 59 Regular and Enriched HS English Racial Distributions 60 Comparisons of Blacks in Special Education and Total School 62 Comparisons of Special Education and Total School Percentages 62 Annual Long Tenn Suspension Rates 63 Annual Drop Out Rate Comparisons 63 Percentage of Grade 1 Students Retained 64 Comparisons Between Schools in Retention of Grade 1 Sr..:dents 65 Matrix of Tests Administered in the Little Rock School District 71 Comparisons of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 4 Reading 72 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 7 Reading 74 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 10 Reading 74 MAT-6 Reading Achievement Scores 75 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: Grade 4 Math 76 MAT-6 Math Achievement Scores 77 MA T-6 Language Achievement Scores 78 Comparisons of Black and White Students: MA T-6 79 Change in Percentile: Cohort Groups 80 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: AMPT Math 81 Comparison of Little Rock Schools and Arkansas: AMPT Reading 82 High School Ranks on American College Test 83 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on American College Test 84 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on Scholastic Aptitude Test 84 Comparison of Little Rock Schools on SAT: Math 85 Schools with Less Than 85% Passing: AMPT 87 Revenues and Expenditures 91 Revenues and Expenditures Trend 92 Table of Contents: Little Rock Curriculum Audit Page iii December 21. 1990 Exhibit Number: lII.5.3. l III.5.6.1 Ill.5.6.2 IV .2.1.1 Table of Exhibits, Continued: Title of Exhibit Sample of Teacher Changes Student Enrollment Trends Private School Enrollments Recommended Table of Organization PHOTOGRAPHS VIEW Little Rock School District Board of Education Center Central High School Elementary Art Student in Action Underutilized Library During School Hours Kindergarten Children at Work Elementary School Colleagues Another Underutilized Library During School Hours Children Sorting and Classifying Objects Caution: Children on Task Small Group Reading Lesson Boy and a Book Regular English: Pulaski Heights Junior High School Enriched English: Pulaski Heights Junior High School Elementary School Classroom Instruction High School Students on Computers Elementary Pupils Completing Worksheets PAGE Title 1 10 14 20 25 31 34 36 46 51 58 58 69 95 109 Page 93 98 98 104 Table of Contents: Little Rock Cumculu.m Audit Pia< iv o Dca:mbcr 21, 1990 I. BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE OF WORK. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit CCl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page I This document constitutes the final report of a curriculum audit of the Little Rock School District, Little Rock, Arkansas. The audit was requested by the Little Rock Superintendent of Schools and was commissioned by the Little Rock Board of Directors in July of 1990. The audit was conducted on site in Little Rock, Arkansas, during the time periods of September 16-21, 1990, and October 3-4, 1990. BACKGROUND Little Rock is the capital city of Arkansas. Located in the central part of the state, it comprises an important commercial center for the surrounding region, and is home for several major national corporations. The Arkansas River, the moderate climate, and an energetic, resourceful population have helped this city grow and thrive in industrial, service, and economic enterprises over its history. The principal industries in the region are agriculture and commercial distribution of goods and services. The Little Rock School District has served the Little Rock community for nearly 125 years. It is the largest school district in the state, and has 51 schools serving over 25,000 students. The annual budget of the school district exceeds $100 million, and the district employs nearly 3500 people, including about 2000 teachers. Central High School Little Rock, Arkansas Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 2 The Little Rock School District has been in the process of providing equal educational opportunity for all of its students, and the superintendent states that academic growth and progress is a major focus throughout all district programs. The school district has elementary schools (grades preschool - sixth grade), junior high schools (grades seven through nine), and high schools (grades ten through twelve). A seven-member Board of Directors, elected by voters from seven geographic zones, govern the Little Rock School District. Directors serve for three years on a staggered schedule. Current members of the Board include the following individuals: Dr. Katherine Mitchell, Board President Ms. Oma Jacovelli, Board Vice President Ms. Robin Armstrong, Member Ms. Patricia Gee, Member Mr. William D. Hamilton, Member Mr. John E. Moore, Member Mr. James L. Rutherford, Member PURPOSE The newly-structured Board and brand-new administrative team of the Little Rock School District have expressed a desire to provide the highest quality of educational service to its community by requesting this assessment of services and programs of the district. Although most of the factors examined were preexistent to the new Superintendent, the audit was requested to help the administration implement changes necessary to be productive in instruction and fiscal management. The Little Rock School District conveyed this desire to the National Curriculum Audit Center, Arlington, Virginia to undergo a curriculum audit to objectively analyze and assess their efforts toward productivity. The Little Rock School District would be then able to determine if their efforts have been appropriate and effective, and if there are any areas for growth or improvement. Hopefully, this would tie the district's purposes to the responsibilities of the leadership team. A curriculum audit reveals the degree to which the officials of the Little Rock School District and professional staff have developed and implemented a sound, valid, and operational system of curriculum management. Such a system would enable the Little Rock School District to make maximum utilization of its human and financial resources in the education of its students. If such a system were implemented and fully operational, it would also ensure that the Little Rock School District taxpayers, and the State of Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 3 Arkansas, that their financial support had been well used under the conditions in which the school district functioned. SCOPE OF WORK The curriculum audit is a process which was first used in the Columbus, Ohio, Public Schools in 1979. The audit was provided through the auspices of the auditing firm of Peat, Marwick, and Mitchell. The audit is based upon generally accepted ideas pertaining to what it takes to provide effective instruction and curricular delivery, some of which have been popularly referred to as "effective schools research." Curriculum audits have been performed in many states including Kentucky, Missouri, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vrrginia, California, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Illinois, Connecticut, and Arkansas. The methods used in the curriculum audit have been reported in educational professional literature in the past decade, and also described at many national seminars and conventions. Curriculum audits are now conducted by professionally trained auditors, who are officially certified by the National Curriculum Audit Center. The National Curriculum Audit Center is housed within the National Academy for School Executives, a division of the American Association of School Administrators, in Arlington, Virginia, in the Washington, D.C. area. This audit for the Little Rock School District was conducted under a contract between the Little Rock School District and the AASA-NASE National Curriculum Audit Center. II. METHODOLOGY THE MODEL FOR THE AUDIT Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. Dccember21, 1990 Page4 The model for a curriculum audit is shown in Exhibit Il.l. The model has been published in Curriculum Management, by Fenwick W. English, and published by Charles C. Thomas, Publishers (1987). Quality control in a school district assumes that at least three elements must be present in the district's operational and planning functions for it to be successful: (1) First, a work standard must be defined (policy, goal, objective), (2) Secondly, activities and operations of personnel and work must be directed toward carrying out or accomplishing the work standard (or policy, goal, objective), and (3) Third, and most importantly, measurement (feedback) must be obtained for determining how well the district is reaching or attaining its established standards. Over time, a school district must be able to track progress toward attaining more and more of its established standards within its financial constraints. Basically then, the school district (and in this case, the Little Rock School District) becomes more and more proficient at its essential tasks, and it can demonstrate the "spiral" of upward attainment publicly. Within the Little Rock School District, and its governance and operational structure, curricular quality control should reveal the presence of: (1) a written (planned) curriculum which can be effectuated into the work of teachers in classrooms, (2) a taught (implemented) curriculum which is shaped by the written curriculum, and (3) a measured (tested) curriculum which consists of testing or assessment tools of pupil learning which are linked to both the written (planned) and taught (implemented) curricula. In this way, the Little Rock School District, and any other school district can get better at delivering teaching and learning as time goes by. Exhibit Il.1 A SCHEMA TIC VIEW OF Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit <:l N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 5 CURRICULAR QUALITY CONTROL STANDARDS FOR THE AUDITOR IHE WIITTII CIJIIICULUW [WDll PU.ii CIJIIJCUL.U QUALIIY CDHTlDL THI TISTID ClJIRIClJLUW (WUSUIEMEJl'T) Principles which govern a curriculum audit, which are not unlike those of a financial audit, include the following: 1. Technical Expertise. Auditors must have had experience in conducting school district affairs at all the levels audited, and they must have demonstrable understanding of the tacit and contextual clues of sound curriculum management. 2. Independence. Auditors must have no vested interest in the findings or outcomes of the audit. 3. Objectivity. The auditors must be able to verify observable events in the audit with documents, interviews, and site visitation. Essential facts of the audit must be triangulated by the auditors. 4. Consistency. The auditors must use essentially the same methcxls used from one audit to the next. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (C) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 6 5. Materialicy. The auditors must exercise broad authority in exploring, investigating, examining, and selecting for analysis all aspects of the operation being audited which are more important than others. 6. Full Disclosure. The auditors must reveal all information that is important to the users of the audit, such as the Board of Education (Governing Board or Board of Directors), the administration, the teaching staff, students, parents and taxpayers. DATA SOURCES A variety of data sources are ordinarily used during a curriculum audit to determine if the elements of effective teaching and learning are being delivered, and if the elements are appropriately interrelated. The audit process also establishes whether or not pupil learning has improved as the result of effective utilization of curricular quality control. The major sources for the audit of the Little Rock School District included the followin2: 1. Documents. These consisted of Board policies, curriculum guides, reports, memoranda, budgets, state reports, accreditation documents, budgets, or any other written source of information which would reveal connections between elements of the planned, implemented, and tested curricula. 2. Interviews, Interviews were conducted to obtain further information on the same elements and their interconnections. Interviews were held with most of the members of the Board of Education, top level administrative staff, building principals, other administrators, teachers, parents, and other relevant persons. 3. Site Visitations. Site visitations were made to reveal the context in which curriculum is being implemented and to obtain important contextual reference information for contrast with documents or unusual working conditions. The auditors visited all schools in the Little Rock School District. STANDARDS FOR THE CURRICULUM AUDIT Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 7 The auditors utilized five standards against which to compare. verify, and comment upon the Little Rock School District's existing curricular management practices. These standards have been extrapolated from an extensive review of management principles and practices, as well as utilized in the previous audits in many other school districts around the country. While any set of such standards does not reflect perfection or an ideal management system, the standards do represent working characteristics that any complex organization should possess in being responsive and responsible to its clientele. A school district that is using its human and financial resources for the greatest benefit of its students is a district that is able to establish clear objectives, examine alternatives, select and implement alternatives, measure results as they develop against established objectives, and adjust its efforts so that it achieves a greater share of those objectives over time. The five standards employed in the Little Rock School District curriculum audit included the following: 1. The school system is able to demonstrate its control of resources, programs and personnel. 2. The school system has established clear and valid objectives for students. 3. The school system has documentation explaining how its programs have been developed, implemented, and conducted. 4. The school system uses the results from district designed or adopted assessments to adjust, improve, or terminate ineffective practices or programs. 5. The school system has been able to improve its productivity. III. FINDINGS Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 8 Standard 1: The School District is Able lo Demonstrate Its Control of Resources, Programs, and Personnel Although educational program control (direction) and accountability are often shared among different components of a school system, fundamental control rests with the school board and top-level central administrative staff. Quality control is a fundamental element and is one of the major premises of local educational control in a well managed school system. The critical premise involved is that the will of the electorate is carried out by the local governing board by establishment of local priorities within state law and regulations. The local governing board is the responsible body for accountability to the general public. Through the development and construction of policy, a local school board provides the focus to direct the operations of a school system through delegation to administrative staff. In this way the expression of popular will is assured, and the district is enabled to be responsive to its patrons and clients. It also enables the system to meaningfully assess and utilize student learning as a critical factor in determining its success. Although educational program control and accountability are often shared among different components of a school system, fundamental control of, and responsibility for, the operations of a school system rest with the governing board and its top level management staff. What the Auditors Expected To Find In The Little Rock School District A school district meeting Standard 1 would be able to demonstrate the existence of: A clear set of policies that reflect state requirements and local program goals and the necessity to use achievement data to improve school system operations *Documentation of sound planning by the Board and top- level management staff for the attainment of goals over time An administrative structure that was functional and facilitated the design and delivery of the district's curriculum *Sound curriculum coordination and articulation within all school buildings and across all levels within the school system Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 NA.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 9 * A direct, uninterrupted line of authority from the school board/superintendent to principals. teacher leadership roles, and teachers * A clear mechanism to control change and innovation within the school system * Administrative and staff responsiveness to school board policies, currently and over time. What the Auditors Found in the Little Rock School District The auditors found a fairly secure school system that has weathered some very difficult times and that has come through many complexities and challenges of desegregation. The Superintendent is relatively new to this position, but has considerable experience in administration within the state. The Board has recently gone through an election with resultant restructuring of its leadership, and individually the members of the Board all indicate commitment and allegiance to the improvement of educational opportunity in Little Rock. As testimony to the district's efforts toward improvement, the district recently received voter approval of additional financial support for its educational program. Community support seems to have turned in favor of the school district with few exceptions. Overall, the Little Rock School District is a rather well-run school district in terms of practices and general operations. The Little Rock School District has enjoyed a reputation among parents and the public that finances are generally managed prudently and usually in the best interests of student . The Little Rock School District appears to have benefited from the lengthy service of some key persons, including faculty and other employees. Yet, there are many areas where improvements can be made, and that is the purpose of this audit. The Board and Superintendent agreed to have the curriculum audit conducted in the Little Rock School District, precisely to find the areas where the district falls short of its intentions for quality control in educational operations. The audit is not intended to itemize or list the virtues of the Little Rock Schools. There are many aspects of the district which deserve commendation, reinforcement, and continued support. However, the audit aims to focus only on some of the problems incurred in quality control, and there are a number of those. For example, the auditors found inadequate direction and precepts for management of the district's curriculum
insufficient long range planning for change
and uneven monitoring of educational program delivery in schools. The findings follow in detail: Fledgling Art Student in Action Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 10 Finding 1.1 Top-level and building-level administrator stability has been sparse in the Little Rock School District. A measure of stability in school districts is found in the average length of tenure among the districts' chief executive officers over time. Surprisingly, the Little Rock School District has had (QJ.rr_ different superintendents in the four year period from 1986-1990, resulting in a remarkable dearth of stability in top level leadership. In the last twelve years, the governing board has appointed five individuals to the position of superintendent or interim superintendent. One person was appointed to the chief executive officer's position twice, but not during consecutive years. The turnover rate has been highest during the last 39 months with three individuals occupying the position of superintendent (see Exhibit Ill.1.1). Exhibit III.1.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 11 SUPERINTENDENTS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT: 1978-90 NAME SCHQQL YEAR Mr. Paul Masem 1978-82 Dr. Ruth Steele 1982 Dr. Ed Kelly 1982-87 Mr. Vance Jones 1987 Dr. George Cannon 1987-89 Dr. Ruth Steele 1989-Present As if to exacerbate the situation, there has been a 52% turnover in administrative positions between the principal and superintendent levels since school year 1986-87 and 41 % since school year 1988-89. The rapid turnover in upper level management positions, particularly the superintendency, is viewed by teachers, administrators, and community members as a major weakness for the district and has resulted in cynicism and a lack of confidence. The following quotations reflect these attitudes: "The district has suffered from changes (turnover in superintendency) and it gives the public a strong sense of instability." "This superintendent is too good to last very long." "Don't know from day to day if they are going to be there." "This is a rudderless ship'' "We'll just play 'around' with (this) directive because it will change next year." "They (superintendents) all disappear sooner or later." "It's hard to work in all the turmoil -- removal of superintendents." "Becomes confusing with new initiatives from each new superintendent." "They all have their own program and there is no follow-up." Exceedingly high turnover in the superintendent's position precludes leadership continuity in the Little Rock Public Schools. The turnover led to excessive turnover in other central office administrative positions, and along with court decisions regarding desegregation, may be chiefly responsible for the following organizational dysfunctions: tack of an effectively used strategic long range plan
*lack of teacher trust in the board, administration, or school curriculum programs
sense that change is based on politics, not what's best for the youth
confusion and cynicism among community members
*disorientation and conflict among board members about curricula and operations
confusion among school district staff, and patrons upon roles and responsibilities
and *inadequate board policies, regulations, and adherence to board policies in the following areas: evaluation of operations, programs, instruction, and services, policy AF
evaluation of school board operational procedure, policy AF A
Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit c, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 12 evaluation of superintendent. policy AFB. item 3: evaluation of instructional programs, policy AFE & IM
school board member ethics, policy BBF, paragraphs 6 & 11
evaluation of the superintendent, item 3, policy CBG
review of new initiatives and curriculum offerings, policy IFB
and approval of curricula prior to addition of new courses, policy, IFD. Employees and community members search intensely for definitive direction from a superintendent backed by the Board of Directors. This can only come with a long-term superintendent working in harmony with the board of directors. Without that support, the staff will "do their own thing" and essentially ignore administrative directives. The result is confusion and a weak. disjointed curriculum throughout the district. Finding 1.2. Linc of authority and direction of the district's curriculum management function is disordered and fragmented. Administration of curriculum activities, including design and delivery of instruction, is a critical function in an effectively operating school system. In Little Rock, the administrative functions were examined by the auditors, and several criteria were utilized to determine the level of appropriate organizational procedures and the level of effectiveness in managing the curriculum affairs of the school district. Primarily, the auditors found that the top managerial personnel were well prepared for their assignments
however, incongruence and disorderliness of direction was evident among individuals assigned responsibility for supervision of the educational activities of the district. For example, the following points were noted: Parents, teachers, principals, and board members complained of the "bureaucratic" difficulti in communicating within the district regarding educational issues. Some felt that the administration couldn't make any contribution to the improvement of instructional quality because of the disheveled lines of communication. Board members and key instructional personnel unaware of some course modifications at the junior high and high school levels prior to implementation, and principals often reported a dearth of supervision and direction for day-to-day operations of the instructional program. Many principals did not identify supervisory activities germane to improvement of instruction, and accepted little or no direct responsibility for key instructional tasks and duties (staff development, selection of teacher materials, disaggregation of assessment data, supervision of teachers, etc.). Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 13 Key administrative personnel indicated little or no involvement in setting budget and programmatic priorities of the district. Infrequent administrative collaboration was evident in long range planning, staff development program design and implementation, and assessment utilization and planning. Teachers and parents lamented the inadequate support given to improvement of the quality of instruction, lack of articulation between grade levels, comparability with other schools and school districts, and the impotence of teacher and parent participation in instructional program development. Some principals took uneven notice of ineffective and inadequate classroom patterns and teaching activities. Observed teaching activities which reflected very low power teaching techniques and feeble and ineffectual instructional activities included the following: a. Elementary classrooms with inordinately large amounts of student "seat work" and exceptionally few direct instructional activities. b. Grouping practices which demonstrated linle flexibility, insubstantial rationale, inequity and ineffectuality. c. Teaching with inadequate reference to recently adopted curriculum guides and excessive use of the text book for direction. d. Librarians presiding over severely underused library facilities. Few examples were found where librarians actively teach the student body under their direction on a regularly scheduled basis. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 14 High School Library During School Hours e. A vast majority of classrooms with no interactive, cooperative, or direct instructional activity. (in most classrooms visited, students were doing "seat work" which was busy work with worksheets or workbooks or textbooks and too few teachers were observed actually teaching a lesson). These observations point out the overall ineffectiveness of the administrative organization to respond to educational needs and to implement growth producing instructional supervision. Learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse, unless administrative direction, expertise, and intervention is provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School District. Moreover, the administrative organization is dysfunctional. As shown in the attached organization chart, organizational precepts of quality are lacking. The auditors examined the organization of the Little Rock School District with the following criteria and principles: 1. 2. 3. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 15 Principles of Sound Organizational Management Span of Control Effective supervision on a day to day basis requires direct responsibiliry for not more than 7-12 employees Chain of Command No employee should have more than one supervisor Logical Grouping of Tasks of similar nature should be grouped together Functions 4. Separation of Line and Line positions (principals, teachers) should be separate from Staff curriculum design, and program assessment functions 5. Scalar Relationships All positions shown at the same level must have similar responsibiliry, authority and compensation 6. Full Inclusion All central functions, particularly functions facilitative of qualiry control need to be included in the organizational structure In summation, the auditors reviewed the Little Rock School District Organization Chart (on following page), and made the following determinations: 1. Instructional supervision of teaching and learning is inadequate and ineffective. Principals are not appropriately supervised, and support for school operations is inadequate. 2. The superintendent's span of control is too great for qualiry control. 3. Responsibility for curriculum design and assessment use functions are woefully absent. 4. Scalar relationships and the chain of command are inappropriate and inaccurate. Job roles are confused and lines of communication are obscured. 5. Instructional functions for quality control are not appropriately included. Overall, the organizational relationships in Little Rock Schools are insufficiently defined and inadequately configured to offer sound and appropriate leadership for improved teaching and learning in the district. I Planning, Research, I & Evaluation Manager for Support Services Budge! Development Purchasing Data Processing Transportation Food Services Plant Services I Board of Directors I 1 Superintendent I Communications I j Deputy Superintendent I I I I Contract/Labor jl I Human Resources 11 Contr I Relations I New Futures I oiler I I Associate Superintendent Associate Superl -- ----------- for Educational Programs ~--------- for Desegregation ntendent Monitor& Stall Development . elopment I I I I I Assistant I Principals I I Superintendents Educational Programs: English PE/Athletics Social Studies Exceptional Children Malh Vocational Ed. Reading Adult Ed. Science Instructional Technology Foreign Language Library Media Programs Art/Music Stall Development Ing & Program Dev I ____ _J Student Assign ments ms/ nlstration Federal Progra Grants Admi Pupil Personne I Services Magnet Revie w Committee Community Pr ograms (JTPA. VIPS ) Early Childho od Programs t'"" n ~ E
trl .... ::,
) ,_. 0 IC t:) 0 ~, 0.... n IC '"1 ~ --'CJQ en CGl-l r.i n E!. = 0 N 0- r....i. 0 0 t ... 0= I:'""' ... no ::r - ~~ 6 C - z ::: 0 ~ :,:0
:t> $l (./),... P1 w ::,- 0 ~ "~ 0 8
.~. 5. ~ ~ n C :
3. _., n C 0 2:" .",C 3 "c1 > C ."..".. ~ II II Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit !tl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 17 FINDING 1.3 Implementation of long-range planning or strategic vision is inadequate to direct efforts to improve quality of the Little Rock School District. The auditors found that "everything is a crisis" in the Little Rock Schools, and "nothing is routine." Wellthought out plans ahead of time are incomplete, despite hundreds of pages of "plans." The following plans were examined by the auditors: Tri-District Desegregation Plan for the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District (January, 1990) Long Range Plan for School Facilities - Little Rock, Arkansas (September 1988) Proposed Planning Report, 1986-87 - 1991-92 (August 1985) The auditors found that the plans were not instrumental in guiding the day-to-day operations of the Little Rock School District. Most Board members and administrators did not indicate any acquaintance with the provisions of the planning, nor any involvement with delivery of the planned activities. Dese~e~ation Plan. An exception to ineffective planning is the planning pursuant to desegregatio activities, where the district desegregation staff gathers a number of activities under its umbrella. However, the desegregation plan confounds many school operations, not so much from its intentions or purposes as from its implementation. Teachers and principals reported too many surprises in educational changes attributable to the desegregation plan. Board members and parents complained about the abolishment of homogeneous classes (tracking) at the secondary level, indicating little acquaintance with the sound and extensive rationale for such practice. Communication and involvement of district stakeholders (parents, teachers, others) is insufficient to foster appropriate "ownership" of the plan throughout the school community. Control in implementing the plan was inadequate as reflected in these findings: Staff development is prescribed to "focus ... (the staff) to address the racism reality.' A noble goal, but in operation, the auditors found no teacher or principal who was aware of a comprehensive needs assessment of staff employees designed to match training with individual differences among teachers or administrators. Student assignment was planned to provide impartial and nonpolitical procedures to "desegregate schools .. :, but many complaints were heard by the auditors of unfairness and partiality in implementing the student assignment process. As an example, magnet schools were alleged to have a disproportionate Little Rock School District Cumculum Audit <0 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 18 number of children of employees. To evaluate the allegation, a sample of the population was tested by the auditors with the following results: Employee Percentage of Black Children - Gibbs Magnet 1990 p6.95% 93.05% Employee Percentage of White Children - Gibbs Magnet1990 92.47% D Employees Other D Employees Other The distribution of a disproportionate number district employee's children among magnet schools would be an indicator of inequitable or political practices. The results are inconclusive with just one school, but the perception (or misperception) among community members remains in place and the problem demands resolution. Little Rock School Distnct Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 19 Of course. the plan is in response to orders from the U.S. District Court, and its evaluation of effectiveness rests with those charged with such responsibility. Nevertheless, the auditors found that the desegregation plan affects many areas of operation, but it does not serve as a rationale instrument of guidance for actions among school personnel as it should. The purpose of strategic plans is to organize and focus district resources to meet future student needs. A strategic vision is the organization's vision of its desired future, and thereby provides guidance for curriculum decisions. Such a plan provides a district with criteria and processes for confronting problems and managing the district. At this time, the district has no strategic or formal comprehensive plan for education in the Little Rock School District. Without a well developed plan, the Little Rock Schools will be directed by crisis and bullied by politi activists. Finding 1.4. Board policies are outdated and generally ineffective in establishing curricular quality contro1. The auditor examined the following policies of the Little Rock School District: Policy Code Content Date AD Philosophy June 26, 1980 ADA Mission Statement January 26, 1984 AFA Evaluation of Board June 26, 1980 AFE Evaluation of Instructional Program June 26, 1980 CH Policy Implementation March 24, 1983 GCL Staff Development June 26, 1986 IF Curriculum Development October 29, 1981 IFD Curriculum Adoption Nov. 19, 1981 L"M: Program Evaluation Dec. 17, 1981 The policies fail to establish a framework for sound curriculum planning, configuration of courses, specific curricular outcome statements, relationship of testing or test data to such outcomes, or lead to the creation of any plan reviewed by the auditor that could be called comprehensive, despite the fact that the Little Rock board policy (AD-#1) required one. The policies did not indicate or mention any sense of curricular priorities which could be measurable or related to content. l ,ttlc Rock <
chool D1stnC1 Curriculum Audit ~ '.'-i .. .
.S.E. Decemt>er 21. 1990 Pag:c 20 No clear operational guideline cxi,1- for tht: dcv, it1pmcnt , ir evaluation :if curriculum in the district. Board Policies (AD, AD:\), The Phii,1~oph) <10J \! i~~ion \tatcmenl arc \!,t:neral and somewhat vague statements. For instance, no ch.:a1 direCLion i5 offered [or measuring the requirement that "the instructional program should provide each student with lhc: opportunity for maximum intellectual and inter-personal development, whcn:in each student compdes with his own potential. These statements were not cited once by anyone a~ valuable references in curriculum decision making. Board Policy (* AF A), Evaluation of School Board Operational Procedure. indicates that an appropriate plan should be in operation for many areas including policy. However. operational procedures as they relate to curriculum policy are not available. Specific criteria for the development of curriculum objectives and an appraisal system of such has not been established. Kindergarten Children At Work Board policy (AFE), Evaluauon of Instructional Programs. is concerned with the purpose of evaluating instruction. This is to be done by determining the educational needs and providing information for planning. Checks of strengths ,rnd v. eaknesses of the programs must he undertaken. However, there is no mention of what the definition of needs. ,trengths or weaknesses are. \!or is there any direction as to the method which should be used 1r
providing, information for planning. The policy also requires that evaluation of instructional program be programs in terms of community requirements". What does Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit <0 NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 21 "suitability ... in terms of community requirement" mean. Does it refer to the desegregation plan? Or does it refer to changing needs of occupational pursuits and directions in the community? There is no clear method as to how planned instructional programs are uniformly evaluated. Board policy (CH), Policy Implementation, requires that administrators and supervisors are responsible for informing staff members of existing policies and are to see that such are implemented. However, many sources indicated that policies and regulations are not effectively communicated. Thus a direct, unintem1pted line of authority does not exist. Often times when directives and procedures are communicated, with the intent to achieve an "effective and efficient" running school system, there has been evidence that opposition has occurred which leads to confusion. For example board members were aware of the implementation of a new program, "Learning Foundations." Even though the program is in place, continuous attempts by some board members to increase opposition to this program were apparent. Even though the policy indicates that "all board members, district employee, and students are expected to abide by (them)." Board policy (GCL), Staff Development, deals with technical assistance to employees in the implementation of curriculum. However, during many interviews with administrators, teachers and noninstructional employees it was apparent that limited training is actually offered. Need surveys, long range planning, training of staff prior to implementation of new initiatives are not adequately undertaken. Staff described the district's efforts as "knee jerk and window dressing". Assistant principals, for instance felt that they were not given ample preparation or training in how the multi-cultural curriculum guides were to be used. However, they were expected to evaluate instructional staff on the use of such documents. Board policy (IF), Curriculum Development, requires that the superintendent establish "curriculum committees for the study of curriculum improvements." However, minimum building level staff are actually involved in the development of curriculum. Presently, a ratio has been established with the union, as to the number of teachers and central office administrators who will make up these committees. Building level administrators are omitted even though they have involvement in evaluating the actual implementation of said curriculum. There were also instances when central office administrators solely developed changes in curricular pursuits because of time constraints. An example of this was when the Board forced an immediate implementation of a gifted and talented program, over the recommendation for a three-year phase-in by a community advisory committee, which caused severe financial and educational difficulties. With the occurrence of minimum or no building level staff involvement the final results produce what has been Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (rJ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 22 referred to as an average to below standard curriculum which is not used in an effective manner. Teachers and other staff members are apprehensive and somewhat resistive to implementation. In some schools, teachers continue to use former guides even though programs have changed. The expectation that "all teachers will make a contribution to curriculum committee work" is not being followed. Board policy (IFD), Curriculum Adoption, sets forth the requirement that the superintendent shall "suggest and implement administratively, changes and improvements in curriculum offerings" but such "shall be reported to the Board prior to implementation". Several board members indicated that changes in program/course offerings were never reported to them, for example PAL, or the gifted and talented program. Board members were not aware that there was a course adoption policy. This policy has been in effect since November, 1981. Additionally, during interviews held with the Biracial Committee, parents and board members, evidence was gathered that curricular sequences have been changed abruptly, with little planning taking place. Student courses of study have been effected without broad participation in the decisions, and this has created problems for students attempting to complete their requirements for graduation. Board policy (IM), Program Evaluation, requires that the district must "establish an evaluation process" in order to obtain objective information regarding instructional program and the performance of personnel". However, no standardized framework has been established for this to occur. No uniform method exists of how instructional programs and personnel performance are to be evaluated. During interviews the auditors found only one central office administrator who developed and consistently used documents to evaluate principals assigned to her department. The auditors found no evidence of coordination or articulation among other central office administrators to evaluate in the same manner. In fact, several principals complained that they had been evaluated by a top administrator from the central office, despite the fact that the evaluator had not visited their school during the period of their evaluation. This policy further indicates that an established evaluation process must be conducted by "professionals, but little direction is provided. o evidence existed to indicate that there was use of evaluation data by the board or district to determine educational needs. Evaluation and resultant changes often seem to be tied to the desegregation plan. The policy also indicates there should be a relationship between stated goals and actual accomplishments. Goals and long range outcomes change often thus limiting the possibility of such correlation. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ti) N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 23 The policy further required the district to use evaluation to "improve the performance of personnel". However, personnel are not involved or informed of appropriate training. Personnel reported this hampers the development of their skills. No teachers reported direction from supervisors as to training tied to perceived or measured effectiveness in the classroom. Throughout the district many schools and staff members were found "doing their own thing" without coordinated direction from the school administration, thus established control was lacking, and consi~tency and guidance were absent.. The district is unable to tell whether or not a program, a teacher, or a set of learning materials is effective or productive. No standardized methods have been established by which district staff can use assessment data to evaluate student progress, and the district lacks a way to assess the adequacy of the curriculum or its comparability. The board has not established any policy which requires curriculum to be developed in the district that was internally consistent or demonstrated coherency around a core. The district has not established a definition of a core curriculum. FINDlNG 1.5 Board member relationships with the superintendent and administrative staff disrupt management operations of the Little Rock School District. Despite board policies and precepts which call for support and cooperation with top level administration, board member actions and activities provide frequent and disruptive interventions into the managerial operations of the school district. Policies, presumably established to provide appropriate board roles, reflect the following: Board Policy AFB. "Evaluation of the Superintendent" states: "The Board of Directors shall: Determine the duties of the Superintendent ... and~ him. or. bs<r ill th.e dischar~e Q.( ~or.~~ (emphasis added). Board Re~ulation BBA-R, Duties and Responsibilities. states: "Board members and the Superintendent should tt!al eaci! other~ courtesy and~ bQth ill pyhlic and ill priya_te" (emphasis added). As an example of dysfunction in regard to these policies, the auditors observed one board member, at a parent meeting at Pulaski Junior High School, who publicly ridiculed the district administration before parents. When a parent questioned the principal on why the school district doesn't extend the school day (in order to improve learning), the principal said, "That is a Board matter." Immediately, the board member interrupted the meeting and loudly stated to the entire group, 'Well, the administration tells us Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :> N.A.S.E. December 21 . 1990 Page 24 that the attention span of kids is only 20-45 minutes, and we can't do anything like that (extend the school day) until we (board members) get a straight answer from the administration." Why this board member chose to make such a self-effacing comment is anybody's guess, but the premise was faulty. Extending the school day IS a Board matter, and it has nothing to do with the attention span of children. Such caviling statements only serve to denigrate the integrity of the Board, administrators, and the Little Rock School District as a whole. Further, community leaders interviewed by the auditors indicated serious concern over troublesome board member behaviors. Their concern centered on the long term good of the Little Rock community. The feeling is that the combative nature of the governing board and the contentious disputes that board members seem to cultivate are harmful and jeopardize the future of the entire community. The logic was, as the schools go, so goes the major social institutional foundation, so goes the community, so goes the economy. One leader's statement was that "unless the Board quits the negative and destructive battling, and begins to heal the hurts of the school district, the whole community could go down the river." Auditors carefully reviewed policies, procedures, district records, and communiques. Interviews were conducted with teachers, administrators, board members, and parents. The auditors found board members to be in flagrant violation of Board Policy AFB and Regulation BBA-R. Board members frequently publicly rebuke and embarrass managerial employees including the superintendent, other central office administrators, and building level staff. Elementary School Colleagues Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (!:) N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 25 Teachers, administrators, and parents perceive the divisiveness caused by board members as one of the district's greatest weaknesses. Examples of improper public statements by board members include the following: "I'm going to get that sorry son-of-a-bitch" (reference made to an associate superintendent)
"She is a PR disaster. Don't let her out in the schools, on TV, or in the newspapers" (reference to the superintendent)
"She is incompetent" (reference to an top level administrator)
"She has skinny little lips and shouldn't be on (sic) the media"
(reference to superintendent) "The administration has not really studied this, they do no planning." These comments not only violate board policy and regulations, but they are signs of disrespect, mistrust, lack of confidence, and cynicism which creates open divisiveness within the school district. This divisiveness renders the Little Rock School District ineffective in carrying out its mission. Teachers and administrators stated that the divisiveness caused by the lack of trust and respect shown by board members has contributed greatly to the excessive turnover in superintendents. They further believe that it has a debilitating effect on the effectiveness of the central office team, teachers, and principals. The effect of divisiveness is illustrated by the following comments by employees: "sad to see the way they treat each other"
"it contributes to the instability of our school district"
"this divisiveness spills over into the community"
"as an employee I get very discouraged"
"this perpetuates the bad light we have been viewed in"
"it perpetuates lack of confidence in administrators"
"it upsets the teachers"
"this causes poor public relations"
Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 26 "it shows lack of confidence in administration and leads to the demise of public confidence"
"too many embarrassing and belittling remarks made"
"to the public it looks like the kids are not our focal point and the public loses confidence. Board members' public humiliation and belittlement of the staff members and district greatly weakens the power and ability of the administrative team to influence and lead the organization productively. Finding 1.6 Board members intrude into administrative roles and disrupt the operations of the Little Rock School District. Board Regulation BBA-R states, " ... when board members receive complaints or criticism ... they should encourage the person making (the complaint) to take (it) through the channels of procedure set under Board policy." The auditors learned that this aspect of Board Regulation BBA-R is frequently not followed. Instead, it is common practice for board members to receive complaints and criticism and take them directly to an administrator. Moreover, the auditors found that board members do not adhere to the section of Board Regulation BBA-R, "Processing Requests for Information" which states, " ... when a board member wants information about a particular program or area, he or she should direct the request to the superintendent or one of the two associate superintendents." Board members frequently bypass the superintendent and the associate superintendents to make inquiries and to request information from middle management and teachers. Several administrators, including principals, alluded to the confusion board members create with such practice. Lines of communication within the organization are confused. When asked whether she felt she should comply with Regulation BBA-R, one board member stated, ... no!, I'll investigate it myself." In addition, the "Processing Requests for Information" section of BBA-R lacks a process for ranking requests and determining which, if any, requests will be pursued by the administration. This causes the administration to be chasing individual board member demands without Board action. Such individual Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit I!:> N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Pa~e 27 board member action is violative of sound principles of educational management and state law which limits board member authority to only such times as the Board sits, deliberates, and acts as a body. The following quotations by teachers, CT A Officers, and administrators, other than the superintendent and two associate Superintendents, confirmed that one or more board members frequently do not adhere to Regulation BBA-R. Such statements further illustrate staff members' perceptions of board members' behaviors. "The board calls me to check on things and sometimes other people." "Board members bring questions (directly) to principals and it causes problems." "They call my staff directly and make requests for information and they call me at home." "A board member called me to have a drink tonight and "discuss" business." The auditors also found that board members act in violation of Board Policy BBA, "Duties and Responsibilities," which states, " the Board of Directors &hall: .... 10. ~ authority a.s ~ members o!lb'. fillell ~ a.s a ~ ~ in session, or as legally directed by the board. . ... 12. Exercise !lQ administrative responsibility ~ individuals with re.speg to the~- 13. Re1ram individuals 1roni commandin~ the ser:vke.s of .any S:C.l!ool employee ( emphasis added). Teachers, administrators, and community members perceive that individual board members are playing administrative roles. Some believe that this has increased greatly with the turnover in superintendents. Others believe that "all the meddling causes confusion." The auditors found that individual board members command services of administrators by giving selfinitiated directives to administrators. Board members also exercise administrative responsibilities without board approval. Examples of these behaviors range from ordering the public relations staff to keep the superintendent off TV and out of the newspapers, to directing other administrators in their conduct of committees. The latter includes giving orders as to "which decisions" the committees &hould make. Board members also direct administrators to complete numerous and time consuming reports, which is another example of individual board members commanding services of school employees, exercising administrative responsibility, and exerting authority without support of a board vote. Information and report requests by individual board members in the Little Rock School District are out of control. The auditors found that board members make excessive numbers of requests for information and that these requests demand large amounts of administrators' time. As stated Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C> N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 28 by one administrator, " the board does not fully appreciate the time required to respond to their problems." Demands for reports are communicated to administrators other than those designated in board Regulation BBA-R via the telephone and at board meetings. Some board members make such demands to the administration with a FAX machine from their employer's office! All of these requests are in violation of Board Policy BBA and Board Regulation BBA-R. Board member individual requests and demands upon the organization for "reports" are mind-boggling in quantity. After attending one board meeting and reviewing lists of requests for reports made at board meetings during the past year, the auditors found that these requests severely limit administrators' time to perform their formally assigned duties. Sixty-five nxrnests for information or directives from individual board members were made in seven board meetings reviewed by the Auditors as shown in Exhibit IIl.1.4.1: Exhibit IIl.1.4.1 Individual Board Member Directives and Requests for Reports .lwru:li Meetin,~ Q.ate August 28, 1990 July 9, 1990 June 6, 1990 March 16, 1990 May 18, 1990 September 21, 1990 September 28, 1990 Number Qi Reg_uests Total 15 4 5 13 7 11 10 65 Auditors reviewed examples of the types of requests and directives from individual board members which are provided below: 1. VIPS hours for McDermott and Fulbright schools
2. annual operating cost of the IRC, administration annex building
3. information on the checks written to the various office supply companies
4. report on buildings where academic disparities do not exist or are minimal
5. report on teachers who had been placed on the wrong salary scale
6. report summary of the District's excess property and short and long-term plans for it
7. report on all existing policies of the music department
8. report on all the students who had been through "Changing Directions" to see how they are doing
Little Rock School Oistnct Curriculum Audit q:, N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 29 9. report on how Metropolitan can be better utilized and report on how Metro grads fare in the job market - are they employable
10. study by the Biracial Advisory Committee on all secondary schools similar to the one conducted at Central High last fall
11. report on number of volunteer hours at each school
12. report on number of schools that have active PTA'S or PTSA's--survey schools to see how many rooms do not have a home room parent
13. report on breakdown of volunteer hours worked in incentive schools, area schools, and magnet schools
14. report on why Bobby Chapple could not participate in choir performances
15. report on break down of staffing at the restructured schools
16. report on the following aspects in incentive schools: enrollment, classes with 1-20 ratios, and vacancies
17. estimate on costs of refurbishing Quigley Stadium
18. report on adequacy of maintenance staff
19. report on athletic eligibility requirements in neighboring six states
and 20. report on how the Pulaski County Special School District and the North Little Rock School District gate receipts are distributed. On the face of it, some of this requested information appears to be appropriate for Board utilization, and it is. However, such demands for information are not appropriate from individual board members unless the board member makes a motion to receive such information, and after debate and passing the motion, the Board as a whole takes action requesting the information. The auditors found that many of the requests were frivolous, and that board members were trying to respond to some small segment of their constituency, or to "second-guess" the administration, as several staff members put it. Responding to these idiosyncratic requests consumes large amounts of administrative anc! secretarial time and severely infringes upon administrators' time to carry out their duties. Many requests serve only the political interests and self-serving needs of individual board members and do not represent the interest of the total board. The result is a rudderless organization, drifting and darting sporadically as board and community politics warm-up and cool-off, and as board members pursue short-term individual gains and sacrifice long-term district gains. Effective school districts base decisions on "what is best for students," not individuals' political interests. FINDING 1.7 The Board's professional negotiations agreement with the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association inhibits Board control of educational programs. Board Policy ADA, "Mission Statement of the Little Rock School District, states: Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 30 "The mission of the Little Rock School District is to ~ a!! educational pro~am tl!fil ~ ~ chi!..d 1.Q achieve ~ ~t potential." The auditors found provisions in the "Professional Negotiations Agreement Between the Board of Directors and the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association" which inhibit board control of educational programs and achievement of its mission for every child within its care. These provisions include the following: length of the work day Article III.A. & XXII.C.1 & 2)
duties (Article XXII.B. & F.)
class-siz.e limits (Article XXI.A.)
employment of teachers (Article V.A.)
meetings (Article XXX.A., B., & C.), and teacher rights regarding instructional methodology (Article XXXI.D.). Each of these constraining and unreasonably delimiting provisions is detrimental to community control of its educational programs and institution. The length of the work day is set at 5 hours and 15 minutes per day in Article ID. A & XXII. C. 1, 2, & 3).A with an additional fifty-four (54) minutes for planning, for a total work day of six (6) hours and nine (9) minutes. This is an extraordinarily short teachers' work day. When combined with provisions which restrict the length and number of meetings teachers may be required to attend and the duties to which teachers may be assigned, it severely limits board flexibility in use of instructional time for improving the quality of educational programs. Low class siz.es are generally accepted as beneficial to the educational program. However, sophisticated research studies establish a broad range of acceptable class sizes. Lowering class sizes to a point still within the range does not result in increased learning. The class-siz.e provisions provided in the Agreement place undue educational and financial restrictions on the board. The board needs flexibility in determining and implementing educational improvements through differential configurations of numbers of students. Further, the board must have authority to require the use of certain teaching techniques and behaviors. Researchers have made significant findings regarding teaching techniques for delivering Board-adopted curricula. Restricting the authority of the board and administration to prescribe appropriate instructional techniques significantly restrains the board's ability to improve educational programs for students in the Little Rock School District. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 31 Another Underutilized Library During School Hours Finally, Article V establishes seven years as the maximum allowance granted to new hires for previous teaching experience. This provision severely and unnecessarily restricts the district's ability to recruit the highest quality teachers. The research literature in industry and education is replete with evidence that selection of an employer is frequently based on salary. The educational literature also states that teachers' mobility is severely limited by salary caps based on years of teaching experience. The Little Rock Public Schools may be inadvertently failing to hire high quality teachers due to limits on the number of years of experience granted on the salary schedule. The Little Rock School District Board has been too generous in giving up its authority in the management of teaching practices in its schools, creating a restrictive and detrimental artificial environment for quality control in teaching and learning. The negotiations process has provided undue constraints on the elected Board to represent the public and to act in accordance with appropriate educational outcomes and guidelines. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit I!) N A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 32 Standard 2: The School District Has Established Clear and Valid Objectives for Student A school system meeting this audit standard has established a clear, valid and measurable set of pupil standards for learning and has set them into a workable framework for their attainment. Unless objectives are clear and measurable, there cannot be any cohesive effort to improve pupil achievement in any one dimension. The lack of clarity denies to a school district the capability of concentrating its resources through a focused approach to management. Instead, resources may be spread too thin and be ineffective in any direction. Objectives are essential to attaining local quality control under the governance of the Board of Education. What the auditors erpected to find in the Little Rock School District: The auditors expected to find a clearly established, district-wide, set of goals and objectives in all subject matter areas and for all grade levels adopted by the Board of Education. Such objectives would set the framework for the operation of the district, its sense of priorities, and explicit direction for the superintendent and the professional staff. Moreover, the auditors expected to find evidence of resources (people, time, materiel) directed toward accomplishment of established goals and objectives. Inherent in such direction would be found evidence of long range planning in instructional decision making, and precision in district efforts to define its mission through policies, regulations, reports, curriculum guides, and other documents. Basically, without defined outcomes (targets), organizational activities (arrows) can be misdirected, fragmented, and inadequately focused. Good school systems have defined what they stand for, and what must be evidenced to show accomplishment of the things for which they stand. What the auditors found in the Little Rock School District: The auditors found curriculum documents that listed objectives for many subjects on a K-12 basis, but these were not linked to Board-adopted central goals or standards for learning. In some cases, the auditors found that changes in the curriculum were unknown by the Board, or had created a surprise for board members when they learned about the changes. District curriculum documents are not very Little Rock School Distnct Curriculum t\ud1t 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 33 effective in providing teachers the information necessary for guiding instruction or for giving supervisors any clear direction to help them monitor and manage the instructional process. The auditors found large gaps between the written curriculum and what is actually taught. The auditors found inadequate planning for systematic curriculum development in the Little Rock School District. The district has developed a number of multicultural guides in recent years
however, this was done as a result of the desegregation plan rather than as a part of a comprehensive curriculum dt::clopment process. As in several other areas of district operations, the desegregation efforts drive district curriculum planning, leaving control of pivotal curriculum quality to random action. No written procedures exist regarding curriculum changes at the secondary level. As a result, confusion exists regarding what steps should be followed, who is involved in the decision, and what criteria is used in making the decision. In addition, a lack of curriculum articulation and coordination exists in the district. Curriculum guides in the Little Rock School District exists in many different forms within and between curriculum areas. Formats were perplexing and non uniform, which contributed to the limited use of guides by teachers and principals. Guides found range from the locally developed guides to those produced by the state department. Generally, the guides are not effective management documents. Finding 2.1 A voluminous melange of curriculum guide documents exists in the Little Rock School District. The auditors were given and reviewed over 200 curriculum guide documents which are currently being "used" in the Little Rock School District. These varied in format within and between curriculum areas. Multicultural curriculum guides for grades K-6 were implemented during the 1989-90 school year. The auditors were told by district supervisors and central office staff that these guides would replace previous curriculum documents and were to be used to direct instruction in the classroom. In addition to the multicultural guides at the elementary level, the auditors reviewed district secondary guides (7-12) which were written prior to 1989. However, district guides have not been written for all course offerings at the secondary level. The auditors were told by teachers and supervisors that state guides were to be used in the courses for which district guides had not been developed. Little Rock School District Cumculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 34 The district recently developed multicultural guides [or several curriculum areas at the secondary level. Teachers are expected to begin using these guides during the current school year. !\1ulticultural guides were not developed at all grade levels for each core curriculum area. In addition, some of the multicultural guides were designed to be stand alone documents, while others were designed to supplement district guides which are currently in use. The variety of guides plus the [act that they are being used for different functions is confusing to both staff and administration. This was evident when the auditors asked staff members and administrators what was used to direct instruction. The answers varied greatly. Children Sorting and Classifying Objects As an example of the diversity 1)f wswers. when one teacher was asked how he determines what content to teach in his class. he tapp<!d the ~ide of his head a couple of times without verbal comment. Some department supervisors indicated that the stale guides were being used lo direct instruction in grades 9-12. Other supervisors stated that l11e teachers were probably using the teacher resource book that goes along with the text. When the question was posed 10 huilding administrators, one response was as follows. "The basal textbooks direct instruction." The auditors round that teachers follow any of a number of things in selecting content to teach. tncluding course content guides, state guides, the new multicultural Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit (!) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 35 guide, the district guide or the text to direct instruction. Little congruity was found in content determination at the school level. To add to the confusion, the auditors found that there was not a comprehensive list of curriculum guide documents. School officials provided the auditors what was stated to be a comprehensive set of curriculum guides, prior to their visit to the district. However, on several occasions, the auditors found teachers using curriculum documents which the auditors had not seen. Upon request, district officials did provide the additional guides, but it was clear that there was confusion regarding what guides were actually being used. Finding 2.2 Curriculum guides in most curriculum areas are inadequate to direct instruction. The auditors reviewed and rated the curriculum documents provided by the school district personnel. The guides varied in quality within and between curriculum areas. A summary of the curriculum guide rankings appear in Exhibit III.2.1. The guides were analyzed using five criteria which support sound curriculum management. The evaluation of the guides pertained to the following criteria: (1) clarity and validity of a guide's objectives, (2) congruence of the curriculum guide to the testing/evaluation program, (3) delineation by grade level of the prerequisite essential skills upon which to initiate instruction, (4) delineation of the major instructional tools in the forms of textbooks and supplementary materials, (5) clear examples for classroom application. For a curriculum guide to be an effective management tool, it must focus the efforts of the teacher in the classroom. Furthermore, in order to result in sound curriculum management the guides should connect classes vertically and horizontally across grade levels and schools. Curriculum guides should be "user friendly." A teacher should be able to understand and use them without any additional information or training. A curriculum guide is considered excellent if it receives a composite score of 13-15 points. There were no district guides that scored in this range. There were, however, several curriculum guides which scored a 12 rating. These guides appear to be effective curriculum documents which could be used as models for the other curriculum areas to emulate. The remainder of the guides were rated less than adequate to very poor. Lmle Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ :--1.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 36 Generally speaking, the district curriculum documents were strong in stating the objective, providing the text and supplementary material to be used and giving practical suggestions to classroom teachers in teaching the content. The guides were generally weak in specifying the necessary prerequisite skills, knowledge and attitudes upon which to initiate teaching and weak in identifying methods of assessing student learning related to the objectives. Caution - Children on Task EXHIBIT III.2.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit c N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 37 RA TING OF CURRICULUM GUIDES DEVELOPED IN THE LITI'LE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT (Guides Listed in Rank Order of Quality) CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE RA TING BY CRITERIA TOTAL Published LEVELS 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS Language Arts 1989 K-6 2 3 3 3 12 Language Arts 1989 7-9 2 3 3 3 12 Language Arts 1989 10-12 2 1 3 3 3 12 Reading 1989 K-6 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/Eng Asst 1990 7 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/Eng Asst 1990 8 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/ Eng Asst 1990 9 2 3 3 3 12 Rdg/ Eng Asst 1990 10-12 2 l 3 3 3 12 Art Survey 7 2 2 3 3 2 12 Crafts/ Fibers 11-12 2 3 3 3 12 Intermediate Alg 1989 10-12 2 3 2 3 2 12 Social Studies 1989 K-6 2 2 3 3 11 Pottery 11-12 2 3 2 3 11 Drawing II 11-12 2 3 1 3 2 11 Drawing III 11-12 2 3 1 3 2 11 Biolab 10-12 2 3 3 2 11 Chemtech 11-12 2 3 3 2 11 Regular Math 1989 7 2 l 3 2 2 11 Study & Learning Foundations 1990 7-9 2 0 3 3 3 11 Exploratory Music 2 3 0 3 2 10 Dance II 2 3 0 3 2 10 Dance III 2 3 l 2 2 10 Ort'hestra Level D-E-F 2 3 0 3 2 10 Pottery-Ceramics 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 Jewelry Techniques 11-12 2 3 2 2 10 Print ma.king 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 AP Studio Art 11-12 2 3 2 2 10 Art History 10-12 2 3 2 2 10 Drama 11-12 2 2 2 3 10 History of Theatre 2 3 0 2 3 10 Life Science 7 2 3 0 3 2 10 Geography 1990 7 2 1 0 3 3 9 American History 1990 8 2 1 0 3 3 9 Dance I 2 3 0 2 2 9 Music Theory I 2 0 3 3 9 ~lusic Appreciation 2 3 0 3 1 9 Photography 10-12 2 3 2 l 9 Mime 2 2 0 2 3 9 Classic Scene Study 2 2 0 2 3 9 Science Target Concepts/ Slcills 1989 K-6 2 0 3 3 9 Mathematics Multietbnic Guide 1989 K-6 2 2 3 2 9 Regular/ Honors - Geometry 1989 10-12 2 2 2 2 9 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE Published LEVELS Advanced Algebra - Regular 1989 11-12 AP Calculus AB/BC 1989 Family Life Ed.New Futures 1990 K-o Honors Algebra II 1989 9 Psychology Jewelry Techniques 11-12 Dance Techniques Earth Science 8 Physical Science 9 Enriched Math 1989 7 Regular Math 1989 8 Regular Algebra-J.H. 1989 9 Algebra 1-H.S. 1989 10 Enriched Algebra I 1989 8 Pre-Algebra 1989 11-12 Concepts of Geometry 1989 11-12 Regular Algebra II 1989 10-12 Trigonometry Regular/ Honors 1989 11-12 Greek I-III 1989 Latin I-II 1989 AP Latin 1989 French I-IV 1989 AP American History Sociology Concert Band Stage Band Acting Children s Theatre Science Technology Earth Science - Multicultural 1990 8 Physical Science - Multicultural 1990 9 :,,,tarketing Mgmt 12 Marketing 11-12 Intro to Marketing 10-12 Music 1989 K-o Music History 10 Music History 11-12 Dance History 10 Spanish I-IV 1989 Life Science - Multicultural 1990 7 Statistics Unified Physics I-IV German I-IV 1989 Computer Applications - Spread Sheet 11-12 Computer AppLications - Data Base 11-12 Computer Programming - RPG 11-12 Computer Programming - Cobol 11-12 Computer Programming - Adv. Basic 11-12 Computer Technology - Inf. Systems 10-12 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 38 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 1 2 2 2 9 2 0 3 3 9 2 2 2 2 9 2 1 0 2 3 8 2 3 0 2 8 2 2 0 2 2 8 2 1 0 3 2 8 2 1 0 3 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 0 2 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 8 2 1 2 2 I 8 2 1 0 2 2 7 2 0 0 2 3 7 2 2 0 2 1 7 2 2 0 2 1 7 2 2 0 0 3 7 2 .2 0 0 3 7 2 1 0 3 I 7 0 2 3 7 0 1 2 3 7 2 0 3 7 2 0 3 7 2 0 1 1 3 7 2 0 0 3 6 2 0 2 6 2 0 2 1 6 2 2 0 0 2 6 2 0 2 2 0 6 0 0 3 5 2 0 2 0 5 2 0 0 4 0 2 I 0 4 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE Computer Technology - Introduction Word Processing I & II Typewriting I Typewriting II Office Tech. Lab Office Procedures Cooperative Office Ed Record Keeping Computerized Acct I Computerized Acct lI Accounting I Accounting II Intro to Drafting Exploratory Business Carpentry Basic Welding Intro to Computers - Data Processing Automotive - Technology II Auto Body Basic Electronics American Government - Civics American History Contemporary American History Economics Global Studies World Cultures World Geography World History Family Life Ed - New Futures Food Production Mgmt Child Care Guidance-Management Parenting Human Development Housing. Home Furnishings Foods & Nutrition Consumer Education Oothing & Textiles Child Development Independent Living Family Living Home Economics I Personal Living Skills Exploratory - Home Economics Home Economics - Practical Arts DATE GRADE Published LEVELS 9-12 l0-12 7-12 9-12 11-12 11-12 11-12 10-12 10-12 11-12 10-12 11-12 10-12 9-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 10-12 9-12 9-11 11-12 11-12 11-12 9-lO 9-lO 10-12 1990 7 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 39 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 l 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 I 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 :? 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 CURRICULUM GUIDE TITLE DATE GRADE Published LEVELS Industrial Arts-Technology Ed 7-S Exploratory - Career Ed Career Orientation Radio Broadcasting Health Occupations Computer Repair - Technology Printing 89-90 Suspension-Steering Specialist 1987 Brake Specialist 1987 Electronic - System Specialist 1987 Automotive Technology -Technician 1987 Cobol Commercial Art I-II 1987 10-12 Printing Press - Operations Industrial Equipment - Maintenance 1987 10-12 Basic Drafting II 11-12 Cosmetology T.V. Production Computer Technology II Commercial Foods 1-11 Structured RPG Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ' N.A.S.E. DeccmbC'r 21. 1990 Page 40 RATING BY CRITERIA TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 POINTS 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 When the district curriculum guides were separated by subject areas, the results were even more revealing regarding strengths and weaknesses. Exhibit III2.2 gives the average scores of the district curriculum guides in each subject area. The curriculum areas are listed from highest average to lowest average. Also listed are the total number of guides rated in each content 3Tea along with the highest and lowest rated guide. The strongest curriculum guides were in language arts, while the weakest documents were in vocational education. Since there are different types of curriculum documents being utilized, it appears appropriate to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each type of document. These are as follows: A) Multicultural Guides Strengths - Generally speaking, these guides were strong in stating the objectives, delineating the text and supplementary material, and providing examples of how to approach key concepts/skills in the classroom. Weaknesses - These guides were weak in the respect that they did not identify methods of assessing student learning and the majority of guides did not specify the necessary prerequisite skills expected of students (language arts and reading were the exception). B) State Guides Strengths - These guides did state the objectives to be taught. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ NA.S.E. December 21.1990 Page 41 Weaknesses - Since these guides were designed more as a resource than a stand alone document, there are several weaknesses when used as the curriculum guide. These guides lack the following components: An assessment or evaluation piece, a listing of required prerequisite skills, delineation of major instructional resources and a linkage to classroom utilization. C) District Guides (Non multicultural) The district guides vary more in format and content than the other two categories. As a result, it's more difficult to generalize their strengths and weaknesses. The reader should take this into consideration when reading the following summary. Strengths - The guides stated the objectives to be taught, listed the text and supplementary materials, and provided examples of how to approach key concepts and skills (although this was limited in several guides.) Weaknesses - Although some guides provided an assessment component, the majority of the district guides were lacking this criteria. The majority of the guides also did not articulate the necessary prerequisite skills. As mentioned above, several guides lacked examples of how to approach key concepts or skills. EXIDBIT IIl.2.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 42 SUMMARY OF CURRICULUM GUIDE RATINGS BY CONTENT AREA LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTENT AREA I TOTAL I HIGHEST I LOWEST CONTENT I GUIDES I RATED I RATED AREA I REVIEWED I GUIDE I GUIDE AVERAGE I I I RATING LANGt:AGE ARTS I 9 I 12 I 12 12 READING I 11 I 12 I 12 12 STUDY & LEARNING I 3 I 11 I 11 11 FOUNDATIONS I I I ART I 11 I 12 I 8 10.2 DRAMALTHEA TRE I 6 I 10 I 7 8.7 I I I MATHEMATICS I 24 I 12 I 5 8.7 SCIDICE I 17 I 11 I 4 8.3 MUSIC/DANCE I 21 I u I 6 7.6 SOCIAL STUDIES I 20 I 11 I 2 7.2 FOREIGN LANGUAGE I 6 I 8 I 4 7 FAMILY LIFE ED-NEW I 8 I 9 I 2 8 FUTURES I I I VOCATIONAL I 66 I 7 I 2.6 ED\XATION I I I Moreover, significant gaps exist in the coverage of curriculum with appropriate guides. In Exhibit ill.2.3, one can see the auditors analysis of the scope of curriculum. With such disproportionate distribution of guides, it is impossible for the Little Rock School District to connect student learnings from one level or school to the next. Art Business Career Education Computer Science Consumer Sciences Drivers Education English. Lang. Arts family Life foreign Language Guidance Health Industrial Arts Learning foundations Math. General 'vlatn Algebra Math. Advanced 'vlusic Photography Phys. Educ .. Dance Psychology Reading Science. BiolO!!ical Science. Physical Science, General Social Studies Speech and Drama Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit c N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 43 Exhibit IIl.2.3 Distribution of Curriculum Guides by Subject Matter and Grade Level Little Rock School District K\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I s I 9 I i I l l l 1 i I 1 1 1 1 1 l I l I l 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I l I 1 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 1 l 1 l I 1 l 1 l 1 l I 1 1 l l I l I I I I I 2 I t I l 1 2 T 2 l I I 1 I 3 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I l I I l I 1 I I 1 I I I 2 2 1 4 10 I 11 I 12 I n I 4\111111 I 1 I 14 I 14 I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 3 3 2 1 l 1 6 l 1 1 1 4 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 2 5 8 7 2 1 1 5 Note: Numbers in the cells indicate the oumber of curriculum guides provided to the auditors at a given grade level or subject matter field. Cells which are empty have no curriculum guide at that grade level for that subject matter field. Gaps and overlap are evident in the distribution of curriculum guides, indicating little or no coherence, or 'flow" of teaching and learning throughout the system. Connections, if any, among grade levels, subject areas, schools, etc. would be random and determined by caprice or whim rather than soundly developed reason or rational planning. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 44 Finding 2.3 There is no systematic plan for development and revision of curriculum in the Little Rock Public Schools The auditors found no systematic plan for curriculum development in the Little Rock Public Schools. Although a majority of staff members interviewed indicated there was no such plan in existence, a couple of administrators thought the district did have a written plan. When the auditors asked to obtain a copy of the plan, they were given a copy of the Arkansas schedule for textbook adoptions. When interviewing supervisors it was evident that such a process was not currently in place. One department supervisor indicated that her department reviewed the curriculum for revision after textbook adoptions. A second supel'Visor said his department does not follow this procedure. It is obvious that clear expectations regarding a comprehensive plan for curriculum development have not been establishe A systematic plan for curriculum development would identify what areas of curriculum would be revised how goals and objectives would be re-validated
how curriculum materials (including textbooks) would re-evaluated
how test and assessment data would be utilized to strengthen the curriculum
and how curriculum monitoring would be incorporated in the curriculum development activities entailed in the plan. The auditors found no documentation that addressed these very important areas in the Little Rock School District. The auditors did obtain a copy of a memo to the Superintendent dated 24 May 1990 from the planning, research and evaluation department which provided a sample plan for curriculum review. This would appear to indicate that the administration is aware of the need for such a plan and is considering steps for implementing a comprehensive district curriculum review process Finding 2.4 Written procedures are deficient to direct additions or deletions of courses or program changes at the secondary level. When the auditors asked for written procedures for adding, deleting, or changing course offerings at the secondary level. they were given a page of the board policy related to curriculum development (IFD) which states, Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 45 "Changes and improvements in the curriculum offerings may be suggested and implemented administratively, as deemed necessary and educationally sound by the Superintendent of Schools but shall be reported to the Board prior to implementation ... " This policy does not state what procedures should be followed, rather it gives the administration authority to implement changes when necessary. The auditors asked several staff members what procedures would be followed if a teacher wanted to replace an existing course with a new offering. Responses were varied and included reactions as follows: Building Principal - "Course changes go to the Associate Superintendent and then to the Deputy Superintendent." Curriculum Supervisor - " .... first go to the supervisor, then to the Assistant Superintendent and then to the senior management team ..... not sure if it then goes to the Board." Assistant Principals indicated that it would first be presented to the principal, then to the supervisor, then to the Assistant Superintendent, and finally to the Superintendent. Assistant Superintendent - " ........ a committee would be formed as stipulated in the professional negotiations agreement. The department supervisor would review the recommendation with the Associate Superintendent. The Associate Superintendent would meet with the Superintendent and the Deputy Superintendent. The final step would be to present it to the Board for approval." It is evident from the explanations above that there is not a clear understanding among the administrative staff regarding procedures to be followed when requesting a change in the existing curriculum. To further complicate the issue, the auditors were made aware of the fact that an AP Chemistry course was approved for this year at one of the high schools as a result of parents coming directly to a Board meeting. It appears this particular course adoption circumvented any formal procedure. In summary, confusion exists regarding what procedures to follow and criteria needed to recommend a course change at the secondary level. Fmding 2.5 Curriculum articulation and coordination is ineffective in the Little Rock School District. The auditors found little evidence of a coordinated and articulated curriculum. Such a curriculum would have continuity from grade level to grade level and consistency across grade levels and between school buildings. The district has not established a central curriculum body to ensure that coordination and articulation exist in the educational program. Furthermore, no key administrative officer has assumed this responsibility in the Little Rock School District. Small Group Reading Lesson Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 46 The elementary and secondary programs appear to function separately with very little communication from one level to the other. When supervisors explained the curriculum development and textbook adoption process, they described elementary committees and secondary committees working separately without knowledge of what was being done al the other level. For example, the language arts multicultural guides were developed by a K-6 committee and a 7-12 committee which worked separate from each other. The committees were not brought together to discuss issues or coordinate the use of instructional material. An example of lack of articulation can be found in the textbook adoption process for science textbooks implemented in the 1989-90 school year. District documents identified three committees, K-6, 7-9, and 10- 12. The committees functioned as separate decision making groups. There was no evidence that they met as one group to discuss content, assessment or instructional issues which cross the identified grade level groupings. When supervisors were asked about curriculum articulation and coordination, they were aware of the problems, One supervisor stated, "There is no communication between elementary and secondary teachers." A second supervisor indicated, "Articulation K-12 is a problem. There is no sequencing or little Rock Scnool District Curriculum Audit C NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 47 coordination. The fifth grade teachers have no idea what the eighth grade teachers are teaching or visa versa." A third supervisor shared that teachers have expressed concerns about the lack of a K-12 scope and sequence. The Board of Directors appear to be concerned about this problem as well. When the auditors reviewed minutes of the March 23, 1989 meeting, they found the following statement: "Board members expressed continuing concern that there is not a unified curriculum ...... ." Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit l N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 48 Standard 3: The School District Has Documentation Explaining How Its Programs Have Been Implemented, Developed, Conducted A school district meeting this curriculum audit standard is able to show how its programs have been created as the result of a systematic identification of deficiencies in the achievement and growth of its students compared to measurable standards of learning. In addition, a school system meeting this standard is able to demonstrate that it possesses a focused and coherent approach toward defining curriculum and that as a whole, it is more effective than a simple sum of its parts, i.e., any arbitrary combination of programs or schools does not equate to the larger school district entity. The purpose of having a school district meet this standard is to obtain the educational and economic benefits of a coordinated and consistent program for students, both to enhance learning by maximizing pupil interest, and by utilizing economies of scale where applicable. What the Auditors Expected to Find in the Little Rock School District The auditors expected to find a highly developed, articulated and coordinated curriculum in the district that was effectively monitored by the administrative and supervisory staffs. Such a curriculum would be: 1. Centrally defined and adopted by the Board of Education
2. Demonstrably consistent with a coherent rationale for at least content delineation within curriculum
3. Clearly explained to members of the teaching staff and building level administrators
and 4. Monitored by central office personnel and building principals. What the Auditors Found in the Little Rock School District The auditors found historical evidence of many individual programs which were designed to address specific curriculum needs and inequities. While these programs, as designed, reflect current best practices, they are plagued by inconsistent implementation at the school, principal, teacher, and student level. Multiple and separate program efforts compete for staff attention and for district resources. There is Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ~ N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 49 inconsistent implementation across schools, programs and grades of the designed curriculum and the programs which support curriculum delivery. Moreover, the auditors found a distinct pattern of "tracking" which was implemented along racial lines for certain course and educational offerings, which had the appearance of "resegregation" and inequity in some cases, particularly in English and mathematics "enriched" and "regular" classes. Such practices demonstrate inconsistency of curriculum management and direction within the school district. For example, the district has a policy, imposed by the Federal courts, that "no school shall be racially identifiable." Several factors within the schools are not consistent with this policy, and the policy is impotent as a predictor of school curriculum practices as shown in this audit section. Finding 3.1: The allocation of resources to support curriculum implementation is inconsistent and inequitable The auditors found inconsistent and inequitable implementation of the curriculum linked to the following variables: inequity of facilities inequity of curriculum materials inequity of staff expertise and assignment Inevi,ity Q[ Facilities. There is tremendous variance in the quality of facilities and the status of repair and disrepair across area schools, magnet schools and incentive schools. Staff reported that magne schools receive first priority and that requests for repair for area schools are not treated equa . Staff also indicated that a visit by a member of the Governing Board often triggered installation or repair of a long requested improvement in basic facilities. This discrepancy will be discussed in more detail in a later section of this document under Standard 5. Inequity Qf Curriculum Materials. An example of inequity in distribution of curriculum materials is the allocation of library books to schools. While each school meets minimum North Central standards for the number of books per student, there is a marked inequity in library holdings. Exhibit III.3.1.1 illustrates these differences across schools. Library book distribution at the elementary schools, organized into categories of area schools, magnet schools and incentive schools, shows that an average allocation for an elementary school is 24 library books per pupil, with a range in allocation is from 15 books per pupil to about 54 books per pupil. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit Cl N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 50 Library book allocation per student across junior high schools averages about 16 library books per student. The range is about 10 books per student to about twenty-three books per student. Library book allocation per student across the high schools averages about 13 books per student. The range is about 11 books per student to about 19 books per student. Library book allocation for all schools is about 25 books per student on average, with a range of 10 books per ~tudent to 54 books per student. These are unusually wide variances for a school district striving to gain equity and consistency across educational sites. N u m Exhibit Ill.3.1.1 Comparisons of Number of Library Books Per Pupil - Little Rock Schools b 100 e r 0 r B 0 0 k s ..
!4 s 10 Elementary 1!1?3 -16 e Junior High Level of Buildings 9 -3 1 High School :~ Mean I I High j I These differences in library allocation parallel many other observed differences in distribution and allocation of resources. The difference in the allocation of library books per student across elementary, junior high school and high schools was mirrored across supplies, furniture, equipment and buildings. Another example of inequity in curriculum materials is the distribution of maps and globes to support the social studies curriculum and the new multicultural curriculum. Auditors observed marked differences in the availability of these basic tools across the schools. Many staff reported that they did not have the materials called for in their curriculum guides and did not know when basic classroom tools such as maps and globes would be a priority in school budgets. Lntle Rock School D,stnct Curriculum Audit C N .A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 51 There is evidence. however. that there is equity in some textbook allocations. All classrooms at all elementary sites which were visited appeared to have complete sets of the basal reading series and the supporting materials. Both regular classrooms and special education resource programs had adopted reading materials. Most sites have the new social studies textbook and supporting materials
however, there was evidence that some sites were not using these materials. Young Scholar With a Book Inequity cl Silll Eiq2ertise llilll Assiiwment. The auditors found evidence of inequity of stall expertise across school sJtes. Experienced staH are more likely to transfer to magnet schools and new inexperienct:d staff arc mor::: li\.:dy tone assigneii to area scnoob. In addition, some school's faculties are not reflective o[ the district's faculty composition and characteristics, which indicates inconsistency or disagreement betwern district policy and school-level practices. As an example nf the inconsi~tcncy in staff a~signrnenl. the auditors looked at schools and the composition of their faculty compart:d to their student body. Junior High School faculty compositions reflect imbalance in '. cacher assig:nment by race as shown in the following Exhibit lll.3 .1.2: Exhibit III.3.1.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 52 Comparisons of Racial Composition of Junior High School Faculties - Little Rock Schools 1990 District Southwt PulskiH MannM Mablvl Hndrsn ForstHt Dunbar ClovrDI 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 White Tchrs = Black Tclirs From the above exhibit, it is easy to determine that their is a big difference in the racial percentages of faculty at the various schools. For example, Pulaski Heights Junior High has the smallest percentage of black teachers of all the schools and is a full 13 percentage points less than the district average. The question of whether this is intentional or not on the part of the administration is less important than the question of why such discrepancies aren't predicted by official school district policy. If the district policy were applied consistently in the case of the junior high schools, faculty assignment would be no less "racially identifiable" than the policy specifies. There is also a difference in the level of expertise assigned to various schools. In the following exhibit, Exhibit III.3.1.3, the average number of years of experience of the teaching faculty at junior high schools was examined, and the differences were noticeable. One school, Cloverdale Junior High School has a ..___ very inexperienced faculty, and the average faculty member is nontenured. Such discrepancy in assignment of teaching expertise represents inconsistency given no policy requirement for the distribution of experienced teachers faun . District Southwt PulslriH Exhibit 111.3.1.3 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 53 Comparisons of Teacher Experience Little Rock Junior High Schools 1990 i=================================.-----~ -!::===============================================::.--~ MannM I i:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:,-------~ Mablvl ~---------------~ Hndrsn ,
:==========================================-.-----~ ForstHt Dunbar t====:.:.:.-:.-:.-:.-_-_-_-_-....,----------~ OovrDI -=======
===--~-----,-----+----------, 0 2 4 6 8 10 Average Years of Experience Distribution of students is shown in the Junior High Schools in Exhibit Ill3.l.4. There are also discrepancies between schools in the racial composition of schools, but in this case, such discrepancies were documented in accordance with plans and policy of the district. However, the auditors found that in actual practice, the magnet concept provides an incentive at the junior high level for a composition of white/black students which favors an inordinate percentage of white students. The auditors heard from many sources that the magnet junior high school is highly sought after by white families, and that more white students than black students are admitted into the magnet junior high because of greater 'political" influence on district assignment processes among white parents. The pupil assignment office procedures were not a part of the audit. nor was a clear finding determinable. However, the racial composition of the various junior high schools might appear to support the complaints heard from parents and teachers, as shown in the following exhibit: Exhibit UI.3.1.4 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit <l) N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 54 Comparisons of Racial Composition of Junior High School Students Little Rock Schools 1990 District Southwt Pulsk.iH MannM Mablvl Hndrsn ForstHt Dunbar OoVTDI 0% - ------------ - - --- --- ----. - . -- -- - 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Finding 3.2: Curriculum monitoring practices arc inconsistent 0 White Students = Black Students Some principals monitored teachers' lesson plans for incorporation of curricula objectives
however, man principals had no strategy for determining the degree of classroom implementation of the prescribed curriculum. Teachers also reported wide discretion in selection of teaching content, and reported little direction from some principals in curriculum or determinations of what to teach. A specific example of inequitable curriculum monitoring is the multicultural curriculum. Only about onethird of the principals routinely checked each teacher's lesson plans for incorporation of multicultural objectives. Teachers' lesson plans, in the schools where principals monitored, consistently reflected integration of multicultural objectives into instructional plans. However, in many schools, there is no systematic observation of the implementation of this relatively new curriculum. At schools where principals do not monitor implementation of the multicultural curriculum, teachers often did not report a plan to teach the new curriculum. There is also no evidence of a systematic plan to link observed teacher training needs in this new curriculum to current staff development efforts. urthermore, there is no evidence of any effort to disaggregate and analyze student achievement data for acquisition of multicultural objectives. Specific level tests have not been developed and the Arkansas Minimum Performance Test samples multicultural objectives prior to the scheduled sequence for instruction in the Little Rock curriculum guide. Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 55 Finding 3.3: Placement of students in programs and classes is inconsistent Gifted and Talented Classes. The Little Rock School District has provided instruction for gifted and talented students at each of its schools, but placement of students does not appear to follow any clear cut guidelines or procedures. Teachers complained that procedures to group students for "GT" instruction, as it is called, were inconsistent and undependable. The auditors found that the pattern of criteria used for placement of selected students to be erratic and without common patterns. According to the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement of March, 1989, classes in gifted and talented, as well as in special education, were grohibited from bein~ racially identifiable, but the auditors found this mandate was not being followed. In a move toward equity, the district has provided a chance for nearly every student in the district to get into the talent pool for consideration. Criteria for placement include the following: Gifted and Talented Nomination Criteria Total Battery on the MAT-6 (50%ile or above) Recommendation for inclusion (any source) Gifted and Talented Selection Criteria Academic Ability (MAT-6) Creativity (Torrance Test) Motivation (Teacher Referral) Additional Data (Biographical data, etc.) Placement by the School and District Placement Committees Placement records examined by the auditors did not confirm a consistent pattern of compliance with any objective criteria. For example, below is a comparison of the selection profiles used in placement of selected gifted and talented students in high schools and in elementary schools. Students were scored according to three criteria: Metropolitan Achievement Test, Version 6
Torrance Test of Creative Ability
and teacher rating of potential for success in the program. As shown in the following exhibit (Exhibit IIl.3.3.1) , the profile of these four randomly selected students is inconsistent. No similarity of test/rating information appears among the group. Exhibit III.3.3.1 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 56 Placement Criteria Comparisons Among Gifted and Talented Students 100 T ..... ~ 90 - T * T t I ~ I i MAT-6 80 t I Test/Rating I I I 70 I TTCA Score 0-100 60 1 .& I AT. Profile 50 40 WMale BMale WFcma BFcma Little Rock High School Students II these four randomly selected students were representative of the high school student population enrolled in the gifted and talented program, the criteria for placement stated by the Little Rock School District would be violated. Looking at the chart, the white male has a lower teacher recommendation profile than the black male, yet the MAT-6 six scores are similar. No such similarity exists between the white female and the black female. According to the Little Rock School District's published criteria for placement in the Gifted and Talented program, the students selected above apparently qualify for eligibility for screening. Any student with a 50th percentile (50%) or above on the MAT-6 or any student who is recommended for inclusion is eligible for consideration. As lo placement in the program, the decision is made centrally by a review and placement committee, which is empowered to place students in the Gifted and Talented program at any school in the district. More information is available as the efficacy of this placement process. The following exhibit (Exhibit IIl.3.32) demonstrates the range of abilities placed in the elementary gifted program: Exhibit IIl.3.3.2 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit :, N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 57 Placement Criteria Comparisons Among Gifted and Talented Students 100 - ' 90 - ! 80 !!! I MAT-6 Rdg Test/Rating 70 ! I A.TICA Score (0-100) T i 60 l T T. Profile I l I 50 A A' 40 WMale BMale WFema BFema Little Rock Elementary School Students In the elementary examples given above the range of achievement on the MAT-6 is spread out considerably from the 65th percentile or so for the females, and at the 95th percentile for the males. Discontinuity in placement is obvious from the data given. Inconsistency of placement procedures can be a threat to equity in the Little Rock School District unless the rules and procedures governing student placement are clearly defined. As the auditors found, little or no consistent rationale was found to be established in the placement of gifted and talented students. If the inconsistency were observed with a corresponding balance in racial distribution among classes, such an inconsistency could be construed to help the school district avoid racially identifiable classes. However, the auditors observed that the racial distribution of students in gifted and talented classes and in "regular" classes followed no such pattern. Note the racial composition of the classes in the pictures below: Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit ' N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 58 SluJenls c1l Pulc1ski Heights Junior High School: Gifted and Talented (Enriched) English Students al Pulaski Heights Junior High School - "Regular" English Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 NA.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 59 Staff also reported that black high school students were frequently counseled to enroll in Gifted and Talented courses rather than Advanced Placement courses. This counseling practice and/or placement decision creates inequity in future opportunity for post-secondary schooling. Physically Handicapped Pro~ams. Placement practices for integration of physically handicapped students are dictated by the physical inaccessibility of many schools and programs. While the physically handicapped are a low incidence population, their educational needs have greater legal protection than those of the non-handicapped. Many schools in the Little Rock School District are not accessible to the physically handicapped. The opportunity of this population is restricted by the absence of physical access at many sites. Decisions regarding their programming are influenced by the condition of school sites. The inequity in facilities produces greater inequity for this population than for others. Reeular and Enriched Classes, Student placement in classes in various basic skill areas (math, English, social studies, etc.) appear to have deleterious characteristics of tracking by ability which results in resegregation of races. For example, in the junior high schools, the percentage of black students in regular classes is dramatically higher than the percentage of black students in enriched classes. Both types of classes have a racial distribution of students different that the distribution of the entire student body. Exhibit III.3.3.3 shows the difference among these classes across junior high schools. 85 P 75 + C r 65 - C C 55 - n 45 - I a 35 1 g C 25 - 15 Exhibit IIl.3.3.3 Junior High School Racial Distribution in Regular and Enriched Classes: Little Rock Schools, 1990 All Classes Regular Classes Enriched Classes Black 0 White High school English classes also renected inconsistency in student placement. The percentage of black students in regular English classes far exceeds the equivalent percentage of the total student body. High Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit C N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 60 Schools are also dissimilar in this regard. A black student has a greater likelihood, on a percentage basis, to get into a gifted English class at McClellan and Parkview High Schools, and much less of a chance to receive the same opportunity at Hall, Central, and Fair High Schools. These discrepancies in English classes amount to "resegregation" or "tracking" of races on a homogeneous basis, which shows gross inconsistency and wrongful inequities in educational opportunities for minority students. The distribution of students and comparisons between high schools are shown in Exhibit III.3.3.4 as follows: CHS-Gift CHS-Reg Exhibit III.3.3.4 Comparisons of Pupils by Race in 11th Grade Gifted and Regular English Clasacs. Little Rock. High Schools 1990 FHS-Gift _!!! ___ , FHS-Rcg HHS-Gift HHS-Reg MHS-Gift MHS-Reg PHS-Gift PHS-Reg --- - -----.- --- --- --- 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Students 350 i O White I I Black The auditors found that junior high school principals were not cognizant of these discrepancies. No principal complained about the imbalance of racial groups within the regular and enriched classes. The obvious conclusion is that there is great inconsistency and inequity in the assignment of students to classes on the basis of ability resulting in greater racial disparities. Special Education Proiuams. Placement in special education programs is inconsistent. The percentage of black students in special education is discrepant from the percentage of black students in the school district, and the discrepancy is very noticeable at some schools. The district percentage of black students is about 64%, but the percentage of black students placed in special education is about 70%, indicating inconsistency in placement practices at the school level. Not all principals indicated that they participate Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit IC N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 61 in the placement process, since some principals reported that they delegate the responsibility for school placement process teams. Principals perform unevenly in the capacity of controlling consistency in placement of special education students. As an example, two junior high schools, Pulaski Heights and Forest Heights, demonstrate major discrepancies in the special education placement practices between blacks and whites. In these two schools, a larger percentage of blacks is placed in special education than the total school percentage of blacks would indicate should be the case. For example, Pulaski Heights Junior High School has a total school population of 721 students, of which 454 students are black comprising a black percentage of 63%. However, the special education student placements number 65, of which 53 are black, comprising a black special education percentage of 82%. Forest Heights has a total school population of 808 students, of which 538 students are black comprising a total school black percentage of 67%. However, the special education student placements number 73, of which 59 are black, comprising a black special education percentage of 81 %. Other schools do not show such dramatic differences in total student body and special education percentages of black students. These discrepancies were not explained by the principals. Central office administrators indicated that such distributions were inconsistent with district policies and desegregation mandates from the federal courts. The abdication of principal's control results in inconsistency and inequity. The racial distribution disparities between the total school populations and the special education populations are illustrated in the descriptive exhibit (Exhibit III.3.3.5) which follows: p E R C E N T Exhibit IIl.3.3.5 Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 62 COMPAIUSONS OP BLACK ENROLLMENT PERCENTAGES SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND TOT AL SCHOOL STUDENT BODY: UITU! ROCK SCHOOLS 85 I so l
a i) ! 0 75 T C I I ..,., 70 t I I I I I SPED 6.5 l iJ Ci I I 60 t ID SCHOOL ss T so I I 4s l I 40 a ... <n1 Dm,t,u Pcwadl - MAbd - Pawltl SoaWea JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS The discrepancy between junior high school special education black student percentages and total student body black student percentages is mirrored in high schools as well. Central High School has 58% black students in the total student body, but has 84% black students in special education programs, with a 26 percentage point discrepancy. Parkview High School has 54% black students in the total student body, but has 64% black students in special education programs, with a 10 percentage point discrepancy. Differences in the high schools are shown in the following exhibit: Exhibit lll.3.3.6 Comparisons of Special Education and Total School Black Student Percentages: Little Rock Hi~ Schools, 1990 Special Ed Total School High School Black Black Students Students JA Fair 58% 56% McClellan 69% 59% Parkview 64% 54% Hall 64% 53% Central 84% 58% Such discrepancies as shown in the exhibit above establish that the placement pra, School District are inconsistent, and inequitable for students across the school sys Discrepancy: Total% - Spec Ed% -2% -10% -10% -~ C NA.S.E. December 21, 1990 Page 63 Suspensions and Drop Outs. The rate and nature of suspended students and the number and nature of students who drop out varies across schools as well. For example, students are twice as likely to drop out of McClellan High School as they are from Parkview High School. In addition, students are far more likely to be suspended for misconduct from McOellan High School as from Fair High School. These data are illustrated in the following exhibits: Exhibit Ill.3.3.7 Annual Long Term Suspension Rates 1989-90 p e 1.50% +---------------------.-------------- ,, C 1.25% -----------------/-. ___"_ ' __________ e 1.00% ...._ ______________" "/_ ____' -_,,,,_ _________ n / '"' t 0.75% --------------,-,,---------------- a 0.50% +-I-----..,.-.,-"--.-------,------------------ e 0.25% ,----------s,-------,,,"~-------------------- g 0.00% _
__ ____________ __,_ ________ -+----- 30.00% 1 p e 25.00% 1 C 20.00% - e n 15.00% - a 10.00% 1 g e 5.00% - 0.00% Central Fair Hall McClellan Little Rock High Schools Exhibit III.3.3.8 Annual Drop Out Rate Comparisons: 1988-89 Central Fair Hall McCtelln Little Rock High Schools Parkview Parkview Total U White Black Little Rock School District Curriculum Audit 10 N.A.S.E. December 21. 1990 Page 64 Consistent school district practices would be predicted if there were an established policy, framework for decisions on suspension, and uniform drop-out processing. No diversification of services among high schools was found to attend to measured differences in the student body clientele, nor were consistencies noted among schools in methods for handling such problems. Such absence of predicted configurations in school district practices reflect the inconsistency of policy and practice in the Little Rock School District. Finding 3.4: Promotion-retention practices are inconsistent Staff in schools report applying the same criteria when making retention and promotion decisions. In a random sample of retention reports from six elementary schools, there is a marked difference across schools in the results of the application of the reported criteria. Exhibit Ill.3.4.1 shows the differences. Grade one was selected for analysis. The percent of students retained ranges from a low of 52% to a high of 52%, with an average retention rate in the six sample schools of 22%. p 60.00% T e 50.00% 1 r C 40.00% - e 30.00% n T 20.00% ! a 10.00% .!. g e 0.00% Exhibit III.3.4.1 Percentage of Grade One Students Retained - Six Sample Schools: Little Rock, 1990 52.00% n 22.00% 5.20% Low Mean High Retentions vary significantly from school, particularly in grade 1. In several selected elementary schools, the number of first grade students retained in 1989-90 was particularly disparate, indicating inconsistency. This discrepancy in retention prac
This 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.