Magnet Review Committee: Magnet school principal positions

Correspondence from Bobby Altom, chairman of the Magnet Review Committee to Ann S. Brown, federal monitor (July 21, 1994) with supportive material on how the Little Rock School District fills interdistict magnet school principal positions
The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
Magnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Creer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 July 21, 1994 Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: RECE. I~ JUL 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Thank you for requesting information needed to address questions that have arisen regarding the Magnet Review Committee's role in the process Little Rock School District used to fill interdistrict magnet school principal positions for the 1994-95 school year. We have responded to each point to the best of our ability. The necessary documentation is attached and enumerated for easy reference. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, !3drty~ Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments 1. The date(s) the MRC reviewed the procedures the LRSD used in recommending staffing assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The Magnet Review Committee held a special-called meeting on Thursday, May 12, 1994, for the purpose of discussing Little Rock School District's procedures used to recommend staff assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. 2. A list of the MRC members who participated in each review session. 3. All MRC members were present at the May 12, 1994 meeting: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua lntervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Dana Chadwick, NLRSD, was absent from the June 27, 1994 meeting
Marcia Harding, ADE, and Oliver Dillingham, ADE, were unavailable for the July 18, 1994 meeting. The minutes of all review sessions. The minutes of the meetings which addressed items mentioned in number 1 . above are attached as a part of this information packet. These meetings took place on May 12, 1 994, June 27, 1994 and July 18, 1994. 4. A copy of the procedures which were "previously presented to the MRC with reference to original magnet school principal positions
" indicate the date the MRC received these procedures
indicate the date they were disseminated to each Committee member. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The procedures were discussed as a part of the May 12, 1994 and June 27, 1994 meetings. The written copy of these procedures was disseminated at MRC's July 18, 1 994 meeting and are attached as a part of this information packet. 5. 6. 7. The date(s) and names of MRC members who participated in identifying the "appropriate action" the MRC has determined it will take to ensure that the LRSD administration fulfills its obligation to follow the Court's Order for future staffing changes in the original magnet schools. Provide minutes of that meeting. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The MRC held a special-called meeting on July 18, 1994 to discuss and formulate language which will guide the Little Rock School District and the Magnet Review Committee discussions regarding consultations on original magnet school vacancies. Members present at the July 18, 1994 meeting were: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Evelyn Jackson, Joshua lntervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD The minutes from all other MRC meetings in which the principal selection process was considered in any way. Indicate those who were present at those meetings. The minutes are included as a part of this packet. The list of members present is a part of the minutes. The date(s) and copies of correspondence through which the MRC learned of each impending principal vacancy in a magnet school for the 1994-95 school year. The Little Rock School District customarily informs the Magnet Review Committee of magnet vacancies via job announcements placed in the MRC school mailbox at LRSD's Central Office. Copies of the job descriptions are attached. 8. For each of the following, a copy of the written information, the date that information was committed to writing, and the date it was disseminated to all Committee members: a. The written procedures that guide the MRC in relation to selection of principals of the magnet schools. copy attached - Interim Order Enforcing Mandate of Court of Appeals Date Committed to Writing: March 4, 1987 Date Disseminated: March 4, 1987 b. The written MRC policy or guidelines about using interview committees in selecting magnet school principals. copy attached - Interview Protocol and Selection of Applicants, School Principals Date Committed to Writing: June, 1994 Date Disseminated: July 18, 1994 c. The written annual timeline the MRC follows in relation to principal selections. No specific written timeline is followed
however, notification of staff vacancies is noted at the annual review sessions for the interdistrict magnet schools budgets, which begin in March before each school year. d. Any written guidelines, suggestions, or criteria the MRC may have established regarding principal qualifications, characteristics, experience, or other criteria, especially as it relates to the individual theme, programmatic emphasis, or other unique aspects of the individual magnet school community at each of the magnet schools. copy attached - Court Order "Stipulation for Proposed Order Concerning Magnet Review Committee" Date Committed to Writing: September 3, 1986 Date Disseminated: September, 1986 copy attached - Court Order Regarding the Role of the Magnet Review Committee Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: July 2, 1987 July, 1987 copy attached - Court Order Regarding MRC's Request to Court on Staffing Date Committed to Writing: November 5, 1992 Date Disseminated: November, 1992 9. Copies of any patron or staff letters the MRC has received regarding the most recent principal selection process. Patron/staff letters received by the MRC are attached and separated by school. MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 12, 1994 A spe~ial-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Thursday May 12, 1994. 1 Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Dr. Altom opened the meeting at 8:40 a.m. by th~nking all MRC members for coming to this special-called meeting. He then provided a basis for requesting this meeting. Dr. Altom reminded the Committee that when it became public that LRSD was making a change in principalship, he began to review the Court Order because he was afraid the Court would admonish the MRC regarding the staffing changes. In looking through the Court Order of November 5, 1992, Dr. Altom's understanding was that the MRC had an expanded role from years past. Because of that, Dr. Altom polled each of the MRC members to see if they thought that MRC's role had been expanded and the consensus was "yes, they did . " Dr. Altom then contacted Dr. Williams unofficially to share this information with him. They had a very cordial meeting. Dr. Altom noted that about two years ago, with regard to budget cuts, the MRC became concerned about the themes of the magnets . The Court had admonished the MRC for not taking a more active role. It now seemed appropriate that the MRC would come together to make an official statement about the items in the Court Order, page 12. It should be pointed out that the following terms should be reviewed: 1) consult 2) staff (who it includes) 3) staffing changes (what does this mean) The MRC will need to write a letter to the Court saying that "as a body, this is what we believe and if this is not so , please tell us if you see it differently." STAFFING Does it mean to give the MRC the authority to overturn? The language says the Court decides. MRC merely states what the appropriate action should be. STAFF When staffing changes are made, does it mean teachers, administrators, or support staff as well? This needs to be clarified because MRC needs to determine who the critical people are with regard to the theme. Does a magnet principal being assigned to another magnet consist of a staffing change? Estelle Matthis then asked for an executive session to address the personnel issue. Ms. Matthis said the Superintendent has every intention of working by the Court Order and the MRC. Dr. Williams wants to assur_e you that the district will advertise positions, etc. and will follow the procedure as in the past - interview, make recommendation to the MRC, the Board approves, etc. He does plan to abide by the Court Order. Ms . Harding noted that in defining terms, the term "prior to" should be clarified. Things should not come as a surprise to this body. Ms . Harding said that some of the Court filings of some time ago were filed with regard to RIF's. Since then, this has come into play, and the MRC had asked the Court to have a hearing with regard to staffing. This was not tied to budget. It does not appear to be tied to only to the budgeting process . Ms . Matthis said LRSD understands that issues are related to budget. Their Program Budget Guide governs daily activities . Dr. Altom said he called Dr. Williams' attention to RIF and that MRC feels very strongly about it. He told him the MRC may ask the Court for a speedy resolution. Ms. Matthis said that Judge Wright understands the agreement . The 8th Circuit says that unless the re-assignment has an impact on desegregation, the assignment will go on. -2- Dr. Altom reminded the Committee that Donna Grady Creer, Marcia Harding and Oliver Dillingham will be meeting with Gene Wilhoit on May 23, 1994 with regard to the State's role in monitoring. CONSULT Ms. Matthis said the critical item will be the timing in terms of when we consult. Does LRSD come to the MRC first, and .when? We have to get the timing down on this. Dr. Altom noted the definition of "consult" is "to ask the advice or opinion of." This does not say you have decision-making authority, but your thoughts are considered. A combined definition would be, "consider by asking the advice or opinion of." STAFF Ms. Harding noted that, from earlier on, when staff came up in Judge Woods' court, it encompassed all certificated personnel. MRC was asked to make recommendations on these personnel. The MRC reviewed information that LRSD used prior to that time for hiring purposes. MRC made recommendations and changes with regard to thematic parts. Ms. Matthis said LRSD is basically of the same feeling. She also noted that LRSD says staffing is certificated positions. STAFFING CHANGE 1) The hiring of a person to come into a building and be either a teacher, administrator, or support individual. 2) The oth~r has to do with the possibility of transfers. This would mean thc
it the term "prior to" needs to be defined for both of these. What does "prior to" mean with regard to posting a position? With regard to a transfer, what does "prior to" mean? Ms. Harding said that under any condition, the MRC notified as soon as possible when LRSD is thinking reassigning or making a transfer of an individual. representation should report any staffing changes, the regularly-scheduled meeting of the MRC. -3- should be of The LRSD etc. at PROCEDURE Ms. Matthis said that she does not believe it would be problem to report at the MRC meeting every two weeks. LRSD representation could give a status report when something is happening. a The Ms. Creer noted that, just as a normal procedure, when a vacancy is posted, a copy could be given to the MRC immediately. Ms. Harding said clarification is needed about looking at non-certificated people also with regard to the budget. It was agreed that the MRC Office would screen job postings and place these postings on the agenda for every MRC meeting with regard to staffing in magnet schools. HIRING VS. TRANSFER Any staffing change means either hiring or transferring. Question: MRC has always been comfortable with the selection process of hiring. That is acceptabl~. "LRSD will consult with MRC before making change." What does "consult with" mean? Ms. Matthis said the procedure is: Post the position publicly
Applicants apply to Human Resources
The applications are checked by Assistant superintendents
Selection Committee reviews
Interview is scheduled
Top three candidates go to Superintendent for consideration/possible interview
superintendent makes recommendation to the Board or refers it back to the Selection Committee and the job is re-advertised. With regard to a transfer, the MRC will be looking at the same situation. Does this person meet the qualifications, etc.? Discussions will be held in Executive Session. The MRC should then report to the Court. Ms. Harding has a concern as this relates to transfers. Dr. Williams says change for change sake would not be made. Where transfers are concerned, when they are involuntary, that information needs to be presented to us (particularly if it has disruptive effects). -4- The Committee took a five-minute break. After the break, Estelle Matthis made a motion for the MRC to go into Executive Session to discuss peronnel changes at the original magnet schools. Marcia Harding seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. After Executive Session, Estelle Matthis made a motion to return to Open Session, and Marcia Harding seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom reported that no action was taken that needs to be affirmed in Open Session. In summary, a letter will go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, indicating that the MRC has reached consensus on the language in the sentence on Page 12, of the Court Order dated November 5, 1992. A copy will be sent to all MRC members. The MRC does approve the LRSD selection process for the selection of principals. In order to be more pro-active in the future, MRC will have on its regular agenda .~n item on the staffing of magnet schools to address these issues in a more timely manner. When no more business was brought to the table, Evelyn Jackson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Estelle Matthis seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. The next MRC meeting will be on Tuesday, May 17, 1994 and will encompass discussion of the interdistrict magnet schools budget. -5- MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 27, 1994 A special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Monday, June 27, 1994. Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Guests: Margaret Gremillion, Assistant Superintendent - LRSD Horace Smith, Associate Monitor - ODM The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m. by Chairperson Dr. Bobby Altom. He explained the meeting was called to examine the process used in the recent selection of magnet school principals and because the MRC had agreed in its May 12, 1994 meeting to send a letter to the Court telling the Court of MRC's opinion regarding its role in staff selection in magnet schools. Dr. Altom noted that two items will be discussed: 1) The unapproved minutes of the May 12, 1994 MRC meeting
2) The May 18, 1994 letter to the Court outlining what the MRC had delineated in its May 12, 1994 meeting in its interpretation of the language used in Judge Wright's November 5, 1992 Court Order describing MRC's input in original magnet staffings. Dr. Altom called for a reading of the minutes of the May 12, 1994 meeting. After discussion, and a few corrections, Oliver Dillingham made a motion to approve the minutes and Estelle Matthis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Matthis opened the discussion by outlining the process LRSD uses in selection of principals. She noted that LRSD asks PTA presidents for the names of three parents to serve on the principal's interview team, and LRSD looks at these submissions with regard to race and gender. Two teachers are selected for the committee, one black and one white, and one curriculum person. Central Office administrators are represented by two Assistant Superintendents. These people make up the selection committee for elementary schools. Secondary schools follow the same procedure as noted above, but incentive schools have staffing committees, including a representative of the Joshua Intervenors. Once all the people for the selection committee are identified, letters are sent to them notifying them to serve on the committee. Ms. Matthis noted that there was some question as to the number of parents to be included. Gibbs wanted five parents and five teachers. Ms. Matthis explained how the process worked, and she also oted that parents could ask questions if they wanted when they get to the interview process. However, parents were requested to ask the same questions of all applicants. Most applicants had no school preference. If an applicant were an assistant principal, they were automatically given an audience. She noted that three assistant principals, one principal and one specialist applied for the Gibbs job. Once the applicants had been identified, dates and times were given for the interviews. Letters were sent to the participants telling them of the dates and times. The procedure for the interviews went as follows: The interview team is brought in and a folder is given to them. A listing of all the people serving on the team was included in this folder. A list of questions was provided and participants were told that "if you want to ask applicants a question, that's fine
however, you must ask that same question to all candidates." A rating sheet was included in the folder also, and it was explained to committee participants. The rating sheet is process. Committee applicants by their one part of the whole evaluation members were asked to rank first choice, etc., and the -2- committee tries to come to a consensus. After that, there will be questions from the interview team. Ms. Harding asked what happens if there is a situation where the committee cannot reach a consensus. Ms. Matthis said the committee reports back to the Superintendent and notifies him that no consensus has been reached. At that point , the job will be re-advertised. Ms. Matthis noted that State law gives the Superintendent responsibility to re-assign or transfer personnel. Ms . Harding asked Ms. Matthis and Ms. Gremillion why there are such large numbers in movement. They noted that options for staff to take the early retirement incentives have created a lot of the open positions. At this point, Ms. Matthis requested that the Magnet Review Committee go into Executive Session to discuss personnel for the interdistrict magnet schools. Ms. Harding made a motion to go into Executive Session, and Ms. Matthis seconded the motion. The motion car~ied unanimously. When Executive Session was completed, Ms. Harding made a motion to re-convene the MRC meeting and Estelle Matthis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom reported the results of the Executive Session. He said the MRC will go on record in a letter to the Court stating that the MRC does not believe that LRSD has followed the Court Order of Judge Wright when it says that "in the future, the LRSD must consult the MRC and must seek Court permission prior to making any staffing changes in the magnet schools." The MRC does not believe that that consultation was made. Dr. Altom also said that the MRC will go on record that MRC believes that the interview, recommendation and selection process does have integrity. Also, in the letter, the MRC will ask Dr. Henry Williams to work with the MRC to make sure the Court Order is followed for future original magnet staffing changes. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Evelyn Jackson made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Oliver Dillingham seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m. -3- MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES July 18, 1994 A special-called meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, 1920 North Main Street, North Little Rock, Arkansas on Monday, July 18 1994. ' Members Present: Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson, called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. He informed the Magnet Review Committee the meeting was being called to discuss Little Rock School District's recommendation for the principalship at Carver Elementary Magnet School. Dr. Altom asked for a motion to go into Executive Session, and Estelle Matthis provided the motion. Dana Chadwick seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. When Executive Session ended, Ms. Matthis made a motion to return to the general meeting, and Evelyn Jackson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously to return to a general session. Dana Chadwick made a motion that, after hearing the Little Rock School District's representative regarding the principal selection process and the protocol, MRC accept the recommendation of the LRSD for the principalship of Carver Elementary Magnet School. Estelle Matthis seconded the motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom recapped the events of the Executive Session. He said the Magnet Review Committee will submit, by way of formal letter to the Court through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, the action taken during this meeting. As a part of the letter, a statement will be made that the Magnet Review Committee does not believe that the process has been done in as timely a fashion as what the MRC would like. But, the late date, the fact principals are already under contract and the belief that magnet school parents are anxious to meet and support that individual, the Magnet Review Committee does support the selection. The Little Rock School District did provide a more in-depth discussion of rationale for selection of the CarveI principal. By consensus, the Magnet Review Committee agreed to send a letter to Dr. Williams asking him to work with the MRC on procedures or policies affecting staffing of the original magnet schools. The MRC will ask him to work with the MRC regarding the following items: timely notification of vacancies arising
the procedures for recruitment of candidates
screening procedures for candidates
make-up selection of the interview committee
the development of the interview itself
written criteria or factors considered for the selection of the final principal selection
reassignment and/or removal of magnet school principals. The MRC will ask him to help look into any changes that might be appropriate for principal job descriptions in the magnet schools. When no further business was brought before the Committee, Estelle Matthis made a motion to adjourn the meeting and Dana Chadwick seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously, and the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. -2- 5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams INTER VIEW PROTOCOL Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 1994-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 1994, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or policy, there has been a well-known long-standing past practice of interview protocol. The above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policy and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent
Mr. Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations
and Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Hu~an Resources. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. Persons desiring employment as a School Principal shall file an application in writing (Reswne, letter of intent, or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. District application forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) 2. District administration officials will screen the applicants 3. for acceptability. Taken into consideration are certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. The Deputy Superintendent and/or the Assistant SuperiDtendent(s) will prepare a list of interview questions to be used in the interview process. 4. The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie: E.E.O., Affirmative Action, Americans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be selected/appointed, as follows: Three Two Three (3) Parents/Patrons (2) Teachers (3) Administration Representatives Note:1 Note:2 Note:3 1. The Parent/Patrons representatives will be selected by a process: designated by the PTA president of the of the affected school. 2. The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by the Administration. 3. The Deputy Superintendent (in consultation with appropriate staff - Assistant superintendents, Supervisors, and Principals) may designate the Administration representatives. *NOTE: The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB 6. The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will be provided folders containing the following: 1) An interview schedule 2) The approved interview questions 3) An approved candidate rating form 4) The applicant's application materials 7. The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. ~ (Note: Although the applicants are rated, the ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) 8. The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. 9. Once the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. 10. When approved, the candidate shall receive a contract which details his salary, pay grade, and other pertinent information. ,, . . PLEASE POST PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL OISRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 10, 1994 The Little Rock School District is now accepting applications for the following positions for the 1994-95 school year: POSITIONS: Principals - Six (6) Positions - (1) Williams Magnet (1) Gibbs Magnet (1) carver Magnet (1) Mitchell Incentive (1) Franklin Incentive (1) Rightsell Incentive QUALIFICATIONS: At least five (5) years experience as a teacher and/ or administrator. 1. 2. A master ' s degree or higher, with eligibility for Arkansas certification as an elementary principal. __ 3. 4. Evidence of strong organizational skills. Knowledge of curriculum development and successful teach5. 6. 7. 8. ing methods . Demonstrates the conviction that all students can learn and will learn in the Little Rock School District. Evidence of strong experience in dealing with student problems. Evidence of successful experience with parent and staff involvement. Evidence of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. NOTE: APPLICANTS MUST BE PREPARED TO SHOW EVIDENCE OF THESE QUALIFICATIONS IN THE INITIAL SCREENING INTERVIEW. BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Assumes responsibility for the management and monitoring of his/her school, and serves as a chief advisor to the appropiiate assigned Associate/Assistant superintendent on matters pertaining to administration, budget, and program implementation in his/her school. 2. works with staff and patrons to determine educational program priorities and goals for his/her school . Principals BASIC PERFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Continued) 3. Implements the process whereby school-level educational programs needs are identified. Informs the appropriate Associate/Assistant Superintendent regarding needed logistical and consultative support in order to accomplish this task. 4. Serves on such advisory groups and task forces as assigned by the appropriate Associate/Assistant superintendent. 5. oversees the development of educational programs and the plan for implementing them on the school level. 6. Works with supervisory and building staff to make the necessary program changes. 7. Assumes responsibility for conducting the performance evaluation of all personnel assigned to his/her building. 8. Assumes responsibility for all record keeping and other administrative tasks. EVALUATION: Performance of this job will be evaluated annually in accordance with the provisions of the Board's policy on Evaluation of Administrative Personnel. ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIP: Reports to the Deputy superintendent. SALARY AND TERMS: 37-0003 Salary Schedule - An Eleven (11) Month Contract plus Educational stipend, car Allowance, and Benefits APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 19, 1994, or any time later until satisfactory applicants are recommended and approved. SEND WRITTEN LETTERS OF INOUITY TO: or. Richard E. Hurley Director of ~an Resources Little Rock school District 810 west Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 Principals NOTE: INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST COMPLETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS. THEREFORE BECAUSE AN INDIVIDUAL APPLIES FOR A POSITION DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT AN INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. The Little Rock School District is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Equity concerns may be addressed to the Associate superintendent for Desegregation. It is the policy of the Little Rock School District not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, color, religion, national origin, or disability in its educational programs, activities or employment practices. .P. r LITILE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. Cite u 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) 363 LITILE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff, v. Faulkner
Bob Moore
Don Hindman
Shirley Lowery
Sheryl Dunn
David Sain
Bob Stender
Grainger Williams Richard A. Giddings
George A: McCrary
Buddy Raines
and Dale Ward, Uefcndants, Katherine Knight, Individually and as President of The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA)
LRCA
Ed Bullington, Individually nnd us President of The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)
PACT
John Harrison, Individually and as President of The North Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (NLRCTA)
NLRCTA
and Milton Jackson, Individually and as a NonCertified Educational Support Employee of the Little Rock0.School District, Lorene Joshua, as next friend of mi nors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua and Wayne Joshua
Rev. Robert Willing ham
Sara Matthews, as next friend of Khayyam Davis, Alexa Armstrong and Karlos Armstrong
l\lrs. Alvin Hudson, as next friend of Talia Hudson
l\lrs. Hilton Taylor, as next friend of Parshu Taylor, Hilton Taylor, Jr. and Brian Taylor
Rev. John r,t. Miles, as next friend of Janice Miles and Dcreck Miles
Rev. Robert Willingham on be half of and as President of the Little Rock Branch of the NAACP
Lorene Joshua on behalf of and as President of the North Little Rock Branch of NAACP, Intervenors. No. L~C-82-866. United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, W.D. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1
North Little Rock School District
Arkansas State Board of Education
Wayne Hartsfield
Walter Turnbow
Harry A. Haines
Jim Dupree
Dr. Harry P. McDonald
Robert L. Newton
Alice L. Preston
Jeff Starling
Earle Love
Bob Lyon
John Ward
Judy Wear
Leon Barnes
Ma rianna Gosser
Steve Morley
Mac Feb. 27, 1987. Order March 4, 1987. School desegregation plans were sub milted. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 597 F.Supp. 1220, held that countywide inter [1059] , 364 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT district remedy had to be utilized to correct countywide interdistrict violations. Appeals were taken. The Court of Appeals, Heaney, Circuit Jude, 778 F.2d 404, held that violations could be remedied by less intrusive measures and remanded. On remand, the District Court, Henry Woods, J., held that: (1) stipulations between State Iloard of Education and defendant school districts, whereby districts proposed to desegregate schools, inter alia, by allowing black and white students who were in racial majority to transfer to other schools within any participating district, would be approved in its entirety
(2) plan for desegregation of school district, whereby district agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood program to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickle-down effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, would be approved in all respects
and (3) that portion of school district's plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation and extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would also be approved. So ordered. See also, 805 F.2d 815. 1. Schools e:>13(14) Magnet review committee report and related stipulations, whereby defendant in school desegregation case agreed to use 50-50 black to white ratio for magnet program enrollment while allowing students presently enrolled at existing magnet schools to continue in those schools as appropriate, would be approved in their entirety. 2. Schools e:>13(14) In school desegregation case, students who were presently enrolled at magnet (1060) schools would be allowed to finish their education at such schools, where evidence was presented that involved parents had contributed greatly to schools' success. 3. Schools e:>!3(1~) Stipulations between Slate Ooard of Education and defendant school districts, whereby districts proposed to desegregate schools, inter alia, by allowing black and white students who were in ratio majority at their respective schools to transfer to other schools within any participating district, would be approved in their entirety. 4. Schools e:>13(6) Plan for desegregation of school district, whereby distn'ct agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood programs to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickledown effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, reflected solid and workable approach to end segregation in district and would be approved in all respects. Order 5. Schools e:>!3(6) That portion of school district's plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation in extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would be approved. P.A. Hollingsworth, Philip E. Kaplan, Janet L. Pulliam, John M. Bilheimer, Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff. r C I I LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 365 Cite u 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, tion of the magnet school plans of the Ark., Neal, G:rber & Eise~berg, Chicago, other parties and a critique of the plan of Ill., for Pulaski County Special School Dist., the Magnet Review Committee. At the No. 1, Mac _Faulkner, Bob Moore, Don close of the testimony on January 30, r Hindman,_ Shirley Lowery, Sheryl Dunn, suggested that the parties again confer and David Sain and Bob Stender. attempt to reach an agreement on the mag- C.R. McNair, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Shar- net school portion of the Eighth Circuit on Streett, Dept. of Educ., Little Rock, mandate. (R. 568-69). Ark., for Arkansas State Bd. of Educ., Wayne Hartsfield, Walter Turnbow, Harry A. Haines, Jim Dupree, Dr. Harry P. McDonald, Robert L. Newton, Alice L. Preston, Jeff Starling and Earle Love. Jack, Lyon & Jones, Little Rock, Ark., for North Little Rock School Dist., Bob Lyon, John Ward, Judy Wear, Leon Barnes, Marianna Gosser and Steve Morley. . Stephen L. Curry, Little Rock, Ark., for Graing:er Williams, Richard A. Giddings, George A. McCrary, Buddy Raines and Dale Ward. Theodore Shaw, New York City, John W. Walker, Little Rock, Ark., for intervenors Joshua, et al. Richard Roachell, Cearley, Mitchell & Roachell, Little Rock, Ark., for interven<irs Knight, et al. INTERIM ORDER ENFORCING MANDATE OF COURT OF APPEALS HENRY WOODS, District Judge. In conformity with the opinion of the Court of Appeals dated November 7, 1985, 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir.), and the ensuing mandate, a hearing was held on January 29-30, 1987, to consider the recommendation of the Magnet Review Committee concerning the locations, themes, dates, operation, transportation, seat allocations, targeted ratios, and administration of the magnet schools in this county. January 29th and 30th were devoted to testimony adduced by the Magnet Review Committee on behalf of its plan. The hearing was adjourned to continue the week of February 17, 1987-a presenta- [1] On February 17, 1987, the hearing was resumed to take up not only t,l1e magnet school issues but also the student assignment plans submitted by the Pulaski County Special School District (hereafter PCSD), the North Little Rock School District (hereafter NLRSD), and the Little Rock School District (h.ereafter LRSD). The three districts and the State Department of Education then advised the court that they had agreed by stipulation to a magnet school plan for the County which had been submitted to the Magnet Review Committee and approved by the latter. (R. 577). In open court the Joshua intervenors advised that they had no objections to the stipulation and were in general agreement with its terms. Since the Knight intervenors had not been party to the negotiations leading to the stipulation, they declined to approve the plan but interposed no objection thereto. I have examined the stipulation in detail. In my opinion it is an excellent compromise of the many complex issues involved in magnet schools. The stipulated settlement is in all respects approved. A copy of the stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference in this order. All of the parties except the Joshua and Knight intervenors have also stated in open court that the provisions of the Magnet Review Committee Report dated January 22, 1987 (MRC) not superseded by Exhibit A were stipulated as binding on the tl,1ree districts and the State Board of Education. (R. 582-21). The Magnet Review Committee Report is attached her.etc as Exhibit B The stipulation and agreement as aforesaid are approved in all respects. On behalf of all the parties, the attorney for the Little Rock District dictated into the record some minor supplemental under[ 1061] I 366 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT standings in connection with Exhibit A. (R. 577). These understandings have been reduced to letter form and have been marked as Exhibit C to this order and are incorporated herein by reference. These understandings are approved as supplemental to Exhibit A. [2] One issue remains with reference to the magnet schools presently in existence. That is the question of whether the students presently at the three magnet schools should remain and finish at the schools which they have been attending. Based on the evidence presented, I am convinced that the past success of these schools is the best argument for continuing the present student body as much as possible. Involved parents, black and white, of children attending these schools have contributed greatly to their success and have invested a huge amount of time and energy in making these schools outstanding. It would be a mistake in my opinion to dump these students and start anew. There will of course be attrition and new seats available through graduation, but the students presently enrolled in Booker, Mann and Williams shall have a right to continue in these schools. , - The responsibilities of the Magnet Review Committee, as agreed by the three districts and the State Board of Education, appear at pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit B hereto. The Committee shall be financed as agreed by the parties with a budget of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) with Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,- 000) or half to be paid by the State and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) by each of the three districts. The MRC will necessarily work closely with the three districts and the State in order to have the six magnet schools ready for the 1987-88 school year. The MRC should report to the court on May 1, 1987, on July l, 1987 and again on September l, 1987 to inform the court of progress made in implementing the magnet schools. While the reports need not be lengthy, so as to be burdenlome to the MRC, certainly the MRC reports should keep the court abreast of the status of critical aspects of (1062) implementation of the magnets including: renovations, teacher recruitment, staff training and development, community input 1 and involvement, and student recruitmt:~~_i The Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors have both asked for representation on the Magnet Review Committee by a voting membership. I am unable to comply with this request. The Court of Appeals set forth in clear and unequivocal terms the makeup of the Magnet Review Committee. At the request of all the parties, I did give the Joshua intervenors a non-voting member of the Committee. This was a modification agreed upon by all the parties that did not affect the basic structure of the Magnet R!!"vicw Committee. The request of the Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors for a voting representation on the Magnet Review Committee is hereby denied. The financing of the magnet school plan has been stipulated
it is approved as covered in the stipulation (Exhibit A) and in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. In addition to the financing relating to magnet schools and to majority-to-minority transfers, there is only one other reference to state financing in the Court of Appeals decision, Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 435 (8th Cir.1985): If the four all- or nearly all-black elementary schools as conditionally allowed by this Court in Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock, 705 F.2d 265 (8th Cir.1983), are retained in LRSD, compensatory and remedial programs of the type that we required for the nonintegrated schools in St. Louis shall be put into effect for the four schools. See Liddell v. State of Missouri, 731 F.2d [1294) at 1312-18 [8th Cir.1984). The additional cost of these programs shall be paid for by the State of Arkansas. Since there are no all-black schools in the LRSD student assignment plan, the conditions are not present which would trigger state financing of compensatory education, as is obvious from the above language. The Little Rock District has requested other funding from the State. None of the Ll'ITLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. Cltr a.. 659 F.Supp. J6J (E.O.Ark. 1987} funding _is required by the Court of Ap- principalships and coaching positions
(b) peals ruling. The State's share of the mag- concentrated whites in schools north of and net school funding will be considerable. It blacks in schoo:s south of Interstate 40
(c) will strain the already meager resources of assigned students to special education clasthe State at a time when the State has sifications on a discriminatory basis and {d) committed itself to new standards for all failed to apportion the burdens of transporArkansas public schools. Although the tation equally on black and white students. blacks in Little Rock have suffered from LitUe Rock School Distn'ct v. Pulaski the ravages of segregation, so have the County, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D.Ark. blacks in every section and every county of 1984). These findings were affirmed by the State. Significantly the new state stan- the Court of Appeals. Little Rock School dards provide for compensatory education District v. Pulaski County Special School for all students whe~e performance is sub- District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (8th Cir.1985). standard. (State Exhibit MX 25). In March, 1986, the NLRSD submitted 367 [3) The parties have agreed upon a sys- an implementation plan designed to remedy tern for handling majority-to-minority the interdistrict effects of its constitutional transfers. The stipulation setting forth violations. (March plan). Subsequently, in this agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit October of 1986, the NLRSD submitted a D, is approved and is incorporated herein supplement to its implementation plan (supby reference. The three districts and the plement plan) which addressed remediation Joshua intervenors have also agreed upon of intradistrict impact of its prior segrea Pulaski County Education Cooperative gative acts. for staff development, distribution of audio The NLRSD student assignment plan, visual resources, "teacher center" activi- the "Storm Plan," has been in effect for a ties, purchasing and other cooperative ef- number of years. When properly impleforts of mutual benefit. The stipulation mented, the Storm Plan provides for a conestablishing the cooperative venture, at- stitutional student assignment system and tached hereto as Exhibit E, is approved. for equitable busing burdens between After carefully considering the student assignment plan submitted by the PCSD, I have decided that it must be rejected for the reasons set forth in the record at pages 61&-17. The district was given two weeks to submit an alternative plan. At the time the County's student assignment plan is considered, the court will deal with the other criticisms set forth by the Court of Appeals. The broad outline of the student assignment plan submitted by the LRSD is hereby approved. Detailed assignments have been awaiting the resolution of the magnet school issues. The Little Rock District is hereby .authorized to proceed with its student assignment plan as submitted to the court in March, 1986. [41 The North Littlir Rock School District was found to have purposefully committed a number of segregative acts, including the following which had an interdistrict effect: (a) failed to assign blacks to its central administration or to high school blacks and whites. According to its March plan, all NLRSD schools are currently desegregated and deficiencies found by this court have been corrected. This evidence was uncontradicted at the June, 1986 hearing. The NLRSD plan includes a detailed staff recruitment component which, if implemented, should result in substantial gains in the area of recruitment and promotion of blacks to positions where they are currently underrepresented. Supplementally the NLRSD has agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for increasing the number of blacks to these positions. (Supplement plan 2.1). Remediation of the unconstitutional overrepresentation of blacks in "special education" classes consumes most of the NLRSD's March implementation plan. As with the rest of its plan, if put into effect as proposed, the imbalance caused by the categorization of inordinate numbers of black st-udents as "retarded" would be eliminated. NLRSD has suggested several .:::::=--- (1063] 368 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT important monitoring procedures to insure compliance. (Supplement plan, 3.1). The NLRSD supplement plan also addresses remedies for intradistrict segregative acts. In the area of compensatory education for black children who continue to suffer the trickle-down effects of past segregation, the NLRSD plan proposes an early childhood program. The program includes a testing process so that educationally disadvantaged children, both black and white, can be identified and targeted for help at an early age. For the early grades, that help will be provided through teacher aides who will provide one-to-one tutoring, through supplementary reading instruction, and through implementation of the State Minimum Performance Tests. Reading remediation will also be provided at the junior high school level, as will computer assisted instruction in basic skills with individualized programs. The NLRSD supplement plan includes a number of programs aimed at the problem of students who leave school prematurely or "drop out." The excessively high dropout rate of blacks in the NLRSD is one of the most pressing problems for the blacks in that district. Proposed programs such as the WIN (We Intervene Now) and SAC (Student Assignment Class-which serves students who are suspended from their regular classes) are sound and should prove beneficial. The violation relating to the disproportionate numbers of black students who are suspended or expelled for disciplinary reasons has largely been eliminated. For example, in the 1985-86 school year, 48o/o of the suspended students were black. While this percentage is somewhat higher than the actual percentage of black students enrolled (40%), the deviation is not so great as to indicate a continuing problem at this time. Expulsions are now infrequent (only 20 over the last three years) and are now made only by the board of education, after a hearing. The NLRSD has made strides in improving the participation of black students in its Gifted and Talented program. The LRSD supplement plan includes a number of safeguards to insure identification of (1064] black children who are gifted/talented but culturally disadvantaged. In addition to the screening tests which recognize cultural differences (i.e. System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment), the NLRSD now uses an identification process which involves nominations and r.?commendations based on multiple criteria from a number of people. The ultimate placement of a child in the program is a group dec1s1on. (Supplement plan 8.1-8.4). In sum, the NLRSD has made great progress in each area where it was found to have been deficient. The NLRSD's March 1986 plan, as supplemented in October 1986, reflects a solid and workable ap proach, if implemented, to end segregation in that school district. The NLRSD plan is hereby approved in all respects.' ORDER (5] The Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) was found purposefully to have committed a number of segregative acts with an interdistrict effect: (a) failed to comply with a 1968 desegregation court order (Zinnamon v. Board of Education of the Pulaski County Arkansas Special School District, No. LR-CR-C-154)
(b) constructed schools in locations which ensured that they would become racially identifiable
(c) failed to allocate the burden of busing equitably between black and white students
(d) failed to hire and promote black teachers and staff
(e) refused to allow deannexation to or consolidation with the N.>rth Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Little Rock School Dis trict (LRSD)
(0 failed to assign students to schools in such a way as to maximize desegregation
(g) assigned students to special education classifications and gifted programs on a discriminatory basis
(h) assigned black principals to schools with high black enrollments
(i) created and maintained a racial imbalance in almost half its schools
(j) closed and downgraded schools in black neighborhoods and failed to build new schools there. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Co. Special School District, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D. Ark.1984). These findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Little Rock t-i LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST 369 . . Clle u 659 F.Supp. J6J (E.D.Ark. 1987) 0 School Dis/net v. Pulaski County Special into sites for proposed Scch ool District, 778 F.2d 404, 418 (8th While no schools have nbeew construction. 198-) . en construred 1r.
:, during the pendency of this case, two , w Many of the violations have already been elementary schools are now proposc.:d. The cured-ither by court order or by affirma- sites chosen conform to the board's new tive actions of the PCSSD. The deannexa- policy and are approved. In that same tion/consolidation violation has been cured vein, progress has been made recen' 'v
, by the redrawing of boundary lines which improving the physical plants in sc , s separate the districts. The failure to com- such as Harris and Scott which were rac::1lply with Zinnamon includes the failure to ly identifiably black. appoint black members to the PCSSD The PCSSD has made continuous board. By order of this court dated De- progress in hiring and promoting black faccember 1, 1986, the PCSSD will now elect ulty. An affirmat1,e action pbn was board members from zones. According to adopted by the PCSSD board in 1984 the plan submitted and approved, one of which has apparently been successful. A~ the zones will be majority black and anoth- of November, 1985, 22.Go/o of the PC 30 er will be 40% black, 58% white and 2% teachers w,.ere black as compared wit ,1 a other. This remedy supercedes that por- 23.6% black student population. PCSSD tion of Zinnamon dealing with black Plan Appendix I. Further, the district has school board members. The ceding of the a goal to have black teachers maln 1
, Granite Mountain area from LRSD to 20-30% of the faculty in each school e PCSSD includes the transfer of public district. PCSSD Plan, Appendix I. housing areas to PCSSD. Moreover, there Similarly, the affirmative action plan for are apparently other public housing devel- administrative staff appears to have been opments in the PCSSD. PCSSD Exhibits successful, although there remains under- 18 and 20 in June, 1986 hearing. PCSSD representation in two specific categories: has created a new position in the superin- coordinators and directors. In spite of tendent's office, the Coordinator of Hous- these specific areas which should be careing and Integration. This staff person will, fully monitored, the percentage of l ick among other duties, relate to realtors, de- administrators (24.7%) is good and indicates velopers and planning agencies. PCSSD a positive step toward curing this deficien- Exhibit R-2, p. 4. The PCSSD student cy. assignment plan will soon be submitted and The overrepresentation of blacks s e-at that time the issues of desegregation in cial education classes can perhaps t :ie student assignments and equitable alloca remedied through the use of culturally untion of busing burdens will be addressed. biased screening and subsequent rr.onitor- School site selection involves two sepa- ing. The PCSSD plan includes both of rate violations. First, the construction of these,elements. The result of the plan has new schools where they are likely to be been a marked drop in the percentage of racially identifiable and second, the closing blacks classified as requiring special eduor downgrading of schools closest to cen- cation. PCSSD Plan, Appendix G. While ters of black population. Since this lawsuit the percentage of blacks design:1 te for was filed, the PCSSD board has adopted a special education is 4.2% higher than the policy making desegregation and equal ac- percentage of white children so designated, cess to school primary goals in decisions to that deviation is within an acceptable build, renovate, or discontinue use of a range. school. PCSSD Implementation Plan, The PCSSD plan includes a comr 1nt March 1986 (hereafter PCSSD Plan) Appen- to assure black student participation 111 ex dix B. The Coordinator of Housing and tracurricular activities. Notably, in the Integration obviously should have input 1985-86 school year, black students (1c0o6m5] I 370 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT EXHIBIT A STIPULATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MAGNET SCHOOL.s prised 28% of the membership in extracurricular activities. PCSSD plan, Appendix G. An affirmative recruitment plan will be implemented to remedy underrepresentation in activities where it occurs. PCSSD Plan, Appendix H. The foregoing proposals of the PCSSD desegregation plan represent not only a turn in the right direction, but also significant progress toward achieving a unitary school district. While much remains to be done, much has been accomplished. Accordingly, this portion of the PCSSD deseg regation plan is hereby approved. The undersigned parties have agreed to make the following describi!d recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee for its consideration in formulating its recommendation regarding magnet schools. School & Program Carver-Basic Skills Math-Science Williams-Basic Skills Booker-Arts Gibbs-Foreign Language/ International Studies Mann-Math-Sciences/ Arts Parkview-Arts-Per!orming Arts Total The curriculum at magnet schools will emphasize the magnet theme and all magnet students must fully participate in mag net courses. As well as the magnet theme, all magnet schools will have strong aca demically-oriented curricula. New magnets or expansion of magnets already existing may be provided for in subsequent school years beginning 1988-89 under the provisions of the Order of September 3, 1986. Any party may present applications for a magnet school or pro gram not later than the beginning of each school year preceeding the proposed year of implementation. The Committee's decision and recommendation shall be sub mitted to the parties no later than November 15. The MRC shall make its recom mendation to the Court not later than December 15. IMPLEMENTATION The parties propose that the District Court order the implementation of the six (6) aforementioned magnet schools for the 1987-1988 school year. The host district shall provide to the MRC and to the parties (1066] LOCATIONS AND THEMES The parties have agreed to recommend the following magnet school locations and programs: ~ K-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 7-9 10-12 Target Enrollment 475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 its implementation timetable at the time a magnet proposal is submitted to the Court. FINANCING The parties agree to the financing formulas proposed by the Magnet Review Committee at the hearing held on January 29 and 30, 1987. These formulas require the State to pay one-half(} of the actual costs of the construction or renovation of magnet schools as well as the customary state aid and one-half (} the cost of educating the magnet students attending those schools. It is understood that any district which does not provide a student to fill an allocated seat, and said seat is not occupied by any other student, will be required to pay to the host district as its full liability for said unfilled seat the per child cost of the host district's debt service payment, both principal and interest, for the construction or renovation of the schools in the magnet program. The host district will provide separate accounting and budgeting information regarding the magnet program lo the Magnet Review Committee for review. LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. Cllc u 6,9 F.Supp. J6J (E.D.Ark. 1987) 371 INTERDISTRICT TRANSPORTATION PLAN The State Board of Education remains committed to underwriting the entire actual cost of transporting magnet and M-to-M transfer students, which includes the cost of transporting these students for extracurricular activities. The districts agree that transportation of magnet/M-to-M students should be performed utilizing measures which are most cost efficient. The interdistrict transportation plan shall not be used as a means to seek compensation for additional transportation vehicles unless such vehicles are directly necessary because of the interdistrict transportation plan. New full-sized school buses purchased in order to transport magnet/Mto- M students will be added to the total transportation fleet costs and applied on a pro rata basis to the transportation of magnet/ M-to-M students. The cost of any other vehicles purchased to transport isolated magnet/.M-to-M students will be prorated according to their actual use in transporting magnet/M-to-M students. Each district agrees to separately account for the costs of transporting magnet/M-to-M students and to make those records fully available to representatives of the State Department of Education at any reasonable time. The parties agree that the Interdistrict Transportation Plan for both magnet schools and M-to-M transfers will be administered by an Interdistrict Transportation Authority (ITA). The ITA shall be composed of the Transportation Director or other designee of each district and a representative of the State. The parties agree that any conflict may be determined by a U.S. ~agistrate acting as a Special Master for the District Court. SEAT ALLOCATION All magnet schools shall have a student population which is fifty percent (50%) black and fifty percent (50%) non-black. The parties agree that for the 1987-88 school year the magnet school seats shall be allocated according to the following for- mula: Twenty-five per centum (25%) of the capacity of a magnet school shall be re-served for the shadow area in the host district. The remaining seventy-five per centum (75%) of the seats shall be allocated to each of the three districts in proportio~ to that district's percentage of county-wide students at each school level (elementay, junior high, or senior high). At the elementary level each district shall allocate its seats in proportion to the racial ratio present in such district at the elementary level. At the secondary level, each district shall allocate all its seats on the basis of 50% black, 50% non-black. However, the total number of seats assigned to the North Little Rock School District shall n'.:t exceed 475 seats with no more than 100 seats being allocated to the North Little Rock School District from Parkview. It is understood that seat allocations will not be made by district to a particular school, but only by elementary, junior high and senior high level. Therefore, a particular district will be permitted to use its allocated seats in accordance with the desires of its students subject to space limitations in particular magnet schools and the maintenance of a 50-50 racial balance. If there is oversubscription among the districts by race, grade or school each district may make a recommendation to the MRC for its approval regarding actual distribution of seats. The three districts agree that each district will establish an open enrollment policy for magnet schools and will be permitted to determine how children will be selected for the magnet seats allocated to each district pursuant to that policy. This provision shall not prohibit the establishment of geographic preference areas where appropriate. In the event there are unused seats by any district then persons on waiting lists to attend from the other districts shall be permitted to attend before any seat is left vacant. No student attending a magnet school will be considered as an M-to-M transfer student for incentive payment purposes. TARGETED RATIOS The parties have previously submitted to the Court a proposed stipulation for M-to-M (1067] 1 372 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT transfers which in part recognizes that if :-!-to-:-f transfers occur, ratios targeted by any of the districts for particular schools might be affected depending upon the locations from which M-to-M transfers occur. The parties in that stipulation agreed that the first priority should be a successful :'11-to-
\I transfer program and that if it did affect targeted ratios, such departures wou Id not be regarded or urged as cons titu tional violations or departures from desegregation plans. The parties further recognize that a successful operation of the magnet school program could potentially ha ,e the same or similar effects upon targeted ratios. The parties therefore recommend that any magnet transfers not be counted as a departure from a desegregation plan or urged as a constitutional violation. LITTLE ROCK MAGNET GRANT The parties agree and recommend that, should the Little Rock District now or in the future prove successful in obtaining grants for the operation of magnet schools, any such monies shall be applied off the top to the obligations of all parties. The parties further agree and recommend to the Court that they cooperate in the development of an application for any future magnet grants. ADMINISTRATION The daily administration and operation of the magnet schools shall be the responsibility of the host district. The host district shall designate a person who shall have principal responsibility for overseeing the de,elopment and implementation of its magnet program. STUDENT RECRUITMENT The parties agree that the Magnet Review Committee shall establish a Magnetl M-to-M Educational Team (MET). The major responsibilities of the MET shall include community education and information dissemination of educational opportunities in the magnet programs and recruitment for both magnets and M to M transfers. It shall report to the MRC. The MET shall [1068] be composed of the person from each school district and the State responsible for desegregation !Jlanning, and two additional persons selected by each of the following parties: Joshua Intcrvenors Little Rock School District North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District State of Arkansas These additional representatives of the MET shall not be employees or officials of any of the districts or the State. February 16, 1987 PCSSD Administrative Offices The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) endorses the foregoing stipulations. Pulaski County Special School District Isl _____G _e_n_e_J_o_n_es _____ North Little Rock School District I I James R. Smith s --------------- Little Rock School District Isl ____ J_e_ss_e_L_. R_a_nc_i!_e_r ___ _ Arkansas Department of Education Isl ____M_ a_rc_ia
__A:..:...:H:..:.a:..:.r:..:.d:..:.in,::g_ ____ Arkansas Department of Education Isl ____r. _i_orr_is_F_._H_o_lm_e_s_ ____ r EXHIBIT B MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE COURT January 22, 1987 The Honorable Henry Woods U.S. Federal District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Woods: The Magnet Review Committee submits for your consideration the attached report including nine separate recommendations concerning magnet schools in Pulaski County. ,I. 5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams I1 TERVIEW PROTOCOL Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 199-t-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 199-t, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or pol.icy, there bas been a well-known long-standing past practice of interview protocol. Toe above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policv and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent
Mr. B~ady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations
and Dr. Richard Hurley, Direstor of Human Resources. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAE3 SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. Persons desiring employment as a School Principal shall file an application in writing (Resume, letter of intent, or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. District application forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) 2. District administration officials will screen the applicants for acceptability. Taken into consideration are 3 . certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. The Deputy Superintendent and/or the Assistant Superintendent(s) will prepare a list of interview questions to be used in the interview process. 4. The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie: E.E.O., Affirmative Action, Americans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be selected/appointed, as follows: Note:l Note:2 Note:3 Three Two Three ( 3) ( 2) ( 3) Parents/Patrons Teachers Administration Representatives 1. The Parent/Patrons representatives will be selected by a process: designated by the PTA president of the of the affected school. 2. The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by the Administration. 3. The Deputy Superintendent ( in consultation with appropriate staff - Assistant superintendents, Supervisors, and Principals) may designate the Administration representatives. *NOTE: The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB 6. The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will be provided folders containing the following: 1) An interview schedule 2) The approved interview questions 3) An approved candidate rating form 4) The applicant's application materials 7. The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. (Note: Although the applicants are rated, tne ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) 8. The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. 9. Once the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. 10. When approved, the candidate shall receive a contract which details his salary, pay grade, and other pertinent information. I --:J'---. - , . IN' TIJE mHTED ST,\7ES DISTilICT COURT EASTEIU: DI STl1 JCT O!' ARJCANSAS WESTERN DIVIS ION FKLED U.5. OI STlllCT COURT EASTU)N n1s,q1cr "~K/\"'SAS SE
) 1 1985 CARL R. B~ENTS, Ci...En/ 8y: -------- 1 ITTLE ROCJ( SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINT I ff.::.".cLtr<I< V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULAS!<I COillffY SPECIAL SCIJOOL DISTRICT, ct al DEFENDANTS rvm.s. Lon.ENE JOSHUA, ns l-ieXt F1iend of Minors LESLIE JOSliU/,, ct al onDE}l INTERVENORS Pursuant to the o.grccmcnt entitled 11 Stipulc.tion for Proposed Ordi:!r Conce,ning Magnet Review Corrmittee" filed by the three rarty school districts a~d the Arkansas State Board of Education,: the following Order is hereby eritered: The subject of this stipulation wa5 addressed by the Court 6f Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its opinion of.November 7, 1985, styled as above and reported at 778 F,2d 404, 436 (8th Cir. ,,. 1985). 1, Plaintiff end each of the defendant school districts will appoint a member of the Magnet Review Comnittee (MRC) and rep or t th~ name of t 11 at person to the Co u r t w i th in ten ( 10 ) days of the entry of this Order. The defendants State Department of Education will appoint two members of the ~me and report the names of those persons to the Court within ten (10) days. The Joshua i n t er v en or 5 w i 11 appoint a person to the MRG to 6 er v c, SEP -8 1986 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF '.4RKANSAS .. ( C e):-off icic, und report the nurnes of that rerson to the Court within t en (1 0 ) days. Plaintiff and defendants will confer wi U1in t he ten-d uj period conccrninG those to be nomed in on attempt to insur12 that the l\iRC l:ns at lee.st two blac1< me:rr.'.)e rs, excl:.idinz the cx-offieio member. 2 . W i th i n t w c n t y - one ( 2 1 ) days f r om th c en t r y o f th i s Order, the MRC she.11 rr:'!et to beg-in plannine an intcrdistrict ms. g n ct school pro g- run. The MRC sh al l d c v el op a t i me tab 1 e for planning and irnplcmentin~ tbe mag11et school program. During the p l a n n i n g p r O CC S S , t h e r-.mc S h a l l : A. Consider plans and proposals for mogn~t schools by the p,rrties
B. Heur evidence presented by the parties
c. Submit, for comnent and evaluation, interim pro[)osnls to the rarties fo1 their corrment ond/ot criticism
D. Evaluate both the segregative and 1escgregative efJects of any l_)roposnls advanced for magnet schools. E. Make findings concerning the number, location, staffing, racial rntios, and themes of the magnet schools . In determining the number and location .of magnet schools, the MRC shnll have as its [)rimary objective the furtherance Consistent with this objective, of effective desegregation. magnets ordinarily shall be established in school facilities located in or proximate to black residential areas. The MRC may make cxce[)tions to this general rule
for example, Williams School may be retained as a magnet. 2 - ~fy ~ ~ .. C C 3 . Th c l\1RC sh u 1 1 r c po r t i ts f ind i n is to the Co u r t , toge th c r w i th such rec 01m1e n d at ions as mn y be n e cc s s n r y to th c cf f i c i en t operation nnd ndministrotion of the muanet schools. Any member of th c l\IR.C mo. y f i 1 e con~ u t r i n g or d i s sent in g rep or t s Th c MRC report and recomncndatio11s, and nny concurring or dissenting reports, must be submitted to the Court on or before December 15, 1986, which de:~dlinc may be ext.ended by the Court fur good cause shown. The parties will seek a prompt hearing and determination by t !1 e Co u r t on the MRC rec onmc n d at ions .' 4. Upor in:plementntion of the magnet school program, the l\filC will continue to monitor, evaluate, nnd reconrncnd changes in the actual operation of the ma1,
11et schools. The MRC w i 1 1 f i 1 e an an nu a 1 r e [) o r t w i t h t h i s Co u r t In performing its functions under this paragraph, :he t\lRC shall follow the guidelines and procedures outlinec in the precedini paragraphs. 5. The 'ffiC may retain a consultant to assist in the rnagr.et planning process, and the parties may retvin other experts and consultants to make presentations or assist in the process. G. The representative of the Joshua intervenors on the lvIR.C shall be nonvoting, but shall otherwise be entitled to pa r t i c i pc. t e f U 1 1 y i n . a l 1 as p e c t s o f the de 1 i b e r a t i on s o f t h e MRC. 7. Any party, at any time, may move the Court for a hearing JULo61987 ru.1.0.fill y G EJ:i~ OF, f..RM~l'jAl IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL 2 \337 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI CX)lJNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al DEFENDANTS ORDER A f t er hear in g fr om a number of w i t n es s es , i n c 1 u d i n g magnet school principals and curricula specialists, and upon reviewing the Magnet Review Comnittee (IvIBC) reports, I remain steadfastly o p t i m i s t i c t h a t s i x q u a 1 i t y i n t e r d i s t r i c t ma g n e t s c h o o 1 s c a n a n < will be ready by fall. This will, of course, require the full cooperation of everyone involved. The principals are most impressive and will provide selected. ex c e 1 1 en t 1 ea de r sh i p , in s p i t e of the manner i n w i ch they we r e Proper procedures have now been instituted for stnff~ selection. The at tor~ys ___ .~~~:_ _.:_:~~ed _ a comprorni se on the budget fo . ~e 1987-88 school year of $3100 >er magnet ~tudcnt. This f i gu r c is hereby approved. A 1 1 par t i es agree that the r o 1 e of the MRC mus t be c la r i f, i e d so th a t the i n t e rd i s t r i c t mag n e t s ch o o l s can be e f f i c i en t 1 y an c successfully implemented and operated. Divergent opinions in a corrmittee such as the MRC are not only inevitable but are helpfL . in thoroughly examining options. The current problem with the l\IB.C is not that members differ in perspectives and opinions, but ..'\ that any vote which is less than unanimous is viewed by the parties as a stalemate to be resolved by the attorneys. At first blush it is tempting to allow the par~ies to compromise and reach agreement however they choos~, whether through their attorneys or th r o ugh the rviRC. i t r u n s c o u n t e r t o t h e c 1 e a r i n t e n t o f t h e E i g h t h C i r c u i t Co u r t That is not a realistic long-term solution a~d of Appeals in ordering the rviRC to "administer" the magnets. A' _
, Gene cal lY educ a ti ona 1 decisions should be made by educators, not by lawyers. with For the most part, the rviRC is composed of members excellent credentials and abilities in the field of education. The recent opinion in the St. Louis desegregation case shed s light on what the court of Appeals intended the role of the MRC in our comnunitY to be.
:,iddell, et al v. Board of Education, et ~ No. 86-1511, slip 01- (8th Cir. June 8, 1987). 1 n i t i al 1 y it is c 1 ear that the MRC i s a de c i s ion -making, ~ rather than merely an advisory, body. Rock/North Little Rock and Metropolitan coordinating Comnitt .:.c (MCC) in St. Louis were charged with the task of administering specialty schools. ("Liddell Both the rviRC in Li t t le authority to administer the interdistrict vocational schools just In St. Louis, the MCC was formed and given as the
-
IB.C was formed in this case to administer the ma%n c t schools. In the St. Louis case, by agreement, the da y-to-day opecation of the schools rested not with the MCC but with bo s d of education of the reserved to the boards host districts. The responsibiliti e s included "the operation of the respective t. - 2 - . . \ programs, emolovment of staff, development of personnel and eo.ch district's needs." appropriation of fund.s to meet Subsequent to the agreement, the district court ordered two v o c a t i on a 1 s ch o o 1 s c l o s e d and f u r t h e r o r d c r e d t h c I\ CC t o d c v e 1 op a staffing plan to accorrmodo.te the reduced and re assigned stnff members in those closing schools, argued on appeal that empowering the MCC to develop a restaffin g The City Board of Educatio plan infr.inged on the powers reserved to the boards of education. The~~_D of appeals held: .we find little merit in this contention. It is clear ~ that the MCC mus t be g i v en add i t i on al au tho r i t y and must be permitted to act with more independence and objectivity than it has in the past if the schools are to be integrated. Even with its pow tR enhanced, the MCC must have the close cooperation o: the school districts if [the] plan is to succeed. - Liddell X at 27. Similarly the parties to this case have agreed that the host district of a magnet school should make the day-to-day decision s regarding the operation of the school. This agreement cannot and ~ w i 1 1 not be cons trued to r el e gate the MRC to the s ta tu s o f an unused appendage. The court in unequivocal language directed t .,'-' MCC in St. Louis to make independent investigations, evaluations and decisions: There is no evidence that [the MCC] thoroughly revi~wed the matter, or made an independent decision wi~ respect to it. As the district court indicated, th is practice cannot be permitted to continue. The l\1CC must be permitted to exercise the responsibility given to it by the district court and this Court. Liddell X at 22. According 1 y, the r o 1 e of the MRC is to make rec orrrne n de d - 3 - po 1 i c L_~_L.Q.!}__S~g a rd ~g _ ____!_!:_E:_ . o p_e r_a,. _t ion .. of _the mag n e t sch o o 1 s Those decisions should tben be corrrnunicated, in a written report, to the court for approval. The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and should reflect independent fact-finding. Objections to MRC reports should be filed with the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve, modify or reject the MRC's recorrrnendations. The court has neither the time nor the inclination to provide a laundry list of "policy" decisions as distinguished By way of example, in selecting f r om " day - t O - day II de C i S i On S s t a f f , t he MRC sh o u 1 d s e t the c r i t e r i a to be u s e.d o r p r o c e s s by which teachers are selected for magnet schools
the host district would implement that policy by appropriately selecting th teachers. W i th r e s p e c t _ t o s ea t .. a l l o ca t i on , t h e MRC s ho u l d e s t ab l i s h a po l_i_<:.)'__f_E_r_ 2 ~-at _ al loca ti on __ _wj_j_h_ i..!!.__t~ _ p_o_~!_li_s __ ~ ~__0e st i pu 1 at ion which will maximize participation in the magnet schools from all ------ --- - ---- ---- - -------- ------ three districts. Each district should set its criteria for selection of its students for magnet schools to enhance it - --------------------------- --- ---------- -- For ___ ~he 1987_-_S~ __ school year, the parties desegregation efforts. have agreed, and it is hereby approved 1 that all North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special Schpol District (PCSSD) students who applied for magnet schools as of May 22, 1987 may attend the magnet schools they have chosen. As agreed by the parties, the -n--u-mb-e r- ---of seats allocated to NLRSD and PCSSD ar-e -t-o- b-e- -br-o-ken --do-wn- - -o-n- --a-n- -o--rga n-iz-at- io n-a-l- -l-e-v - 4 - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER FILED U S DISTRICT COURT EASTERN 0ISTR!~T ARKANSAS NOV O 5 1992 CARL R. BRE1\J TS, CL
:?.i< By: /1 , -!kJ1 <'kl J/\. / DEP. C' ERi< PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS I"NT ERVENORS On May 26, 1992, the Magnet Review Committee ("MRC") submitted to the Court for review and approval a budget for the 1992-93 - school year for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992- 93. (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court heard tes~imony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions, approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992, the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant principal '=t Wr.1shington Basic Skills/Math-Science Magnet Elementary - - / School. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC' s letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the "controlled choice desegregation plan. 11 It contends that the MRC' s role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the parties and approved by the court. In addition, the LRSD contends there are no numerical goals or quotas in the parties' desegregation plans and the-MRc' s position that the new assistant principal at Gibbs should be removed from her job because of her race is in conflict with the law and the parties' plans. The Pulaski County Special School District ( "PCSSD") and the North Little Rock School District ( "NLRSD") responded that they support the LRSD's views. 1 Background of the Magnet Review Committee. In a November 1985 opinion, the Eighth Circuit found constitutional violations on the part of the state of Arkansas, the PCS SD, and the NLRSD and included in the remedy the establishment of magnet schools. "The district court may require a limited number of magnet or specialty 1The Court al.so =ivcd a JC(ler dated September 23, 1992, from the attorney for the Joshua Intervenors, expressing concern about the effect of the LRSD budget cut, on the magnet schools and the assignment of a white vice-principal lO Gibbs . See Exhibit A. -2- schools or programs to be established at locations to be determined initially by a Magnet Review Committee and approved by the district court after a hearing." Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 436 (1985). The parties subsequently agreed upon the responsibilities of the MRC, which included oversight of staffing. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 659 F. Supp. 363, 373 (E.D.Ark. 1987). Furthermore, on May 13, 1987, Judge Henry Woods stated that " ( s) taffing of the magnets shall be made in close consultation with the principal and the MRC." Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 660 F. Supp. 637, 644-45 (E.D.Ark. 1987). Judge Woods further 'noted that the Eighth circuit stated that the magnet schools were to be adnlinistered by the MRC and that he considered staffing an important aspect of adnlinistration. Id. at 645. In orders entered later in May 1987, Judge Woods established the procedure for MRC review of staffing decisions: 8. Tentative selections shall be promptly submitted to the MRC for its review and comment. Any reservation or question raised by the MRC shall be promptly addressed by the LRSD. The MRC may, if it deems appropriate, address unresolved concerns to the Court before any actual assignments are made by LRSD. Order filed May 26, 1987, Document #843. See also Document #833. That the MRC was more than an advisory body was made clear in Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987: All parties agree that the role of the MRC must be clarified so that the interdistrict magnet schools can be efficiently and successfully implemented and operate~ . . . At first blush it is tempting to allow the parties -3- to compromise and reach agreement however they choose whether through their attorneys or through the MRC. That is not a realistic long-tenn solution and it runs counter to the clear intent of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in ordering the MRC to 'administer' the magnets. Initially it is clear that the MRC is a decision-making rather than merely an advisory body. [T]he parties to this case have agreed that the host district of a magnet school should make the day-to-day decisions regarding the operation of the school This agreement cannot and will not be construed to relegate the MRC to the status of an unused appendage. Accordingly, the role of the MRC is to make recommended policy decisions regarding the operation of the magnet schools. Those decisions should then be communicated, in a written report, to the court for approval. The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and should reflect independent factfinding. Objections to MRC reports should be filed with the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve, modify, or reject the MR.C's recommendations. By way of example, in selecting staff, the MRC should set the criteria to be used or process by which teachers are selected for magnet schools
the host district would implement that policy by appropriately selecting the teachers. Little Rock School District v. PUlaski County Special School District, 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1555-56 (E.D.Ark. 1987). In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), the Court addressed the argument that the MRC's authority with respect to the assignment of teachers was too broad. The Eighth Circuit stated: In our view, the District court order outlining the -4- duties and responsibilities of the Magnet Review ~ommit~ee _was well conceived. It recognizes the interdistrict character of the magnet school program and carefully allocates responsibilities between the Magnet Review Committee and the host district .. we specifically agree with the court's order with respect to the procedures to be followed in recruiting and hiring faculty for the magnet schools and the part that the Magnet Review Committee is to play in staffing operation. We do, however, make it clear that the collective bargaining agreements between host school districts and the classroom teachers associations remain applicable to the extent that such agreements are not inconsistent with the responsibilities heretofore given to the Magnet Review Committee or with orders of the District Court with respect to the staffing of magnet schools. 2 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski county Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1314 (8th cir. 1988). The Reductions in Staff. The LRSD Board of Directors approved budget reductions proposed by the LRSD administration on July 23, 1992. The LRSD proposed to reduce magnet positions by 14.9 full time equivalent (FTE) positions. The MRC says it learned of the reductions through the newspaper and called a special meeting for the LRSD to present its budget. During that meeting the LRSD proposed to reduce staffing in the magnet schools by 11. J FTE rather than 14.9 FTE. More meetings followed during which the MRC discussed personnel cuts with magnet school principals and LRSD central office administrators. On August 28, the MRC voted on the proposed personnel cuts and approved the reduction of 7. 4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE 2m a footnote, the Eighth Circuit quoted from Judge Woods' July 2 order in which he stated that the role of the MRC is to make recommended policy decisions, which would be communicated to the court for approval. Su LRSD v. PCSSD , 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1556 (E.D .Arie. l 9S7). -5- positions. According to the MRC, the LRSD verbally agreed to reinstate the positions but declined to reinstate the people who had occupied the positions. The MRC now asks the Court to affirm the decision to reinstate 3.9 FTE positions cut from the original magnet programs by the LRSD and to reinstate to those positions the individuals who held them prior to the cuts. In response, the LRSD contends that following the implementation of the magnet schools programs, the MRC' s role changed from that of administering to evaluating and monitoring the magnet schools. It asserts that the MRC failed to act in accordance with a properly established policy, citing language from Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987. LRSD v. PCSSD, supra, 663 F. Supp. at 1556. In addition, the LRSD contends that it has no authority under the Professional Negotiations Agreement ("PNA") to reinstate the individuals to the 3.9 FTE positions because those individuals have been reassigned according to the PNA. It states that the 3.9 FTE positions must be filled in conformity with the PNA. (Exhibit B to Doc. #1693.) The LRSD' s position concerning the role of the MRC is not well-taken. The MRC's administrative oversight responsibility was not rejected along with the LRSD' s "controlled choice" student assignment plan as the LRSD suggests. The MRC's responsibilities continue and include staffing decisions. The MRC continues on an annual basis to submit to the court for approval a proposed budget for the six original magnet schools. The budgets proposed by the MRC represent its efforts to assure that the magnet schools -6- continue to provide those special programs that attract and retain pupils, thereby assisting in the desegregation effort. The MRC is made up of representatives of the parties and the State of Arkansas, a former party to the action, and the LRSD has been a member of the MRC since its inception. Dr. Mac Bernd, the new Superintendent of the LRSD, acknowledged the role of the MRC when he presented Proposal No. 14 to the LRSD Board of Directors. That proposal is titled "A Recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee" and suggests the reduction of 14.9 FTE positions at the magnet schools. In the proposal, Dr. Bernd states: "It is our position that any reductions of personnel in the area schools should also be made in the magnet schools monitored by the Magnet Review Committee. Therefore, it is recommended that you authorize the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions to the Magnet Review Committee " (Doc. #1649.) In a July 28, 1992 memorandum to the MRC, Dr. Bernd relates that the LRSD Board of Directors authorized him to propose a reduction in positions at the magnet schools. He states: "Because the reduction in positions would create a total reduction in costs, we recommend that the per pupil rate be reduced from $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. 11 (Exhibit A to Doc. #1693.) The court is dismayed and somewhat confused about the LRSD's actions. The LRSD did not consult with the MRC prior to gaining approval from its Board for the recommended staff reductions even though the district has a representative on the MRC and was aware that the MRC was in the process of preparing a budget for the -7- magnet schools. Furthermore, the LRSD, after presenting the proposal to the MRC, failed to heed the MRC's recoIDIDendation that the same individuals be returned to the positions the LRSD had cut before securing the MRC' s permission to do so. The LRSD now attempts to dismiss the MR.C's administrative role and chastises it for not following through on court directives to establish policies and criteria for staffing decisions. If the MRC has been remiss in failing to come up with such policies and criteria, the LRSD, as a full-fledged member of the MRC, must share the blame. It appears that the LRSD wishes to recognize the MRC's authority to administer the magnet schools only when it agrees with MRC decisions. The court also has considered the arguments concerning the effect of the PNA on the staffing reductions. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has said "that the authority of a federal court to alter or modify collective bargaining contracts in school desegregation cases must be based on a finding that the alteration or modification is necessary to further the effort to integrate the schools in question." Little Rock School District v. Pulaski county special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1316 (8th cir. 1988). The LRSD claims that the PNA does not allow it to reinstate the particular individuals who were transferred from the 3.9 FTE positions in compliance with the PNA. The Court believes, however, that by reinstating those individuals who were moved out of their jobs as a result of an action the Court finds was in violation of directives in this case, it is not setting aside the PNA. The magnet schools were designed to guarantee substantial -8- integration and important educational choices and they have proven successful in fulfilling this intended purpose. The court has stated on a number of occasions the importance of maintaining excellence in the magnet schools. "Magnet schools . will be distinguished by the features that have made them successful in other cities: individualized teaching, a low pupil-teacher ratio, specialized programs tailored to students' interests, enriched resources and active recruitment." Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1309 (8th cir. 1988). The magnet schools are racially balanced as a result of efforts to make sure that they are "recognized throughout the county as truly high quality schools, with excellent teaching staffs and unique programs of interest to suburban and city students alike . " Id. at 1312. The success of these magnet schools is critical to desegregation, and tampering with a prover success could undermine public confidence in the magnets and the school district as a whole. The Court recognizes that some authorities oppose magnet schools as tools for desegregation but it cannot question the concept because the parties agreed to the magnet schools and they are working. When it approved the parties' settlement plans, the Eighth Circuit stressed the need for a period of stability. While the court does not wish to become involved in individual hiring decisions, the Court must see that court directives are being followed. The LRSD must cooperate with the MRC as it fulfills its responsibility to administer the magnet schools. As has been -9- stated, administration includes decisions concerning staffing levels adequate to effectively deliver the magnet programs. While it does appear that the MRC has failed to develop criteria for staff selection and the Court believes that actual selection of personnel is the responsibility of the host district, the MRC's role in determining staffing requirements is not to be undermined. The Court, therefore, affirms the MR.C's decision to reinstate the 3.9 FTE positions cut from the original magnet schools' programs and orders the LRSD to reinstate the individuals who previously held the following positions: 1) the 1. O FTE music teacher at Gibbs International studies Magnet Elementary School
2) the 1.0 FTE counselor at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School
3) the .4 FTE counselor position at Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School
and 4) three ( 3) . 5 FTE Gifted and Talented positions, one each at Booker, Gibbs, and Williams Magnet Schools. Ass i stant Principal at Gibbs International studies Magnet School. The MRC also asks the Court to vacate the assistant principal position at Gibbs and allow the LRSD to advertise and the principal to select a black assistant principal from among qualified candidates. The LRSD disputes that there is a requirement that magnet school staff positions be racially balanced and contends that the MRC's position violates the parties' desegregation plans and the law. The MRC does not contend that there is a requirement that LRSD label certain magnet school staff positions as "black" or "white." -10- It does state that there is a goal of equal representation for blacks and whites both for administrators and teachers. The goal of equitable staffing appears throughout the LRSD settlement plan, and the Court notes that the Eighth Circuit has admonished the NLRSD and the PCSSD for not hiring blacks. See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (1985)
778 F.2d. at 440 (Arnold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The court finds that this goal of equal representation is an admirable one and should be attempted at every opportunity. Additionally, there does not seem to be a problem here with the availability of a pool of qualified applicants because the LRSD recently hired a black as the assistant principal at Washington to serve with that school's black principal. The LRSD appears to have made an unwise personnel placement decision in its selection of the assistant principals for the two magnet schools. The Court, however, will not require the LRSD to remove the assistant principal at Gibbs. It does expect the LRSD to select staff not only at the magnet schools but at all its schools consistent with the staffing goals of the desegregation plans and the law of this case. Conclusion. Although a superintendent and his board ought to have the right to run their schools in ordinary day-to-day matters, this is no ordinary matter. order and court oversight The LRSD must function under court in a lawsuit the district itself -11- initiated ten years ago this month. The districts have agreed to abide by both the spirit and letter of their own desegregation plans and they would do well to act in good faith in fulfilling the commitments made in their plans. In Freeman v. Pitts, U.S. __ , 112 s.ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992), the Supreme court held that in the course of supervising desegregation plans, federal courts have the authority to relinquish supervision and control in incremental stages, before full compliance is achieved in every area of school operations. Aillong the factors to be considered in ordering incremental withdrawal is whether the school district has demonstrated, to the public and to the parents and students of the once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance . . . A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a constitutional course of action when its policies form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. U.S. at 112 s.ct. at 1446, 118 L.Ed.2d at 135. In summary, the LRSD is directed to reinstate to their former positions those individuals listed on page 10 of this order. It is further directed to consider racial balance in selecting staff for the magnet schools. In the future, the LRSD must consult the MRC and must seek court permission prior to making any staffing changes in the magnet schools. Any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year shall be presented prior -12- to preschool registration in the early spring of 1993 . .f ( . ,I- SO ORDERED this~ day of November, 1992. (U (1'"' }Jr.
~ ),~t) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -13- .JOH:-J W \\'..\LKER R.-\LPH \\'.-\SHINC
TON ~!.-\RK BCRNETTF: "WILEY.-\. BR.\:-,.
TO\ .. JR . . -\1..iSTIN PORTER. JR. Also adm1a.ed to Pract 1C'I! ,n G..-o r:z 1a & l.~ D1stnct o( f'ulum01a JOHN W. WALKER. P.A. :\'!TOR\EY AT LAW 1723 BROADIV A Y L!TILE Ron
, ARK..\:-JSAS i~206 TELEPHONE (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) :37-1-4187 September 23, 1992 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court U.S. Post Office & Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: LRSD v. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: I have several requests outstanding before the Court regarding the Little Rock School District. I wish to add to that list concerns which have been raised within the Magnet Review Committee regarding the budget cuts proposed by the Little Rock School District. The District proposes to cut approximately 15 teaching positions in the Magnet school. See copy of letter to Magnet Review Committee from Dr. Mac Bernd dated July 28, 1992. I am concerned because in the budget cut proposals, the District has taken at least one action that makes absolutely no sense. It has removed the assistant principal at Gibbs Elementary School who had a salary of approximately $34,000.00 and replaced her with an administrator in the District who has a salary of $60,000 or more. I just don't understand this. Moreover, the removed assistant principal at Gibbs was African American
the replacement for her is Caucasian. The further irony of this whole matter is that the African American principal was placed at Washington with another African American principal while Gibbs now has two Caucasiar. principals. Exhibit A U. S. D:STR!CT JUDGE Page Two Honorable Susan Webber Wright September 23, 1992 The entire matter is suspect, we believe. requesting that Ms. Ann Brown's office inquire prior to any scheduled (hopefully) hearing or with the Court. JWW:lp cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Ms. Donna Creer Ms. Evelyn Jackson We are, therefore, into these matters meeting before or TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKIIAM STREET LITTT,E ROCK, An 72201 July 28, 1992 Magnet Review Committee FROM: Dr. Mac Bernd, superintendent of Schools C... l. l3 SUBJECT: Budget Reduction Recommendation As a result of the Little Rock School District Board approving the 1992-93 Operating Budget, it is our position that any reductions of personnel in the area schools should also be made in the magnet schools monitored by the Magnet Review Committee. Therefore, the Board has authorized the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions as follows: Gifted & Talented - Elementary Counseling - Elementary Counseling - Secondary Music Teachers - Elementary (Except i3ooker) Teaching Vc1cancies - secondary 1. 5 1. 4 2. 0 3.0 Because the the reduction in positions would create a total reduction in costs, we recommend that the per pupil rate be reduced from $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. Zach Polen if 501-376-2423 ~6/17194 \518.02AM GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO: Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent FROM: Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSO Deputy Superintendent Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Meeting By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: 1) A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's interviews. 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. Attachments [j2/5 Znch Polett l:f 501-316-2423 Qll 6/1 /194 Partial List of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee \YtJ.WAM 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. 2) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? S) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary matters? 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 1 O) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/ or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children? JJ/o Zach Polett it 501-3/6-2-423 QlJ6/17/94 \!
d:04AM Partial List of Applicants We Would I ike to Interview on Tuesday, June Z Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan Strauss Zach Polett V' 501-376-2423 12l16117/94 ~ 8:0SAM Proposed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. 2) We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working dosely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible principal for Gibbs Elementary. C)S/5 TO: GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/15/94 FRO~: Dr. Henry Wi II iams, LRSD Superintendent Easter Tuc~er WI I I le Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Wilhelmina Lewellen Vickie Gonterman Gibbs Staff Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: F o 11 ow Up to Our Memorandum of June 4, 1 994 As members of the LRSD's Gibbs Principal Selection Committee. we again respectfully request to interview the fol lowing people for the prlnclpalshlp of Gibbs at the earl lest convenience: Sharon Davis Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchel I Diane Barksdale Katherine Tweedle Please ask your staff to schedule these interviews as soon as it is feaslble. Thank. you in advance for your assistance in this matter. GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION June 17, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 HAND DELIVERED RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Dr. Williams: Again, on behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank you for your time in discussing the selection process with us. I think we can all agree that an important component to this successful functioning of not only an individual school such as Gibbs but of the entire school district is the meaningful and significant involvement of parents and teachers in the decision-making process. As parents and teachers, we observe, on a daily basis, how our schools operate and, therefore, can offer relevant input in the selection of a principal for our school. At the conclusion of our meeting, you indicated that you would review the process and procedures which have taken place to date. You agreed to advise the committee whether or not you would permit us to interview additional candidates for the principal's position. Recognizing that you will be involved in other activities through the end of this week, we ask that you notify us by 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 20, 1994. Although I believe we made it quite apparent during the course of our meeting, I would like to reiterate that our primary concern is with the validity of the procedure by which the next principal of Gibbs is to be determined. Although it has been stated by the administration that this particular procedure had "worked" in prior applications, it has been our experience that the process in this instance is inherently and fatally flawed. Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Two When we initially learned that there would be a vacancy, the Gibbs PTA met and determined that we would like to be involved in the selection process. Subsequently, we undertook efforts to determine what the process would be and what we, the parents and faculty of Gibbs, needed to do in order to become a part of the process. At no time were we ever given specific or accurate information regarding the process and procedures to be employed in the selection of a new principal nor were we told what our role would be. Upon the recommendation of Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, we met and selected a committee to represent Gibbs and drafted communications to the school district requesting involvement in the process. we also requested information regarding the names of applicants for the position but were not provided that information until third party filed a freedom of information request. Upon obtaining this information, the committee met and on June 4, 1994, submitted a list of names of candidates that we wished to interview, a list of questions to be posed to the applicants, and after learning by word of mouth some aspects of the selection procedure, a list of proposed procedures that we wished to be included. This letter was hand delivered to both your office and that of Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent by a member of the Gibbs Committee. However, it is apparent that neither you nor any administration representative on the selection committee ever saw this communique prior to the June 7, 1994 interview session. On June 7, 1994, the parents and faculty of Gibbs posed several questions to the administrative representatives on the selection committee. We asked how the five interviewees were selected and were told that all five had been selected based on their expressed interest in the Gibbs position. We are now told by you that that was misinformation. It was not until the interview session that we were informed as to what the procedure for selection of the principal would be. Both before the interview process and at the conclusion of the interviews, we inquired of the administrative representatives whether, in the event that we were not satisfied with any of the applicants interviewed, could we interview additional applicants. In response to our inquiries, we were told that the answer to our inquiry was unknown but were later told that, yes, if we could not come to a consensus on the applicants to be recommended to you, the process would remain open and we would be able to Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Three interview additional candidates. During the course of our meeting of June 15, you indicated that your representatives were misinformed. The parent and faculty members of the selection committee also expressed serious reservations about the utilization of the evaluation forms. Our concerns were the lack of prior input into the questions to be posed to the applicants as well as the use the forms would serve in the selection process. We were assured that it would not simply be a matter of tabulating the scores and then selecting the top three candidates based on simple mathematics. There was substantial reluctance on the part of the faculty and parent members of the committee to fill out the forms until we gained assurances from the administration that those forms would not be used as set forth above. At the conclusion of the interview process, the consensus was that we had not interviewed a candidate that we -could recommend to the administration for the Gibbs principal position. After lengthy discussions, the group agreed not to submit any names to the administration and that we would request the opportunity to interview additional candidates. Administration representatives insisted that the forms be filled out and that was done only after again receiving assurances that the forms not be used and the scores tabulated to arrive at three candidates based on the highest scores obtained. We were told that the only reason to fill out those forms was to document the fact that the committee had interviewed the five applicants. Additionally, several members of the committee expressly stated that any recommendation to the administration would not be based solely on the evaluation forms as those forms did not accurately reflect an individual's choices. As a general matter, it is difficult to understand how a principal can be selected based solely on a thirty minute interview. Dr. Williams, based on the foregoing, we simply ask that you provide us with an opportunity to interview additional candidates and complete what we believe is an incomplete process. I am, under separate cover, sending a copy of this letter to the individual members of the Little Rock School Board as well as to Judge Susan Webber Wright and Donna Creer of the Magnet Review Committee. Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Four We look forward to your response. AFAjr/jc cc: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, AR 72114 T. Kevin O'Malley Ark. Board of Review Tower Building, Suite 700 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dorsey Jackson 1400 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John A. Riggs, IV J. A. Riggs Tractor Co. P.O. Box 1399 Little Rock, AR 72203 Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman Linda Pondexter Fuller Jr. High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Patricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Oma Jacovelli 6622 Gold court Little Rock, AR 72209 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Judge P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 \.,/2onna Creer Magnet Review Committee 1920 N. Main North Little Rock, AR 72114 3860d GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION Dr. Katherine Mitchell T. Kevin O'Malley Dorsey Jackson John A. Riggs, IV Linda Pondexter Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli June 17, 1994 RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Members of the Little Rock School Board: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to Dr. Henry Williams following our committee's meeting with him on June 15, 1994. This letter is being provided to each of you so that you will be aware of our concerns regarding the selection process and procedures employed by the district administration which was designed to result in the superintendent's recommendation to you of a new principal for Gibbs Magnet School. we believe that it is important for each of you to know that the parent-teacher members of the committee unanimously believe that the process was inherently and fatally flawed, if for no other reason than it substantially eliminated any significant and meaningful input by the parents and faculty at Gibbs. Additionally, the selection committee did not recommend any names to Dr. Williams for consideration for the principal position at Gibbs. Members of Little Rock School Board June 17, 1994 Page Two As you can see, we have simply asked Dr. Williams to allow us the opportunity to interview additional candidates for the position of Gibbs' principal. AFAjr/jc Enclosure 3861d Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman BY,,&g~&b I MAY-04-1994 15:38 FR0'1 J.B. tJAN HJ0< RE~ TY, !NC TO May4, 1994 Dr. Remy P. Williams. Supcrint.e:lld=i Little Rock. School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Wi.Iliam8: 7712420 P .01 We, the faculty and trupport staff ofWilmms Magnet School, wish to express our deep concern over the possible reasssgomem of our principal, Dr. Edwin S. Jackson. Dr. Jackson, through bis effective administralive stylo and leadership. bas &uided Willi.ams Magnet School to a kvel of superior acbievemcot. OUr school's high-performance record spew for itself We highly recommend that Dr. Ja.cbon's transfer be reooosidc:rcd. Also. attached you will find a list of :actors that ~ hope you will consi.d before you make yout final decision. These are j ust a fr
w of the numerous accomplishmeats that Dr. Jackson bas helped achieve during his tenure at Williams Magnet School. He bu truly helped to make our school a choice for ex<ielleooc." As we close this 1993-94 academic year, -we want to thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns about the future of our school. Re8pCCtfuily yours, Williams Magnet School Faculty/Staff I t1AY-04-1'394 15:39 FRO"l J. B. ~ 1-o:J< RER..TY, I t<: ... Strong leadernup ... Staff commiument ... Parental support and tru&t ... Extensive leadership experience ... Low staff tum--over ... Pupil committment to K-6 ... 100%P.T.A. membership ... C.O.E. leader ... Staff support ... C...ontinuity in support of Magnet prubophy md goals ... High expectations TO ... firm, fair and coomtcnt with studcMI, staff and ~15 ... Knowledgeable o.f Magnet Review Committee Federal standards ... Good relationship with the ~ world ... ChOSM to serve on the 1oint Interim CommiUcc oo Education ... Scan~ ta.t scores aro ~ high ... Conceived idea of new building design and construction ... Profession.al in all aspects of his podtion ... National Association ofElcmenary Principals member ... Ovenight and Directions Cormniuc:e repm
emativc ... Attends annual Intemational Magnet School Convention ... Fc:da.11 Legislative Chairman for Arlcamas Elc:mentaty Principals 7712420 P.02 TOTR.. P.02 45 Huntington Road Little Rock, AR 72207 May 3, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: -- C!ofy -- Thank you so much for visiting with me this morning by telephone t o discuss my strong support for Dr. Ed Jackson, Principal at Williams Magnet Elementary School. As an active member of our PTA, I've seen how dedicated a r i concerned Dr. Jackson is in promoting the goals of our magne t school. He is uniquely qualified in temperment and background to help us achieve our goals. My daughter is in the fifth grade and my son is a kindergarten student at Williams Magnet. My main concern is that our school continue to have the stablility that I feel Dr. Jackson affords us. He has worked hard and under his leadership all the children at our school have benefited as evidenced by consistently high test scores each year. Dr. Jackson has high expectations for the classroom teachers and ensures that the philosophy of academic achievement and discipline are consistently followed throughout the school at every level. Our PTA is looking forward to a much needed expansion in our school building scheduled to get underway this summer. Dr. Jackson has been involved in the planning and development of this project and, because of his familiarity, would be a great asset in seeing the construction to its end. My husband and I support the public school system and are eager to see it strengthened. Please hear our concerns in this matter and know that our need for stability and consistency in our school system is essential. Again, thank you for carefully considering this situation and fa , allowing me to share my feelings that Dr. Jackson should remain a s the Principal of Williams Magnet Elementary School. //",,,- '-fV! .,J) /--0r-- tl-' (!_ IL.UU,j bee Magnet Review Committee Sincerely, Dorothy Dt- (Mrs. Paul B. Young, Jr.) Dr. Henry Williams Superintendent little Rock School District 810 West Markham little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: 16 Huntington Road little Rock, AR 72207 May 3, 1994 It has come to my attention that you are considering the transfer of Dr. Ed Jackson, the principal of Williams Magnet School. As the parent of a fifth grade student at Williams, I would respectfully ask that you reconsider this action. I believe that Dr. Jackson has done an excellent job of promoting the ideals of our school, basic skills, and has helped Williams to consistently lead the little Rock School District in test scores. His support of the classroom teachers and our strong discipline policy have created a learning environment where Williams Magnet truly is "a choice for excellence." Williams has achieved and maintained excellence through a partnership of an excellent teachins staff, a strong principal, an involved PTA, and students who are interested in learning. Our school is very successful and I see no need for a change in this partnership. I was educated in the little Rock Public Schools and have served on the PTA Board of Williams Magnet School in various capacities for the past five years. I strongly believe that if the little Rock Public School System is to survive and flourish, a sense of stability must be established. With all the changes in the top administrative positions in the past several years, I woul
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 Resources.

<dcterms_creator>Little Rock School District</dcterms_creator>