Report from Magnet Review Committee to Honorable Henry Woods, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas
The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.
' The Honorable Henry Woods U. 5. District Court Judge P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Woods: OCT 2 0 '9'12 Olfice of Oessgrega\1011 Won1tonng May 5, 1987 Please find attached the second Magnet Review Committee report on the magnet school development in the Pulaski County School Desegregation case. The committee is prepared to elaborate on the issues described in the report as you may direct. jr Attachment Sincerely, !:::khairman Pulaski County Special School District R~te~ Arkansas Department of Education ~~~ Marcia Hardina - - - - 0 _,, Arkansas Department of Education Jesse Rancifer Little Rock School District James Smith North Little Rock School District MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE COURT MAY 6, 1987 - - MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE COURT MAY 6, 1987 INTRODUCTION In comp 1 i an c e w i th the Inter i m Order of the Un i t e d States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, issued February 27, 1987 the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) hereby submits a report on the progress made in imp 1 emen ting the magnet schools. The report is organized into three maJor divisions: a summary. the introduction
each critical issue area
and Critical aspects of implementation as stated in the Order will be addressed, as wel 1 as additional areas contained in the January 22, 1987 MRC Report and the , Stipulation approved by the court in the Order of February 27 (referred to by the court as Exhibits A-C). The MRC was instructed in the Order to "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 has attempted to do so. In keep i n g w i th i ts def i n e d responsi bi 1 it i es the MRC wi 11 al so make findings and recommendations in this report as may be necessary to the efficient operation and administration of magnet schools. II I ' INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOL PROGRAMS: AREAS OF REVIEW STAFF SELECTION/TEACHER RECRUITMENT BACKGROUND In its report of January 22, 1987 to the court the Magnet Review Committee CMRC) addressed interdistrict magnet school programs staffing in terms of both staff composition and selection. The MRC recommended that the staff: 1) be comprised of highly qualified educators.
2) ultimately represent a fifty-fifty black to non-black ratio of administrators and teachers
3) include among its make up persons from the three districts CLRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD)
and 4) be selected utilizing criteria developed cooperatively by the LRSD and MRC. It is the belief of the MRC that careful selection of principals and teachers to staff the interdistrict magnet school programs is essential to their ultimate success. Staffing of the magnet programs has fol lowed e s s e n t i a l 1 y t h e same p r o c e s s as a l 1 o t h e r LR SD s c h o o 1 s Th e equ I ty and ba 1 ance er i ter i a established in the terms of the LRSD and CTA staff reassignment agreement served to orchestrate the staffing of the interdistrict magnet schools. Initially twenty percent (201/.) of the teachers in a school building were proposed to be retained as a "core" staff
this was later increased to an eighty percent (80%) retention level. It was reported to the MRC that ten 2 I I percent (10%) of the positions were to be reserved for faculty desiring to transfer interdistrict. Again, magnet programs were affected in the same manner as al 1 non-magnet schools with regard to staff reassignment. As a result, principals and teachers to date have been assigned to the magnet schools in the absence of an open recruitment process. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . February 3, 1987 At its regular meeting, the MRC requested that the LRSD provide it with any written criteria pertaining to magnet school staff selection for review. 2. February 18, The principals assigned to the six magnet 1987 3. March 13, 1987 schools were publicly announced. The MRC had not been consulted as to selection criteria or a timetable for selection prior to their assignment. At an MRC meeting, Vance Jones and Beverly White of the LRSD presented information on the LRSD general process of teacher reassignment. They received copies of selection criteria developed by the MRC for consideration and inclusion in materlals for dissemination to teachers. The timel ine for the teachers to notify the district 3 II 4. Apr i 1 1 0 , 1987 of their preferred assignments was to be the Monday fol lowing this Friday meeting. The MET began mass distribution of MRCapproved recruitment brochures assuring that teachers for magnet schools were carefully selected. 5. Apr i 1 1987 21, The MRC interviewed the six principals assigned to the magnet programs. Three of the six stated that they had appealed their reassignments to magnet programs. The reassignments held, No application process or special er i ter i a were used RECOMMENDATIONS in placing these principals at the magnet schools. They also had not been given the opportunity to that point to have any direct involvement in staff selection for their programs. 1. Teaching staff wishing to remain in existing magnet schools which wi 11 not undergo major curricular or thematic change should be retained to provide continu1 ty and stability to the overall (d1strictwide) magnet programs. Vacant positions should be declared open and fi 1 led initially with qualified faculty desiring to transfer interdistrict, consistent with the goal of ten percent (101/.) 4 ,= ii ,! I of a magnet school ' s faculty being selected from NLRSD and PCSSD. 2. Teaching positions for all new magnet schools should be declared open and advertised. Information on the magnet programs and criteria for teacher selection should be made available to encourage applicants. The principals should be al lowed to interview and recommend the teaching staff to be hired under the school-based management concept. 3. In staffing the magnet schools a variety of criteria should be used. While this should include the LRSD balance and equity considerations - it must not be solely limited to them, as they will not assure selection of a staff interested in or committed to participation in magnet programs as an educational alternative aiding desegregation. The MRC is committed to working with the LRSD to further define criteria for magnet school staff selection. 4. The goals discussed so extensively by the LRSD of c r e a t i n g b a l an c e an d e q u i t y am on g a l l s c h o o l s t a f f s a r e important in the overall desegregation process. The MRC is cognizant, however, of the need for flexibility in the time-frame for accomplishing this. For this reason, the MRC supports a "phase in" process such as that proposed in the LRSD March 1986 Desegregation Plan. 5 . CU~RICULUM DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND Curriculum development activities for magnet schools 1n the Little Rock School District (LRSD) have been on-going and continuous. Curriculum supervisors for magnet schools have developed and shared a broad description for each new and old magnet school theme with the Magnet Review Committee. The LRSD has informed the MRC that the actual curriculum development and selection of materials for new magnet school themes ( i . e., Carver Basic Skills/ Math-Science, Horace Mann Science/Fine Arts, Gibbs Foreign Language/International Studies and Parkv1ew Arts/Performing Arts) wi 11 be done at the end of the current school year with the assistance of teachers, curriculum supervisors, principals, and consul tan ts. The MRC be 1 i eves that the curriculum and staff development activities for each magnet school are critical for the successful implementation of magnet schools. FINDING OF FACT 1 . Spring 1986 The LRSD Associate Superintendent Curriculum and Instruction
Supervision and the Special Assistant, Desegregation developed a cri t1cal task calendar for the development 6 ., ,_. 3. 4. September October, 1986 October, 1986 March, 1987 of magnet schools for the LRSD . Draft proposals were developed for three (3) additional magnet schools in the LRSD -- Carver Basic Ski 1 ls Magnet, Dunbar Arts Magnet Junior High School and ParKview Arts Magnet. These proposals included program descript ions , staffing requirements, curriculum design and budgets. These three (3) magnets were to be in addition to the three ( 3) magnet components operative 1n the district -- Booker Arts Magnet, Mann Sc i enc e Mag n e t and W i 1 1 i ams Bas i c SK i 1 1 s Magnet. These draft proposals were presented to the Magnet Review Committee for review/ support as a part of the plan for Pulaski County Schools and for submission for a federal grant under the Magnet Schools Assistance Program. Due to miscommunication among the parties, a formal review by the Magnet Review Cammi ttee did not occur, resulting in no recorpmendation. The Curriculum and Instruction staff of LRSD presented an inst rue ti ona 1 pr ogr am 7 .. . ... 5. 6. March 1987 April 1987 RECOMMENDATIONS overview for each magnet program to the MRC. The Curriculum and Instruction staff of LRSD provided a budget Justification review for the MRC. The principals of the Magnet Schools met in session with the MRC to discuss magnet school programs. The Curr i cul 1Jm and Instruction staff and magnet school principals provided additional programming and program budget just~fication :~formation in a session with the MRC. 1. The Principals and other staff members of magnet schools should become intimately involved in developing the curriculum. 2. The Accelerated Learning Program should undergo further study in 1 ight of the Court Order on the provision < inclusive of cost) of compensatory programs. 3. Remedial assistance should be offered to those students in magnet schools performing below grade level. 8 . . STAFF TRAINING BACKGROUND The MRC has had several opportunities to discuss the staff training and development that are scheduled for personnel that will be employed in the magnet schools, Al though no activities have been implemented as of this report, topics have been selected, consultants are being identified and budget requests have been made, Th e s u mm e r , a f t e r t h i s c u r r e n t s c h o o l ye a r h as be e n c om p l e t e d , h as be e n i de n t i f i e d as t h e t i me f r am e i n w h i c h staff training and development will begin. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. No staff training and development activities for magnet school personnel have been initiated, 2, No operational plan has been reviewed by the MRC. 3. Topics for staff training and development have been identified . 4. Foci of staff training and development are improJement of instruction and curricular development and implementation. 5. Budget requests have been presented to the MRC. RECOMMENDATIONS 1, An operational plan should be developed for staff training and development. 9 Li ' I I: 2. Consultants emplo>'ed to deliver services and employees of the district should be desegregated. 3. Budget requests should be approved contingent upon approval of the operational plan. 10 - MAGNET SCHOOL BUDGETS BACKGROUND The Magnet Review Committee has informed the Little Rock School Di str ict that i ts proposed budgets for magnet schools subs tan ti a 1 1 y e xceed the guide l i nes offered by the c omm i t t e e i n i t s Jan u a r y 2 2 r e p or t as ado p t e d by t h e c o u r t It i s also the view of the major i ty mambership of the MRC that magnet school budgets should not exceed the general operating cost by more than twelve percent ( 12% ) . It 1s the Little Rock School district ' s position that a trul y extraordinary curriculum experience cannot be prov i ded for students in each magnet school with such a cei 1 ing. The Little Rock School District also contends the twelve percent (12%) figure above regular operating cost was presented in the MRC Report to the court before startup cost was discussed (teacher inservice, curriculum development, etc. ) . FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . March 31, 1987 2. Apr i 1 7, 1 987 Draft copies of proposed magnet school budgets were provided to each member from John Bilheimer Attorney. Revised magnet school budgets for each school were presented to the MRC with justification attached. 11 ( 3. Apr i l 21 , 1 987 4. Apr i l 28, 1 987 5. Apr i l 28, 1 987 RECOMMENDATIONS The principals ind curriculum supervisors for the magnet schools made formal presentations and answered questions on the MRC ' s concerns. Magnet school revised budgets were presented to the MRC and concerns answered. Magnet school principals and program supervisors were scheduled with the MRC in a specific time block to address budget concerns. The MRC voted to disapprove the proposed magnet school budgets. 1. The Little Rock School District should be directed to revise the proposed magnet school qudgets to a level cons i st en t w i th the twe 1 v e percent ( 1 21/.) i n crease-d opera t I n g cost figures used in the original funding formula. 12 RENOVATION/CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND The terms of financing renovation and construction are clearly stated in the Magnet Review Committee Report of January 22 and Stipulation Agreement approved by the Dist r i ct Court i n Fe br u ar y, 1 987. It is agreed that the State will be a full partner in all phases of construction and renovation from selection of the architect to final approval. At the current time, the Little Rock School District has projected completion of magnet school renovations by fall of 1987 and construction of a new Carver Elementary School by fall of 1988. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The LRSD and representatives of the State have worked collaboratively to select architects. 2. Architects have been agreed upon by the State and LRSD and approved by the LRSD School Board. RECOMMEl'lDAT IONS 1. The LRSD and the State should continue to work cooperatively in Joint planning with regard to renovation/construction. 2. The parties responsible for the costs of renovation/construction should agree on the nature of the work to be completed prior to soliciting bids. 13 3. An y changes or variances proposed by the LRSD from the renovation/ construction approved for each magnet school by the court in its February 1987 Order shou 1 d be approved by the MRC. 4. The LRSD and State should agree as quickly as possible on renovation p 1 ans to permit the magnet school programs to be operative by September, 1987. 14 GQl..,'ERNANCE BACKGROUND The MRC recommendation on governance of the si x magnet school programs was adopted by the court on Februar y 27, 1987. It provided that the day-to-day operations be the responsiblility of the host district. However, during the course of the Magnet Review Cammi ttee ' s attempts to work closely with the parties, as directed by the court, differing interpretations on the meaning of the governance function has occurred. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. As the host district the LRSD is responsible for the da y-to-day operation of magnet schools. 2. The MRC be 1 i eves the LRSD has app 1 i ed a narrow interpretation of governance in matters of responsibl i 1 i ty assigned to the MRC. 3. The MRC ' s progress has been impeded by the difference of interpretation in the matter of governance. RECOMMENDATIONS 1, The court should reaffirm the authority vested in the Magnet Review Committee. 2, The court should direct the LRSD to tAJorK in concer t withtheMRC . 15 r, STUDENT ENROLLMENT AND RECRUITMENT BACKGROUND The MRC embraces the language regarding student enrollment and recruitment as found in the Stipulation approved by the court on February 27, 1987, It is understood that seat allocations wi 1 l not be made by district to a particular school, but only by elementary, jun i or hi gh and sen i or h i gh level . Therefore, a particular district will be permitted to use its al located seats in accordance with the desires of its students subject to space l i mi tat ions 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 wi I 1 establish an open enrol 1 men t policy for magnet schools and wi I 1 be permitted to de t e rm i n e h ow c h i I d r e n w i I I be s e I e c t e d for the magnet seats al located to each district pursuant to that policy. The MRC has pursued activities consistent with the order in recruiting students for magnet schools. actvi ties are explained in the fol lowing section, FINDINGS OF FACT These 1. The Little Rock School District (LRSD) interpreted the Stipulation to mean that each school district should be allocated seats by school and grade levels. 16 I f : i I I 2. On April 21, 1987 the Magnet Rev i etA.J Commit tee went on record as reaffirming support for the court-approved Stipulation Agreement regarding the al location of seats to the magnet schools. 3. The Pulaski County Special School District has been al located approximately 1257 magnet seats, North Little Rock School District 475 and Little Rock School District 246'?. 4. A great deal of effort has been put forth by the three school districts and the Magnet Educational Team (MET) to recruit students to the magnet schools. 5. Each school district has developed a brochure and is actively recruiting. The MET has been active in developing brochures and posters for dissemination, developing public service announcements for radio and television, and having MRC and MET members speak on a KARN radio talk show. 6. The MET has disseminated to the three school districts more than 66,000 brochures
taped the three superintendents for later broadcast on television
as wel 1 as contacting AP&L, Southwestern Bell, and ARKLA Gas to provide short messages in their bi 11 ings regarding magnet schools. 7. The MET also plans to place advertisements in school newspapers and religious publications, attend PTA meetings, encourage open house 1Jisitations and establish a student buddy system. Long range plans include developing a slide/tape show, highlighting of a magnet school each month, 17 .. using magnet students in recruiting and forming a newcomers' c ornm i t t e e . 8. There is no LRSD employee responsible for desegregation planning on the MET as per the requirement of the Stipulation. 9. To date the fol lowing number of students ' applications for magnet schools have been received. *** LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 2636 Blacks 1444 Whites 63 Blacks 173 Blacks 87 Whites 21 7 Wh i te s *** These are duplicated counts by -virtue of students being permitted to make 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices. 10. The MRC wi 11 review on May 19 student requests to magnet schools to expedite the student assignment process. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The MRC recommends that the LRSD advertise extensively in the community the twenty-five percent (25%) shadow provision for each magnet school 2. The MRC recommends that al 1 the par t i es i n v o 1 v e d adhere to the original court-approved Stipulation Agreement regarding the al location of seats to the magnet schools by levels and not by specific schools and grade levels, ie, elementary, junior high and senior high. Si nee there , s _only one junior high and one senior high affected it is ob v i o u s t h a t s u c h a r e c omm e n d a t i on w i 1 1 a f f e c t on 1 y t h e elementary schools. 18 . . 3. The MRC recommends that the LRSD appoint a district representative to the MET consistent with the Stipulation 19 TRANSPORTATI 01'-l BACKGROUND The Stipulation approved by the District Court on February 27, 1987 1 contains the plan of agreement reached by the parties on interdistrict transportation. It provides that an Interdistrict Transportation Authority <ITA) will be formed to administer the Interdistrict Transportation Plan. The ITA shal 1 be composed of an appropriate representative from each district and the State. The parties agreed that: (1) transportation of magnet/ M-to-M students should be done in a cost efficient manner
(2) each district will accc,unt separately for the costs of transporting these students
and (3) conflicts wi 11 be resolved through a District Court Special Master. , FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Interdistrict Transportation Auti-1ority ( !TA) t-1as not been formed. 2. The transportation needs of magnet/M-to-M transfer students cannot be fully determined unti 1 the completion of student enrollment/assignment. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Parties should be directed to appoint immediately their representative to the ITA. 2. The ITA should conduct an organizational meeting for planning purposes by June 1, 1987. 20 I ! .. 3. Each district should proJide immediately to the ITA a status report on its student assignment and a tentative date by which student assignments wi 11 be finalized to the degree that transportation methods/ routes may be planned . 4. The ITA should submit a status report on transportation to the MRC by June 15, 1987, 21 .. EXTENDED DAY CARE BACKGROIJ~,JD Extended Day Care is a self-supporting program in the Little Rock School District. It is made available in an y elementary school based on demand. At least tv-1elve students. are required to operate the program in any elementar y school. The program cost is $6,00 registration and $3.00 per day per student which includes breakfast and an afternoon snack. The hours of operation are from 7 a.m. u n t i l s c h o o l be g i n s an d i n t h e a f t e r n o on f r om t h e t i me school closes unti 1 5:30 p.m. FI !'JD I NGS OF FACT 1. The unresolved student assignments make It difficult to determine the need for Ex tended Day Programs in magnet schools. 2. Ex tended Day Care programs described above will be useful i n attracting students to magnet schools. RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . Fol lowing assignment of students to magnet school programs, the LRSD should provide the CARE Program with the names and addresses of parents to be contacted regarding the ava i 1 ab i 1 i ty of ex tended day care. 22 .. ..... ... . COMMUNITY INPUT/INVOLVEMENT BACKGROUND In the January 22, 1987, report to the court, the MRC r e c omm e n de d a mode l f or c omm u n i t y p a r t i c i p a t i on . Th e components of the model are: (1) an awareness campaign
( 2 ) a p u b l i c e du c a t i on c amp a i g n
< 3 ) a n e e d s ass e s sm e n t p r o c e s s
and (4) a system for processing input. There is no evidence that the model , as such, has been adopted and/ or implemented. However , the Magnet Educ at i on al Team has defined within its scope of activities a public information campaign that attempts to provide to parents a comprehensive perspective of magnet schools that are scheduled to be available during the 87-88 school year. It is also noteworthy to mention that the LRSD has formed a citizen ' s committee to examine the student assignment plan. The committee's scope exceeds the six magnet schools. In addition, the March, 1986 LRSD desegregation plan sets forth a me c h an i sm f or p a r e n t i n v o 1 v em e n t v i a s c h o o 1 i mp r o v em e n t teams. The superintendent of the LRSD has appeared several times on local electronic media and on those occasions, patrons have opportunities to question and advise him regarding the desegregation plan . FINDINGS OF FACT 23 I t 1 . The model for community participation has not been adopted and/or implemented by the host district for magnet schools. ,,-.:,_ . Provisions for parent involvement through school improvement teams at the building level have been made. 3 . Magnet schools have been inc 1 uded in the genera 1 strategy to involve the community at large in an interdistrict remedy to effect desegregation in the school districts in Pulaski County. 4. The MET has taken on some respons i bi 1 i ty to i nform the patrons and students. 5 . A c i t i z e n ' s adv i so r y c omm i t t e e h as t, e e n c on s t i t u t e d t o review student assignments, including magnet schools . RECOMMENDAT I Of\lS 1. The LRSD and the MRC should work cooperatively to implement the model approved by the court. 24 " ' - 1 MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION BACKGROUND The Magnet Review Cammi ttee has met weekl y to cont i nue the planning reported to the court in January. During this time the committee has: ( 1) heard reports from Little Rock School District personnel regarding curriculum, budgets and personnel
( 2) established the Magnet/ M-to-M Educational Team
and ( 3 ) worked to create a collaborati ve atmosphere around the i ssue of magnet schools. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The MRC advertised for applicants for an executive director. Twenty-five people have applied for the job. 2. The MRC initiated steps to house the MRC office with that of the Pulaski Count y Educational Services Cooperative (Co-op). 3. The MRC has arranged to deposit funds with the North Little Rock School District pending arrangements with the Co-op . 4. The MRC endorsed and paid for activities of the MET. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The MRC organization, consistent with its charge, should remain intact". 25
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.