Parent Committee: Incentive school committee

This transcript was created using Optical Character Recognition and may contain some errors.
April 10, 1990 OFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 E. MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 PHONE: 501/376-6200 To: Parent Incentive School Committee Members From: Associate Metropolitan Supervisors Subject: Meeting to Review LRSD Incentive School Plan Revisions The Little Rock School District has submitted to us their revised desegregation plans for the Incentive Schools, as required by the March 5, 1990 order of the Court. Enclosed are copies of their submission. We are very interested in your reaction to these revised plans and any suggestions you may have for changes or additions. We will meet at 7:00 p.m. next Tuesday, April 17, 1990 in the conference room of our offices on the fifth floor of 201 E. Markham to discuss the revised Incentive Schools plans. Please let us know that we can expect you at the meeting by calling Polly at 376- 6200. Thank you so much for your continued interest and support. MA~- 8-90 TUE 10:~5 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL A FAIRS P.01 Facsimile ~ransmiss:cn Comments: Number of Pages, lnc:ud~ng cover sheet /Q Phone: 'S::) 54:-6523 F x: (501) 534-202:. MA"t'- S-"a10 TUE 10: - U. A. f-. B. -F l i..
AL AFFAIRS P.02 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS COMMITI'EE Dr. Dorri Robinson-Gardner, Ch irperson Mrs. Ann West, Co-Chairperson William Finn, nn West, Ruth Ragsdale, Kenyon Lowe Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Staff Concerns, D velopment and Compensation nd Extended Day Programs Chairp rson of th Subcommitte on Incentive School Scholarship Trust Fund. Co-Chairs of the Subcommittee on Building Plan for Incentiv Schools Committee. Florida Ewings, Recorder Mary Maxwell, Substitute Recorder Active Committee Member Lillie Carter Beverly Couch Frenzella Dodson Jacqlyn Irby Dr. Cheryl Pagan Pamela Person Doris Sarver MA'-.-- G 90 TllE 10 :54 U. A. P. B. -FISCAL AFFAIRS P.03 lN'l'RODU<.'TION Since 1957, interested board members, administrators, teachers, parents, students and citizens of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) have attempted to successfully desegregate our public schools. Thirty-three years later, we are still attempting to complete this task. It is beyond time for the internal and external agents of change to successfully complete this monumental task so that the District can create an equitable system for all students, yet, specializing in creating a successful educational environment focusing on the academic, social and emotional needs of black children. Black students attending LRSD should have the same corresponding or offsetting b nefits of ttending Inc ntive or Magnet Schools as other childr n. If a particular school does not addr th ir educational need, then, they should be permitted to tr nsfer from their current school to on that will address their needs when spac is availabl and if th chool remains within the guidelin s set by the Eighth Circuit Court. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INCNTIVE SCHOOL PARENT COMMITTEE Th tncentiv School Parent Committee (ISPC) held four full committee meetings and six subcommittee meetings. The full committe me tings were h ld April 17, 23, ~Sand My 3. The subcommittee me tings were held April 18, 19, 20, 2, and 26. 1 MAY- 8-90 TUE 10:54 U.A.P.B.-FI AFFAIRS P.04 The ISPC is in agreement with the Little Rock School District's proposed plan a submitt d A ril 2, 1990 with the following recommendations: RECOMMEND TIONS - OBJECTIVES AND GO S Administrators, parents, teachers, students, and the general public are confused concerning the official names of the incentive achool , In order to P. t.~hliRh r.l~rity, incentiv school hould be called "Incentive Schools". When Incentive Schools become "Magnet Schools", then, and only then, refer to them by the new name. RECOMMENDATIONS - BASIC CONCEPT/BASIC PROGRAMS The Incentive Schools should maintain the basic skills core, ho~ever, upplementing the core with speci lty areas previously identified is encouraged. RECOMMENDATIONS - EXTERNAL MONITORING OF SCHOOLS All incentive chools should b periodically monitored and assessed at the end of each semester by an Incentive Review Committee (IRC) for complianc with approved recommendation . The IRC will assess the performance of the principals, particularly, the outcomes of stud nts on the Minimum Performance Test, MAT6, and other academic variables. 2 MAY- 8-90 TUE 10:5~ U.A.P.B. -FISCAL AFFAIRS P.05 The results of this assessment should be tied to performance indicators for continuing employment. The IRC should be composed of appropriate representation including the Superintendent of LRSO, and Chairs of ISPC, Bi-Racial Committee and two others to be named by the Court. RECOMMENDATIONS - EXTENDED DAY/EXTENDED WEEK/EXTENDED YEAR PROGRAMS Parents should have the responsibility for encouraging their children to participate in the programs designed to meet their educational needs as defined by the Student's Education Plan. Parental assurance forms should be signed by the teacher, parent and student. Waiv rs should be availabl. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF CONCERNS All extended programs should rely on voluntary staff participation. It is our belief that many highly qualified teachers hav a commitment to providing the best pos ible education during th regul r chool day, but hav no desire to work in the extended programs (day, week, year). Thi reluctanc should not be viewed as a failur to be fully committed but a a result of having to prioritize family respon ibilities, commun ty involv ment and dditional ducational opportunities/needs. 3 MAY- 8-90 TUE 10:56 U.A.P.B. - FISCAL AFFAIRS P.06 Because kindergarten teachers will not h ve base information concerning the majority of their students, their extended contracts/obligations should be adjusted or modified as n cessary. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFFING Once again, select administr tors making peraonn 1 decisions have demon tr ted that thy are not riou in selecting a coordinator or principals who are sensitive to the needs of black children. Staff members either with limited or non-successful experiences with black children and parents ppear to be the number one choice. The Oistrict should re-evaluate the selection of the Coordinator of the Incentive Schools and the Principal assignment at Rockefeller Elementary School. The Coordinator of Incentive Schools should have the responsibility for coordinating field trips added to the existing job description inst ad of hiring additional staff. The recruiting and hiring of teachers should follow the same plan as indicated in the January 2, 1990 Tri-District plan. Therefore, the recommendation regarding placement of teachers in a pool is not encouraged. In 1991-92, staffing for each school should be representative of the student population. MAY- r -90 TUE 10:56 U-A-P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.07 The Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, and the Incentive School Coordinator should work closely with the chairpersons of the Incentive, Bi-racial, and Trust Fund Committees to ensure compliance of the approved Tri-District plan. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF DEVELOPMENT It is suggested that the staff at each Incentive School be hired by June 15, 1990. The building principal, teachers and other staff should complete the staff development plan including the Prejudice Reduction Inservic developed by the National Coalition Building Institute. This plan should be a deficiency removal program identifing resources for the alleviation ot deficits. Ev ry staff member should be required to participate in staff development activities. Staff development activities should b conducted within the two weeks preceding the beginning of the regular school year and hould focus on activities and trategi s which the entir staff will be working on during that school year. A progre meeting should be held twice in a nine w ek period to ensure th t the program imple entation is orking. 5 MA~- B-90 TUE 10:57 U.A.P.B.-FISCHL AFFAIRS P.08 RECOMMF.ND TlONS - STAFF COMPENSATION Since the interview process i well underway and court ordered deadlines ar quickly approaching, the r commendations set forth by this committee should be r viewed and implement d as soon as possible. A clearly stated job description listing all responsibilities for persons employed in each job category should be prepared and distributed to all applic nts. These applicants should be given a complete listing of compensation to be paid, schedule of payments, fringe benefit {district-paid or optional staff-paid} and examples of extra pay on the final monthly t ke home pay. The salary of the incentive school principal should be commensurate with the responsibility of th job. Each incentive school principal should select a lead teacher to assist in supervisory functions of the extended day and extended week programs. Lead teachers will be paid $25,00 per hour
the same hourly rate should apply for Saturday work. 6 MAV- 8-90 TUE" 10:57 U.A.P.B. -FISCAL AFFAIRS P.09 Pay for the extended day should be commensurate with that of the homework center teacher. At the present time, homework teachers are paid $22.00 per hour and work three hour per day for four days per week. Th ame hourly rate will apply for Saturday work. we are recommending that consideration be given to placing all incentive chool teachers on a 10 3/4 month contract or longer if needed. RECOMMENDATIONS - SCHOLARSHIPS The committee r commends that th scholarship program be funded with the lump-sum approach. The funds should be invested immediately. Th committee recornm nd that all remaining fund be allocated to the Incentive Schools at the termination of the program. The Committee recommend that an xternal gent b contr ct d to AP.rv. A invP.stmPnt m~n~9er. The gent hould be ~elected from the lit submitt d to th LRSD 4/2/90. ddition 1 recommendation are listed in th subcommittee r port on pp. 2-7. The Committee strongly endo~s s the of member of the ISCP for the Scholarship Trustee Committ e. 7 t'1AY 90 TIJ['" 10:58 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL A AIRS P. l 0 RECOMMENDATIONS - BUILDING PLAN Closing any of the incentive schools would place an even greater burden on black children in C ntral Little Rock. They should have the option of attending chools in their n ighborhoods, However, if lsh School is closed for the 1990-91 school year whil a replacement school is being built in the general proximity, w strongly recommend that the district provide transportation to student reassign d to ightsell. e support the District's recommendation to close Garland and Stephens schools at the end of the 1990-91 school year nd build a new school at the old King site. recommend that the District provid the Garland and Stephens students. Howev r, we strongly transportation to reas ign Once these buildings re vacated, we strongly recommend that the District find suitabl alternative educational/service uses immediately. The Black community should not b graced with another "eyesore" like Westside. 8 r-.02 INCENTIVE SCHOOLS COMMITI'EE Dr. Dorris Robinson-Gardner, Chairperson Mrs. Ann West, Co-Chairperson William Finn, Ann West, Ruth Ragsdale, Kenyon Lowe Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Staff Concerns, Development and Compensation and Extended Day Programs Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Incentive School Scholarship Trust Fund. Co-Chairs of the Subcommittee on Building Plan for Incentive Schools Committee. Florida Ewings, Recorder Mary Maxwell, Substitute Recorder Active Committee Members Lillie Carter Beverly Couch Frenzella Dodson Jacqlyn Irby Dr. Cheryl Pagan Pamela Person Doris Sarver MAY- 8-90 TUE 10:54 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.03 INTRODUCTION Since 1957, interested board members, administrators, teachers, parents, students and citizens of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) have attempted to successfully desegregate our public schools. Thirty-three years later, we are still attempting to complete this task. It is beyond time for the internal and external agents of change to successfully complete this monumental task so that the District can create an equitable system for all students, yet, speciali%ing in creating a successful educational environment focusing on the academic, social and emotional needs of black children. Black students attending LRSD should have the same corresponding or offsetting benefits of attending Incentive or Magnet Schools as other children. If a particular school does not address their educational needs, then, they should be permitted to transfer from their current school to one that will address their needs when space is available and if the school remains within the guidelines set by the Eighth Circuit Court. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PARENT COMMITTEE The Incentive School Parent Committee (ISPC) held four full committee meetings and six subcommittee meetings. The full committee meetings were held April 17, 23, ~Sand May 3. The subcommittee meetings were held April 18, 19, 20, 24, and 26. 1 MAX- 8-90 TUE 10:54 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.04 The ISPC is in agreement with the Little Rock School District's proposed plan as submitted April 2, 1990 with the following recommendations: RECOMMENDATIONS - OBJECTIVES AND GOALS Administrators, parents, teachers, students, and the general public are confused concerning the official names of the incentive GChoola, In order to P.Rt.~hliAh r.1~r1ty, incentive schools should be called ''Incentive Schools". When Incentive Schools become "Magnet Schools", then, and only then, refer to them by the new name. RECOMMENDATIONS - BASIC CONCEPT/BASIC PROGRAMS The Incentive Schools should maintain the basic skills core, however, supplementing the core with specialty areas previously identified is encouraged. RECOMMENDATIONS - EXTERNAL MONITORING OF SCHOOLS All incentive schools should be periodically monitored and assessed at the end of each semester by an Incentive Review Committee (IRC) for compliance with approved recommendations. The IRC will assess the performance of the principals, particularly, the outcomes of students on the Minimum Performance Test, MAT6, and other academic variables. 2 MAY- B-90 TUE 10:55 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.05 The results of this assessment should be tied to performance indicators for continuing employment. The IRC should be composed of appropriate representation including the Superintendent of LRSD, and Chairs of ISPC, Bi-Racial Committee and two others to be named by the Court. RECOMMENDATIONS - EXTENDED DAY/EXTENDED WEEK/EXTENDED YEAR PROGRAMS Parents should have the responsibility for encouraging their children to participate in the programs designed to meet their educational needs as defined by the Student's Education Plan. Parental assurance forms should be signed by the teacher, parent and student. Waivers should be available. RECOMMENDATIONS - STA.FF CONCERNS All extended programs should rely on voluntary staff participation. It is our belief that many highly qualified teachers have a commitment to providing the best possible education during the regular school day, but have no desire to work in the extended programs (day, week, year). This reluctance should not be viewed as a failure to be fully committed but as a result of having to prioritize family responsibilities, community involvement and additional educational opportunities/needs. 3 MAY- 8-90 TUE 10:56 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.06 Because kindergarten teachers will not have base information concerning the majority of their students, their extended contracts/obligations should be adjusted or modified as necessary. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFFING Once again, select administrators making personnel decisions have demonstrated that they are not serious in selecting a coordinator or principals who are sensitive to the needs of black children. staff members either with limited or non-successful experiences with black children and parents appear to be the number one choice. The District should re-evaluate the selection of the Coordinator of the Incentive Schools and the Principal assignment at Rockefeller Elementary School. The Coordinator of Incentive Schools should have the responsibility for coo~dinating field trips added to the existing job description instead of hiring additional staff. The recruiting and hiring of teachers should follow the same plan as indicated in the January 2, 1990 TriDistrict plan. Therefore, the recommendation regarding placement of teachers in a pool is not encouraged. In 1991-92, staffing for each school should be representative of the student population. MAY- 8-90 TUE 10:56 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.07 The Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, and the Incentive School Coordinator should work closely with the chairpersons of the Incentive, Bi-racial, and Trust Fund Committees to ensure compliance of the approved Tri-District plan. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF DEVELOPMENT It is suggested that the staff at each Incentive School be hired by June 15, 1990. The building principal, teachers and other staff should complete the staff development plan including the Prejudice Reduction Inservice developed by the National Coalition Building Institute. This plan should be a deficiency removal program identifing resources for the alleviation of deficits. Every staff member should be required to participate in staff development activities, staff development activities should be conducted within the two weeks preceding the beginning of the regular school year and should focus on activities and strategies which the entire staff will be working on during that school year. A progress meeting should be held twice in a nine week period to ensure that the program implementation is working. 5 MAY- B-90 TUE 10:57 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.08 RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF COMPENSATION Since the interview process is well underway and court ordered deadlines are quickly approaching, the recommendations set forth by this committee should be reviewed and implemented as soon as possible. A clearly stated job description listing all responsibilities for persons employed in each job category should be prepared and distributed to all applicants. These applicants should be given a complete listing of compensation to be paid, schedule of payments, fringe benefits {district-paid or optional staff-paid} and examples of extra pay on the final monthly take home pay. The salary of the incentive school principal should be commensurate with the responsibility of the job. Each incentive school principal should select a lead teacher to assist in supervisory functions of the extended day and extended week programs. Lead teachers will be paid $25.00 per hour
the same hourly rate should apply for Saturday work. 6 MAY- B-90 TUE 10:57 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.09 Pay for the extended day should be commensurate with that of the homework center teacher. At the present time, homework teachers are paid $22.00 per hour and work three hours per day for four days per week. The same hourly rate will apply for Saturday work. we are recommending that consideration be given to placing all incentive school teachers on a 10 3/4 month contract or longer if needed. RECOMMENDATIONS - SCHOLARSHIPS The committee recommends that the scholarship program be funded with the lump-sum approach. The funds should be invested immediately. The committee recommends that all remaining fund be allocated to the Incentive Schools at the termination of the program. The Committee recommends that an external agent be contracted to AP.rVP. ~R invP.~tmPnt m~n~~er. The ag~nt should be salacted from the list submitted to the LRSD 4/2/90. Additional recommendations are listed in the subcommittee report on pp. 2-7. The Committee strongly endorses the selection of a member of the ISCP for the Scholarship Trustee Committee. 7 MA"-,-" 8 "5'U TUE 10:58 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P. 1 0 RECOMMENDATIONS - BUILDING PLAN Closing any of the incentive schools would place an even greater burden on black children in Central Little Rock. They should have the option of attending schools in their neighborhoods. However, if Ish School is closed for the 1990-91 school year while a replacement school is being built in the general proximity, we strongly recommend that the district provide transportation to student reassigned to Rightsell. We support the District's recommendation to close Garland and Stephens schools at the end of the 1990-91 school year and build a new school at the old King site. However, we strongly recommend that the District provide transportation to reassign the Garland and Stephens students. Once these buildings are vacated, we strongly recommend that the District find suitable alternative educational/service uses immediately. The Black community should not be graced with another ''eyesore" like Westside. 8 OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 16, 1990 TO: Jfcentive School Committee Members FROM: ~~ma Hart, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor RE: Incentive School Committee Recommendations Through conversation with several committee members, we have discovered that committee members have not received a copy of the committee's final recommendations made to this office. Enclosed you will find a copy of those recommendations submitted to our office on May 8, 1990. enc. 1 l . . , .. I I -I I I I II I II II I I I REPORT OF THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS COMMITTEE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS COMMITTEE Dr, Dorris Robinson-Gardner, Chairperson Mrs. Ann West, co-Chairperson William Finn, Ann West, Ruth Ragsdale, Kenyon Lowe Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Staff Concerns, Development and Compensation and Extended Day Programs Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Incentive School Scholarship Trust Fund, Co-Chairs of the Subcommittee on Building Plan for Incentive Schools Committee. Florida Ewings, Recorder Mary Maxwell, Substitute Recorder Active Committee Members Lillie Carter Beverly Couch Frenzella Dodson Jacqlyn Irby Dr. Cheryl Pagan Pamela Person Doris Sarver MAY- B-90 TUE 10:54 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.03 IN'I'RODU<."'TION Since 1957, interested board members, administrators, teachers, parents, students and citizens of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) have attempted to successfully desegregate our public schools. Thirty-three years later, we are still attempting to complete this task. It is beyond time for the internal and external agents of change to successfully complete this monumental task so that the District can create an equitable system for all students, yet, speciali%ing in creating a successful educational environment focusing on the academic, social and emotional needs of black children. Black students attending LRSD should have the same corresponding or offsetting benefits of attending Incentive or Magnet Schools as other children. If a particular school does not address their educational needs, then, they should be permitted to transfer from their current school to one that will address their needs when space is available and if the school remains within the guidelines set by the Eighth Circuit Court. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PARENT COMMITTEE The Incentive School Parent Committee (ISPC) held four full committee meetings and six subcommittee meetings. The full committee meetings were held April 17, 23, 25 and May 3. The subcommittee meetings were held April 18, 19, 20, 24, and 26. 1 MAY- B-90 TUE 10:54 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.04 The ISPC is in agreement with the Little Rock School District's proposed plan as submitted April 2, 1990 with the following recommendations: RECOMMENDATIONS - OBJECTIVES AND GOALS Administrators, parents, teachers, students, and the general public are confused concerning the official names of the incentive schools, In oraer to P.Rt.~hliRh r.l~r1ty, incentive schools should be called ''Incentive Schools". When Incentive Schools become "Magnet Schools", then, and only then, refer to them by the new name. RECOMMENDATIONS - BASIC CONCEPT/BASIC PROGRAMS The Incentive Schools should maintain the basic skills core, however, supplementing the core with specialty areas previously identified is encouraged. RECOMMENDATIONS - EXTERNAL MONITORING OF SCHOOLS All incentive schools should be periodically monitored and assessed at the end of each semester by an Incentive Review Committee (IRC) for compliance with approved recommendations. The IRC will assess the performance of the principals, particularly, the outcomes of students on the Minimum Performance Test, MAT6, and other academic variables. 2 .M.A. ~- . 8-90 TUE 10:55 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.05 The results of this assessment should be tied to performance indicators for continuing employment. The IRC should be composed of appropriate representation including the Superintendent of LRSD, and Chairs of ISPC, Bi-Racial Committee and two others to be named by the Court. RECOMMENDATIONS - EXTENDED DAY/EXTENDED WEEK/EXTENDED YEAR PROGRAMS Parents should have the responsibility for encouraging their children to participate in the programs designed to meet their educational needs as defined by the Student's Education Plan. Parental assurance forms should be signed by the teacher, parent and student. Waivers should be available. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF CONCERNS All extended programs should rely on voluntary staff participation. It is our belief that many highly qualified teachers have a commitment to providing the best possible education during the regular school day, but have no desire to work in the extended programs (day, week, year). This reluctance should not be viewed as a failure to be fully committed but as a result of having to prioritize family responsibilities, community involvement and additional educational opportunities/needs. 3 MAY- 8-90 TUE 10:56 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.06 Because kindergarten teachers will not have base information concerning the majority of their students, their extended contracts/obligations should be adjusted or modified as necessary. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFFING Once again, select administrators making personnel decisions have demonstrated that they are not serious in selecting a coordinator or principals who are sensitive to the needs of black children. Staff members either with limited or non-successful experiences with black children and parents appear to be the number one choice. The District should re-evaluate the selection of the Coordinator of the Incentive Schools and the Principal assignment at Rockefeller Elementary School. The Coordinator of Incentive Schools should have the responsibility for coordinating field trips added to the existing job description instead of hiring additional staff. The recruiting and hiring of teachers should follow the same plan as indicated in the January 2, 1990 Tri-District plan. Therefore, the recommendation regarding placement of teachers in a pool is not encouraged. In 1991-92, staffing for each school should be representative of the student population. MAY- S-90 TUE 10:56 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.07 The Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, and the Incentive School Coordinator should work closely with the chairpersons of the Incentive, Bi-racial, and Trust Fund Committees to ensure compliance of the approved Tri-District plan. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF DEVELOPMENT It is suggested that the staff at each Incentive School be hired by June 15, 1990. The building principal, teachers and other staff should complete the staff development plan including the Prejudice Reduction Inservice developed by the National Coalition Building Institute. This plan should be a deficiency removal program identifing resources for the alleviation of deficits. Every staff member should be required to participate in staff development activities. Staff development activities should be conducted within the two weeks preceding the beginning of the regular school year and should focus on activities and strategies which the entire staff will be working on during that school year. A progress meeting should be held twice in a nine week period to ensure that the program implementation is working. 5 ~ ~u TUE 10:~, u.A.P.B. FISCAL AFFAIRS P.08 RECOMMl-:NDATIONS - STAFF COMPENSATION Since the interview process is well underway and court ordered deadlines are quickly approaching, the recommendations set forth by this committee should be reviewed and implemented as soon as possible. A clearly stated job description listing all responsibilities for persons employed in each job category should be prepared and distributed to all applicants. These applicants should be given a complete listing of compensation to be paid, schedule of payments, fringe benefits {district-paid or optional etaff-paid} and examples of extra pay on the final monthly take home pay. The salary of the incentive school principal should be commensurate with the responsibility of the job. Each incentive school principal should select a lead teacher to assist in supervisory functions of the extended day and extended week programs. Lead teachers will be paid $25.00 per hour
the same hourly rate should apply for Saturday work. 6 M8~- -8-90 TUE 10:57 U.A.P.B.-FISCAL AFFAIRS P.09 Pay for the extended day should be commensurate with that of the homework center teacher. At the present time, homework teachers are paid $22.00 per hour and work three hours per day for four days per week. The same hourly rate will apply for Saturday work. We are recommending that consideration be given to placing all incentive school teachers on a 10 3/4 month contract or longer if needed. RECOMMENDATIONS - SCHOLARSHIPS The committee recommends that the scholarship program be funded with the lump-sum approach. The funds should be invested immediately. The committee recommends that all remaining fund be allocated to the Incentive Schools at the termination of the program. The Committee recommends that an external agent be contracted to AP.rVP. ~A invP.~tmPnt m~n~aer. The aoent should be 5alacted from the list submitted to the LRSD 4/2/90. Additional recommendations are listed in the subcommittee report on pp. 2-7. The Committee strongly endorses the selection of a member of the ISCP for the Scholarship Trustee Committee. 7 , , " t1 f.l,. ", - 8 - 9 0 TUE 1 0 : 5 E: LI - A F'. E: - F I SC AL AF FA I Rs P. 1 0 RECOMMENDATIONS - BUILDING PLAN Closing any of the incentive schools would place an even greater burden on black children in Central Little Rock. They should have the option of attending schools in their neighborhoods. However, if Ish School is closed for the 1990-91 school year while a replacement school is being built in the 9eneral proximity, we strongly recommend that the district provide transportation to student reassigned to Rightsell. We support the District's recommendation to close Garland and Stephens schools at the end of the 1990-91 school year and build a new school at the old King site. However, we strongly recommend that the District provide transportation to reassign the Garland and Stephens students. Once these buildings are vacated, we strongly recommend that the District find suitable alternative educational/service uses immediately. The Black community should not be graced with another "eyesore" like Westside. 8 REPORT OF THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS COMMITTEE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS COMMI"rl'EE Dr. Dorris Robinson-Gardner, Chairperson Mrs. Ann West, Co-Chairperson William Finn, Ann West, Ruth Ragsdale, Kenyon Lowe Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Staff Concerns, Development and Compensation and Extended Day Programs Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Incentive School Scholarship Trust Fund. Co-Chairs of the Subcommittee on Building Plan for Incentive Schools Committee. Florida Ewings, Recorder Mary Maxwell, Substitute Recorder Active Committee Members Lillie Carter Beverly Couch Frenzella Dodson Jacqlyn Irby Dr. Cheryl Pagan Pamela Person Doris Sarver I I I I 1, INTRODUCTION Since 1957, interested board members, administrators, teachers, parents, students and citizens of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) have attempted to successfully desegregate our public schools. Thirty-three years later, we are still attempting to complete this task. It is beyond time for the internal and external agents of change to successfully complete this monumental task so that the district can create an equitable system for all students, yet, specializing in creating a successful educational environment focusing on the academic, social and emotional needs of black children. Black students attending LRSD should have the same corresponding or offsetting benefits of attending Incentive or Magnet Schools as other children. If a particular school does not address their educational needs, then, they should be permitted to transfer from their current school to one that will address their needs when space is available and if the school remains within the guidelines set by the Eighth Circuit Court. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PARENT COMMITTEE The Incentive School Parent Committee (ISPC) held four full committee meetings and six subcommittee meetings. The full committee meetings were held April 17, 23, 25 and May 3. The subcommittee meetings were held April 18, 19, 20, 24, and 26. 1 The ISPC is in agreement with the Little Rock School District's proposed plan as submitted April 2, 1990 with the following recommendations: RECOMMENDATIONS - OBJECTIVES AND GOALS Administrators, parents, teachers, students, and the general public are confused concerning the official names of the incentive schools. In order to establish clarity, incentive schools should be called "Incentive Schools. When Incentive Schools become Magnet Schools, then, and only then, refer to them by the new name. RECOMMENDATIONS - BASIC CONCEPT/BASIC PROGRAMS The Incentive Schools should maintain the basic skills core, however, supplementing the core with specialty areas previously identified is encouraged. RECOMMENDATIONS - EXTERNAL MONITORING OF SCHOOLS All incentive schools should be periodically monitored and assessed at the end of each semester by an Incentive Review Committee (IRC) for compliance with approved recommendation~. The IRC will assess the performance of the principals, particularly, the outcomes of students on the Minimum Performance Test, MAT6, and other academic variables. 2 The results of this assessment should be tied to performance indicators for continuing employment. The IRC should be composed of appropriate representation including the Superintendent of LRSD, and Chairs of ISPC, Bi-Racial Committee and two others to be named by the Court. RECOMMENDATIONS - EXTENDED DAY/EXTENDED WEEK/EXTENDED YEAR PROGRAMS Parents will have the responsibility for encouraging their children to participate in the programs designed to meet their educational needs as defined by the Student's Education Plan. Parental assurance forms should be signed by the teacher, parent and student. Waivers should be available. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF CONCERNS All extended programs should rely on voluntary staff participation. It is our belief that many highly qualified teachers have a commitment to providing the best possible education during the regular school day, but have no desire to work in the extended programs (day, week, year). This reluctance should not be viewed as a failure to be fully committed but as a result of having to prioritize family responsibilities, community involvement and additional educational opportunities/needs. 3 Because kindergarten teachers will not have base information concerning the majority of their students, their extended contracts/obligations should be adjusted or modified as necessary. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFFING Once again, select administrators making personnel decisions have demonstrated that they are not serious in selecting a coordinator or principals who are sensitive to the needs of black children. Staff members either with limited or non-successful experiences with black children and parents appear to be the number one choice. The District should re-evaluate the selection of the coordinator of the Incentive Schools and the Principal assignment of the Rockefeller Elementary School. The Coordinator of Incentive Schools should have the responsibility for coordinating field trips added to the existing job description instead of hiring additional staff. The recruiting and hiring of teachers should follow the same plan as indicated in the January 2, 1990 Tri-District plan. Therefore, the recommendation regarding placement of teachers in a pool is not encouraged. In 1991-92, staffing for each school should be representative of the student population. 4 The Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, and the Incentive School Coordinators including the Incentive School coordinator should work closely with the chairpersons of the Incentive, Bi-racial, and Trust Fund Committees to ensure compliance of the approved Tri-District plan. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF DEVELOPMENT It is suggested that the staff at each Incentive School be hired by June 15, 1990. The building principal, teachers and other staff should complete the staff development plan including the Prejudice Reduction Inservice developed by the National Coalition Building Institute. This plan should be a deficiency removal program identifing resources for the alleviation of deficits. Every staff member should be required to participate in staff development activities. Staff development activities should be conducted within the two weeks preceding the beginning of the regular school year and should focus on activities and strategies which the entire staff will be working on during that school year. A progress meeting should be held twice in a nine week period to ensure that the program implementation is working. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF COMPENSATION Since the interview process is well underway and court ordered deadlines are quickly approaching, the recommendations set forth by this committee should be reviewed and implemented as soon as possible. A clearly stated job description listing all responsibilities for persons employed in each job category should be prepared and distributed to all applicants. These applicants should be given a complete listing of compensation to be paid, schedule of payments, fringe benefits {district-paid or optional staff-paid} and examples of extra pay on the final monthly take home pay. The salary of the incentive school principal should be commensurate wit.h the responsibility of the job. Each incentive school principal should select a lead teacher to assist in supervisory functions of the extended day and extended week programs. Lead teachers will be paid $25.00 per hour
the same hourly rate will apply for Saturday work. 6 Pay for the extended day should be commensurate with that of the homework center teacher. At the present time, homework teachers are paid $22.00 per hour and work three hours per day for four days per week. The same hourly rate will apply for Saturday work. We are recommending that consideration be given to placing all incentive school teachers on a 10 3/4 month contract or longer if needed. RECOMMENDATIONS - SCHOLARSHIPS The committee recommends that the scholarship program be funded with the lump-sum approach. The funds should be invested immediately. The committee recommends that all remaining fund be allocated to the Incentive Schools at the termination of the program. The Committee recommends that an external agent be contracted to serve as investment manager. The agent should be selected from the list submitted to the LRSD 4/2/90. Additional recommendations are listed in the subcommittee report on pp. 2-7. The Committee strongly endorses the selection of a member of the ISCP,
:b~ :!~ ,t~~OOtV~l, 7 I RECOMMENDATIONS - BUILDING PLAN Closing any of the incentive schools would place an even greater burden on black children in Central Little Rock. They should to have the option of attending schools in their neighborhoods. However, if Ish School is closed for the 1990-91 school year while a replacement school is being built in the general proximity, we strongly recommend that the district provide transportation to student reassigned to Rightsell. We support the District's recommendation to close Garland and Stephens Schools at the end of the 1990-91 school year and build a new .school at the old King site. However, we strongly recommend that the District provide transportation to reassign the Garland and Stephens students. Once these buildings are vacated, we strongly recommend that the District find suitable alternative educational/service uses immediately. The Black community should not be graced with another "eyesore" like Westside. 8 Report of Scholarship Committee Questions we must answer: 1. Do we really want to use desegregation money for a scholarship? A scholarship will discriminate against black students who are unable to attend incentive schools and must be bused to perhaps less desirable neighborhood schools. The money could be used to enhance the incentive schools rather be applied to scholarships. Recommendation of committee: Scholarships are appropriate and should be part of the desegregation plan for incentive schools to increase the enrollment in the incentive schools of a representative number of non-minority pupils and to promote the interest of all students in completing high school and attending accredited post-secondary courses including college. Scholarships will be awarded to all students who attend the incentive schools regardless of need. 2. Funding of scholarships. Two proposals have been presented. The Little Rock School District proposes the plan be funded as students accrue credits in the amount of $400 per year per student. Funding will occur over a period of 8 years. (page 2 - Trust Fund Report). Some credit would be given students who attended incentive schools for at least four years prior to this year. The Little Rock plan included a counseling and support provision. Funding would begin January 1, 1991, and end January 1, 1998. The intervenors' plan is to take a 20% lump sum of the -2- amount allotted to incentive schools "off the top" of the settlement and invest that so that after six years (the time it would take a student now in 6th grade to graduate) the principle and interest would be sufficient to fund the scholarship program. Under the invervenors ' plan not all the fund would be used so that whatever is left after scholarships are paid out could be applied to another project such as early childhood education. Recommendation of committee: The committee's recommendation is subject to change depending on the report of our CPA member, Ruth Ragsdale, who will attempt to translate these plans into dollar amounts. At the meeting held Monday, April 23, the committee tentatively recommended the lump sum approach which would be invested immediately at the best rate possible rather than fund the program year by year as credits accrue. The committee also recommends any excess after scholarships are paid to be returned to the incentive schools in equal portions. 3. Trustee and money fund manager The intervenor's plan did not representatives or a fund administrator. suggest The Little trustee Rock plan suggested the Little Rock School district, the Department of Education, and the Joshua and Knight intervenors to be administrators of the plan. Under the Little Rock plan trustees would be made up of representatives of business, parents, administrators, and teachers. Committee recommendation: First pick trustees of the fund -3- with~ representative from each of these groups: Parents Teachers Business Joshua intervenors Knight intervenors LR school district Member of the incentive school committee, and after the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor is phased out replace this committee member with a parent There should be seven trustees in all. If a trustee retired, a replacement trustee would be picked from the same interest group with the exception of a member from the Incentive School Committee. First trustees would be named to the Trust Fund Committee. These trustees would then contact banks and savings and loan institutions to get bids for the best rate of interest for a certificate of deposit for 6 years. The financial institution would report to the trustees by mail or otherwise on a periodic basis regarding the status of the interest and principal. No demands would be made on the fund for 6 years. When scholarships are requested more administration will be required. Access to school records will be necessary. Disbursements will need to be made directly to post-secondary schools. Just how this will be done has not been resolved by our committee. 4. Time frame The Little Rock plan gives students currently enrolled in -4- incentive schools for 1989-1990 one years' credit, but would give $200 for each prior year if a child were enrolled in an incentive school for 4 or more years. The interventor's plan gives credit to each student assigned in the 1989-190 school year who remains in and graduates from Little Rock Schools. Committee recommendation: That we put together the best parts of the two plans. There will be no retroactivity since some schools were actually racially identifiable, but were not designated as incentive schools until this year, and going back any number of years is arbitrary. The first students to receive credit will be the 6th graders attending an incentive school year. (This year.) The only students during the 1989-90 school to get a full 7 years' credit will be kindergarteners attending an incentive school this year. However any student entering incentive schools within the next six years, the period when the corpus of the trust is to remain untouched, would be eligible for a scholarship of some amount. The committee's reason for this recommendation is so that the scholarship would be an incentive for attending these schools during the next six years. After six years it is hoped these schools would no longer be racially identifiable. Students would receive 1 years' credit for each year of incentive school attendance. Scholarships must be used within five years of a student's graduation from high school. If a lump sum approach were adopted, funding would be as soon as the funds were available and would end after, for -5- example, 20% of the incentive school appropriation was invested. If yearly funding was chosen, funding would end 1998 as the Little Rock district suggests. Under the Little Rock proposal in January, in a majority-to-minority transfer the sending district would be responsible for funding credits earned by a student from outside the Little Rock Schools. The committee is split on this question. It is argued that the sending district will not only lose money for the student, but if it must also fund his or her scholarship the sending district will discourage 'transfer and defeat the purpose of the plan. Another unresolved question is whether a student transferring to a school built to accomodate incentive school students in the Pulaski County School District should be allowed to continue accruing scholarship credits. The committee recommends that they do not. Once a student transfers out of an incentive school no further credits are accrued unless the transfer is to upgrade or completely rebuild the inventive school. The comittee's rationale is that the incentive schools should be so desirable and unique with smaller student to teacher ratios and specialty emphasis along with basis skills that they should be promoted for their special qualities and they should be expanded rather than closed. Students from incentive be bussed elsewhere for purposes of desegregation. 5. Post-secondary institutions of learning The Little Rock plan designates "state supported colleges and universities
" the intervenors' plan contemplates a "4 year -6- college curriculum." The Incentive School Committee wanted to include vocational and other types of post-secondary education besides college. The committee's recommendation is that scholarships be available for education in post-secondary institutions of higher learning including post-secondary vocational schools. The committee also recommends that scholarships be paid directly to the institution of higher learning, rather than to the student, but that if a student does not use all of his or her scholarship money for tuition, any excess go toward the purchase of books, or costs related to education such as transportation expenses. 6. Institutions in or outside of Arkansas Both proposals contemplate scholarship funding for only Arkansas colleges and universities. The Scholarship Committee recommends that scholarships apply to institutions outside of Arkansas as well as within Arkansas. The committee makes this recommendation because some degree plans are not offered in Arkansas such as dentistry and veternary science. It is also possible some children may earn a merit scholarship at a university outside Arkansas and it would be unfair to limit their scholarship credit to only Arkansas institutions under these circumstances. 7. Should there be a provision to provide monitoring by the court at intervals and to allow amendment to the plan if necessary? The committee recommends the court's involvement in the -7- plan cease as soon as possible. Therefore this suggestion was rejected. 8. Mentorship program. This was crucial to the success of the scholarship in Mr. Reville's view. The Little Rock proposal states that the program must have a "strong counseling and support program monitored by the Bi-racial Committee for the Little Rock School District and an incentive school coordinator," but details are not spelled out. The committee suggests that some provision to be made in intermediate and high schools to counsel and provide mentoring so that the goal of high school graduation is encouraged and facilitated. 9. How much money will the scholarship fund involve? No one seems to know. Disbursements are to be made in July of $4 or $5 million but this for more than incentive schools. Other disbursements will follow. The intervenors' plan talks about "double funding" for incentive schools. There is nothing in writing on this. There are now 1,620 students attending incentive schools. (Magnet Incentive School Programs, page 2.) The actual cost per pupil varies depending on what expenses are considered. Dr. Gardner was able to get the figure used by the Joshua intervenors of 2,500 students and $6,000 per year as the amount for double funding. 10. Amount of scholarship The exact amount of the scholarship per pupil would have to be determined on the basis of the funds available and the -8- demands at the time the student qualifies. Another factor would be enlargement of the incentive school facilities and increased number of students. Also the amount of the scholarship will depend on whether it is funded by a lump sum amount or yearly payments after credit is earned. The committee has addtional questions which cannot be resolved, but which are presented for the consideration of those making decisions regarding the scholarship fund. Questions will be submitted separately. . .. .. . . Report of Scholarship Committee Questions we must answer: 1. Do we really want to use desegregation money for a scholarship? A scholarship will discriminate against black students who are unable to attend incentive schools and must be bused to perhaps less desirable neighborhood schools. The money could be used to enhance the incentive schools rather be applied to scholarships. Recommendation of committee: Scholarships are appropriate and should be part of the desegregation plan for incentive schools to increase the enrollment in the incentive schools of a representative number of non-minority pupils and to promote the interest of all students in completing high school and attending accredited post-secondary courses including college. Scholarships will be awarded to all students who attend the incentive schools regardless of need. 2. Funding of scholarships. Two proposals have been presented. The Little Rock School District proposes the plan be funded as students accrue -credits in the amount of $400 per year per student. Funding will occur over a period of 8 years. (page 2 - Trust Fund Report). Some credit would be given students who attended incentive schools for at least four years prior to this year. The Little Rock plan included a counseling and support provision. Funding would begin January 1, 1991, and end January 1, 1998. The intervenors' plan is to take a 20% lump sum of the -2- amount allotted to incentive schools "off the top" of the settlement and invest that so that after six years (the time it would take a student now in 6th grade to graduate) the principle and interest would be sufficient to fund the scholarship program. Under the invervenors' plan not all the fund would be used so that whatever is left after scholarships are paid out could be applied to another project such as early childhood education. Recommendation of committee: The committee's recommendation is subject to change depending on lhe report of our CPA member, Ruth Ragsdale, who will attempt to translate these plans into dollar amounts. At the meeting held Monday, April 23, the committee tentatively recommended the lump sum approach which would be invested immediately at the best rate possible rather than fund the program year by year as credits accrue. The committee also recommends any excess after scholarships are paid to be returned to the incentive schools in equal portions. 3. Trustee and money fund manager The intervenor's plan did not representatives or a fund administrator. suggest The Little trustee Rock plan suggested the Little Rock School district, the Department of Education, and the Joshua and Knight intervenors to be administrators of the plan. Under the Little Rock plan trustees would be made up of representatives of business, parents, administrators, and teachers. Committee recommendation: First pick trustees of the fund -3- with one representative from each of these groups: Parents Teachers Business Joshua intervenors Knight intervenors LR school district Member of the incentive school committee, and after the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor is phased out replace this committee member with a parent There should be seven trustees in all. If a trustee retired, a replacement trustee would be picked from the same interest group with the exception of a member from the Incentive School Committee. First trustees would be named to the Trust Fund Committee. These trustees would then contact banks and savings and loan institutions to get bids for the best rate of interest for a certificate of deposit for 6 years. The financial institution would report to the trustees by mail or otherwise on a periodic basis regarding the status of the interest and principal~ No demands would be made on the fund for 6 years. When scholarships are requested more administration will be required. Access to school records will be necessary. Disbursements will need to be made directly to post-secondary schools. Just how this will be done has not been resolved by our committee. 4. Time frame The Little Rock plan gives students currently enrolled in -4- incentive schools for 1989-1990 one years' credit, but would give $200 for each prior year if a child were enrolled in an incentive school for 4 or more years. The interventor's plan gives credit to each student assigned in the 1989-190 school year who remains in and graduates from Little Rock Schools. Committee recommendation: That we put together the best parts of the two plans. There will be no retroactivity since some schools were actually racially identifiable, but were not designated as incentive schools until this year, and going back any number of years is arbitrary. The first students to receive credit will be the 6th graders attending an incentive school during the 1989-90 school year. (This year.) The only students to get a full 7 years' credit will be kindergarteners attending an incentive school this year. However any student entering incentive schools within the next six years, the period when the corpus of the trust is to remain untouched, would be eligible for a scholarship of some amount. The committee's reason for this recommendation is so that the scholarship would be an incentive for attending these schools during the next six years: After six years it is hoped these schools would no longer be racially identifiable. Students would receive 1 years' credit for each year of incentive school attendance. Scholarships must be used within five years of a student's graduation from high school. If a lump sum approach were adopted, funding would be as soon as the funds were available and would end after, for . .. .. . -5- example, 20% of the incentive school appropriation was invested. If yearly funding was chosen, funding would end in January, 1998 as the Little Rock district suggests. Under the Little Rock proposal in a majority-to-minority transfer the sending district would be responsible for funding credits earned by a student from outside the Little Rock Schools. The committee is split on this question. It is argued that the sending district will not only lose money for the student, but if it must also fund his or her scholarship the sending district will discourage 'transfer and defeat the purpose of the plan. Another unresolved question is whether a student transferring to a school built to accomodate incentive school students in the Pulaski County School District should be allowed to continue accruing scholarship credits. The committee recommends that they do not. Once a student transfers out of an incentive school no further credits are accrued unless the transfer is to upgrade or completely rebuild the inventive school. The comittee's rationale is that the incentive schools should be so desirable and unique with smaller student to teacher ratios and specialty emphasis along with basis skills that they should be promoted for their special qualities and they should be expanded rather than closed. Students from incentive be bussed elsewhere for purposes of desegregation. 5. Post-secondary institutions of learning The Little Rock plan designates "state supported colleges and universities
" the intervenors' plan contemplates a 4 year -6- college curriculum." The Incentive School Committee wanted to include vocational and other types of post-secondary education besides college. The committee's recommendation is that scholarships be available for education in post-secondary institutions of higher learning including post-secondary vocational schools. The committee also recommends that scholarships be paid directly to the institution of higher learning, rather than to the student, but that if a student does not use all of his or her scholarship money for tuition, any excess go toward the purchase of books, or costs related to education such as transportation expenses. 6. Institutions in or outside of Arkansas Both proposals contemplate scholarship funding for only Arkansas colleges and universities. The Scholarship Committee recommends that scholarships apply to institutions outside of Arkansas as well as within Arkansas. The committee makes this recommendation because some degree plans are not offered in Arkansas such as dentistry and veternary science. It is also possible some children may earn a merit scholarship at a university outside Arkansas and it would be unfair to limit their scholarship credit to only Arkansas institutions under these circumstances. 7. Should there be a provision to provide monitoring by the court at intervals and to allow amendment to the plan if necessary? The committee recommends the court's involvement in the -7- plan cease as soon as possible. Therefore this suggestion was rejected. 8. Mentorship program. This was crucial to the success of the scholarship in Mr. Reville's view. The Little Rock proposal states that the program must have a "strong counseling and support program monitored by the Bi-racial Committee for the Little Rock School District and an incentive school coordinator, but details are not spelled out. The committee suggests that some provision to be made in intermediate and high schools to counsel and provide mentoring so that the goal of high school graduation is encouraged and facilitated. 9. How much money will the scholarship fund involve? No one seems to know. Disbursements are to be made in July of $4 or $5 million but this for more than incentive schools. Other disbursements will follow. The intervenors' plan talks about "double funding" for incentive schools. There is nothing in writing on this. There are now 1,620 students attending incentive schools. (Magnet Incentive School Programs, page 2.) The actual cost per pupil varies depending on what expenses are considered. Dr. Gardner was able to get the figure used by the Joshua intervenors of 2,500 students and $6,000 per year as the amount for double funding. 10. Amount of scholarship The exact amount of the scholarship per pupil would have to be determined on the basis of the funds available and the , . -8- demands at the time the student qualifies. Another factor would be enlargement of the incentive school facilities and increased number of students. Also the amount of the scholarship will depend on whether it is funded by a lump sum amount or yearly payments after credit is earned. The committee has addtional questions which cannot be resolved, but which are presented for the consideration of those making decisions regarding the scholarship fund. Questions will be submitted separately. ..... INCENTIVE SCHOOLS COMMITTEE Dr. Doris Robinson-Gardner, Chairperson Mrs. Ann West, Co-Chairperson William Finn, Chairperson of the subcommittee on Staff concerns, Development and Compensation and Extended Day Programs Ann West, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Incentive School Scholarship Trust Fund. Ruth Ragsdale (CPA) and Kenyon Lowe, Sr., Co-Chairs of Building Plan for Incentive Schools Committee. Florida Ewings, Recorder Mary Maxwell, Substitute Recorder Active Committee Members Lillie Carter Beverly Couch Frenzella Dodson Jacqlyn Irby Dr. Cheryl Pagan Pamela Person Doris Sarver Recommendations from the Incentive School Committee The Incentive School Committee held three full committee meetings and six subcommittee meetings. The full committee meetings were held April 17, 23, and 25. The subcommittee meetings were held April 18, 19, 20, 24, and 26. The Incentive School Committee submits the following general specific recommendations: OBJECTIVES AND GOALS Administrators, parents, teachers, students, and the general public are confused concerning the official names of the incentive schools. In order to establish clarity, incentive schools should be called "Incentive Schools. When Incentive Schools become Magnet Schools, then, and only then, refer to them by the appropriate name. BASIC CONCEPT/BASIC PROGRAMS The Incentive Schools should maintain the basic skills core, however, supplementing the core with specialty areas previously identified is strongly encouraged. EXTENDED DAY/EXTENDED WEEK PROGRAMS Recommendations are listed in the subcommittee report. (Appendix~) BUILDING PLAN All Incentive Schools should remain open. Closing any of the Incentive Schools, especially Ish and Stephens, would place an even greater burden on the Black children in central Little Rock. If it becomes necessary to close one of the Incentive Schools, then, match that closing with a school west of University avenue such as Jefferson or Fulbright Elementary. Additional recommendations are listed in the subcommittee report (Appendix~) SCHOLARSHIPS An agent to serve as investment manager should be selected by a joint decision involving the Parent Finance Committee, Parent Incentive School Committee and Joshua and Knight Intervenors. STAFFING Recommendations are listed in the subcommittee report (Appendix f) Once again, select administrators making personnel decisions, have demonstrated that they are not serious in selecting principals and coordinators who are sensitive to the needs of black children in incentive schools. Staff members either with limited or non-successful experiences with black children and parents appear to be the number one choice. The Coordinator of Incentive Schools could have the responsibility for coordinating field trips added to her job description. The recruiting and hiring of teachers should follow the same plan as indicated in the January 2, 1990 Tri-District plan. Therefore, the recommendation regarding placing all teachers in a pool is not encouraged. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation and the Incentive School Coordinator should work closely with the chairpersons of the Incentive, Bi-racial and Trust Fund Committees to ensure compliance with recommendations 1,3, 4, and 5 of the Tri-District plan. Additional recommendations are listed in the subcommittee report (Appendix~) CONCLUSIONS The Parent Committee on Incentive Schools and parents of black children are still frustrated by the continued iniquity and the subtle racism that exist in the decision making process by LRSD administrators. SUB-COMMITTEE REPORT ON STAFF COMPENSATION STAFF DEVELOPMENT EXTENDED DAY STAFF CONCERNS FOR INCENTIVE SCHOOLS April 23, 1990 APF" ...tL STAFF CONCERNS 1. All extended programs will rely on voluntary staff participation. It is our belief that many highly qualified teachers have a commitment to providing the best possible education during the regular school day, but have no desire to work in the extended programs (day, week, year). This reluctance should not be viewed as a failure to be fully committed but as a result of having to prioritize family responsibilities, community involvement and additional educational opportunities/needs. 2. Because Kindergarten teachers will not have base information concerning the majority of their students, their extended contracts/obligations will be adjusted or modified as necessary. STAFF DEVELOPMENT This committee recommends that after school staffs have been identified, a needs assessment be conducted to identify the focus of individual and group staff development, by June 15, 1990. The principal and a committee of teachers will develop individual staff development plans for each staff member. This plan will be a deficiency removal plan with identified resources for the alleviations of these deficits. The same committee will make a recommendation to the entire staff for total staff development activities. Every staff member will be required to participate in total staff development activities. The time line for the total staff development activities will be the two weeks preceding the beginning of the regular school year and will focus on activities and strategies which the entire staff will be working on during that school year. A progress meeting will be held twice in a nine week period to ensure that program implementation is working. STAFF COMPENSATION Since the interview process is well underway and court ordered deadlines are quickly approaching, the recommendations set forth by this committee should be reviewed and implemented as soon as possible. This information should be given to all applicants prior to the final selection process. 1. A clearly stated job description listing all responsibilities for persons employed in each job category should be prepared and distributed to all applicants. 2. These applicants should be given a complete listing of compensation to be paid, schedule of payments, fringe benefits [district-paid or optional staff-paid] and examples of extra pay on the final monthly take home pay. 3. While principals have willingly accepted, as part of their administrative duties, the final responsibility for all programming at their respective schools, the salary of the incentive school principal should be commensurate with the responsibility of the job. 4. Each incentive school principal will select a lead teacher to assist in supervisory functions of the extended day and extended week programs. Lead teachers will be paid $25.00 per hour
the same hourly rate will apply for Saturday work. 5. Pay for the extended day should be commensurate with that of the homework center teacher. At the present time, homework teachers are paid $22.00 per hour and work three hours per day for four days per week. The same hourly rate will apply for Saturday work. 6. We are recommending that consideration be given to placing all incentive school teachers on a 10 3/4 month contract. .. '' EXTENDED DAY 1. The committee recommends that the extended day begin at 2:30 and end at 5:30, Monday through Thursday. 2. The committee accepts the timeline of the extended year program of 1 months. The extended year program should begin two weeks after the end of the regular school year. In view of the fact that the student education plan dictates the need for the extended year program, parents will have the final responsibility for ensuring their child's participation. Some educational plans may indicate the need for social skills training, interpersonal skills training and behavior modification. A program will be provided to address these areas. 3. We are recommending that consideration be given to placing all incentive school teachers on a 10 3/4 month contract. FINDINGS: INCENTIVE SCHOOLS BUILDING PLANS SUBCOMMITTEE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Proposed plan will not decrease burden of busing on central Little Rock children. The elementary student assignment plan encourages segregation and penalizes the incentive schools. The proposed building plan is geared to placating the court rather than meeting the needs of the children. Closing three of the schools would put an even greater burden on these children. RECOMMENDATIONS: Keep all incentive schools open. Improve the buildings, parking areas, and expand if necessary. Equalize the elementary student assignment plan. Assign enough children from segregated "white" areas to the incentive schools to racially balance them. Build a new Martin Luther King, Jr. school on its current site with a capacity of no more than 450. Consult with staff, parents, and neighborhood groups while developing building plans (and other plans that affect the school). LRSD Board and Administration must commit to seek and serve the best interests of the central Little Rock children, rather than shuffling them around to try and placate the Court. A multi-purpose gym/auditorium serving the smaller central Little Rock schools should be constructed at Stephens. The Board and Administration must communicate openly and honestly with staff, parents and the community. They should not consult with persons who have vested business interests. ,, INCENTIVE SCHOOLS BUILDING PLANS SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT APRIL 21, 1990 Committee Members: Kenyon Lowe and Ruth Ragsdale GENERAL FINDINGS: We find that the proposed LRSD plan will not decrease the burden of busing on central Little Rock children
it will simply add 280 ("white") slots which are necessary to barely desegregate the schools without displacing current students. If the incentive schools are enlarged/closed as proposed, it will actually increase the burden on central Little Rock children. Most of the affected children will be required to walk longer distances to school. It is our opinion that the elementary student assignment plan devised by the LRSD encourages re-segregation and relieves west Little Rock of their responsibility to help desegregate the Little Rock School system. This burden is unfairly passed to central Little Rock, North Little Rock, and Pulaski County students. Because of these deficiencies, it will be extremely difficult to desegregate the incentive schools. We do not think it is fair to close three neighborhood schools that are "hard to desegregate" when the District is making them hard to desegregate by not assigning the appropriate ratios of Little Rock students to them. The LRSD has treated these schools as if they are embarrassments to them
they impulsively change plans and renege on promises to improve and/or rebuild them. It is our opinion that the LRSD Building Plan proposal is more oriented toward placating the Court than in meeting the needs of the children in central Little Rock. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING BUILDING PLAN: First, the student assignment plan must be equalized. The proposed building plan is based more on desegregation requirements than on the needs of the children. Equalizing the student assignment plan would help to desegregate these schools without compromising the needs of the children. The current student assignment plan gives children in west Little Rock the option of attending their neighborhood school or voluntarily transferring to another
central Little Rock children are either mandatorily assigned to an incentive school or mandatorily bused to desegregate west Little Rock schools. The plan can be equalized by either giving central Little Rock children the same options as west Little Rock children, or by mandatorily assigning west Little Rock children in the same manner as central Little Rock children. The LRSD must make a commitment to the incentive schools to fulfill the needs of the children (spirit of the law) instead of doing things designed to comply with the letter of the law. In this spirit, we believe it is in the best interest of these children to maintain and improve existing schools so as to minimize walking distance and maximize individual attention. This is better served by small-to-medium sized schools scattered throughout the neighborhoods. It is also in their best interest to integrate these schools with children of different socio-economic backgrounds. Any expansion should be done slowly. The school staff, parents, students, and nearby residents should be involved in planning for expansion, and the plans must be approved by these groups. A new Martin Luther King, Jr. school should be built on its current site. The capacity should be no more than 450. The capacity of the Pre-K program should be increased to the point that ALL central Little Rock children whose parents wish to enroll them will receive a slot. A well-equipped gym/auditorium with a stage should be constructed on the grounds of Stephens School. (Stephens is centrally located and has plenty of space.) This could be used by any of the incentive schools for activities such as PTA meetings, assemblies, plays, competitions, joint projects, etc. It could also be used by community groups who agree to be responsible and comply with any requirements set forth. There is also room on the Ish grounds for expansion, if necessary. Mr. Lowe has visited Garland and is of the opinion that it also has room for expansion. The LRSD should actively support efforts to revitalize the central part of Little Rock. It should initiate efforts to make the areas surrounding these schools more attractive by providing off-street parking for staff and asking for the removal of businesses/activities deemed harmful to the children. (How about getting the liquor store at Pine and 18th shut down? ~very day the children see adult males drinking and hanging around there: this is not exactly a positive role model for the boys to see!) ' . COMMITTEE COMMENTS: DISINFORMATION MUST STOP. Whenever a staff member or parent calls the LRSD for information, they should receive a factual, honest answer. No administrator should withhold information, even if instructed to do so by superiors (unless, of course, it is of a personal matter). The principal selection process is an example: people who wanted information about these proceedings were not given the information they requested nor allowed any input. Administrators avoided questions and/or kept referring to others. No one seemed to know anything. We object to the use of "Real tors" to help develop building plans. No one with special interests should be consulted by the LRSD or allowed to have influence in their decision-making. We request that the District get facts straight from objective sources and continually give all information to the school staff and interested parents. Communications must be opened in order to stop the confusion, and decision-making should always involve people who are associated with the school. We object to secret proceedings, meetings, and development of proposals or reports without notifying the community and giving them an opportunity to participate. The incentive schools should be allowed to keep their current identities and emphases. The staff, parents and students should be the decision-makers concerning the program, and no major changes should be implemented at any incentive school without a community hearing and a democratic vote. This would include attendance zone changes, change of principal, and major program changes. Any incentive school could change its current emphasis if a majority of those present at a community meeting agreed. If the student assignment plan is not equalized, all students in the satellite zones who have no options within Little Rock must have scholarship funds appropriated to them. They should also have transportation to their local incentive school for extended day and Saturday programs if they so desire. Special incentive programs, if implemented, should continue for at least five (5) years after a school becomes racially non-identifiable. The LRSD "Parent Recruiters" should be terminated and no one else re-hired. They are hindering rather than furthering the incentive school program (and their pay is money down the drain). Ineffective principals in the incentive schools should be transferred. Effective ones, such as Kay Loss, should be retained. ... t Report of Scholarship Committee Questions we must answer: 1. Do we really want to use desegregation money for a scholarship? A scholarship will discriminate against black students who are unable to attend incentive schools and must be bused to perhaps less desirable neighborhood schools. The money could be used to enhance the incentive schools rather be applied to scholarships. Recommendation of committee: Scholarships are appropriate and should be part of the desegregation plan for incentive schools to increase the enrollment in the incentive schools of a representative number of non-minority pupils and to promote the interest of all students in completing high school and attending accredited post-secondary courses including college. Scholarships will be awarded to all students who attend the incentive schools regardless of need. 2. Funding of scholarships. Two proposals have been presented. The Little Rock School District proposes the plan be funded as students accrue credits in the amount of $400 per year per student. Funding will occur over a period of 8 years. (page 2 - Trust Fund Report). Some credit would be given students who attended incentive schools for at least four years prior to this year. The Little Rock plan included a counseling and support provision. Funding would begin January 1, 1991, and end January 1, 1998. The intervenors' plan is to take a 20% lump sum of the -2- amount allotted to incentive schools "off the top" of the settlement and invest that so that after six years (the time it would take a student now in 6th grade to graduate) the principle and interest would be sufficient to fund the scholarship program. Under the invervenors' plan not all the fund would be used so that whatever is left after scholarships are paid out could be applied to another project such as early childhood education. Recommendation of committee: The committee's recommendation is subject to change depending on the report of our CPA member, Ruth Ragsdale, who will attempt to translate these plans into dollar amounts. At the meeting held Monday, April 23, the committee tentatively recommended the lump sum approach which would be invested immediately at the best rate possible rather than fund the program year by year as credits accrue. The committee also recommends any excess after scholarships are paid to be returned to the incentive schools in equal portions. 3. Trustee and money fund manager The intervenor's plan did not representatives or a fund administrator. suggest The Little trustee Rock plan suggested the Little Rock School district, the Department of Education, and the Joshua and Knight intervenors to be administrators of the plan. Under the Little Rock plan trustees would be made up of representatives of business, parents, administrators, and teachers. Committee recommendation: First pick trustees of the fund -3- with~ representative from each of these groups: Parents Teachers Business Joshua intervenors Knight intervenors LR school district Member of the incentive school committee, and after the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor is phased out replace this committee member with a parent There should be seven trustees in all. If a trustee retired, a replacement trustee would be picked from the same interest group with the exception of a member from the Incentive School Committee. First trustees would be named to the Trust Fund Committee. These trustees would then contact banks and savings and loan institutions to get bids for the best rate of interest for a certificate of deposit for 6 years. The financial institution would report to the trustees by mail or otherwise on a periodic basis regarding the status of the interest and principal. No demands would be made on the fund for 6 years. When scholarships are requested more administration will be required. Access to school records will be necessary. Disbursements will need to be made directly to post-secondary schools. Just how this will be done has not been resolved by our committee. 4. Time frame The Little Rock plan gives students currently enrolled in -4- incentive schools for 1989-1990 one years' credit, but would give $200 for each prior year if a child were enrolled in an incentive school for 4 or more years. The interventor's plan gives credit to each student assigned in the 1989-190 school year who remains in and graduates from Little Rock Schools. Committee recommendation: That we put together the best parts of the two plans. There will be no retroactivity since some schools were actually racially identifiable, but were not designated as incentive schools until this year, and going back any number of years is arbitrary. The first students to receive credit will be the 6th graders attending an incentive school during the 1989-90 school year. (This year.) The only students to get a full 7 years' credit will be kindergarteners attending an incentive school this year. However any student entering incentive schools within the next six years, the period when the corpus of the trust is to remain untouched, would be eligible for a scholarship of some amount. The committee's reason for this recommendation is so that the scholarship would be an incentive for attending these schools during the next six years. After six years it is hoped these schools would no longer be racially identifiable. Students would receive 1 years' credit for each year of incentive school attendance. Scholarships must be used within five years of a student's graduation from high school. If a lump sum approach were adopted, funding would be as soon as the funds were available and would end after, for -5- example, 20% of the incentive school appropriation was invested. If yearly funding was chosen, funding would end in January, 1998 as the Little Rock district suggests. Under the Little Rock proposal in a majority-to-minority transfer the sending district would be responsible for funding credits earned by a student from outside the Little Rock Schools. The committee is split on this question. It is argued that the sending district will not only lose money for the student, but if it must also fund his or her scholarship the sending district will discourage 'transfer and defeat the purpose of the plan. Another unresolved question is whether a student transferring to a school built to accomodate incentive school students in the Pulaski County School District should be allowed to continue accruing scholarship credits. The committee recommends that they do not. Once a student transfers out of an incentive school no further credits are accrued unless the transfer is to upgrade or completely rebuild the inventive school. The comittee's rationale is that the incentive schools should be so desirable and unique with smaller student to teacher ratios and specialty emphasis along with basis skills that they should be promoted for their special qualities and they should be expanded rather than closed. Students from incentive be bussed elsewhere for purposes of desegregation. 5. Post-secondary institutions of learning The Little Rock plan designates "state supported colleges and universities
" the intervenors' plan contemplates a "4 year -6- college curriculum." The Incentive School Committee wanted to include vocational and other types of post-secondary education besides college. The committee's recommendation is that scholarships be available for education in post-secondary institutions of higher learning including post-secondary vocational schools. The committee also recommends that scholarships be paid directly to the institution of higher learning, rather than to the student, but that if a student does not use all of his or her scholarship money for tuition, any excess go toward the purchase of books, or costs related to education such as transportation expenses. 6. Institutions in or outside of Arkansas Both proposals contemplate scholarship funding for only Arkansas colleges and universities. The Scholarship Committee recommends that scholarships apply to institutions outside of Arkansas as well as within Arkansas. The committee makes this recommendation because some degree plans are not offered in Arkansas such as dentistry and veternary science. It is also possible some children may earn a merit scholarship at a university outside Arkansas and it would be unfair to limit their scholarship credit to only Arkansas institutions under these circumstances. 7. Should there be a provision to provide monitoring by the court at intervals and to allow amendment to the plan if necessary? The committee recommends the court's involvement in the -7- plan cease as soon as possible. Therefore this suggestion was rejected. 8. Mentorship program. This was crucial to the success of the scholarship in Mr. Reville's view. The Little Rock proposal states that the program must have a "strong counseling and support program monitored by the Bi-racial Committee for the Little Rock School District and an incentive school coordinator," but details are not spelled out. The committee suggests that some provision to be made in intermediate and high schools to counsel and provide mentoring so that the goal of high school graduation is encouraged and facilitated. 9. How much money will the scholarship fund involve? No one seems to know. Disbursements are to be made in July of $4 or $5 million but this for more than incentive schools. Other disbursements will follow. The intervenors' plan talks about "double funding" for incentive schools. There is nothing in writing on this. There are now 1,620 students attending incentive schools. (Magnet Incentive School Programs, page 2.) The actual cost per pupil varies depending on what expenses are considered. Dr. Gardner was able to get the figure used by the Joshua intervenors of 2,500 students and $6,000 per year as the amount for double funding. 10. Amount of scholarship The exact amount of the scholarship per pupil would have to be determined on the basis of the funds available and the -8- demands at the time the student qualifies. Another factor would be enlargement of the incentive school facilities and increased number of students. Also the amount of the scholarship will depend on whether it is funded by a lump sum amount or yearly payments after credit is earned. The committee has addtional questions which cannot be resolved, but which are presented for the consideration of those making decisions regarding the scholarship fund. Questions will be submitted separately. REPORT OF THE INCENTIVE SCHOOLS COMMITTEE I I I II II II II II II INCENTIVE SCHOOLS COMMITTEE Dr. Dorris Robinson-Gardner, Chairperson Mrs. Ann West, Co-Chairperson William Finn, Ann West, Ruth Ragsdale, Kenyon Lowe Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Staff Concerns, Development and Compensation and Extended Day Programs Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Incentive School Scholarship Trust Fund. Co-Chairs of the Subcommittee on Building Plan for Incentive Schools Committee. Florida Ewings, Recorder Mary Maxwell, Substitute Recorder Active Committee Members Lillie Carter Beverly Couch Frenzella Dodson Jacqlyn Irby Dr. Cheryl Pagan Pamela Person Doris Sarver INTRODUCTION Since 1957, interested board members, administrators, teachers, parents, students and citizens of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) have attempted to successfully desegregate our public schools. Thirty-three years later, we are still attempting to complete this task. It is beyond time for the internal and external agents of change to successfully complete this monumental task so that the district can create an equitable system for all students, yet, specializing in creating a successful educational environment focusing on the academic, social and emotional needs of black children. Black students attending LRSD should have the same corresponding or offsetting benefits of attending Incentive or Magnet Schools as other children. If a particular school does not address their educational needs, then, they should be permitted to transfer from their current school to one that will address their needs when space is available and if the school remains within the guidelines set by the Eighth Circuit Court. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE INCENTIVE SCHOOL PARENT COMMITTEE The Incentive School Parent Committee (ISPC) held four full committee meetings and six subcommittee meetings. The full committee meetings were held April 17, 23, 25 and May 3. The subcommittee meetings were held April 18, 19, 20, 24, and 26. 1 II II The ISPC is in agreement with the Little Rock School District's proposed plan as submitted April 2, 1990 with the following recommendations: RECOMMENDATIONS - OBJECTIVES AND GOALS Administrators, parents, teachers, students, and the general public are confused concerning the official names of the incentive schools. In order to establish clarity, incentive schools should be called "Incentive Schools. When Incentive Schools become Magnet Schools, then, and only then, refer to them by the new name. RECOMMENDATIONS - BASIC CONCEPT/BASIC PROGRAMS The Incentive Schools should maintain the basic skills core, however, supplementing the core with specialty areas previously identified is encouraged. RECOMMENDATIONS - EXTERNAL MONITORING OF SCHOOLS All incentive schools should be periodically monitored and assessed at the end of each semester by an Incentive Review Committee (IRC) for compliance with approved recommendations. The IRC will assess the performance of the principals, particularly, the outcomes of students on the Minimum Performance Test, MAT6, and other academic variables. 2 The results of this assessment should be tied to performance indicators for continuing employment. The IRC should be composed of appropriate representation including the Superintendent of LRSD, and Chairs of ISPC, Bi-Racial Committee and two others to be named by the Court. RECOMMENDATIONS - EXTENDED DAY/EXTENDED WEEK/EXTENDED YEAR PROGRAMS Parents will have the responsibility for encouraging their children to participate in the programs designed to meet their educational needs as defined by the Student's Education Plan. Parental assurance forms should be signed by the teacher, parent and student. Waivers should be available. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF CONCERNS All extended programs should rely on voluntary staff participation. It is our belief that many highly qualified teachers have a commitment to providing the best possible education during the regular school day, but have no desire to work in the extended programs (day, week, year). This reluctance should not be viewed as a failure to be fully committed but as a result of having to prioritize family responsibilities, community involvement and additional educational opportunities/needs. 3 Because kindergarten teachers will not have base information concerning the majority of their students, their extended contracts/obligations should be adjusted or modified as necessary. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFFING Once again, select administrators making personnel decisions have demonstrated that they are not serious in selecting a coordinator or principals who are sensitive to the needs of black children. Staff members either with limited or non-successful experiences with black children and parents appear to be the number one choice. The District should re-evaluate the selection of the coordinator of the Incentive Schools and the Principal assignment of the Rockefeller Elementary School. The Coordinator of Incentive Schools should have the responsibility for coordinating field trips added to the existing job description instead of hiring additional staff. The recruiting and hiring of teachers should follow the same plan as indicated in the January 2, 1990 Tri-District plan. Therefore, the recommendation regarding placement of teachers in a pool is not encouraged. In 1991-92, staffing for each school should be representative of the student population. 4 The Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, and the Incentive School Coordinators including the Incentive School coordinator should work closely with the chairpersons of the Incentive, Bi-racial, and Trust Fund Committees to ensure compliance of the approved Tri-District plan. RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF DEVELOPMENT It is suggested that the staff at each Incentive School be hired by June 15, 1990. The building principal, teachers and other staff should complete the staff development plan including the Prejudice Reduction Inservice developed by the National Coalition Building Institute. This plan should be a deficiency removal program identifing resources for the alleviation of deficits. Every staff member should be required to participate in staff development activities. Staff development activities should be conducted within the two weeks preceding the beginning of the regular school year and should focus on activities and strategies which the entire staff will be working on during that school year. A progress meeting should be held twice in a nine week period to ensure that the program implementation is working. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS - STAFF COMPENSATION Since the interview process is well underway and court ordered deadlines are quickly approaching, the recommendations set forth by this committee should be reviewed and implemented as soon as possible. A clearly stated job description listing all responsibilities for persons employed in each job category should be prepared and distributed to all applicants. These applicants should be given a complete listing of compensation to be paid, schedule of payments, fringe benefits {district-paid or optional staff-paid} and examples of extra pay on the final monthly take home pay. The salary of the incentive school principal should be commensurate with the responsibility of the job. Each incentive school principal should select a lead teacher to assist in supervisory functions of the extended day and extended week programs. Lead teachers will be paid $25.00 per hour
the same hourly rate will apply for Saturday work. 6 Pay for the extended day should be commensurate with that of the homework center teacher. At the present time, homework teachers are paid $22.00 per hour and work three hours per day for four days per week. The same hourly rate will apply for Saturday work. We are recommending that consideration be given to placing all incentive school teachers on a 10 3/4 month contract or longer if needed. RECOMMENDATIONS - SCHOLARSHIPS The committee recommends that the scholarship program be funded with the lump-sum approach. The funds should be invested immediately. The committee recommends that all remaining fund be allocated to the Incentive Schools at the termination of the program. The Committee recommends that an external agent be contracted to serve as investment manager. The agent should be selected from the list submitted to the LRSD 4/2/90. Additional recommendations are listed in the subcommittee report on pp. 2-7. The Committee strongly endorses the selection of a member of the ISCP
:/:ot::h-,, :J~ j'~~l,I 7 RECOMMENDATIONS - BUILDING PLAN Closing any of the incentive schools would place an even greater burden on black children in Central Little Rock. They should to have the option of attending schools in their neighborhoods. However, if Ish School is closed for the 1990-91 school year while a replacement school is being built in the general proximity, we strongly recommend that the district provide transportation to student reassigned to Rightsell. We support the District's recommendation to close Garland and Stephens Schools at the end of the 1990-91 school year and build a new school at the old King site. However, we strongly recommend that the District provide transportation to reassign the Garland and Stephens students. Once these buildings are vacated, we strongly recommend that the District find suitable alternative educational/service uses immediately. The Black community should not be graced with another "eyesore" like Westside. 8 I I I I I 'I
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.