Correspondence

-zZ, >1,//-/.,,) EIVED LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 SOUTH BRYANT STREET JUL t 1 1993 TO: FROM: SUB J: DATE: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (501) 570-4020 72204 Offics n. :g3
icn '3 Ms. Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent, LRSD Mr. Chris Heller, Attorney, Friday, Eldredge & Clark Douglas C. Eaton, Director, Plant Services Attached After Action Report - Site Selection Process for Stephens Elementary School June 25, 1993 I am forwarding to you a copy of an informal After Action Report that I wrote concerning the Site Selection Process for Stephens Elementary School. As stated in my After Action Report, I am, of course, disappointed that the site that we recommended was not selected, but fully understand that this school must tie in to our desegregation efforts. I express to you my disappointment for a ninety-day delay in selecting a new site, or another site, to be presented to the Court. The delay of the Stephens Elementary School for the sole fact that all parties could not agree 100% on the site serves no purpose whatsoever in furthering desegregation within the Little Rock School District. Our Motion to the Court closely paralleled the concerns of the Pulaski County Special School District in tying together recruitment on the part of the Pulaski County Special School District and the inter-district school concept. Pulaski County's inabilities to successfully recruit to Romine Elementary School, their concern and apparent difficulty in recruiting to King Elementary School, and their stated further concerns about having to recruit to a third inter-district school should have been sufficient evidence for the parties to realize that we should not continue with a third inter-district school in the inner city for which recruitment strategies have evaluated, or appraised. not been clearly defined. I know that the matters expressed here are not directly related to my responsibilities to the District as a Director for Plant Services and Engineering but when I assumed the responsibility, for what it's worth, to assist in long-range planning, it brought into light matters for which I am concerned. I don't know what procedure or policies will be followed by the It parties It finding a new site, but as long as the misconception persists that the exact siting of that school is the sole factorPage Two Continued that leads to desegregation difficult time in success, we are selling our education programs. going to have a There are countless examples where site is not the determining factor, but that the education process is. I refuse to believe that Mann is a successful junior high because it is built next to an interstate in an industrial area. We must give credit to the academic program. If we don't, then how do we explain Carver Elementary or Williams Elementary? I feel that the County is running scared because they have no program from which to recruit, they've never been forced to provide a program to recruit, and now, when they may be held to task and there will be three (3) schools laid out in front of them and the Court to which they must recruit white children. other hand, On the our success in recruiting black children to County inter-district schools is a matter of record with regard to Crystal Hill. Whatever procedures we followed, I am sure we will follow again for the new elementary school. I don't know if my concerns will ever be surfaced officially, such that those that are making decisions will take these comments in the context in which they are offered. But anyway, I wrote this After Action Report to forward to you, and as may be noted below, I have forwarded a copy to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring for information purposes only. DCE/rlh/mpch Info, cc: Ann Brown, Chairman, Office of Desegregation MonitoringMEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUB J: DATE: Stephens Site Selection Committee After Action Report June 25, 1993 I am writing this as a follow-up after the Court appearance on 24 June regarding the Stephens site selection process. It is unfortunate in a way that the Federal Court has extended the construction of the Stephens School after such a tremendously diligent effort was exerted to find the best possible site for this school. However, I understand that the construction of this school must lead to, and assist, the Desegregation Plan if it is to be successful. With regard to the site selection process, I feel that the process used by the Little Rock School District, even though I was a major part in drafting the plan, was as fair and as unbiased a procedure as could be, and allowed the greatest opportunity for input from all parties in the final recommendation. To clarify unasked questions, but possible concerns on the part of the Federal Judge, I must commit to writing that the selection and nomination of members by name to the Site Selection Committee was done by the various parties. When the Strategic Plan was drafted, there were nine (9) parties which would comprise the Site Selection Committee, each party having one (1) vote. When one looks at the number of persons on the Committee, when it was first formed, you will notice a large number of persons assigned from the Little Rock School District. It was made known to all members of the Committee that their presence was not as a voting member, but to provide technical assistance and answers to any Committee Member regarding the multiplicity of operations in the Little Rock School District. Those members included representatives from operations, curriculum. communications, desegregation and school administration. It was made clear to all parties up front that each organization as represented from the original nine (9) had one (1) vote. The Little Rock School District had two (2) official representatives
myself as Technical Advisor, and Ms. Marie Parker, as the Little Rock School District Representative. V,__1 ________ '1 , ___ -- mine was to be as objective a teclinical different reasons We each got one (1) vote for evaluation as I can render based on my construction and planning background, and Ms. Parker's was to be with the consult of the Little Rock School District Administration as the School District's vote as to the site selection. As the process advanced, certain parties refused to participate, most notable were the Joshua Intervenors. After repeatedly being notified of the meetings, telephonically and in writing, they failed to participate in any way in the selection process. The final vote that was taken on 23 February was taken by those persons that actually visited the sites and cast votes. It is unfortunate that all parties were not represented, nor did all parties vote.Page 2 Continued In the final vote, the Pulaski County School District did not submit recommended site locations. Additionally, in the final vote, the Joshua Intervenors (who had not attended any meetings) failed to vote on any of the prescribed sites. Needless to say, those two (2) critical, missing votes could have very easily changed the final recommendation to the Board of Education and the critical. Court with regard to the site. I blame myself for failing to consider party apathy with regard to siting this school. Although it was clear and evident that certain members of the Site Selection Committee were predisposed, preferred sites before all were evaluated, the process had to or continue as objectively as possible, and without outside influence. If I am involved again the site selection process, I will have no other course of action but to follow the procedures established during the first process. that 1 and equitable, and to I believe these to be fair include the widest range of concerns. aspects, and points which must be considered in the location of such a vital element in today's community. DCE/rlh/aare/e^. Attn. Ann A Brown JUL 2 1993 Little Rock School District Desegregation Office O.*
o Dei i'ega^on Mcni 201 E. Markham Heritage West Building Suite 510 Little Rock, AR. 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am writing this correspondence in behalf of the Chicot Elementary P.T.A. (representing staff and parents) We have monitored capital needs to our school for the past few years. We have tried to the best of our ability to maintain the upkeep of our facility. However it is impossible to prevent the wear and tear on certain items when serving a large number of pupils daily. Our carpet throughout the school is in desperate need of repair. We are requesting your assistance school is in desperate need of repair. We are requesting your assistance on a special project of work toward recarpeting on our entire building. We appreciate the financial commitment you have given us throughout the years. Please let us know at what capacity you can help us. We will be eagerly awaiting your ponse. ir.cerely. Tina Gatson Chicot Elementary PTA Chairman d.o.Q-^r OOa/I Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: July 6, 1993 To: Mark Milhollen, Controller Little Rock School District Froin:/^^-^olly Ramer Throi nn Brown Subject: June Payroll Reimbursement Enclosed you will find check number 584 in the amount of $4439654, payroll reimbursement for the month of June. The breakdown follows: $40359.86 3,08756 949.12 Salaries Social Seciuity Insurance $4439654 Total12 F: Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: July 6, 1993 To: Mark Milhollen, Controller Little Rock School District Fromt/^^-^Polly Ramer Throi nn Brown Subject: June Payroll Reimbursement Enclosed you will find check number 584 in the amount of $4439654, payroll reimbursement for the month of June. The breakdown follows: $40359.86 3,08756 949.12 Salaries Social Security Insurance $4439654 Total & '! Little Rock School District * July 12, 1993 Mr. Chris Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 1st Commercial Bank, Suite 2000 Capitol and Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chris: RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1993 0ffic3 of Desegregation Mciiitoring I am sending this as an interim status report to keep you abreast of our progress with regard to the Junior High Capacity Study. As you know, the Little Rock School District's Capacity Study was submitted in September of 1992, and a subsequent request made by the Court to expand on issues identified in the Study in particular, the effect of M to M Transfers and programmatic needs
and. to add points of consideration regarding capacities and projections in both the North Little Rock and Pulaski County School Districts. As of this consisting of date. myself
I have put together a Capacity Committee Ms. Marie Parker, Office of Student Assignments
Mr. Ed Hogan
and, Mr. Billy Boles from Pulaski County School District
Mr. Jerry Massey
and, Ms. Mabel Bynum from North Little Rock. Our Committee has met three (3) times. Our first Committee Meeting was to lay down the basics of understanding with regard to how we interpreted the May Court Order with regard to the desires of the Court in the Capacity Study. Questions were raised as to whether or not the Capacity Study had implications with regard to North Little Rock and Pulaski County, and what those implications would- be. For our second meeting. we invited members of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring who brought together the thoughts of the Court with regard to how the Capacity Study should cross district lines to show inter-relationship and dependency on schools in order to support the desegregation effort. For our third meeting, at Pulaski County, we invited members of North Little Rock and Joshua Intervenors. The Joshua Intervenors failed to attend. During that meeting, we discussed the 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (SODST-t-sdei Page Two Continued We arrived at the fact that be, methodology of calculating capacity. capacity is not calculated the same through all Districts, nor need be. It was explained that the method of calculation of capacity by the District need only be used by that District, and be explainable within the context of the Capacity Study. There is no requirement for capacity to be computed identically, as long as a parallel can be drawn between capacity and projections among the Districts. Our next meeting is scheduled for 15 July. At that meeting, both North Little Rock and Pulaski County are to have their narratives complete, explaining the methodology of calculations, their projections, at least through the year 2000, a chart aligning their projections with the capacities, and a summary as to their plans to either increase junior highs, or to retain the status quo. their information, and that which I submitted in September, w wxxi put together a .final summary specifically addressing the areas of interdependency at the junior high level of the schools to support the desegregation effort. explaining the methodology of From we will I will keep you abreast of our progress once that meeting has been completed and, hopefully, we should have a Court submission within the next sixty (60) days. Sincerely, Ddu s C. Eaton RECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/ch cc: Ms. Ann Brown., Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Estelle Mathis, Acting Superintendent Mr. Ed Hogan, Pulaski County Special School District Mr. Jerry Massey, North Little Rock School DistrictS -f'- To: From: Re: Date: Judge Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 0**^ '753 " n >.i JUL 2 2 1993 Mr. John Walker, Attorney Mr. Stephen Jones, Attorney Mr. Richard Rochelle, Attorney Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorne ,'ro Stephen Interdistrict School Site Selection Process July 21, 1993 Wright recessed the hearings in June regarding the site selection process. Our instructions were to conduct another process whereby the parties, parents from the current Stephens area, parents from the Pulaski County School District and administrators from all school districts could be involved to see whether a consensus could be reached on a site for the Stephens Interdistrict School. The Board of Directors of the LRSD has met to discuss this process and has instructed me to communicate with you to ensure that full participation is achieved. The timeframe is short, therefore, we must start immediately. Please recall that the court has already scheduled a hearing for September 30, 1993, should the parties not reach a consensus. The task of the committee to be discussed below is simple, committee must receive wide-input regarding proposed sites for the The school
assess and evaluate each of the proposed sites
and make a recommendation to the LRSD Board of Directors. Board will Thereafter, the LRSD have the opportunity to either accept the recommendation, reject or make appropriate modification. the opportunity to The LRSD has deterained that the committee should consist of nine (9) individuals evenly split among representatives of PCSSD, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Further, the committee should be composed of parents or patrons of the various districts who did not participate in the first site selection committee. The idea behind this criteria is that this committee should not be tainted with the determination reached by the prior committee. This is not to say that those persons who participated in the prior process should not be allowed to provide input and have appropriate involvement. Further, although the parties are free to select their own representatives as they see fit, it is strongly recommended that Attorneys July 21, 1993 Page 2 the PCSSD select parents from the target zones of recruitment and that the LRSD select at least two parents from the present Stephens School. John Riggs has agreed to serve as a non-voting chairperson of the His role will be to organize meetings, fcn_ili___ discussion and ensure that necessary resources are obtained. Mr. Billy Bowles of the PCSSD and Mr. Doug Eaton of the LRSD could committee. facilitate Mr. serve as consultants to the committee to answer questions relating to recruitment, facility construction or related areas within their fields of expertise. To allow the committee to complete its work, LRSD Board action and the a report to the court in time for the September 30 deadline, the committee must have its work completed and submitted to the LRSD Board in time for inclusion on a special agenda for a September 9 Board Meeting. Specifically, the order issued by Judge Wright on July 1, 1993, mandates that the parties must, in the event no consensus is reached, file their alternative proposals on a site no later than Wednesday, September 15, 1993. To accomplish its task under the scenario outlined above, it is suggested that the committee meet on at least three (and possibly four occasions). The tentative meeting dates and times are as follows: (1) Tuesday, July 27, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (2) Tuesday, August 10, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (3) Tuesday, August 24, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. (4) Tuesday, September 7, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. It is suggested that either the 10th committee could take or 24th of August, a tour of the suggested locations, meetings themselves would take place in the LRSD Board Room, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR. the The At the initial meeting of the committee (July 27), the attorneys for all of the parties (LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, Joshua Intervenors and Knight Intervenors) would be requested to present the committee withan explanation, either in person or by written communication, stating the pui^ose of the interdistrict school and outlining the agreed upon criteria to be used to select a site for the school. The remaining time could be used to discuss the criteria and, P^lllriarily, possible sites. Time at the second meeting could also be devoted to further refinement of the criteria and further development of the list of sites. At the second or third meeting.Attorney July 21, 1993 Page 3 a field trip could also be taken to all of the possible locations identified. The final meeting should involve further discussion of sites, ranking of the various sites identified and a vote on the recommendation to be made to the LRSD Board. in the interest of time, the above process has been outlined to facilitate timely completion of our task. However, all parties and committee members are free to voice any and all concerns, make any and all recommendations and develop any and all procedures deemed reasonable and appropriate to increase the likelihood that consensus will be reached. Accordingly, I am hereby requesting that all recipients of this letter notify me within three working days of receipt of your initial concerns regarding the process as outlined. Otherwise, we will deem this process acceptable and will expect to see each of you and your selected representatives at the meeting on July 27, 1993. Sam Jones and Joy Springer.) (I have already spoken to Mr. Walker, By copy of this letter, I am notifying Mr. Sammy Mills and Mr. Foster Strong of our plans and request that they assist in securing two parents from the current Stephens School to the committee. I am also requesting that they stand ready to provide any and all assistance desired by the committee, there are others they feel should be a part of this process, I would request they provide notification to those persons. serve on If Thank each of you in advance for your kind attention to this matter, future. I look forward to hearing from you in the very near c: Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Billy Bowles Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Samuel Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Charles Johnson Mr. Frank Baugh Mrs. Ann Brown / Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred UrseryTo: From: Re: Date: Judge .< >. t J /
/ / Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 5! W -J " J t' JUL 2 2 J993 Mr. John Walker, Attorney Mr. Stephen Jones, Attorney Mr. Richard Rochelle, Attorney Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorne Stephen Interdistrict School Site Selection Process July 21, 1993 Wright recessed the hearings in June regarding the site selection process. Our instructions were to conduct another process whereby the parties, parents from the current Stephens area. parents from the Pulaski County School District administrators from all school districts could be involved and to see whether a consensus could be reached on a site for the Stephens Interdistrict School. The Board of Directors of the LRSD has met to discuss this process and has instructed me to communicate with you to ensure that full participation is achieved. The timeframe is short, therefore, we must start immediately. Please recall that the court has already scheduled a hearing for September 30, 1993, should the parties not reach a consensus. The task of the committee to be discussed below is simple, committee must receive wide-input regarding proposed sites for the The school
assess and evaluate each of the proposed sites
and make a recommendation to the LRSD Board of Directors. Board will Thereafter, the LRSD have the opportunity to either accept recommendation, reject or make appropriate modification. the The ^SD has determined that the committee should consist of nine (9) individuals evenly split among representatives of PCSSD, the LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. Further, the committee should be composed of parents or patrons of the various districts who did not participate in the first site selection committee. The idea behind this criteria is that this committee should not be tainted with the determination reached by the prior committee. This is not to say that those persons who participated in the prior process should not be allowed to provide input and have appropriate involvement. Further, although the parties are free to select their own representatives as they see fit, it is strongly recommended that Attorneys July 21, 1993 Page 2 the PCSSD select parents from the target zones of recruitment and that the LRSD select at least two parents from the present Stephens School. John Riggs has agreed to serve as a non-voting chairperson of the His role will be to organize meetings, fa>_il' discussion and ensure that necessary resources are obtained. Billy Bowles of the PCSSD and Mr. Doug Eaton of the LRSD could committee. facilitate Mr. serve as consultants to the committee to answer questions relating to recruitment, facility construction or related areas within their fields of expertise. To allow the committee to complete its work, LRSD Board action and a report to the court in time for the September 30 deadline, the committee must have its work completed and submitted to the LRSD the Board in time for inclusion on a special agenda for a September 9 Board Specifically, the order issued by Judge Wright on July 1, 1993, mandates that the parties must, in the event no consensus is reached, file their alternative proposals on a site no later than Wednesday, September 15, 1993. Meeting. To accomplish its task under the scenario outlined above, it is suggested that the committee meet on at least three (and possibly four occasions). The tentative meeting dates and times are as follows: The tentative meeting dates and times (1) (2) (3) (4) Tuesday, July 27, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 10, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 24, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, September 7, 1993 - 5:30 p.m. It is suggested that either the 10th committee could take or 24 th of August, the a tour of the suggested locations, meetings themselves would take place in the LRSD Board Room, 810 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR. The At the initial meeting of the committee (July 27), the attorneys for all of the parties (LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD, Joshua Intervenors and Knight Intervenors) would be requested to present the committee with an explanation, either in person or by written communication, stating the purpose of the interdistrict school and outlining the agreed upon criteria to be used to select a site for the school. The remaining time could be used to discuss the criteria and, preliminarily, possible sites. Time at the second meeting could also be devoted to further refinement of the criteria and further development of the list of sites. At the second or third meeting.Attorney July 21, 1993 Page 3 a field trip could also be taken to all of the possible locations identified. The final meeting should involve further discussion of sites, ranking of the various sites identified and a vote on the recommendation to be made to the LRSD Board. In the interest of time, the above process has been outlined to facilitate timely completion of our task. However, all parties and committee members are free to voice any and all concerns, make any and all recommendations and develop any and all procedures deemed reasonable and appropriate to increase consensus will be reached. the likelihood that Accordingly, I am hereby requesting that all recipients of this letter notify me within three working daysof receipt of your initial concerns regarding the process as Otherwise, we will deem this process acceptable and will outlined. expect to see each of you and your selected representatives at the meeting on July 27, 1993. ' . . . Sam Jones and Joy Springer.) (I have already spoken to Mr. Walker, By copy of this letter. I am notifying Mr. Sammy Mills and Mr. Foster Strong of our plans and request that they assist in securing two parents from the current Stephens School to serve on the committee. I am also requesting that they stand ready to provide any and all assistance desired by the committee. there are others they feel should be a part of this process, I would request they provide notification to those persons. If Thank each of you in advance for your kind attention to this matter, future. I look forward to hearing from you in the very near c: Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Joy Springer Billy Bowles Doug Eaton Samuel Mills Foster Strong Charles Johnson Frank Baugh Mrs. Ann Brown < Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery> Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 IF!?., ii D 1 11 2 3 1993 To: Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney From: Re: Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdistrict Magnet School - Recruitment Date: July 21, 1993 This letter is written to you in your capacity as the attorney for the Pulaski County Special School District. The recruitment of white students from the PCSSD to the new King School is crucial to both districts. The obligations imposed on both parties under the interdistrict plan will, hopefully, enable us to be successful in that effort. I have been advised that the PCSSD is in the process of sending letters/brochures to the parents of the PCSSD. It is my understanding that those letters/brochures will only go to targeted parents. In consultation with representatives from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, it has been concluded that if the PCSSD mailing will be so limited, the PCSSD is not taking full advantage of the opportunity available to maximize the recruitment effort. Accordingly, this letter is written to encourage the PCSSD to consider sending those letters and brochures to the parents of all eligible white students in the PCSSD. This will probably only limit those attending Fuller Elementary School. Additionally, I have been advised that the principal at each elementary school in PCSSD make a referral to the next closest school when a student cannot be accepted in his/her closest school. By encouraging those principals to familiarize themselves with the offerings at the new King school, keeping sufficient brochures on hand and making referrals to that school when appropriate, it is believed that the PCSSD could significantly improve its current recruitment results.Mr. Sam Jones July 19, 1993 Page 2 The LRSD stands ready to play an appropriate role in this process. In fact, the LRSD has already scheduled activities and is well under way in its recruitment activities. your thoughts, comments or concerns. together to resolve any major stumbling blocks. Please let us know of Hopefully, we can work Please let me hear from you after you have had an opportunity to review this matter and discuss it with your client. Thank you in advance for your kind attention to and consideration of this matter. JLM:nr c: Mrs. Estelle Matthis / Mrs. Ann Brown Mrs. Sadie Mitchell Mr. Steve Jones Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Rochelle Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery^SCBsVSD AUS 4 1993 Office of u ^'QuuGii Mcniic'ing LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: July 22, 1993 To: Board of Directors From: Sterling Ingramy'Director Planning, Research^ and Evaluation Through: Estelle MatthisS Interim Superintendent Re: Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report As requested in the agenda meeting, I am providing a progress report relative to the Desegregation Plan Audit. I am available to answer your questions. bjgNashville Mailing Address P.O. Box 121114 Nashville. Tennessee 37212-1114 Telecopier (61S) 259-4668 Jack, Lyon & Jones, p.a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW *11 MUSIC CIRCLE SOUTH NASHVILLE. TENNESSEE 37203 (615) 259-4664 July 27, 1993 RECEJVED Little Rock Office 3400 TC BY Tower 425 West CapHol Avenue Linie flock. Arkansas 72201-3472 (501)375-1122 Jerry L. Malone, Esq. Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 JUL 2 9 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring RE: Stephens' Interdistrict School Site Selection Process Dear Jerry: I am in receipt of your memorandum of July 21, 1993 regarding the new site selection process for the Stephens' Interdistrict School. In your memo, you indicate that the site selection team should be limited to representatives of the PCSSD, LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors. to the Stephens School, While the NLRSD will not be sending students it is a party to the litigation, settlement agreement and the District's respective plans. the As a result, the NLRSD is vitally interested in the ultimate success of the new Stephens School as an interdistrict magnet. While we will defer to the LRSD's decision as to who should serve on the Site Selection Committee, we do want the parties to be aware of the NLRSD's position. Without belaboring the obvious, the overriding purpose of LRSD interdistrict schools, including Stephens, is to attract white students to inner city Little Rock areas in order to create an integrated educational environment. Given this overriding goal, the NLRSD believes that the ability to recruit white students to the new Stephens School is of paramount importance and is. in effect. a consideration of other site selection factors. condition precedent to the This did not appear to be the case with respect to the previous site selection process. and we are pleased that a new effort is being made. the result will be a site the District is able to support. Hopefully, SWJ:tc cc: James Smith Christopher J. Heller, Ann Brown John W. Walker, Esq. Samuel Jones, Esq. Very truly yours. Stephen W. Jones Esq. Little Rock School District Attorney Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street RECEIVED Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 29 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring MEMORANDUM FAX 376-9442 U.S. MAIL To: Mr. Sam Jones, Attorney From: erry L. Malone, Attorney Re: Stephens Interdistrict School Site Selection Process Date: July 27, 1993 On Friday, July 16, 1993, I spoke to you by telephone and informed you of the meeting which would be held on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, regarding the site selection process. 1993, By a memo dated July 21, I informed you and the other interested parties of the proposed process and the planned meeting schedule. I have now received word that Billy Bowles might not be able to attend because of a conflict with the special budget meeting being held tonight. It is also my understanding that the parent repre- sentatives of the PCSSD may not be able to attend tonight's meeting either. In light of the above, I would request that the PCSSD provide written comments which can be reviewed by all of the persons who received a copy of my initial memo. By doing so, it is my hope that we can remain on schedule and be prepared to discuss those comments at the August 10 meeting. written comments are received the better. Accordingly, the earlier those Please keep in mind that the above is merely a suggestion. If you and your client have a better procedure whereby subsequent comment can be provided between now and the second meeting, please act accordingly. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.Mr. Sam Jones July 27, 1993 Page 2 c: Mr. John Walker Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Richard Rochelle Mr. John Riggs Mrs. Estelle Matthis Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Sammy Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Charles Johnson Mr. Frank Baugh i/Mrs. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred UrseryTo: From: Re: Date: As per efrotStSr Little Rock School District Stephens School Site Selection Committee John Riggs, LRSD Board of Directors Site Selection Process July 28, 1993 the schedule of activities. RECBIV5D AUG 4 1993 OHice of Desegregation Monitoring the Stephens School Site Selection Committee met at the LRSD Administration Building on Tuesday, July 27, 1993, from 5:30 p.m. until 7 p.m. persons were in attendance: The following As 1. 2. 3 . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. John Riggs, LRSD Board Member Jerry L. Malone, LRSD Attorney Ms. Melanie Gibson, LRSD Parent (Rockefeller Incentive School) Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. Sam Jones, PCSSD Attorney Paul Evans, PCSSD Administrator Debbie Parker, Joshua Intervenors Charles Johnson, LRSD - Stephens School Ms. Connie Hickman, Office of Desegregation Monitoring evident. the Committee is not yet Accordingly, the representatives from LRSD, fully PCSSD, formulated, and Joshua Inteirvenors were strongly encouraged to identify and recruit additional parents to serve on the committee. each party Please recall that IS requested to have three parents serve committee to allow for a total of nine (9) voting members. on the Upon opening the meeting, I served as non-voting chair, provided an overview on how this committee came to be. prior committee
the selection submitted I made reference to the to the court
the objections raised by PCSSD, NLRSD, and Joshua Intervenors
and the formation of the current committee. It was clearly explained that the intent was for this committee to have as much leeway as possible and not to be improperly influenced by the work and decision of the prior committee. encouraged to avoid the tendency to think in a "box." All present were Rather, each should bring his/her "wild" ideas so all available opportunities can be fully explored. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 Stephens School Site Committee July 28, 1993 Page 2 Sam Jones and Jerry Malone both provided their thoughts concerning the interdistrict school concept and purpose. Mr. Jones stated that it was his belief that the sole purpose for the interdistrict schools was to allow for one district to send, over a period of time, close to 50 percent of the students needed to populate the interdistrict school. As such, LRSD interdistrict schools would remain slightly majority black and PCSSD interdistrict schools would remain slightly majority white. Mr. Malone commented that the interdistrict schools were also intended to be constructed in such a way to reduce the busing burden imposed on LRSD black students
compensate those students providing high-quality facilities
in incentive schools by and allow incentive school children to experience desegregated educational opportunities. It was also pointed out that the busing burden on black students is of great concern to the court. Additionally, since the incentive school are far from being integrated, interdistrict schools would, hopefully, allow more incentive school students to attend the interdistrict schools, thereby, creating room for recruitment in the incentive schools. It was suggested that the committee structure this selection process whereby consensus could be gained regarding which location held the most promise for recruiting PCSSD white students. Thereafter, a determination could be made regarding the perceived impact on the present Stephen's attendance zone students. vigorous objection was raised to such a format. However, In particular, it was noted that the introduction to the interdistrict desegregation plan states that it the physical movement of bodies. "is insufficient to establish as a single goal 11 It was also pointed out that location was not the only factor to consider when addressing recruitment strategies. highlighted as examples. Washington Magnet and Carver Magnet were The committee was also advised that the court had made very positive comments regarding the process used by the prior committee. That process took all of the critical factors into account by ranking them equally. That process took all of the critical factors A brief discussion was had regarding a vacant lot near 1-30 and Roosevelt Road (across from Mann Junior High). The PCSSD expressed its position that it would be easy to recruit to a school located at that site. However, it was pointed out that the Interdistrict Plan recognizes that both PCSSD and LRSD must engage in "early, rigorous and sustained recruitment efforts." "Easy" recruitment II Easy II can not be the sole consideration, since both Carver and Washington serve as examples that people will come when the right packages are put in place. Ms. Gibson, thereafter, commented that vigorous recruitment and advertising would be of tremendous benefit in attracting parents toStephens Site Selection Committee July 28, 1993 Page 3 the school. She further noted that the "magnet" designation is an important draw for most parents. with quality programming, The term has become synonymous recruitment process. a very important variable in the She equated this with the quality programs available at Rockefeller Incentive School which served to recruit and retain families in the District. When asked what was the most important reason for her to remain after discovery of the school and its programs, Ms. Gibson responded that it was "the attention given to my son." In other words, the staff/personnel at the school play the critical role in providing the type of environment (or package) parents are seeking. Since the interdistrict schools. like incentive schools. are to have quality programs and dedicated staff, it was suggested that marketing/recruitment would be the primary consideration once the programs and staff are put in place, becomes a secondary consideration. At that point, location Some mention was made of possible sites west of University Avenue. It was pointed out that this would bring another factor into play. Namely, there has been concern regarding the lack of adequate capacity for those black students living east of University Avenue. To build additional capacity west of University could exacerbate this concern. Prior to adjourning, those present were encouraged to consider possible sites to visit and to remember the need to fully compose the committee. As per the request, attached hereto are copies of the attendance zone for the current Stephens School. The next meeting of the committee is set for August 10, 1993, at 5:30 p.m. in the LRSD Administration Building (the Board Room may not be available). Please make every effort to attend and provide all available information and input. Those who will not be able to attend are encouraged to provide written comments and submit suggestions prior to the meeting dates. Any such comments can be sent to me for distribution to the committee members. Thanks. Enclosure - Stephens Attenda: c: Distribution List e ZoneStephens Site Selection Committee July 28, 1993 Page 4 Distribution List Ms. Debbie Parks Ms. Melanie Gibson Mr. Sam Jones Mr. Charles Johnson Ms. Connie Hickman Tanner Mr. Paul L. Evans Mr. Jerry L. Malone Mr. Billy Bowles Mr. John Walker Mr. Richard Rochelle Ms. Joy Springer Mr. Doug Eaton Mr. Sammy Mills Mr. Foster Strong Mr. Steve Jones Mr. Frank Baugh >^Mrs. Ann Brown Mr. Chris Heller Mr. Fred Ursery122 P02 SEP 03 93 13:08 DATE
TO
FROM
SUBJEC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 MEMORANDUM July 29, 1993 A k Estelle Mathis, Interim Superintendent, LRSD WtA^ilala Daggett, Community Education :T:^- 93-94 Budget Cuts Thank you for requesting my input and for your willingness to negotiate regarding the amount of cuts in the Community Education 93-94 budget. As I explained over the phone, wo have planned our 93-94 programs in relation to our originally budgeted amount of $220,000. For that reason, I wanted to talk with the CE staff to determine whether or not we would need to cut progreuns if we cut $50,000 as you requested. I reported to you that we could probably make it fine if the cuts ranged from $30,000-$40,000. However, we discovered just yesterday afternoon that about $14,000 worth of purchase orders approved in 92-93 have been charged to our 93-94 budget. I have spoken with Mark Milhollen regarding these charges, and he assured me as did you that you all would cover us on these shortfalls. I appreciate your support. cc: McClellan Community High School Advisory Council Jodie Carter, McClellan PrincipalCopy filed - LRSD -Budgeting Process Report filed in library LRSD - Report FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT. P.A. WILLIAM H, SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A. JOE D. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK 5. URSERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR., P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM IM. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS.P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER, P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST, JR., P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER, P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH, P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER, P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III, P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY, P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 501-376-201 1 FAX NO. 501-376-2147 July 29, 1993 received KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR.. P.A. CLYDE TAB' TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL, P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR., P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND, JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH, P.A. GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H . MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M.GRAF PAMELA D. PERCEFULL CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. JUL 3 0 1993 COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A. B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. WHITER'S DIRECT NO. Office of Desegregation Monitoring (501) 370-1 553 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. .1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re : Little Rock School District vs. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, et al
U.S.D.C. No. LR-C-82-866 Gentlemen and Ms. Brown: Enclosed please find a copy of the long-range planning program and budgeting document being submitted to the Court pursuant to its June 15, 1993 Order.I Mr. John Walker, Mr. Sam Jones, Mr. Steve Jones, Mr. Richard Roachell, Ms. Ann Brown July 29, 1993 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely yours, Jerry L. Malone JLM/lwg Enclosures cc: Ms. Estelle Matthis Mr. Sterline Ingram Mr. Mark Milhollen Ms. Marie Parkert Mr. John Walker, Mr. Sam Jones, Mr. Steve Jones, Mr. Richard Roachell, Ms. Ann Brown July 29, 1993 Page 3 bcc: CJH FSU'B'J to
FROM
SUBJECT
little rock SCHOOL DISTRICT MARKHAM LITTI^'^OCK, ARKANSAS January 4, 1993 All Building principals and Department Mac Bernd, Super new policies find two intendent of a Lf k.f, . JAN 1 2 159,5 -i'rejaron ill j-r- Heads Schools C new policies Note also relating to that the the manner _ in Board will S?ch"Je conduct an agenda revi committee Meeting onth (at 5 p.m. ) meeting will continue of each conduct is now eliminated. to be a-i- P m. on Please dispose these two insert - . . of the policies new policies they replace. in your policy manual andEPS CODE: BDDB ADOPTED: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDB SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools. The method used by the Superintendent to establish the Board agenda must provide an opportunity for the Board members to voice objections or add items. The agenda will contain only those items introduced by the Board members and Superintendent. Only items scheduled in the agenda will be acted upon in a regular Board meeting unless a suspension of the rules is agreed to in compliance with Policy BDDEB (Suspension of the Rules of Order). The order of business at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Call to Order Roll Call Minutes Presentations A. B. C. D. Superintendent Citizens Committees Board Members Partnerships Remarks From Citizens Action Agenda Report Agenda Consent Agenda Audience with Individuals or Groups Student and/or Employee Disciplinary Recommendations Adj ournment Persons wishing to address the Board during the "Remarks from Citizens" section of the agenda will be required to sign up and state the subject of their remarks prior to the convening of the meeting. The Board may vote to set time limitations or require representatives to speak for large groups whose interests are similar. Persons speaking about issues on the agenda for Board action will be given priority during the "Remarks from Citizens" section. If additional time is required for or employee remarks or if there is a large delegation wishing to address a single issue not on the agenda, the Board may vote to defer their comments to the "Audience with Individuals or Groups" complete the pending agenda in a timely manner. section in order toEPS CODE: BDDC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ADOPTED: 12/18/92 REPLACES OR REVISES POLICY: BDDC PREPARATION OF SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA An agenda for each regular meeting of the Board of Directors shall be prepared by the Superintendent of Schools in the following manner: On the second Thursday of each month the Board of Directors will meet to review the agenda topics proposed by the Superintendent of Schools for that month's regular Board meeting on the fourth Thursday During the agenda review meeting Board members will have the opportunity to place items on the agenda and will decide whether items will be on the action agenda, report agenda, or consent agenda. At the conclusion of the agenda review meeting, the agenda will contain only those topics introduced by either the Superintendent or members of the Board of Directors. The Board will strive to keep its regularly scheduled meetings on the second and fourth Thursday of each month
however, for good cause, the Board may move any regularly scheduled date to another date agreed to by a majority vote of the Board. The Superintendent will have the agenda and the appropriate background materials printed and delivered to the Board members at least two days prior to the regular Board meeting.John w. walker, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 3744187 Si & FEB 2 1993 JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER. JR. * Also admitted to Practice in Georgia Si the District of Columbia. =1 mg February 1, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Bernd: I would like to have the names, addresses, telephone numbers and race of all the members of the advisory committee on budget about which you spoke this afternoon. I would also like to have a copy of their minutes of each meeting held thus far along with their agenda and any reports they have made today. I would like to pick this information up by the end of business on February 2, 1993. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, John W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: Ms. Ann Brown Mr. Christopher Heller Mr. Richard Roachell /. . rOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brawn, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: February 3,1993 To: From: Marie Parker, Associate Superintendent Little Rock School District Bob Morgan, Associate Monitor Subject: Crystal Hill Chronology Attached is a chronology of PCSSD building Crystal Hill Elementary. I thought it might be informative. If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to call. cc: Mac Bernd3/30/90 5/1/91 8/16/91 9/17/91 9/30/91 10/8/91 PCSSD CRYSTAL HILL SCHOOL MAJOR EVENT CHRONOLOGY Architects hired - Plans and specs developed May 1 revisions to plans - Biracial site selection committee formed Site selection made - Offer extended on property NLR Planning Commission recommends against site NLR City Board in special meeting approves site Board votes to issue second lien bonds for construction 11/21/91 Contractors bidding notified of time constraints and warned no customary "act of god" provision 12/5/91 Bids due in to PCSSD 12/9/91 Board reviewed bids - Voted to close by 12\ 18 & let bid 12/18 12/18/92 Site purchase closed - Bids let for construction 1/16/92 Draft of letter on theme sent to committee 1/20/92 Committee meeting to discuss theme 2/04/92 Official public groundbreaking 2/13/92 Motion for magnet designation 2/17/92 Theme survey results compiled 2/18/92 Proposed attendance zones announced to parents at Oak Grove meeting 3/5/92 School 30 % complete - Bond sale in jeopardy because of bad credit - District court grants magnet designation 4/1/92 Principal for Crystal Hill hired 4/27/92 Asst principal hired 5/5/92 Successful millage election 5/7/92 Bonds successfully sold 5/14/92 Meeting of teachers for Crystal Hill 7/20/92 400 seats from Maumelle & Crystal Hill area filled 8/1/92 PCSSD assumes "beneficial occupancy" of buildingLittle Rock School District 7 4 S February 5, 1993 FEB 1 1 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor 201 East Markham Suite 510 Office of Oessgr
mg Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I have appreciated your help and support as all of us work hard to improve the Little Rock School District. I also am concerned about carrying out the orders of the desegregation plan. Court with regard to Because of my concern about this issue, our I would sincerely appreciate your sending me the instrumentation which you will be using for future monitoring activities. I am making this request so that the District can better follow the desegregation plan and maintain its focus on this vitally important issue. I would certainly appreciate receipt of these instruments as soon as possible so we may use them in conjunction with our own compliance efforts. We have appreciated your past cooperation in this regard and apologize for any possible duplication, but we would like to have a complete set of past instruments as well complete file of all of these documents. we may have a Sincerely, so Mac Bernd Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 7220L (501)324-2000 T ij e Ma r 0 2 11:54 1 = P . -s e CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK A FARTNEaSHn OF INDIVIDUALS AND FHOFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAFITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 Tcltphone (501) 376-2011 Fk No, (501) 375-2147 Diicet No. 370-1506 MEMORANDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR, MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a repon about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that" [i]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances." Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plais presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistrict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Court since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation plan. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan, In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: "(1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations." On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that "the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites" and ordered the Little Rock School District to "submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled "LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2ue Mar 11 : -i 1 : Court alsonotified the Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher 4^i.^u*AVt Wi4b T vv*x*-* uiau 111U.5XV UCaVAlVl positionsn^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year "will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Court and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern "about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson)." The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward "other issues of concern to the Court". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared, all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3Mar 02 11:54 1 9 93 P a e There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review e effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continuing concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case. 4Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 17, 1993 Dr. Mac Bernd Superintendent 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mae Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1993, which I received on February 11, 1993. As you requested. Im enclosing copies of monitoring information 1 provided last fall. If you should need additional copies of any ODM monitoring reports, which I have routinely furnished all parties, please let me know. I share your concerns about the importance of the districts carrying out the desegregation plan and related court orders. Thats why I place such emphasis upon communication and understanding, and why my staff and 1 spend a great deal of time trying to promote both those processes in the spirit of helpfulness and support. As a matter of fact, since last July when you became superintendent, my staff and 1 have had more than 30 meetings with your administrators to discuss ODMs monitoring. The implications of the December 30, 1992 Court Order, which deals with the impact of the LRSD budget cuts, have been the subject of some of ose discussions. Over the months, weve also covered many other topics, including ODM monitoring priorities, instruments, methods, and findings
the incentive schools
early childhood programs
the Biracial Committees
the McClellan magnet program
incentive school staffing needs assessment
the alternative school
the Academic Support Program
the Four- Year-Old Longterm Plan
counseling services and state counseling standards
the budget process and budgeting cuts
the aerospace magnet school and grant
and the King assignment zones and theme selection process. In addition to the many in-person meetings, there have been countless phone calls exchanged between members of my staff and yours about these same topics and many others. You are also well aware of the numerous conversations that Chris Heller and I have engaged in, as have you and 1.Page Two February 17, 1993 Moreover, to promote accuracy and to minimize the chance of "surprises," we routinely review our written monitoring reports with district administrators before filing them with the Court and releasing them to the press and the public, judge Wright has also taken steps to ensure the best use of the time and resources of us all, issuing a scheduling order prior to hearings so the parties and counsel can fully prepare for the subjects to be covered. I also try to help you and your colleagues anticipate what to expect at hearings. Prior to the last hearing, 1 repeatedly emphasized to you, Chris, and others that the Court would have many hard questions about the status of the LRSD budgeting process and junior high capacities. 1 also stressed that, since Judge Wright does not engage in ex parte communication, she would likely pose questions on other topics related to her Orders of May, November, and December 1992. There is no secret or mystery about how ODM monitors. My staff and 1 frequently discuss our monitoring priorities, methods, and findings in both formal and informal meetings with district personnel. Also, 1 recap the ODM monitoring approach in the introductory section of each ODM report. As 1 stated in my October 15, 1992 letter, which listed ODMs 1992-93 monitoring priorities, our monitoring is based on the desegregation plans, court orders and directives, and any "unforeseen events" related to ODMs charge. A recent order is one of those unforeseen events to which ODM is now responding. As you know from the last court date, judge Wrights December 30, 1992 Order will be the subject of a hearing to be scheduled soon. To explain ODMs response to that Order and what you can expect at the hearing, 1 will briefly summarize information that has appeared in my previous letters, memos, and reports about ODMs monitoring approach: All our monitoring relates to the districts settlement agreements, court orders, the judges directives, and state requirements. The monitoring instruments (or "guides" as we call them) used in long term monitoring are based directly on desegregation plan and order language. The introduction to ODMs June 5, 1992 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report details ODMs systematic approach to a long term monitoring project and the three main information sources we use: written information, interviews, and observation. In short term or "status" monitoring, which takes place within a short time period, we do not create a special monitoring instrument
instead, as explained in the introduction to the October 8,1992 McClellan Status Report, ODMs investigation is guided by plan provisions and court orders that pertain most directly to the subject being scrutinized. We also rely on the same three main information categories: written sources, interviews, and observation. (The distinction between a long term monitoring report and a short term status report is clearly defined in the McClellan report.) Given the short timeline we have for monitoring the December 30, 1992 Order, ODM is presently conducting a status type investigation, as we did with McClellan last fall, using the specific language of the Order, the desegregation plans, and state standards to guide our monitoring. Also because of the brief time period, instead of publishing a written report, we will present our findings during the hearing scheduled for that purpose.Page Three Februaiy 17, 1993 By analyzing the December 30, 1992 Order and reviewing our previous monitoring reports, you and your staff will be able to anticipate the focus of our current monitoring and how we are going about it. Heres an example that, while not exhaustive, illustrates how we are carrying out our present monitoring assignment: In the section of the Order entitled "Counselor Positions and Elimination of the Pupil Personnel Department," the Court stated (on page 10) that "if monitoring determines that the district is unable to provide the full range of required services, the Court may direct the district to restore eliminated positions." To monitor this part of the Order, we are looking at a variety of information that includes the requirements of the desegregation plans and state statutes
reviewing documentation to determine the number and placement of counselors before and after the reductions
examining records to assess the extent of any caseload changes
reviewing school records and interviewing counselors, principals, and other administrators to identify any changes in the number and types of counseling programs or services mandated by the plan and state standards, such as individual and group counseling, at-risk interventions, career development activities, test-taking assistance, etc. If you or your staff want to contact me or my associates for additional information about a particular aspect of our current monitoring, well be happy to answer any questions. Very truly yours. Ann S. Brown Enc. 7??^ ?'e3 Cp'J'/'** '=SX'a c Mar 1 I :5 ,/e ' CHRISTOPHER HELLER FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK A PARTNEMHI? OF INDIVIDUAL3 AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCLATIONS ATTCftNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL 3LTLDING 400 .VEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72:01-34 Telephone (501) 376-2011 Fix No. (501) 376-2147 Direct No. 370-1506 1 MEMQRAiNDUM TO: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DR. MAC BERND, SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1993 I am writing to provide you a report about the significant developments in this case since the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals approved our desegregation plans and settlement agreement and to advise you about matters which are pending before the District Court. In its order approving the settlement plans and settlement agreement submitted by the parties, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that Li]t may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances." Little Rock School District V, Pulaski County Special School District. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (Sth Cir. 1990). All three school districts proposed modifications to the settlement plans. The District Court issued a forty-four page order on May 1, 1992 approving some of the proposed modifications and rejecting others. The four desegregation plans presently in effect (one for each of the three school districts and the interdistiict desegregation plan) have been revised to include the modifications authorized by the May 1, 1992 order. The following documents define the desegregation obligations of the Little Rock School District and the other parties to this case, and are available to each of you at the Administration Building if you do not have a personal copy: 1. Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement - March, 1989 (as revised September 28, 1989)2. 3. 4. 5. The orders Desegregation Plan - Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 (there was an order filed on June 1, 1992 which corrects four typographical errors found in the bound volume) Desegregation Plan - Pulaski County Special School District - April 29, 1992 Desegregation Plan - North Little Rock School District - April 29, 1992 Interdistrict Desegregation Plan - April 29, 1992 which have been issued by the District Coutl since the publication of the desegregation plans have been mailed to each of you. A complete collection of court orders is maintained at the Administration Building. Jerry Malone (370-1553) and I (370-1506) are always available to answer any questions or concerns you may have about this case or about our district's implementation of our desegregation pl^. The most pressing issues now before the Court concern the structure of the Little Rock School District's budget and the implementation of its desegregation plan. In October 1991, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring informed the Little Rock School District that it must be able to provide the Court with information which: II (1) Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation allegations." On January 21, 1992, the District Court found that "the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites" and ordered the Little Rock School District to "submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan" together with a long range budget projection and a long range revenue projection. On May 1, 1992 the District Court ordered the Little Rock School District to submit a revised budget. The Little Rock School District filed on June 1, 1992 a document titled "LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93 - 1996/97". The Little Rock School District revised its budget projections based upon then current information and supplied the revised budget projections to the District Court on July 31, 1992. The Little Rock School District also filed a special status report which contained the budget proposal for the 1992-93 school year which had been approved by the Board. Following an August 3, 1992 hearing to discuss the Little Rock School District budget, the District Court issued an order on August 4 approving the proposed reductions except the elimination of a seventh period at McClellan Community High School. The 2P a ? Ef Court alsonotified e Little Rock School District that it would require that music teacher . xxwxv x^ijuivu Uiat XU VYVUIU iqi^LUic UlUL UXUMv LcacncT positionsf^he seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-94 academy year. The Court promised that a more detailed order which would explain the Court's reasoning would follow. The detailed order was filed on December 30, 1992. The December order explained that the budget reductions made for the 1992-93 school year "will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the Court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregadon efforts". The Court required the Little Rock School District to submit any future proposed budget changes to the Coun and directed the Little Rock School District not to implement any changes prior to the Court's approval. The Court provided some insight into how future budget reduction proposals will be reviewed. For example, the Court expressed concern "about the district's decisions to tamper with popular programs like gifted and talented, music, magnet features, and eliminating staff at schools that are successful (such as the established magnets) and those schools trying to be successful (such as the incentive schools and the new magnets, McClellan and Henderson)." The Court also expressed concern about the impact of budget proposals on teacher morale and reductions which put the Little Rock School District at risk of non-compliance with State standards or statutes. The District Court also entered an order on November 5 concerning the impact of the 1992-93 budget reductions upon the magnet schools. The Court directed Little Rock School District to reinstate certain positions of the magnet schools and to present to the Court prior to pre-registration any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year. Following the Board's decision on January 28, 1993 not to pursue a grant application to fund an Aerospace Technology School, the District Court notified the Little Rock School District that the hearing scheduled for February 1, 1993 to consider the Aerospace grant would instead be directed toward "other issues of concern to the Court". At that hearing, the Court expressed concern about the Little Rock School District's commitment to complying with its desegregation plan. The Court was particularly concerned that our budget make it difficult to discern budget priorities and to monitor spending on implementation of the desegregation plan. The Court emphasized the need for good faith compliance with the desegregation plan in order for the Little Rock School District to eventually be released from District Court supervision and also emphasized that the Little Rock School District should make clear to the community that the desegregation plan is something to which we are committed. The result of the hearing is that the District Court will take a more active role in directing and monitoring the budget process and that the Little Rock School District will be required to hire one additional person to work on the budget. I have ordered a transcript of the hearing and you are all welcome to review it once it has been prepared. all previous hearings if anyone would like to review them). (I have transcripts of almost 3T u e Mar 11:54 0 2 199 P a e There will be a hearing at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, March 19, 1993 to review the effects of the Little Rock School District 1992-93 budget cuts which were addressed by the District Court in its December 30, 1992 order. The has Court asked me to remind you of its continning concern about the Little Rock School District's budget process and to encourage you to attend the March 19, 1993 hearing. It would be helpful to review in advance of the hearing the budget cuts adopted by the Board this summer, together with the District Court's August 4 and December 30, 1992 orders concerning those cuts. I will continue to forward all orders to Dr. Bernd as soon as I receive them for immediate distribution to the Board. I will also provide periodic written reports to the Board concerning the legal proceedings in this case.1 , Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 23, 1993 Mr. Larry Robertson Little Rock School district 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Robertson: This morning 1 received a fax copy of Ms. Joy Springers February 22, 1993 letter to you about a tour of proposed Stephens Interdistrict School sites. According to the letter, the tour is to take place this morning, February 23, 1993. The fax from Mr. Walkers office is the first information ODM has received about visits to potential school sites. Locating new schools is of such importance to the Court that Judge Wright herself participated in a well-publicized February 1992 tour of potential sights for the King Interdistrict School. The PCSSD has so closely involved ODM in the process being used to select its new interdistrict school site, the district requested that a member of my staff serve on their Site Selection Committee. While 1 am not asking you to place an ODM staff member on any LRSD committee, I do ask that you keep ODM informed of all developments in desegregation-related matters, particularly those having to do with the highly sensitive issue of locating new schools. Notification of events regarding new schools should be made to ODM and all parties well in advance. Keeping the Court and the parties amply informed will help build a positive reputation for LRSD good faith communication and cooperation. Very truly yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Mac Bernd Marie Parker bcz'. JLittle Rock School District February, 25, 1993 i < Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United State District Court 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FEB 2 0 1993 OS r.f :iing Dear Ann: I am writing this letter to confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday in which I indicated that we were satisfied with our recent interview of Bill Mooney and would consider him acceptable for the position articulated in the orders of February 23, and 24, of 1993. Should your office have other names or persons to interview we would be most happy to talk to them as well. In addition to the above matter, I also would like to reinforce the need for the School District and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to meet as soon as possible so that agreement can be reached as to the description and format of the budget document that will satisfy the requirements of the Court. The School District wishes to comply with the directives of the Court in as rapid a manner as possible. In order to do this, we must have a clear picture of the outcomes associated with this project. Agreement on these specifics will allow us to begin work immediately. I appreciate your assistance in this regard. I'll give you a call later today or tomorrow to set up a meeting. I expect that Chris Heller, Gary Jones and myself will attend as well as the person who occupies the position we are discussing herein. Sincerely, Mac Bernd cc. Gary Jones Chris Heller LRSD Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 I February 26, 1993 Hrs. Lucy Lyon Library Coordinator, LRSD Franklin School 2600 N. McKinley Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 Dear Mrs. Lyon: RECEIVED MAR 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring The program, originally and funded by the desegregation plan. elementary library instruction, access to the materials greatly and research. concerned that and we library at the provided for small approved in group assistance to teachers. point of need for have been unable to We are meet the requirements of the desegregation plan ___ librarian has been required to do large group instruction as provision teacher-release time. During large group instruction, access to the library is limited. this year because the for a large large additional group hinders us time from instruction and hampers resources for our our meaningful to using hands-on support curriculum. that they these students. activities ability at-risk Furthermore, to and the The basal need and deserve in denies the which provide students, are more teachers the implementing the new new curriculum literature curriculum, textbooks materials. requires and more In order your utilization. less and less dependence and more on library on and the library program must to achieve success with this consideration of the library This revision will following be revised. plan require only for We request library the current staff (an elementary librarian and library clerk) and no additional funding. Lessons would be teacher input at each based on curriculum grade level. These objectives and emphasize literature appreciation, lessons which will skills class) will be taught to on alternate weeks. small research methods, and study heterogeneous groups (1/2 on activlties This will enable us to use hands- and to the needs of all of our With a small group in session, the library and its can remain continuously available to other students under the supervision of the clerk. students. materials better meet of These revisions are respectfully submitted in the belief they will enhance the that educational opportunities for all our students. We thank you in advance for your consideration of this proposal. students. Sincerely, Little Rock School District Elementary Librarians1 cc
Dr. C.M, "Mac" Bernd Dr. Katherine Mitchell Dorsey Jackson John Moore Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli John Riggs William Hamilton Honorable Susan Webber Wright Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor -'J Little Rock School District -I March 3, 1993 MAR 3 1993 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation and Monitoring West Heritage Building 201 E. Markham St., Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Office of Dssogrcgaficn fvfon.i ing Dear Ms. Brown, Attached are several reports that have been requested by your office. The first report is a summary of the activities that will be facilitated by the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment. These activities will contribute toward recruiting for the district as a whole and for the specific types of schools which we seek to promote. The second report is submitted by the Communications Office and summarizes the activities that have been completed during the 1992-93 school year in support of the Office of Organizational and Learning Equity/Recruitment. These activities also support the LRSD recruiting effort for the district and specific schools. In addition, the Communications Office has supplied their Desegregation Plan Implementation Timeline. Information you requested about New Futures For Little Rock Youth is also attached as the third report. Reports which your office requested concerning the 4-Year-Old Program and Academic Support are forthcoming. Sincerely, Marie Parker Associate Superintendent Organizational and Learning Equity 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000C.F. W in punis 'J >4 ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT MAR 8 1993 Office cf Dosegregsiicn Morthonny Pulaski Heights Junior High School 401 North Pine Street Phone 671-6250 Little Rock, Arkansas 72205 February 2571^3 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 West Heritage Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I met with Dr. Bernd on February 24, 1993, and discussed my proposal to develop a "University School" specialty program for Pulaski Heights Junior High for the 1993-94 school year. Please send me all of the guidelines, rules, procedures, etc., required in order to gain approval of a specialty program. It is my opinion that Pulaski Heights is the only nonmagnet junior high school to successfully achieve the main integration goals of the desegregation order, continue that success. We want to Sincerely, Principal cc: Sam Stueart Assistant Superintendent "WHERE EXCELLENCE IS A TRADITION" Little Rock School District March 4, 1993 ajc3 ^3 MAR 4 1993 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Off'ce of D^isgrsg, :n McJ li-.Q 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Morgan: Enclosed for your review is a draft outline of the Little Rock School District budget process and a draft of the revised budget document. Please respond in writing if these documents meet your approval. We cannot proceed with budget development until we have your approval. Sipfcerely, Ga' E Jones Manager of Resources and School Support Enclosures cc: Ms. Ann Brown (w/enclosures) c:\budget\drafts.wpd 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 1-9 - - ' . y' ''k': t ' >1 ,,, & 14 L ( \ t 7)014cL Si 13 ^3 I n I ?Lt% SCkcQ I S HCxYrrT^^n Ss^VED C!c7 f\f i<a n s?._ I MAR 1 0 1955 Qj? skr 01" ..b> i. 1^01'Ci Office of Desegrog. Ki j^'X, )q, IV 1'5. 'J half- .- < , O^Y f ttr-i c. A.\jT5 SA 7. k /A I Vx'V4tu<t .stvx Kv<T ..A^q- rvA_^J'4 Ti A c, Cvru i m uc^t J 4, uTi't^... ,...o_fe..h..4 y ^Te.&.LLs _______________________ ...j'l^,.Sh&Ap ! CUlii Jf..'p'e.%I .Ra_____ :.ph-.Y s!M-eii'b a ll t,si,-h&^- ipor j)(yiT pe<j~-> fiT^AS-ki tt ff'(... .C9.ik^&Qi..j9k'i^sSc<^ l -S-c -1 ft s 7r j levy [MlYCk 5/ 1.33.3 b-Y A ' I3'!.)\^ ..h'S.V'Sn'i-K'^i., Q.y^...'. .\ \ !i : I y - ...f -J iii 41 J iPk&ia. ppc,sA.U^-A'l^_L0(4'k [Tjci-hOeT. ^'' I I K^, 6, L_J, ._\( c <X \:2:S--ijT.sLL&J/. I I I i 1'^ ,^(gxlCtfc- !l& II er / . 1'^ C-E'rEP SPRINGS PEC p.l I FAX from GEYER SPRINGS FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 5615 Geyer Springs Road Little Rock, AR 72209 Office (501) 565-3474 * FAX (501) 562-4189 FAX TO
lOloAii'fea t ompany/Division
From: 0 nr\ 1-4>^k Number of Pages: (Including this cover page) Time Sent: Date Sent: IfAX Number: ST/'O/oo
?/o/y3- COMMENTS: /)</ iS, bJ U7e ,Q?n ' t^-t. u> UJ^siC 1 J. t/"' "bQ. lit Ct. >ZO r '1 ft jS/ oC 3 o r 3/< 1^^- p 'ZZ. (!. a 10 '93 09:57 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.2 A LIST OF NEEDS AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR MABELVALE JUNIOR HIGH as compiled by the staff HEALTH A health room that can accommodate wheelchairs, one that has more than one cot for 650 students. Areas separate from each other for waiting, counseling and health room cots, built-in storage cabinets, racks or tables as well as cheerful walls. Our ninth grade area needs the following
a vacuum pressure pump, a free fall tube, 2 bell jars, meter sticks, pulley demonstration kit, a gyroscope, an AC geiger counter, tuning forks, a wave motion apparatus, a c'nss set of magnets a Van De Graf generator, 10 triple beam balances, a class set of alcohol burners, ar- nomica) telescope, a class set of each of the following
water buckets, safety goggles, electric motors (DC) kit, linear spring scales, graduated cylinders, funnels, scissors, large test tubes, plane glass mirrors magnifying glasses, spectroscopes, a general purpose hot plate, mortar and pestles, and a parabolic reflector set. Our eight grade area needs the following
a class set of lab tables, drain tables, meter sticks, AC Geiger Counter, Magnet Set for class, Van De Graf Generator, 10 triple beam balances, class set of Bunsen burners, safety goggles and safety gloves, graduated cylinders, general purpose hot plate, large set of test tubes and racks. Class set of thermometers, specimen slides (plant and animal), refrigerator, micro projector, money for supplies to do experiments, anemometer, sling psychrometer, wind vane. Our seventh grade area needs lab tables, light microscopes, a skeleton, electrical outlets for scopes. classroom sets of each of the following
graduated cylinders, test tubes, thermometers, specimen slides (plant and animal), blood pressure sets, scissors, metric rulers, beakers (100ml and 400ml). magnifying glasses, lab aprons, compasses, globes. They also need a hot plate, models (cell and mitosis), refrigerator, calipers, mtcroprojecfor safety glasses, peir, W- W8M. BUSINESS EDUCATION A seven period day to facilitate course requirements, 4 computer work centers which will serve 6 computers per station, software for business applications. SPECIAL EDUCATION A seven period school day is a must, real classrooms for the Resource teachers (who roam). This area enclosed an order form for approximately $1000.00 worth of supplies that are badly needed. Our CBI students need a toilet in their classroom, their teachers need access to a telephone, as well as a set of kitchen cabinets.rWR 10 '93 09:58 GEYER SPRINGS EBC P.3 PHYSICAL EDUCATION AND ATHLETICS Seven period days with the athletic period as the last period of the day, locker space - currently our students have to carry their P. E. clothes with them each day as there are only enough lockers for students to use during their class periods, girls are required to share lockers with as many as 3 others, a class set of Fit For Life books to be used in our physical fitness unit, an exhaust fan to remove heat from the avm during the hot months, insulation and soundproofing would help make the gym warm in the winter, an intercom that works, restroom facilities that work, water fountains that work, volleyball standards that meet AAA requirements, a multipurpose room to separate all three grades in P,E..sanding and refinishing of the basketball court, charts and teaching aids for first aid and physical fitness, a budget to allow the teachers to replace broken and unsafe equipment. HEALTH EDUCATION Classrooms not shared and big enough to hold a full class, more time to teach health (nine weeks is not enough for eighth graders), current videos, funds for field trips. AMERICAN HISTORY U. S, History projection maps, land acquisition map, erasable white chalkboard with markers on a easel, a set of current encyclopedias, and dictionaries, a U,S, flag as well as an Arkansas flag, construction paper, globes, various teaching video tapes a classroom set of newspapers, student desks. READING 20 more computers are needed so our english classes can attend and use them for writing and research, 2 more computers are needed in the library, computer language arts programs, In our reading classrooms we need weekly newspapers, tape recorders,. CAFETERIA Other cafeterias have salad bars as well as potato bars, a change in the menus would be appreciated. SPANisa First and foremost, one class room or one shared with the French teacher to allow ideas and plans to be implemented, and to eliminate roaming between 3 class rooms throughout the building. The class room would need the following: a working overhead projector, adequate blackboard space, maps of Hispanic countries, bulletin boards, VCR, TV, computer, language listening center to include earphone sets, computer, VCR and TV, a quality tape recorder to project adequate sound to the class, two oblong tables, up to date textbooks (a request that was bypassed), additional tapes, computer software, videos, games, supplementary materials (i.e. activity materials published by Foreign Languages Publishing companies) to enhance visual/listening/oral learning, set of Spanish dictionaries, monthly Spanish publications such as Scholastic and funds to provide each student with his own copy. MAR 10 '93 09:59 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.4 CHORAL MUSIC For their classroom
seated risers, choir folios (100 at $3.95 each) piano repair this requires a cabinet maker to replace hinges on the keyboard cover, 50 music room chairs with table arms (since other courses are taught in our music room, and exploratory music requires extensive note taking), a piano cover, sight reading texts, audio-visual materials, a relatively new set of encyclopedias, and music filing boxes, gANQ Better scheduling (seventh graders only have one elective class) smaller classes (teaching 9 different instruments in one class at the same time doesn't work) instrument storage lockers, 7 field drum cases, 2 bass drum cases, sheet music, an instrument budget, new uniforms (not used handed down ones). MATH One class set of math explorer calculators, one overhead math explorer calculator, cabinets with locks to house $2000 of math manipulatives for three rooms, educational software these are all things that our teachers have asked for earlier but have not received. EmUSH One class set of Thesauruses (35 copies), a set of dictionaries for 5 classrooms, our current dictionaries are at least 20 years old, a subscription to Scholastic Press for 35 students, teaching packets for several current novels- We would have to buv 10 more sets of novels to be equal to magnet schools. COUNSELORS A conference room for support groups, parent conferences, locked storage rooms for tests (we are currently storing them on the floor of the counselors office) a small private room for testing, a direct telephone line, a long conference table. Posters, maps, work booklets, overhead transparencies, a set of current encyclopedias, a book rack.MAR 10 '93 09=59 GEYER SPRINGS EEC P.5 ART ROOM The art room needs: 8 new art desks with stools, a paper cutter, a drying rack COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY AND TECH PREP. because of the 7 period days at the New Futures schools, students are given the option to take Keytxjarding tn the 7th and 8th grades in preparation for Computer Tech in the Sth grade. This is a vita' prerequisite to the Sth grade course, as required by State Education Department but not availabie at MJHS, 2. The New Futures schools let students taking Computer Tech have a full year's course instead of one semester. As a result of the 7 period day, 80% of each of the 9th grade classes are taking Computer Tech in these schools versus only 30% of the 9th graders at MJHS. 3. The New Futures schools have television production studios purchased by New Futures money available to the students with video editors and computer graphics generators using Amega computers for invaluable experience in video production. 4. Mabelvale only received 9 new IBM computers when new computers were purchased for the 9th grade computer labs last year as opposed to at least 16 new IBM for all of the magnet schools and New Futures school labs. Students are not getting the hands on experience of using up-to-date computers with hard drives tike they are in all the other junior highs in the Little Rock School District. 5. The computer lab at MJHS is crammed into a 20' by 22' old classroom with no room for students to move around. The lab's cabinet doors are falling off their hinges, Work orders have been ignored or refused. The electricity is wired over the floor in raised boxes which students frequently trip over. The room frequently floods and has a leaky roof which endangers the welfare of the students. 6. All of the other computer labs in the district have direct on-line network access to the Colliers Encyclopedia in the Learning lab on CD/ROM except MJHS which has not ever had access. 7. Frequent request for software to fulfil curriculum requirements for Desktop publishing and Graphics have been ignored.MAR 10 93 10:00 GEYER SPRINGS EEC F.6- February 10. 1993 Dr, Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools UtUe Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Mac, c^rhAAi of f-ittle Rock School District which included funds to do r--------- High. We understand that this work was nut nn kaw eu" . , = laucivaie uumor the new superintendent and his staff time to bfirnmafom-r resignation to allow date, we haVe not heard of ar!v 0^ "bs. As of this patrons of the school district. The fSSvXuXXhpt a by the resolution that states: '^^^eivaie Junior High P.T,A. Executive Board has passed a passed a milage increase for the Little Rock ,H a! construction at Mabelvale Junior We urge the school district administration "I and Board to proceed with capital improvements which are v^al to th^l^p^e^-ng year. The proposed restructuring model would the 1993-1994 academic in day or other innovative scheduling models such interdisciplinary team teaching. Under present r be left at a disadvantage by being " as block scheduling and court orders and district plans, our We understand that stalos
however, I. you lookaX as well as other parts of the District based draw from our neighborhood We feel that the term a magnet school. We on the needs of the students. leei mat me term maonet drhnni" ie siuoenis. junior high school that provides them with a oualitv eduratinn allowed to go to any High. Southwest Little Rock mixed community. can no longer be viewed as primarily one race or the other. We are a provide our students wi^h^e?ra^currTulJSiX^?dh'" '^7^ buildings. - by neglecting physical improvements in favor of these magnet schools by failing to On numerous to our TOI then. ve7 dien. We want you VvS are doing very well so^* j^ou^donn^o construction and restructuring. our concerns about We feel that the Board and the Administration is of the opinion that all of the problems that areMAR 10 '93 10:01 GEYER SPRINGS EEC p.7 occurring m the central office are more important than the education of ____ feel neglected by the Board and Administration and want them to know that many of us our students. H oh rJ ? 1^' to Mabelvale Junior curriculum and it's teachers. However, if the Soard and Administration fail to act on the improvement of the facilities, we are prepared to once aoain no h.nk m n.iZ St?: we are prepared to once again go back to private schools. We fool fhr,* k,, ...K r a""'ya'-''w povdie scnoois. the children. neglecting to provide the kind of education needed by all mrough ******" ** 'P school 1. 2. our^Siool^ 3. 4. 5. 6. By directing the support services staff to perform much needed repairs remodelling, and construction at our school. By allowing us to have direct control of our heating and air conditioning (recently, the District came out and turned off heat pumps which provided air conditioning to our classrooms, and as a result when the weather turned cold our students did not have heat - several rooms were 45 degrees during the school day.) By providing our teachers with equipment necessary to provide our students with a quality education (we have one microscope for an entire class yet, magnet schools have one for eve^ student). By allowing us to have a seven course school day and more teachers to support the restructuring. By adding classroom space. We have no parent conference room, limited storage space, no room for the math assistants, inadequate special education classrooms, cramped cafeteria, roving teachers using other teachers Classrooms during prep time, inadequate in-school-suspension area, poor playground facilities, and a building falling apart around us. We know the district administrators are interested in the education of our students We are Sons Mtoe?'*" ***' * * P' I ciOiiyi iw muv'*qQ^&, We are anxiously awaiting a reply from you regarding our concerns. Sincerely, Tom Brock, President Mabelvale Junior High P.T.A.:-iR 10 -93 10:01 GEYER SPRINGS FBC LIULE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Mabelvale Junior High School P.8 P.O. Box 187 Phone 455-2413 Mabelvale, Arkansas 72103 February 22, 1993 To Inborn It May Concern: the en on. I joined the faculty at Mabelvale Jr. High School, I cam aboard with My vision was and is to help those to have an interest in art to to their fullest potential and also to impress upon the uninterested ty of the arts. I still have that vision. a 'TH/ T use this medium to express my concern. The classroom designated for art class does not provide adequate space to effectively conduct my class. Jiie of the most important factors in an art class is the pleasure of displaying your art work. It lends an opportunity for each student to study their own art work in addition to review and appreciate the conversation expressed through the handiwork of others, I must report that limited space prohibits us from ' ---in. .able to do so. Further, this hinderance deprives other students who are interested in of the chance to enroll in the class. I would welcome the challenge to an additional class inorder to accommodate all of those students who are T humhl. appeal to you to allow me the opportunity to fulfill my vision. 1 am asking for more space and an additonal art class. It would please me greatly if you would give serious consideration to my request. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Edgar Porchia aCME OF TBS BED BJUSSBO LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: jBoard THROUGH SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK, AR March 11, 1993 of Directors 72201 fGary Jones, Manager of Resources and School Support 'C. M. Bernd, Superintendent of Schools Approval of Lease Agreement on Parkin Building Attached is an agreement to lease the second floor of the Parkin Building with adjoining parking space located at 6th and Ringo Streets. The annual cost of the lease is $84,672 plus utilities. The term of the lease is sixteen months. The purpose of the lease is to relocate the Instructional Resource Center (IRC) from the former Lee School and Franklin Elementary. The administration plans to pursue a lease/purchase of the entire building during the term of the lease. We recommend that the Board approve the lease as submitted. c:\niemos\parkin2.upd LEASE By this agreement of lease, dated By tnis agreement ot lease, dated_____________________________ 1993, Virginia B. Hodges, Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust, Virginia L. Boyd Testamentary Trust, and Jack T. Lynn Testamentary Trust, all of Little Rock, Arkansas and for convenience herein collectively called "Lessor," leases to Little Rock School District, herein called "Lessee," the following described premises: Approximately 24,000 square feet, being all of the upper floor within the building located at 6th and Ringo, Little Rock, Arkansas, together with all of the parking area located on the east side of the building (legally described as part of Lots 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, and 12, Block 290, Original City of Little Rock) for use as ad^^^tr^tive offices and storage area for a term of seventeen (17) months, commencing 1993 and expiring July 31, 1994, at an annual rent of $84,672.(X) payable in monthly installments of $7,056.00 in advance on the first day of each month, commencing with the first month of the term, to The Hathaway Group, 3600 Cantrell Road^ Suite 301, Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
all on the following terms: 1. UTILITIES AND SERVICES The parties agree that each shall pay for utilities and services as indicated below: (a) (b) (c) Lessee shall pay for the natural gas, water, sewer, and electric utilities used in connection with the occupancy of the leased premises, defined as 64% of the total utility usage for the building. Such payments shall be made by Lessee to Lessor upon Lessees receipt of periodic invoices for utility consumption. Lessee shall be responsible for its own janitorial service. Lessor shall pay real estate taxes and premiums for fire and extended casualty insurance. (d) Lessor shall maintain the premises as specified in Paragraph 11. QUIET POSSESSION 2. So long as Lessee performs its obligations. Lessor covenants to it quiet and peaceful possession of the leased space. D:\WT51\FILESURH\LRSD.LEA3. LESSEES OBLIGATIONS Lessee agrees as follows: (a) (b) To pay rent as due and to deliver possession of the premises to Lessor upon termination of this lease in the same condition as received, ordinary wear and tear and damage by fire, the elements or other casualty excepted
To use the premises in an orderly fashion and not to suffer or permit any violations of laws or ordinances therein
4. 5. (c) Not to assign or sublet without prior consent of Lessor, which Lessor agrees will not be unreasonably withheld. LESSORS REMEDIES Lessor may terminate this lease and enter and take possession of the premises from Lessee, all without waiving any rights which it may have at law hereunder, without further notice or demand (all such notices and demands being hereby waived) following any of these events: (a) (b) (c) That Lessee should fail to pay rent due hereunder within thirty (30) days following written notice of default therein
That Lessee shall fail to commence curing any other violation of its covenants within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof, or, having commenced to cure the same as aforesaid, should fail to carry the same to conclusion with due diligence
Upon the adjudication of Lessee as a bankrupt or the appointment of a receiver of its property. UNTENANTABILITY If the premises, or any portion thereof, are made untenantable by fire, the elements or other casualty, rent for the entire premises or affected portion thereof shall abate from the date of such casualty to restoration of tenantability. Lessor shall restore the same with all reasonable speed, and if Lessor does not restore the premises or the affected portion to tenantability within ninety (90) days thereafter. Lessee may then terminate this lease, retroactive to the date of casualty. If the premises are more than fifty percent (50%) destroyed by casualty, either Lessor or Lessee may terminate this lease, retroactive to such date, by notice delivered within thirty (30) days thereafter
failing D:\WP5l\nLESURH\LRSD.LEA -2-Lessor shall restore the premises to tenantability within one hundred twenty (120) days of such casualty and rent shall abate as aforesaid. LESSEES ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS 6. (a) Lessee has inspected and accepts the demised premises in their present condition. I A mU * t I A. J* _ * Lessor shall grant permission for Lessee to make such alterations and improvements and install such identification signs, furniture, fixtures and equipment in the demised premises as may be necessary. Lessee agrees to pay for the same, to indemnify, save and hold Lessor harmless from any cost, expense or liens arising in connection therewith. Any such alterations and improvements shall be subject to Lessors approval, not to be unreasonably withheld, and shall comply with all applicable national, state and municipal laws or regulations. 7. 8. 9. (b) (c) Lessor shall not unreasonably withhold consent to Lessee making further alterattons during the term of the lease, which further alternations shall be on the conditions contained in (a) above. Except as provided in paragraph 7 or as otherwise stated in Lessors consent to the making thereof. Lessees alterations and improvements shall become Lessors property at the termination of this lease. REMOVAL OF LESSEES IMPROVEMENTS Upon termination. Lessee may at its option remove office equipment, business machines manufacturing equipment and machinery, trade fixtures, if any, and signs, plus such installations as Lessee may make and may be permitted to remove under this lease provided that it restores the premises to their original condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted, and repairs damage done by such removal. INSPECTION Lessor has the right to enter the premises for reasonable inspections at any time and to show the same to prospective tenants during the last six (6) months of the term. LIABILITY Unless caused by the negligence or willful act or failures to act of Lessor or its agent or employees. Lessee waives all claims against Lessor for damages to the property of Lessee, resulting from the building or its equipment being out of repair, or from act or neglect of any other tenant or occupant or any accident or theft in or about the building. D:\WP51\FILESURH\LRSD.LEA - 3 -LIABILITY INSURANCE 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Lessee, at its expense, shall maintain in full force and effect a comprehensive public liability insurance policy, with respect to the Leased Premises and all activities conducted thereon, with both Lessor and Lessee as named insureds with a single combined limit of liability of $1,000,000.00, such policy to contain a provision that it cannot be canceled without at least ten (10) days prior written notice to Lessor. Lessee shall at all times provide Lessor with written evidence that such insurance policy is in effect. If the terms of the issuer of blanket policy do not reasonably satisfy Lessor, Lessee shall provide a supplemental policy as described above. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR The Lessor shall, at its own cost and expense, keep in good condition and repair during the term of this lease, sidewalks, sewers, gutters, drainpipes, downspouts, driveways, window sash and frames, parking lots, air conditioning and heating systems, stairways, foundations, exterior walls, roof and structural parts of, in or about the premises and the building of which the premises are a part including gas, water, and electric pipes and conduits within the foundations, floors, walls, and structural parts thereof and all other generally accepted areas of Lessors control or responsibility of said premises. SIGNS Lessor will not unreasonably withhold consent to Lessees lettering or windows or erection of signs as are reasonably necessary to Lessees business and are in keeping with the standards maintained in the building. PARKING FACILITIES Lessee, its employees, customers, and visitors shall have the exclusive right to use the parking lot and loading area on the east side of the building. HOLDING OVER BY LESSER If Lessee shall remain in the demised premises after the expiration of this lease without having executed a new written lease or extended this lease through a modification, then Lessees monthly rent shall immediately escalate to $8,820.00 per month and Lessor shall have the option to treat Lessee as one not lawfully entitled to possession of the premises, and shall thereupon be entitled to take all lawful action for Lessees immediate removal therefrom. D:\W51 \FILESURH\LRSD.LEA - 4 -15. 16. 17. 18. 19. CONDEMNATION If ^y portion of the premises or the access thereto is condemned and if, in Lessees sole opinion, the remainder is inadequate, then Lessee shall have the option (to be exercised within ninety (90) days of written notice to Lessee of the area to be condemned) to cancel this lease as of the effective date of condemnation
in such case, any portion of a condemnation award or settlement attributable to the Lessees leasehold (including options to extend the same) shall be paid to Lessee. Lessee shall have reasonable opportunity to participate in the condemnation proceedings. If any characteristics of the premises are made less desirable by condemnation, and Lessee elects not to cancel then there shall be an equitable adjustment of rent to reflect such fact for the balance of the term. SUBORDINATION This lease and Lessees rights hereunder shall at all times be subordinate to the liens of mortgages now or hereafter placed on the building or any underlying leasehold estate. So long as Lessee performs its covenants, its right to possession hereunder shall not be disturbed under the rights or powers granted in any such mortgage. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, neither Lessor nor Lessee shall be liable to the other for any loss or damage caused by fire or any other risk insured against by fire, standard extended coverage and malicious mischief and vandalism insurance, in force at the time of such loss or damage. AMENDMENTS There are no agreements between the parties except as stated in this lease, amendments hereof shall be effective unless in writing, signed by both parties. NOTICES No The delivery of notices provided for herein shall be effective only if delivered to Lessor at the address provided for payment of rent and to Lessee at Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 D:\WP5I\FILES\JRH\LRSD.LEA - 5 -20. 21. Mailing of same so addressed, by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, shall constitute delivery. No employee of Lessee at any other address has or shall have any authority to receive notices hereunder. ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS Lessor represents to the best of its knowledge and belief that no hazardous or toxic materials subject to regulation by State or Federal law or regulations have been manufactured, stored, or disposed of on or about the Leased Premises. Lessee hereby covenants that it will not manufacture at or install in the Leased Premises any such hazardous or toxic materials during the term of this Lease. BROKERAGE FEES Lessor agrees to pay The Hathaway Group (Agent) professional fees as outlined in Exhibit A which is attached to Lessors and Agents copies of this lease. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this lease to be executed on the date first above written, hereby binding their respective successors, assigns, heirs, executors and administrators. LESSOR: LESSEE: Little Rock School District Virginia P. Hodges (50% Owner) George Prange, Trustee Virginia L. Boyd Testamentary Trust (9.705% Owner) George Prange, Trustee Jack P. Lynn Testamentary Trust (9.705% Owner) Virginia L. Boyd, Co-Trustee and Louise Parkin Lynn, Co-Trustee Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust (30.59% Owner) D:\WP51\F1LESURH\LRSD.LEA -6- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI to be the person described Before me personally appeared Virginia P. Hodges to me well known and known to me who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to - - - -'O o **'^** '^**^**'^ MllU UVAJIk/ and before me that she executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. 1993. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of My Commission Expires
NOTARY PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared George Prange, Trustee for the Virginia L, Bovd Testamentary Tryst, to me well known and known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that he executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this 1993. day of My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D.WPSnriLESURHXLRSD.LEA - 7 -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared George Prange, Trustee for the Jack P, Lynn Testamentary Tryst, to me well known and known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that he executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. 1993. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI Before me personally appeared Virginia L. Boyd and Louise Parkin Lynn Co-Trustees for the Louise Parkin Lynn Revocable Trust, to me well known and known to me to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and before me that they executed said instrument for the purposes therein expressed. WITNESS my hand and official seal, this day of 1993. My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D:\WP51\F1LES\JRH\LRSD.LEA - 8 -ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI On this day personally appeared before me the undersigned, a Notary Public within and for the County and State aforesaid, duly qualified, commissioned and acting, the within named -----------------------
----------------------------------being the ____________________________of Little Rock School District, and who has been designated by Little Rock School District to execute the above instrument, to me personally well known, who stated he is duly authorized in his capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and on behalf of Little Rock School District, and further stated and acknowledged that he had so signed, executed and delivered said oregoing instrument for the consideration, uses and purposes therein mentioned and set forth. this IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and seal as such Notary Public on day of 1993 My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUBLIC D:\WP51\FILES\JRH\LRSD.LEA -9-fip. Lett) Pa r^ VA fj :^=
? :^2C X J- /] M 1 ' CIV,co 0* ^en t^oriWnr'S Williams Magnet Staff Williams Magnet School 7301 Evergreen Street Little Rock, AR 72207 March 9, 1993 Mrs. Ann Brown, Director Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: The academic year of 1992-93 has seen many dramatic changes to the curriculum and educational process in the Little Rock of 1992-93 has seen many dramatic . - - ----------- Public Schools. As the Magnet Review Committee meets to discuss, plan, and implement new changes, the staff at Williams Magnet School respectfully requests that you read, consider, and review our professional views before implementing the current changes, staff would like to address a few concerns about the future changes. the staff at you read, address changes for the academic year 1993-94. concerns about The Williams Magnet School, successful as North Little learning environment all records innovative idea. Rock, and for hundreds indicate, has been a Because Pulaski County students. of Little of its initial witnessed the growth of all the other Magnets. to the whole child. success We are It we Rock, was an have committed to generate We need all the components of the curriculum the same degree of success achieved in the past. is our opinion that no one part of the program should be removed. It It is diligence and teachers and all enthusiasm and creative energy of magnet program a success. the specialty area teachers classroom that makes this. With economic problems in many areas of that cutbacks are inevitable in L.R.S.D. is costly cutback choice. and unproductive. society. The new we recognize We feel that ABACUS ABACUS program should be the not the established successful program in place. In closing we would respectfully remind you, that Williams has an outstanding staff is reputation reputation. proud of the hard throughout the We believe that classroom teachers but art. special area their children teachers as magnet work we have done it is the area. Williams earning our solid effort not only of the music, physical education, and other well, that Parents brochures on expect the program waiting lists for motivate patrons to and disadvantageous videos. to the that is years to enter outlined and place our school, advertised in We children. feel The the change wou Id children are our be main concern and the whole child needs all, not parts, of the program.Thank you for taking time to consider these deep felt concerns. Professionally yours. i ! - t yytha^-yli ~nu. f bV .^U^X-x 'OAl^n . iM-L 'iTua. fna^'^^nUn^ 'Ijyt^. ^j!^ ^1 IA . A '} \y. i L "i f a. PivUUIm'i^I^ /VlzcMol^ 17/1993 17:11 FROM JOHN U.WALKER P.A. JOHN \LKER RV.PH \S abHINGTON MARK BVKNRI^..^. WILEY A. RRANToN. -JR. AtSTIN PORTER. -JR. , .. .. A5* a'Jn'ittr*- I J * I [*! h- 'J. TO 3710100 P . 02 JOHN w. Walker. p.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway LiTFLE Rock. Akkansas Telephone (-501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-418 ( DELIVERED VIA FACglMII^ March 17, 1993 Chris Heller, Esq. Little Rock School District c/o _ 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Mr. Heller
Would you plan to use at know who you plan to call as kindly provide me with_ anj_ new exhibits that you the budget hearing on Friday. - ----- witnesses and a brief summary of their testimony. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Jo^n W. Walker-^^ Jo JWW: im r. (*1 / Mb TOTAL P.0203/17/1993 17:10 FROM JOHN W.WfiLKER P.P. TO 3710100 P . 0 1 JOHN W. Walker, p.a. Attorney at Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72zo6 Telephone (501) 374^58 FAX (601) 374-4187 JO. WlXER RAI- d WASHINGTON MARK BURNED WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. auetin porter, JR. , ... Alm Kimittal i" 4 w Datnrt ot Columbia. TO: jv
FAX NO.: FROM: DATE: ... RE: message: I THIS FAX CONSISTS OF '3^ PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE. OUR FAX NUMBER IS: (501) 374-4187 I I I u I.A 03 .' 17/1993 16! 44 FROM JOHN W.WALKER P.ft. TO 3710100 'fr iS P . 0 1 March 17, 1993 D C. Mac Bemd, Superintendent Little Rock Public Schools 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dr. Bernd: On March 12, the accompanying letter was faxed to you regarding the unprofessional conduct of employees at Little Rock Central High School. At the writing of this letter, 1 am still waiting for the response that has been requested. TUnfortunately, on Tuesday, March 16, conduct of a similar nature (harassment) was demonstrated by still another employee at the LRSD, this time a school bus driver. After several unsuccessful attempts to resolve this matter concerning the bus driver, I visited with the employee at the bus stop on the morning of March 17. The employee demonstrated an attitude and behavior that was very unprofessional in the presence of students. Additionally, support personnel at the LRSD bus terminal and in the office of Mr. Gary Jones also demonstrated very poor judgement and communication skills during my attempts to resolve this matter. 1 Dr, Bemd, I am responsible, much like you, to parents and students in this District, I would like very much to share with them the response that can only be provided by you, regarding the reported cases of student harassment and your efforts to resolve the matters. I I Please respond by letter at 2603 S. Brown St., Little Rock, AR 72204 or you can fax your letter to me at 374-4187. Respectfully, I i 1 I Hafeeza K Majeed Ad Hoc Committee for Fairness and Equity in Little Rock Public Schools 1 II cc: i^s. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Ms. Shirley Thomas, LRSD BAC Chairperson Mr. Brad Montgomery, Supervisor, LRSD Transportation Dept. Mr. Gary Jones, Associate Superintendent, School Support TOTAL P.ai s.-- .r < * P.Ol TRANSACTION REPORT NAR-17-93 WED 16:41 DATE START SENDER RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE MAR-17 16:39 501 374 4187 1'28^ 1 RECEIVE OK X )(( X )K jSB1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 March 22, 1993 TO: Mr. Sterling Ingram FROM: THROUGH: Marie Parker SUBJECT: DESEGREGATION PLAN ISSUES The purpose of this memorandum is to direct you to address several priorities associated with the implementation of the Desegregation Plan as rapidly as possible so that we may be sure that we are making good faith effort to address the requirements of the Court with respect to these priorities. 1. Please report in writing any specific programatic assessment processes required by the Desegregation Plan and the status of the implementation of these processes. report please include any plans. As a part of this systems documents, or timelines that outline the assessment processes mentioned herein. 2. Please develop a plan and implementation schedule for any of the above assessments that have not been implemented. 3. Please develop a plan to meet the general requirement that we assess all aspects of the Desegregation plan. This assessment plan should specify each aspect of the Desegregation Plan in terms of two issues: (1) the purpose of the aspect of the plan being evaluated
and (2) the measure which will ascertain the fulfillment of said purpose. . 4. Please prepare a report or "audit" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of programs outlined in the plan so that a document for the Federal Court can be developed as soon as possible. You may want to contact Diane Barksdale regarding this matter because she has done considerable work on this issue as a graduate school project. The information she has gathered may be quite useful to you as you prepare your report. In conclusion, please make an appointment with me to discuss the issues outlined in this memorandum. I believe all of them are important if we are to correctly implement o
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.