Correspondence

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
October 3, 1994 To
Russ Mayo From
,>Ann Brown Subject
Districtwide Recruitment Plan 1 was pleased to receive a copy of the districts newsletter News & Views, the first such publication in a long time. It was a newsy and interesting edition, and 1 look forward to reading the coming issues. The "Desegregation Update" section on the first page of the newsletter states that a districtwide recruitment plan has been written, and that the individual schools have put together strategies for action at the school level. The section goes on to say that the district and parent recruiters will work toward improving the image of the public schools to encourage voluntary student transfers. 1 was also glad to read that ODMs Incentive School Monitoring Report has provided further direction for recruitment efforts. Because recruitment and public relations are areas critical to desegregation, 1 salute you for having completed the plans that will support implementation of the activities referenced in the Update. Its a credit to you and your colleagues that the district has started the school year well prepared with road maps. Please help us get a head start on monitoring this years recruitment activities by sending me a copy of the revised districtwide recruitment plan that will be guiding you. In conjunction with that plan, I would also appreciate the information listed below. Brief answers, summaries, or copies of materials will do fine at this point. 1. 2. 3. Point out how this years districtwide recruitment plan differs from that of the previous year. State the districtwide goal of the recruitment plan in quantitative terms by race, i.e., the percentage increase in enrollment and the total number of students that percentage represents. State the school-based recruitment goal in quantitative terms by race for each school, i.e., the percentage increase by school and the target number of students you hope to recruit to each school according to the racial balance needs of each.October 3, 1994 Page Two 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Forward the results of the evaluation (fast-track or otherwise) you did on the previous recruitment plan that enabled you to determine what changes needed to be made in the current plan based on the successes or failures of last years plan. The Court long ago required the LRSD to establish a tracking system that would enable the district to determine which recruitment efforts are successful and which are not. Indicate the status of the tracking system, when it was established, who is responsible for it, and how it works. Summarize what youve learned from the system, and also how youve used at knowledge to modify the elements of your new recruitment plan. Summarize the recruitment strategies that each school has put together for this year. Or, if it will be easier, just include copies of the school-based plans. The desegregation plans state that parents and Parent Recruiters, along with such groups as the PTA, recruitment teams. Incentive School Parent Recruitment Committees, speakers bureaus, and the Biracial Committee, will assist with recruitment. Indicate the role envisioned for such individuals and groups in the current districtwide and school-based recruitment plans. Include the timeline of e current districtwide recruitment plan. Indicate who is responsible for the major events on that timeline. Describe the plans of the district and parent recruiters for improving the image of the schools, the timeline of the plans, and the responsible personnel. Indicate how you factored in the elements of the Public Relations sections of the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan. 11. Describe or list those elements of ODMs Incentive School Monitoring Report that the district will be using in recruitment. Or, in other words, how has the district modified its current recruitment plan to incorporate elements of the incentive school report? ^3.H'. ^^Aikansas DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION FEDERAL PROGRAMS 4 STATE CAPITOL MALL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-1071 . (501) 682-4475 GENE WILHOIT, Director, General Education Division October 3, 1994 OCT 71994 0/fic3 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Little Rock School District 810 West Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 oesegreg
yoi Dear Dr. Williams
Thank you for your letter of September 29, 1994. The Chapter 2, ESEA, office iiss appreciative of your efforts to meet federal 1994. guidelines in cne expenaiture of your Chapter 2, ESEA, grant In your letter you have outlined some viable steps which agree will reduce the carryover balance at the end of the monies. we the expenditure of your Chapter 2, ESEA, fiscal year. Completion of the strategies mentioned in the letter will indeed guarantee that monies are spent in a timely manner. we are pleased to be able to approve the entire fiscal 1994 carryover of $39,354.59. carried into Completion of Therefore, mentioned This money is to be your fiscal 1995 project for expenditure in the current fiscal year. Sincerely, Bernadine Hoffman Program Administrator Chapter 2, ESEA BH:rjh cc: Ann Brown 1/ L board of EDUCATION: Chairman ELAINE SCOTT, Little Rock Vice Chairman RICHARD C SMITH JR., Tillar Members: CARL E BAGGER R^ers . WLLIAM B. USHER, Paragould . JAMES M. LLEWELLYN, JR., Fort Smith JAMES A McLARTY III, Newport RAE RICE PERRY, Arkadelphia SHERRY WALKER, Little Rock NANCY M. WOOD, Little Rock An Equal Opportunity Employer c TA 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: October 5, 1994 To: Frank Martin From: i^Ann Brown Subject: Reassignment of IRC Personnel I enjoyed our chat today and look forward to talking with you further on October 18. Thanks for agreeing to look into the situation regarding Leola Scoggins and Pearl Jackson, two IRC aides whose reassignments have made these two CTA members very unhappy. They met with me before school started and I suggested that they talk with you to determine the status of their complaint. Heres a copy of what I received from Leola, which you may already have in your files. I appreciate your looking into the matter and letting Leola and Pearl Itnow what next steps to anticipate. They both feel pretty helpless, but perhaps the situation isnt hopeless. Although theres probably not much I can do, please let me know how I can help. Thanks very much.Little Rock School District Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 October 6, 1994 RECEIVFD OCT 61994 Dear Ann: Office of Desegregation Monitoring Our discussion of my business case for a Director of Student Assignment was helpful. As you know, the proposal is to eliminate the Desegregation Facilitator position appearing in the desegregation plan. The money for that position will be used for a Director of Student Assignment. 1, and others as noted in the business case, will assume the responsibilities mandated by the plan for the Desegregation Facilitator. Since this is a plan modification, I am asking for your assistance with the modification process. The attached business case has been rewritten to Include all desegregation plan mandates for the Desegregation Facilitator, to clarify job responsibilities and accountability, to define a realistic job scope, and to correct some previous incongruities among sections of the business case. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors was presented the original business case by Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent, on June 14, 1994. There were no objections. On or about July 18, Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney, sent copies of the business case to all parties and submitted it to the court v\4th the budget document. No objections were heard from any of the parties at that time. At a later hearing. Judge Wright requested clarification of specifically who would address the mandates of the plan in addition to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. A chart responding to her request is included. Since this is a modification to the LRSD Desegregation Plan, the change should be reflected in the document for future reference. 1 suggest that the references to Desegregation Facilitator in the current plan be deleted. Again, thank you for your help with the business case. 1 look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, C. Russell Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation C: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment A Business Case Addition Modification Deletion October 6,1994Little Rock School District Director of Student Assignment Business Case Executive Summary The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to insure implementation of our desegregation plan as well as to monitor the districts desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assigrunent Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. This past year, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the districts progress in fulfilling its obligations under its plan. The Student Assignment Office is not receiving as much day-to-day supervision as it should to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions about when to release waiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district. Careful and proper monitoring of racial balance and the student assignment process improves public confidence and maintains racial balance. Projecting demographic data and enrollments aids in planning for future marketing, recruitment, and school closings or construction. Executing plans for closing schools requires attention to patrons who are affected and the assurance of acceptable options. The supervision of SAO personnel requires meetings, planning, and periodic training. Meeting with parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. These are examples of student assignment responsibilities requiring day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the role of the student assignment supervisor in addition to broader responsibilities. Though housed at the SAO, his responsibilities require his presence and attention elsewhere too often. This makes the day-to-day attention required by the student assignment impossible. This is a proposal to change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign responsibilities so the new director assumes the primary responsibility for student assignment, and the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation assumes primary responsibility for desegregation and the duties previously done by the Desegregation Facilitator. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment and allows for greater focus on the desegregation effort. This position will report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure 1.Director of Student Assignment Business Case 2 Now, more than before, senior management is totally involved in the desegregation effort. The responsibilities of the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel are all focused on the desegregation effort. The implementation of a planning and budgeting process has raised the effort to a new consciousness. Now monitoring of desegregation is more extensive them ever. Continuous discussions and analysis in meetings of the Superintendents Council have moved obligations to the forefront. The Program Budget Document and the Management Tool represent additional safeguards not previously used by the district. Therefore, the original intent of the Desegregation Facilitator has grown beyond a single individual into a way of life for senior management in the district. Addressing the need in the area of student assignment now becomes am important part of the solution. The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. He will be assisted by those persons listed in the chart below. Tasks 1. Work directly with building principals 2. Identification of problems or practices that impede the Implementation of quality desegregated education in each building 3. Providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs for desegregation concerns_____________ 4. Working very closely with the remaining associate superintendents as needed______________________ 5. Allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day-to-day activities in the schools^________________________________________ 6. Focusing on all aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not limited to achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interactions, and parent Involvement. Person (s) Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Dir. of Human Resources Dir. of Labor Relations Dir. of Student Assignment Assoc. Supt for Deseg. Dir. of Staff Development Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Associate Supt. for Deseg. ' At present, only one Associate Superintendent exists. This reference is interpreted as other senior level administrators in the district. 2 This item is less of a task and more of a result. IO/64 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 3 Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant because of a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. The new person will know what is expected before filling the position. An extended period of training will be necessary once a person is employed. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once final approval is given. The busiest time of the year for student assignment is January through September. The sooner we can make this change
the sooner we can begin improving service to parents. The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3, 4. 5. 6. Milestone Date Person Meet with SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation^ Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approval Present Business Case to ODM to begin modification procedure Discuss this modification with all parties Submit plan modification to the Court for approval 7. Court approval 8. 9. Advertise the position Interview 10. Report for work 8/30/94 6/14/94 6/14/94 10/03/94 10/14/94 10/21/94 11/04/94 11/07/94 11/22/94 12/05/94 Mayo Mayo Williams Attorney Attorney Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee Timely consideration of this modification is respectfully requested. Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation September, 1994 3 Though discussed in staff meetings with this group, a specific date was not reflected in an earlier edition of this business case. Another discussion was held updating this group on the progress of the business case. Therefore, the date appears to be out of sequence. 10/6/94 MRSAOZ DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 4 Background The position of Associate Superintendent for Desegregation was established to insure implementation of our desegregation plan as well as to monitor the districts desegregation process. Historically, this has been done through careful oversight of the Student Assignment Office (SAO), generation of numerous statistical reports, and staying abreast of the latest desegregation obligations. Also included with these responsibilities has been oversight of Volunteers In Public Schools (VIPS) and responsibility for recruitment of students as described in the desegregation plan. This past year, the responsibilities of Communications and Transportation were added to this position. Transportation has over 340 employees. Also added this school year are additional reports and documents generated monthly and quarterly to monitor the districts progress in fulfilling its obligations under its plan. Problem Definition The Student Assignment Office is not receiving as much day-to-day supervision as it should to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. The responsibilities of student assignment require moment by moment attention. Decisions about when to release waiting lists affect racial balance and recruitment of parents to the district. Careful and proper monitoring of racial balance and the student assignment process improves public confidence and maintains racial balance. Projecting demographic data and enrollments aids in planning for future marketing, recruitment, and school closings or construction. Executing plans for closing schools requires attention to patrons who are affected and the assurance of acceptable options. The supervision of SAO personnel requires meetings, planning, and periodic training. Meeting with parents who do not understand the student assignment process requires diplomacy, patience, and time. Meeting with the appeals committee requires time and diplomacy. These are examples of student assignment responsibilities requiring day-to-day, on-site attention. Currently the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation fulfills the role of the student assignment supervisor in addition to broader responsibilities. Though housed at the SAO, his responsibilities require his presence and attention elsewhere too often. This makes the day-to-day attention required by the student assignment impossible. Analysis of Alternatives The following alternatives have been considered: 10/6/94 D1RSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 5 1. Add a new position to cover the responsibilities of student assignment and to assist the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This creates an additional position and personnel costs. 2. Allow things to remain as they are. SAO and parents will continue to receive less Associate Superintendent Organizational Chart I A>oclt 8upTtnt<ndnt | 3. DIrvctorof Transportation l" I Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation Student Assignment Coordinator SAO Information Coordinator I than attention. adequate Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Director of Communications I W Wecrutters | I PreyiUBT I I (8) Student Alonwnt nf [ Figure J Community OovolopmMit CoordkMitor I Staff I Assignment. Realign responsibilities so the new director assumes the responsibility primary for Student and the assignment, Associate Superintendent Desegregation for assumes responsibility primary for desegregation and the duties previously done by the Desegregation Facilitator. This neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment and allows for greater focus on the desegregation effort. This position will report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. See Figure 1. Now, more than before, senior management is totally involved in the desegregation effort. The responsibilities of the Superintendent, the Deputy Superintendent, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, and staff development personnel eire all focused on the desegregation effort. The implementation of a planning and budgeting process has raised the effort to a new consciousness. Now monitoring of desegregation is more extensive than ever. Continuous discussions and analysis in meetings of the Superintendents Council have moved obligations to the forefront. The Program Budget Document and the Management Tool represent additional safeguards not previously used by the district. Therefore, the original intent of the Desegregation Facilitator has grown beyond a single individual into a way of life for senior management in the district. Addressing the need in the area of student assignment now becomes ein important part of the solution. The following are examples of responsibilities to be assigned to the new position: 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ EOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 6 a) Supervises and coordinates the day-to-day operation of the Student Assignment Office
b) Keeps the Associate Superintendent informed and updated on progress made in performing responsibilities relating to student assignment and on any relevant information discovered in the performeince of these duties
c) Assists with developmental planning in the areas of long-range student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, and equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information
d) Assists with monitoring and evaluating the districts desegregation plan
e) Assists in identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregation in the student assignment process
f) Provides immediate feedback on the day-to-day operations relating to student assignment
g) Stays informed of current issues before the Board of Directors by attending Board Meetings
h) Provides for the development, implementation, and evaluation of staff training for Student Assignment Office personnel
i) Coordinates the appeals committee
and, j) Performs other duties as assigned. The LRSD Plan defines the position of Desegregation Facilitator. Those tasks are found in the Educational Equity Monitoring section of the plan. The primary responsibility for the tasks described in the LRSD Plan will rest with the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation with this proposal. In the plan, the Desegregation Facilitator is defined as follows: Office of Desegregation A desegregation facilitator will be hired to work directly with building princip>als. The desegregation facilitator will be solely responsible for identifying problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building. The facilitator will also be responsible for providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs, for desegregation related concerns. The use of a desegregation facilitator will allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day to day activities in the schools. The desegregation facilitator will report directly to the Associate Sufjerintendent for Desegregation. However, the desegregation facilitator will work very closely with the remaining associate superintendents as needed. The desegregation facilitator will focus on all aspects of desegregation implementation. This includes, but is not limited to, achievement disparity. 10/6/94 MRSAOZ DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 7 extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance eind counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interaction, and parent involvement. Timeline Develop Job Description Announce Position Hire Desegregation Facilitator March 1-15 April 1-15 May 30 The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the primary responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. He will be assisted by those persons listed in the chart below. _______________________Tasks_________ 1. Work directly with building principals 2. Identification of problems or practices that impede the implementation of quality desegregated education in each building 3. Providing technical assistance to building principals and their staffs for desegregation concerns______ 4. Working very closely with the remaining associate superintendents'^ as needed__________________ 5. Allow the central office administration to have immediate feedback on the day-to-day activities in the schools^________________________________ 6. Focusing on aU aspects of desegregation implementation including, but not limited to achievement disparity, extracurricular activities, class assignments, guidance and counseling, staffing and staff interaction, student interactions, and parent involvement. ________Person(s)_______ Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistcint Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Dir. of Humein Resources Dir. of Labor Relations Dir, of Student Assignment Assoc. Supt for Deseg. Dir, of Staff Development Associate Supt. for Deseg. Assistant Supts. Assoc, to Deputy Supt. Associate Supt. for Deseg. 4 At present, only one Associate Superintendent exists. This reference is interpreted as other senior level administrators in the district. 5 This item is less of a task and more of a result. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOC Director of Student Assignment Business Case 8 Recommendation Alternative 3 is recommended. 3. Change the position of Desegregation Facilitator to Director of Student Assignment. Realign tasks to make this position responsible primarily for student assignment. The responsibilities of the former Desegregation Facilitator will become the responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. This change neither increases the costs of personnel nor ignores the responsibilities of the Desegregation Facilitator. Further, it gives the attention necessary to student assignment. This position will continue to report to the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Objective Upon implementation of alternative 3, the Student Assigiunent Office will receive the day-to-day supervision necessary to address the sensitivity of student assignments, their impact on the desegregation plan, and the needs of parents. Achieving this objective will permit: 1. More efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation
2. Greater focus and attention given to daily decisions relating to student assignment
3. Thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information
4. Quicker response to parent inquires
and, 5. Identification of problems or practices in the student assignment process that impede the implementation of quality desegregation. Impact Analysis Negatives 1. Student Assignment Personnel will have to adjust to a third supervisor within three years. 2. Parties in the case may be concerned that monitoring of the districts desegregation obligations will be compromised. 10/6/M DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 9 Positives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. eliminate delays in decision-making and responses to parents in the cirea of student assignments. permit efficient monitoring of progress of desegregation by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation
bring more focus and attention to daily decisions relating to student assignment
provide more thorough long-range planning for student assignment policies, magnet school development, program placement, equal educational opportunity planning, and proposal development by providing demographic information and other pertinent information
allow quicker response to parent inquires
and, permit the identification of problems or practices in the student assignment process that impede the implementation of quality desegregation. Risks The risks of not implementing this solution are continued disorganization for the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, complaints, limited complicince with our obligations, and continuation of a generally poor public image in the area of student assignments. Timing Currently, the position of Desegregation Facilitator is vacant because of a retirement. By modifying the position now, no adjustments are necessary for the person in the position. The position will be advertised as described herein. The new person will know what is expected before filling the position. An extended period of training will be necessary once a person is employed. Time for announcing the position and interviewing will be necessary. This should take no more than one month to complete once final approval is given. The busiest time of the year for student assignment is January through September. The sooner we can make this change
the sooner we can begin improving service to parents. Resources Analysis Personnei This is a position modification requiring no increase or decrease in the number of existing positions. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCDirector of Student Assignment Business Case 10 Financial No increase will occur in the current level of funding for this position. Revenue Source Funding for this position will come from the current line item of the budget. Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this modification are council members, SAO staff, Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation. General Information Plan The following are milestones for implementing this position modification. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Milestone Date Person Meet with SAO staff. Director of Communications, the Coordinator of VIPS, and the Director of Transportation^ Present Business Case to the Superintendent for approval Present Business Case to the Board of Directors for approval Present Business Case to ODM to begin modification procedure Discuss this modification with all parties Submit plan rnodification to the Court for approval 7. Court approval 8. 9. Advertise the position Interview 10. Report for work 8/30/94 6/14/94 6/14/94 10/03/94 10/14/94, 10/21/94 11/04/94 11/07/94 11/22/94 12/05/94 Mayo Mayo Williams Mayo Attorney Attorneys Williams Hurley Mayo Appointee 6 Though discussed in staff meetings with this group, a specific date was not reflected in an earlier edition of this business case. Another discussion was held updating this group on the progress of the business case. Therefore, the date appears to be out of sequence. 10/6/94 DIRSAOZ.DOCB4101301 Date: October 13, 1994 To: Robert Glowers From: Bill Mooney Subj: Comments on the September LRSD Project Management Tool Robert, I thought I would send you a brief note of comments on the latest project management tool since I will not be able to talk to you about them for some time. If you have any questions, save them for my return. Task 6. As you know, the 6/30/95 finish date is not really correct. The needs assessment we are talking about in this section must be completed by the 12/15/94 finish date in Task 150. The problem is Task 153, which really belongs in the next cycle. Cycle III. I know the lawyers dont want two tools, but good planning and management says keep things separate so folks dont get confused. I guess lawyers dont get confused like the rest of us. Task 6. Last week we met concerning setting the format for the needs- assessment document. 1 would add a new task to cover that activity, and insert it in as Task 7. Task 71. There is no mention of the facilities committee which has been set up to help develop the facilities plan. I would put some tasking in this section to track their work, and show the world what all we are doing. Task 105. Adding the name of the school, once determined, is a good idea. It shows you are working your plan. Well done. Task 149. 1 dont understand why this finish date is so late? It would seem that they would want their input going into the Program Development decision-making back in January. April 28, 1995 is after the Proposed Budget has already been developed. I would think this date should be back in December/January. Task 154. This is the same problem we have in Task 6. 9/15/95 is not really the right timeframe. The inventory for this cycle should be completed by now. The killer is Task 160, which is really in the Cycle III timeline. Task 186 and Task 192. These tasks indicate that the Board has established and prepared a distribution list of their written priorities. By this note, I am requesting you send Ann Brown and myself a copy of these priorities as soon as possible. Thanks, in advance.Task 188 and Task 189. I understand why they wanted to extend these two, and I think this is a valid reason. What concerns me is the 0% progress. I fear folks will let this one slip again this year because of the hard decisions, and we will get hopelessly behind. Please watch the progress on this one. We need to start work on the known items last week. Task 203. This finish date is not correct. We know that this sub-process must be completed prior to starting on the next sub-process. Budgeting. This sub-process needs to finish by 2/28/95. The problem child is Task 216. If the district is planning on revisiting outsourcing, it should do so and make a decision not later than 2/28/95 so it can be properly included in the budget. To show a date of 6/30/95 replicates the problem we had this past budget
waiting too late for decisions. A decision at 6/30/95 is far too late for this budget cycle. Task 214. How can we have 40% of this task complete when the start date is 11/ 16/94? Task 250. I think this task will take more than one day. Think about this one. Task 253. This is the same task as Task 248, and this one can be deleted. Note
I noticed that you did not include anything in the plan about the budget hearings which will surely occur. I would think about how to at least put a reminder in there. Being a manager and not an attorney, I would ask the Court to tentatively schedule those hearings as soon as possible giving consideration to the overall LRSD schedule. Task 364. One last comment about this. The cover letter for the August 3, 1994 filing, entitled LRSDs 1994-1995 Budget/July Project Management Tool (Corrected), addressed the tool for Cycle II, yet the actual tool submitted was for Cycle I. As I have said, I have been told the lawyers only wanted one tool at a time, but this is what can happen when one fails to clearly understand there are really two separate cycles overlapping. As we have discussed. Cycle I never was completely closed out. Rest assured there will be many more future interpretation errors if we continue to keep two cycles going in one tool. Enough said. Task 378, 379, 380, 381. This is a good idea and reminder for critical things to come. Task 382. This summary task is a good one for including in the tool, but the timing confuses me. It seems to me that these tasks relate to the 94-95 school year and the budget which we have just completed. These tasks were added to the tool after they were actually completed. It seems we have another "two cycle" problem. Since this cycle is focusing on 95-96 school year, it seems we should have May 95 dates in this tool.'/ 4- X( Little Rock School District <*15 ' October 20, 1994 eer 2 41994 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Little Rock School District Oiiise of Oosegregaticn ktonii tiering Dear Mrs. Ann Brown, Enclosed is an invitation for everyone in your office, attached flyer) (See We would be honored to have you as our special guest. Love, Catherine 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 C^: A.'J^ 'f SfAsa) /r/^ Little Rock School District October 25, 1994 RSCEP'BP OCT 2 8 1994 Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Ofiioa of D6segre'5aiicn Moriitering Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Extended Year Program at Incentive Schools ( Attached you will find administration reports for the Extended Year Program for the incentive schools, sending these reports to you. I am sorry for the delay in If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Sterling Ingram Associate to the Deputy Superintendent Sl/adg- Attachments 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUMMER SCHOOL/SUMMARY REPORT 1994 GRADES 1 - 6 AND EXTENDED YEAR PROGRAM ROCKEFELLER ELEMENTARY 700 EAST 17TH STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 y C^yJ^L ,,^, .. r ....-ZXe. /yiaj.^ ..- -_______ < i /tJt, nopy Ti^u t, (?c I illJWIIIItWjW' LmuE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT ^sn Memorandum OCI 5 1 1994 DATE
October 27, 1994 Vyi 2tt'Cw 0* TO: RE: Desegregation Monitoring Office - Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin Joshua Interveners - John Walker Knight Interveners - Eleanor Coleman, Frank Martin Pulaski County Special School District - Bobby Lester North Little Rock School District - James Smith LRSD Planning Team - Matthis, Ingram, Clowers, Mayo, Buchanan, Elston, Kohler, Eaton, Hurley, Schwartz of Schools ) / Magnet School/Development This memo is to invite your participation in a planning process leading to the submission of an application by the Little Rock School District to the federal Magnet Schools Assistance Program. An application for a 3-year program is being prepared for submission in early 1995. Program activity would begin later that year. LRSD seeks involvement of key community representatives to develop the most competitive application. Your involvement will help determine which schools will be targeted to become magnets, what magnet themes will be developed, how enrollment at the schools will be handled, and other issues. Please make every effort to attend or send a representative to a planning meeting on Thursday, November 3, from 2:00 to 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building. At that session, you will be presented with some of the Districts preliminary concepts for magnet school development and an overview of the schedule and planning process we will follow for the coming months. Again, your participation in this planning process is strongly encouraged. Please call Marvin Schwartz, #324-2014, with any questions on this initiative or the planning meeting. I look forward to seeing you then. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)824-2000 I 1 C^X <^: ^r)f/,A. FOR CONSIDERATION OF SUSPENSION OF THE RULES AT OCTOBER REGULAR BOARD MEETING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS October 27, 1994 TO: Board of Directors OCI 27 1994 FROM: Sadie Mitchell^^Xssistant Superintendent Samuel Branch, Principal .^^^Marvin Schwartz, Grants Writer Gliics 0, Ocseg
ey: itiOi' THROUGH: SUBJECT: Parent Involvement Program r P^k Element^ School has prepared an application to the state Department of Education for f establish a parent involvement program for grades K-3. The school will request $15,000 for a one-year program through the Division of Early Childhood Education e intent of the progrm is to involve parents in their chidrens education and prevent academic difficulties through high quality early childhood programs. The Fair Park program design involves developing language skills to bnng parents and children together through the use of books and computer equipment. Parent involvement in the school setting will be complemented by use of educational materials in the home. prevent academic 'O It is recoi^ended that the Board of Directors approve the administration to submit the proposal for the Fair Park parent involvement program.OFF. OF DESEG. MONITORING BANKS, JACQUELYN J - BROWN, ANN S vC BRYANT, LINDA F RECEPTIONIST FEDERAL MONITOR, 515 WEST 24TH STREET 1201 WELCH Sukf.o** 3002 ROMINE ROAD MELISSA R MOONEY, WILLIAM M /MORGAN, ROLAND R v'POWELL, MARGIE L '7rAMER, POLLY A ^fiMITH, HORACE R TANNER, CONNIE H ASSOCIATE FEDERAL MONITOR BUDGET SPECIALIST ASSOCIATE FEDERAL MONITOR ASSOCIATE FEDERAL MONITOR OFFICE MANAGER ASSOCIATE FEDERAL MONITOR ASSOCIATE FeDEBAfc-HONITOfr 6509 CANTRELL 21711 HENLEY LANE MCF 11411 KERRY DRIVE -4eeEECHwee& 0' Ci 72114 72202 72204 72207 72065 72209 TK95- I 758-1315 372-7458 224-7338 663-8177 888-6183 562-7698 ^e^soof- DATE: October 31, 1994 TO: All Principals, Directors, and Managers FROM: Dr. Ri^^ Hurley, Director Human Resources Department SUBJECT: Request for Personnel Directory Update Information Your help is needed in updating the information for your staffs name, address, and phone number for 1994-95 LRSD Personnel Directory. A copy of the current information from Human Resources is attached to assist you. Please have each employee in you division to check their address, zip code, and telephone number for accuracy. If the employee DOES NOT wish to have their address and/or number published, they must indicate so by lining through the information and initialing. All changes should be made on the attached sheet(s). Return your updated information to Human Resources by November 11.1994. vmai aJ i l=,J^ Ct/>>'<-i LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72202 / - October 31, 1994 Mr. Bill Mooney ODM Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Bill: Due to an error there were two pages in the LRSD Transportation Business Case with wrong calculations. Please replace pages 1 and 10 with the enclosed copies. Thank you for your help! Sincerely, Russ Mayo Associate Superintendent for Desegregation RM: elk Enclosure: (2) Little Rock School District Improving Student Transportation Business Case Executive Summary The intent of this business case is to explain the current transportation problems which resulted from an aging fleet and reduced personnel. Unfortunately, the cost of remedies proposed here is only a beginning. It will not fix the problem for the long term. For example, the new buses proposed will not arrive until the spring of 1995. Then too few wUl arrive to impact the long-term need. The personnel proposed can be hired immediately but will have continuous impact on the budgets from year to year, if this solution continues to be used. Additionally, large sums of money will have to be included in each succeeding budget to replace buses. A detailed explanation of the transportation problem follows with a temporary solution for this budget year. The cost to the district will be $1.3 million. Replacement buses will cost $1 million and additional personnel will cost approximately $0.3 million. Below is an itemized list of costs: Quan. Position CosP Quan.^ Item Cost 3.3 Trainers Mechanics 1.5 Helpers Clerks $87,100 $115,200 $62,400 $21,600 33 Buses $990,000 4 4 Total $286,300 Total $990,000 The money will come from the state desegregation loan fund. The following milestones for implementing this proposal are suggested and will be monitored by the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Milestone 1. Proposal presented to the LRSD Board of Directors and approved 2. Advertise for mechanics and trainers Date 7/14/94 9/1/94 Person Williams Hurley 1 2 Includes benefits Depends on whether or not we lease-purchase or purchase outrightImproving Student Transportation Business Case 10 Timing It is critical that the decision be made before the budget is final for 1994-95. If this solution is to be implemented, buses must be ordered and personnel recruited as soon as possible. Resources Analysis Personnel Several trainers and additional mechanics are necessary to implement this proposal. Financial The cost to the district will be $1.3 million. Replacement buses will cost $1 million and additional personnel will cost approximately $0.3 million. Below is an itemized list of costs: Quan. Position 3.3 Trainers Cost^ Quan.^ Item Cost 4 Mechanics 4 Helpers 1.5 Clerks $87,100 $115,200 $62,400 $21,600 33 Bxises $990,000 Total $286,300 Total $990,000 Revenue Source The money will come from the state desegregation loan ftmd. Force Field Analysis Primary supporters of this proposal will be those directly affected by the solution patrons and administrators within the District. The Board of Directors and 3 Includes benefits 4 Depends on whether or not we lease-purchase or purchase outright. lO/SI/M BC.BU5Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324'2000 r i iPF . 'J November 1, 1994 '5 1994 Office ot Oe
Katherine P. Mitchell, Ph.D. 1605 Welch Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 '"Iz Dear Dr. Mitchell: I am writing asking that you work for and vote for the continuation of hiring registered nurses to provide health care to our school children. Many of our students receive no health care other than what is provided at their school site. Registered nurses are qualified to provide professional assessments, emergency care and referrals, health education. and the all important mental health care. are not qualified to act in such an independent role. Licensed practical nurses In my consultation with the Little Rock School District, I have become aware of countless cases where elementary, junior and senior high students as well as faculty members have not only received excellent health care and mental health/suicide prevention/intervention but are alive today as a result of the professional assessment, quick response and committment of the school nurses of the LRSD. district should be proud! They are certainly a group of winich the As our society becomes more complicated, so do the lives of our students and faculty and so do the health problems demanding professional nurses in our schools. Let's not sell our kids short. Please continue your support of our registered school nurses and giving our students the quality health care they deserve. Thank you very much. * Sincerely Mary Paal, M.S.N..,R.N. ,c. Certified Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse cc: Linda Poindexter Dr. Henry WilliamsOffice 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: November 1, 1994 To: All Counsel of Record From: n S. Brown Subject: LRSD Proposal for Plan Modification: Desegregation Facilitator As you are aware. Judge Wright has asked me to coordinate the desegregation plan modification process for a specific proposal, which was prompted by a LRSD business case presented to the Court during recent hearings. That business case proposed to eliminate the Desegregation Facilitator, to distribute the Facilitators duties to other district administrators, and to create a new Director of Student Assignment position. In an October 24, 1994 Order, the Court directed me to "work with the LRSD to identify any deficiencies in the business case and to address them in ways that preserve the intent of the desegregation plan when it provided that a Desegregation Facilitator would serve the staff and students of LRSD schools." 1 have met at length with Dr. Russ Mayo to discuss the business case. As a result of our discussions and my observations. Dr. Mayo has completed a revised business case. The revision addresses deficiencies in the original proposal, which had to do with
incongruities within the business case, omitted plan mandates, the scope of the revised job description, possible neglect of plan-mandated responsibilities, and unclear accountability. In my opinion. Dr. Mayo has satisfactorily addressed those deficiencies through this revised proposal. Please review the revised business case, which is attached along with a letter from Dr. Mayo to me. If you have questions or concerns about the proposal, discuss them with Dr. Mayo and his attorney. Do your best to resolve any issues and determine whether the business case may need further revision. Let me know immediately the nature of any matters that remain unsettled or if you anticipate any additional changes in the proposal
1 will serve as a resource to further facilitate the modification process if necessaiy. 1 wish to conclude this phase of the modification process as soon as possible, certainly no later than November 10, 1994. By that date or before, please indicate in writing to me either that you do not object to the plan modification as proposed in the revised business case, or that you object to the modification for reasons which you specify. 1 will forward your written comments to the Court along with copies of this memorandum and the enclosures. The Court will issue a ruling based on this information, any other filings you may wish to make, and the record of this case. Thank you for your cooperation. Please let me know if 1 may be of further assistance. Enc. 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: November 2, 1994 To: From: Subject: Principals of Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Bob Morgan, Margie Powell, and Horace Smith, ODM Monitoring Report on the Incentive Schools A draft copy of ODMs monitoring report is enclosed for your review. This report reflects the information we gathered during our visit to your schools this past spring. Please read the report carefully, checking for accuracy. If you find any statements that are inaccurate or if there are areas that need clarification, please summarize your comments and submit them to our office in writing, no later than 5:00 p.in. Tuesday, November 8,1994. One of the monitors will come to your school on that date to pick up the draft copy. If you have written comments and they are ready by the time a monitor arrives, you may send the comments back with him or her. If a monitor arrives before you prepare any response, you may bring it to our office later that same day. We will not accept any responses received after 5:00 p.m. on November 8. If you have questions or concerns about the report, please call our office and discuss those issues with a monitor. We make every effort to present fair, accurate information. Since this report is a draft copy, we ask that you do not duplicate it or share it with others. After the review process, we will file a completed report that includes an introduction, findings, summary, conclusions, and recommendations with the court. We will send you a copy of that final report. We very much appreciate your cooperation during the monitoring process and thank you for taking the time to review the draft. cc: Russ Mayo Pat Price Sterling Ingram4 oi^y J 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: November 3, 1994 To: From: Subject: Bobby Lester, James Smith, Hank Williams A ^Ahn Brown ODM 1994-95 Monitoring Priorities and Procedures My staff and I have identified our monitoring priorities for the 1994-95 school year, which are attached. As in previous years, we identified our monitoring emphasis by reviewing the desegregation plans and mandates from both the circuit and district courts. We also noted court orders and directives issued during hearings that require ODM to review certain desegregation activities or to scrutinize specific provisions of the plans or court orders. It is possible that some of the attached desegregation topics will change depending upon unforeseen events that may develop, such as new court orders. I Some of our monitoring will be in the nature of a follow-up on previous reports, such as those on the alternative schools, racial balance in school enrollment, and the LRSD incentive schools. Other monitoring will be in areas we have not previously reviewed as a discreet topic, such as the secondary interdistrict schools in the LRSD, the specialty programs in the PCSSD, and the status of desegregation in the NLRSD schools. At die conclusion of each monitoring project, we will summarize our findings to the Court in some type of written report. Some of our reports will be brief and limited in scope, such as that on eliminating portable buildings in the PCSSD
others, such at that on the secondary interdistrict schools, will be more comprehensive and lengthier. You can expect our monitoring procedures to remain essentially unchanged from previous years, continuing to include review of records and other written information, interviews with principals and other administrators, and visits to schools. Our observations will be guided by a written monitoring guide, the same type of instrument weve used in the past. As usual, we will review the guide with your staff before beginning a formal monitoring project so youll know what we are looking for.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 Novembers, 1994 Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Dear Russ
Ann gave me a copy of the flow chart your staff developed to help explain the LRSD student assignment options. I know how confusing the many assignment options can be. Parents certainly need all the help they can get in making choices for their children. 1 really appreciate your efforts to make the assignment process more understandable to the Board, other educators, and the public. After reviewing the document, I have a few questions and comments regarding its content. I would like for us to meet and discuss the flow chart and other student assignment issues, after you have had time to review my comments. I will call your office by Tuesday, November 8, 1994 so we can set a time to discuss these matters. For whom was this flow chart designed? If the chart is for parents, or other individuals unfamiliar with the students assignment regulations, it may need more information presented in a clearer manner. How will the chart be used? If the flow chart is designed to demonstrate the various student assignment options, it needs some information regarding sending schools. The chart lists the various assignment options, but never indicates that the racial balance at sending schools is a factor. How much weight are you assigning to the racial balance at the sending schools? Has the district resolved the issue of sending school balance versus the need to reach maximum capacity at the magnet schools? Is the position on sending schools the same for all types of transfers (magnet, desegregation, incentive)?Where does the district stand on submitting a revised policy on the enrollment of LRSD white students in the interdistrict schools located within the district? This policy can make a dramatic difference in the options you have to offer to some parents. Why did you opt for the school classifications used on the flow chart? While King has full magnet status, its student assignments and racial balance are those allotted to an interdistrict school. The same is true for Washington, but both schools (along with Rockefeller) are listed with the original elementary magnets. Since the flow chart is trying to explain student assignment options, wouldn't it be more helpful to group schools with the same enrollment and racial balance guidelines together (such as the original magnets, interdistrict magnets, and so on)? I'll be talking to you soon. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate MonitorLittle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT November 3, 1994 RECEIVED NOV 4 1994 Judge Susan Webber Wright U. S. Federal Court Eastern District of Arkansas 600 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Oifici of Desegregation MoruOiii'.g Dear Judge Wright: Enclosed is a bound copy of the Pulaski County Desegregation Case foundation documents. Included are the Settlement Agreement, the Interdistrict Plan, the Court Order (May 1992) relating to plan modifications, and the LRSD Desegregation Plan. They (except the Court Order) have been reformatted, indexed, and line-numbered for easy reference. The Court Order has been summarized. That summary is found at the front of the Court Order section. No wording was changed. The indexing and line-numbering facilitates discussion and pursuit of our obligations. Though indexes may be grouped in an infinite number of ways, this one serves our purposes for quick reference. We will occasionally revise it as the need arises. Each member of the Board of Directors and key administrators in our district have copies. It occurred to me that you might benefit from it also. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools Enclosure cc: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Stephen W. Jones, NLRSD Attorney M. Samuel Jones, PCSSD Attorney John W. Walker, Attorney, Joshua Intervenors Richard W. RoacheU, Attorney, Knight Intervenors bjg 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 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 November 4, 1994 Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: As you know, the deadline for submitting the LRSD October 1 enrollment to ADE has passed. It is my understanding that the LRSD has already sent this information to ADE
however, my office has not received it. It has always been the practice of aU three school districts to send the October 1 data to ODM at the same time they submitted it to ADE. In order for ODM to complete an enrollment comparison, my office needs LRSD's October 1 data as soon as possible. Polly Ramer, my office manager, has tried without success to secure a copy of your submission by talking to Deana Keathley in Russ Mayo's office. Bob Connelly in data processing, and Audrey Lee in Student Assignment. My office was told that this year the LRSD submitted the October 1 enrollment to ADE on computer disc. Since the October 1 enrollment is used as the baseline for obtaining an accurate year-to-year enrollment comparison, it is important that the information be reported in the same format as in years past. For this purpose, we have requested from the persons named above a breakdown of the October 1, 1994 enrollment by school, by grade, and by race. I would appreciate any help you might give me to expedite our receipt of the October I eiu-ollment breakdown. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Ann S. BrownOf'- 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 November 4, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Lately Ive been hearing the term "Beacon" schools used in reference to a subcommittee of the LRSD Board of Education and certain district schools. That is a term with which 1 am unfamiliar. Id appreciate your forwarding any information that can help me and my staff become better acquainted with the concept. 1 am particularly interested in specifically where and how you plan to implement and fund the Beacon idea in the LRSD. New programs or projects invariably have an impact on desegregation. When I am informed about the districts activities and potential new ventures, 1 am better able to answer any questions which members of the community or Judge Wright may ask me. Thanks for helping me keep up-to-date. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown 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) 3710100 November 4, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Lately Ive been hearing the term "Beacon" schools used in reference to a subcommittee of the LRSD Board of Education and certain district schools. That is a term with which 1 am unfamiliar. Id appreciate your forwarding any information that can help me and my staff become better acquainted with the concept. I am particularly interested in specifically where and how you plan to implement and fund the Beacon idea in the LRSD. New programs or projects invariably have an impact on desegregation. When 1 am informed about the districts activities and potential new ventures, I am better able to answer any questions which members of the community or Judge Wright may ask me. Thanks for helping me keep up-to-date. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Of 3 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 Ms. Estelle Mathis Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 Markham St Little Rock, Arkansas November 7, 1994 Dear Estelle, The 1994-95 ODM Monitoring Priorities have been distributed and you probably noted that Computer Managed Instructional Technology is on the list. This is to inform you that I will be doing the monitoring review of the Abacus system. I intend to start this review immediately and ask for your cooperation and support. My understanding is that, at the onset. Abacus would be a tool to insure a consistent curriculum across the district and would help to improve achievement by identifying those areas that needed attention to realize a higher degree of mastery. The purpose of this review is to determine if the Abacus system is being used to its potential and, where appropriate, to make recommendations for improvement. My monitoring plan is to first interview Betsy Choate and Lucy Lyons at the IRC to get an overview of Abacus and then go out to schools to observe on-site use. Principals at the selected schools will be notified in advance, and I don't anticipate that there will be any interference with class activities. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the monitoring process, please do not hesitate to call our office. Thank you very much for your assistance. Sincerely, Bob Morgan Associate Monitor cc: Ann Brown Hank Williams11. os 94
17 3t \y' Li i SI,. (y- ID- (' ' Jjj'ate. 1 ry p^rtidpat OOI L JTi * I / .^ i "-.J P.Ol TRANSACTION REPORT NOV-16-94 THU 14:19 JK X X X DATE START SEND^.. RX TIME PAGES a TYPE NOTE l^OV-10 14:18 50te46576 r 1'05" 2 RECEIVE OK *Vi . X X X X ' X X X1 .N0V-10-*r^l5!10 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX NO, 5013246576 P. 01 I DATE
TO: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT (501) 324-5422 'l FAX LINE (501) 324-6576 November 10, 1994 Polly/Ann '. i jJi J 11 J .'i FROM: Lucille DeGosti NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET > 2 LOOK WHAT I FOUND! > <' 4 ii. -c. / J |3' J .it"' - lE Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 3 November 11, 1994 aS~i Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 NOV 1 0 1994 Little Rock, AR 72201 Oiiics cf D! .y, liicn Mcniicnng Dear Ann, In collaboration with the City of Little Rock and New Futures for Little Rock Youth, the Department of Health, and the Division of Children and Family Services, the Little Rock School District has participated in the planning process for the Rock Beacon School Initiative. City of Little The Beacon Initiative of New York City, a highly successful program, has provided a framework to guide the local effort. need The fundamental principle of the Beacons Initiative is the for partnerships between schools and community-based organizations to meet the needs of youth in today's complex society. The Beacons Initiative seeks to link community-based youth organizations with schools to increase the presence of supports for youth to meet their needs and to assist them in building academic and social competencies. A Beacon School Program is managed by a community-based organization working collaboratively with the school district, local school principal, and their own community advisory council. The school facility is utilized for Beacon programming during the evening hours, on weekends, holidays, and in the summer. A Beacon Program offers children, youth and adults a mix of recreation, social services, educational enrichment and vocational activities, health education and referrals, and the opportunity for community meetings and neighborhood social activities. Cloverdale Junior High School has been recommended to the planning committee as the site for the first Beacon School. The new Stephens has been proposed as the second site. Funding for the Beacon Program will be provided primarily by the city of Little Rock. The school district will provide the space for the program. Further infoirmation will be provided to you as the planning process proceeds. Siicere^ H<n: P. Williams, SiiBerintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (301)324-2000 Little Rock School District November 15, 1994 M : NGV 1 b 1994 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage VveSt Building, Room 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 ''iCij iii !Je53i i' arnig Dear Ms. Brown
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the participation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in future meetings of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. As you will note on the November Agenda, you will have the opportunity to address the Board during the Presentations section of the meeting. Placement on the Agenda for ODM, as well as the Classroom Teachers Association, the Joshua Intervenors, the Knight Intervenors, and the PTA Council was approved by the Board at the October 27, 1994, meeting. I look forward to your input and look forward to seeing you. Sincerely, Linda Pondexter, President Board of Directors bjg 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)824-2000di-: CEcrae Little Rock School District November 15, 1994 NGV 1 6 1994 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Room 510 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 'C^ Q: Uv
ih'jg Dear Ms. Brown
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the participation of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring in future meetings of the Board of Directors of the Little Rock School District. As you will note on the November Agenda, you will have the opportunity to address the Board during the Presentations section of the meeting. Placement on the Agenda for ODM, as well as the Classroom Teachers Association, the Joshua Intervenors, the Knight Intervenors, and the PTA Council was approved by the Board at the October 27, 1994, meeting. I look forward to your input and look forward to seeing you. Sincerely, Linda Pondexter, President Board of Directors bjg 810 West Markham street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000i_(/^(_- /i y/' z <^4 c I > f- f'. . -Y. (.'r<^~ Cc' X r. RcCEIV^O NOV 1 6 1994 Effies or Dcss^rog Z1 I. r 'I/- r -1^- r: t-c i <^ ,iJ.-^^ ~f~. i l-r^ . ioo. -k < / -n I (^i-t^t'-' ii- ?y\A ^n-C 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: November 16, 1994 From: Melissa Guldin, Ass Isociate Monitor To: Gwen Efrid, Little Rock School District Health Services Coordinator Subject: LRSD Nursing Staff Our office recently received some information from the Little Rock School District regarding possible budget cutting strategies. The list of budget reduction possibilities included the substitution of Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) for the Registered Nurses (RNs) currently working in the schools. I understand that there are important differences in training, experience, and qualifications between LPNs and RNs. Since the issue of RN versus LPN is sure to be debated in the months ahead, I would like some information on the current status of the LRSD nursing staff. This data should help me be better informed regarding the districts nursing program. Please send me a list of all LRSD schools that currently receive nursing services, the number of days (or hours) per week that each site is served by a nurse, whether that nurse is an RN or LPN, and each nurses race and gender. If you have any additional information that you think would be helpful or informative, I would welcome receiving that also. I would like to become more familiar with the scope of the nursing program, before the district makes budgetary decisions. When the monitors visited the incentive schools, we were impressed with the wellness clinics serving the students, staff, and patrons of the incentive schools. The clinics myriad of health services and eligibility for Medicaid reimbursement help ensure that area residents and LRSD staff have increased access to quality health care. In addition to the staffing information requested, would you please send me a list of all the schools with wellness clinics that have been approved for medicaid reimbursement. Thank you for your help in providing this information. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.Ff (4* * /^/^ u LrrrtE Rock School District November 16, 1994 TO: FROM: RECEIVED NOV 2 3 iqpi Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Edna M. Wiley, Teacher-Washington Magnet School chard Hurley, Director-Human Resources am in receipt of your letter dated November 15, which you request "back pay" due for your 1993-94 contract. I 1994 in I have previously advised you both orally and in writing that I believe you have been paid all the monies due to you. Please refer to my letter dated June 9, 1994. In that letter, I explained that I had discussed your salary concern with Mr. Mark Milhollen and I explained, in detail, how your salary calculations were done. If you need a copy of that letter, I'd be pleased to furnish it to you. Regarding your second issue (sick leave bank), you should mark on your Leave Accountability Report any discrepancies you feel need correcting and forward a copy of the marked Report to my attention. Your Report, and others similarly questioned, will be submitted to the Business office for review and correction, when appropriate. I trust this response will answer your request, please don't hesitate to contact me at your convenience, since you carbon-copied your letter to the below-listed persons, I am taking the liberty to copy them on my response to you. If not. Further, cc: As usual, Edna, it is nice to hear from you. Dr. Williams, Superintendent Ms. Coleman, President-L.R.C.T.A. Mr. Martin, Executive Director-L.R.C.T.A. Ms. Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Pondexter, President-Little Rock School Board of Directors 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72301 (501)324-3000 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: November 17, 1994 To: Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Little Rock School District From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Documentation Request I want to follow-up on our recent conversation regarding Academic Progress Incentive Grant documentation. I would like to receive the following information at our monthly meeting on November 22 if possible. Copy of the 1993-94 APIG school program evaluation 1993-94 APIG data for each elementary and secondary school which includes - school, amount approved, date application was submitted, date application was approved, date of actual appropriation of funds, and the amount expended by the school Thank you for your cooperation. If you have questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call. I: kfiyf) ar) Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor November 22, 1994 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: Thank you for responding so quickly to my latest request for the LRSD October 1 enrollment by school, race, and grade. We have reviewed the enrollment report, but have found what appear to be some mathematical errors in the data, which I have noted below. Since we did not look at every calculation, the report may have additional errors not listed. Page 4 Chicot Total reported as 42~&e sum is 57 % black wrong Page 4 Cloverdale Elem Total reported as 106the sum is 57 Total reported as 52the sum is 50 % black wrong Page 4 Dodd 12345 6 Page 5 Geyer Springs Page 9 Watson Total reported as 53the sum is 50 Total reported as 105-the sum is 37 Total reported as 43the sum is 38 Total reported as 47the sum is 46 Total reported as 48the sum is 46 Total reported as 31the sum is 28 Total reported as 79the sum is 48 Total reported as 53the sum is 48 Total reported as 41the sum is 35 Total reported as 79-the sum is 49 Altogether missing from the report % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong % black wrong K 1 2 345 1 When we find some apparent errors in a report, we can't help but question the validity of the entire report. Since the October 1 enrollment figures become part of the Court Record, we want to be sure that they are correct. Therefore, please send me an accurate October 1 enrollment count by school, grade, and race. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM 1 To: Becky Rather, Coordinator of Parent Recruitment From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: November 20, 1994 Subject: District-Wide Recruitment Responsibilities NOV 2 2 ,qpA GiiiCQ oi C' igrsgation Mo.nitc.'T.j As you may know by now, Jeanette Wagner has resigned as Director of Communications. Her last day will be November 30. Though the position is advertised, time will be required to interview and acclimate the new person. Currently, we are estimating that the new person will join us no later than January 16. Unfortunately, that person will begin in the middle of the busiest part of our recruitment season. Once in the position, that person will need time to learn policies and procedures of the district. Dina Tecigue will assume temporarily the responsibilities of the communications department and have no responsibility for recruitment beyond assisting in having materials printed. As a result, 1 am asking you to take full responsibility for implementing the LRSD District-Wide Recruitment Plan beginning immediately until further notice. You have the experience and were involved in writing the plan. Please include in your responsibilities the revising and writing of all printed materials noted in the plan. 1 suggest that you establish a tickler system for reminding you of what must be done when. 1 suggest also that you meet with Jeanette before she leaves to make the transition as smooth as possible. The recruitment plan is specific about when things are to be done. Please let me review anything you write or revise that will be sent to district employees or to our patrons. This includes any memoranda. One responsibility not in the recruitment plan is the bimonthly updating of the Bi-Racial Committee on incentive school recruitment. The next update is due at the January 10 meeting. Meetings are held the first Tuesday of the month, except January. With your experience in communications and in recruitment, 1 am confident that we can continue executing our recruitment plan without missing a step. Let me know if you meet obstacles or need me to speak to the topic in principals meetings, council meetings, etc. Deana Keathley will schedule a meeting soon which will include you and Dina Teague. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss recruitment and communication concerns during the transition period. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Superintendents Council Dina Teague, Communications Assistant Ann Brown, Monitor Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney<2P-
S Little Rock School District OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS November 21, 1994 RE? n Ms. Melissa Gul din ODM NOV 2 3 iqp4 Office of Desegregation Mon:i^.u.j Dear Ms. Gul din: I want to thank you for attending the Stephens School Steering Committee Meeting on Monday, November 14, 194. Your input is most valuable in the continued efforts of the planning for our new school. As a result of that meeting, the members of my subcommittee met on Wednesday, November 16, to review the recommendations and to make plans to implement the following
1. Students in the seven target schools will take surveys home for their parents to mark their choice of the top two themes. Explanation of the two most popular themes will be attached to the ballot sheet. 2. Three community meetings are being scheduled to provide information on the progress of the Stephens School. Community people will be provided surveys at these meetings to vote on their choice of the top two themes. These community meetings are being scheduled at the following times and places: Thursday, December 1 - 6:45 p.m. - Garland Elementary Incentive School 3615 West 25th Street Little Rock Saturday, December 3 - 10:30 a.m. - First Baptist Church Highland Park 3800 West 18th Street Little Rock Tuesday, December 6 - 6:45 p.m. - Fulbright Elementary School 300 Pleasant Valley Road Little Rock 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000Stephens School Steering Committee November 21, 1994 Page 2 Our agenda for each meeting is to give an update on the progress being made in the planning process. Please mark your calendar for one or all of these meetings and contact any group of patrons whom you feel may be interested in attending these meetings. The Little Rock School Districts Communication Office is preparing flyers that will be delivered to various community groups prior to the above dates. Our next Steering Committee meeting is being scheduled for Monday, December 12 at 3:30 p.m. in the Board Room. Please make your calendar and plan to join us attEaffime. Again, thank you for your continued support and interest in the Little Rock School District. Sincerely, Margaret-'Gremillii Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, xArkansas 72201 RECEiVF^ Date: MEMORANDUM November 22, 1994 NOV 2 9 1994 jiiica Of Desegieg-t'O'! ini-j'. To: Through: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitorin' Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent From: Dina Teagu^ ommunications Specialist Re: Public Relations Training Jeanette Wagner has advised me that you would like to observe one of the public relations training sessions that we provide for school level employees. I hope that you will accept my invitation to come to any of the following meetings scheduled this month: Garland Multi-Media Technology and Educational Research Elementary School Monday, December 5 3:03 - 3:20 p.m. Wilson Elementary School Wednesday, December 7 1:45 - 2:00 p.m. Western HiUs Elementary School Wednesday, December 7 2:45 p.m. By copy of this memo, I will let the principals of these schools know that you might attend their meetings. I am very encouraged by your interest and look forward to your comments and suggestions. cc Robert Brown Franklin Davis Scott Morgandr- Memorandum NOV 3 0 1991 Office of Oesegre^fi :9 DATE: November 30,1994 TO: Principals : Franklin Incentive Elementary. Bale Elementary, Cloverdale Elementary, Southwest Junior High, Cloverdale Junior High Margaret Gremillion - Stephens Magnet Planning Group FROM: Estelle Matti M, larvin Schwartz RECEIV^^ RE: CC: Magnet School application LRSD - Henry Williams, Russ Mayo, Sterling Ingram, Doug Eaton, Leon Modeste, Dena Teague, Sadie Mitchell > ODM - Melissa Guldin Attorney - Chris Heller, Jerry Malone Joshua Interveners - John Walker Knight Interveners/LRCTA - Frank Martin, Eleanor Coleman PCSSD - Billy Bowles, Bobby Lester, Bobby Altom NLRSD - James Smith This memo gives formal notice that the six schools identified below have been selected by the LRSD for application to the federal Magnet School Assistance Program for development as new magnet schools. The six schools include
Franklin Incentive Elementary Cloverdale Elementary Cloverdale Junior High Bale Elementary Southwest Junior High Stephens Elementary A major administrative effort is underway to gather supporting data to develop the application. An amendment to the desegregation plan will have to be filed. Input from the six schools and their respective communities is also needed. Each school will need to identify the theme(s) for their new status as magnets. This preliminary theme identification is needed by December 9. Following the theme selections, the planning process will seek school input on curriculum development and staff training. Because of the extremely tight timeframe, it is suggested that meetings with school patrons and community members be limited to the core group at each school. School staff may conduct these meetings and gain input in any manner they believe appropriate. Several forms of assistance are available for this effort, including: Community surveys forms Listings of sample magnet themes Examples of successful magnet themes/schools in other cities Participation by the grants writer in local planning meetings Marvin Schwartz is serving as the central coordinator for this project. Please contact him with any questions or requests for assistance.UXUU.:*tpU-^ - P.Ol r DATE START SENDER DEC- 1 10:22 5013242032 X 444 4 44 4''4'44'4 44'44 44W'4^44'4 4'4'4'4 4'i t i 4 TRANSACTION REPORT DEC- 1-94 THU 10:23 RX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE 46" 1 RECEIVE OK * )|! * * )K j * X fA^ SB^asBaa'JBBK-a liaji '0 <Z1 m z I m LITlLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT QUIZiSSPLST _ STAFFIMGZ L o GAI POSITIOK BLACK M F OF 11/10/94 WHITE M F OTHER M F TOTAL % BLACK o> X KI SUPPORT POSITIONS I CAFETERIA WORKER CUSTODIANS MEDIA CLERK SECRETARY NURSE < S(X
iAL WORKER r: f! INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES SUPERVISION AIDES OTHER 0 2 0 00 02 01 3 1 00 0 1 11 2 0 0 00 00 00 00 0 0 1 11 02 00 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 10 3 311 11 16 31 100.00 100.00 00 00 00 100.00 81.25 66.67 100.00 T I <o to , SUBTOTAL SUPPORT POSITIONS -H 5 18 0 5 0 2 30 SUBTOTAL PERCENT 16.67 60.00 00 16.67 00 6.67 30 76.67 30 CO o a: o o o <Z) 1 i oi CjO II B I BiBSai IS: FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:56AM P2 To: Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham # 510 Little Rock, AR. 72201 From: John York 7324 Knollwood Little Rock, AR. 72209 December 10,1994 Dear Ms Brown, 1 am writit^ to you in regards to the recent actions taken by Dr. Williams, and others concerning the rebuilding of Chicot School and the closure of Watson. I am not completely positive as to who started what and how. What I am positive about, is that the residents of the Fairfield Sub-Division were completely left out of the process which has lead to the current recommendations. Those recommendations being to close Watson School and merge ifs population into a new and expanded Chicot School. It is also my understanding that Dr. Williams made statements regardu^ the staff of Watson and the Fairfield residents to the affect that this issue was none of our concern, " This is School Busmess". It was not until I learned of the actions of die District and the Chicot PTA, and began to raise a ruckus, that die Fairfield residents were contacted regarding these plans. As of the date of this letter the District has failed to recognize the Fairfield Sub-Division. The Chicot School PTA did contact us regarding tins issue and invited us to attend a meeting scheduled for Dec 11, 2 p.m., at McQellan High School. This has been are only contact until board member Gee called me this evening. If my interpretation of the Desegregation Plans are correct Dr. Williams statements and actions are in direct contempt of die court ordered plan. Specifically sections 2.c., 3.c., and 3.d. listed under Parent involvement! Community linkages. And, sections 9.b, and 9.c., listed under Public Relations in the Inter District plan. The latter specifically instructs die District to " immediately inform the public**, and to " refrain from springing surprises*. I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this situation as well as copies of any court orders in support or opposition of my position, including the court order dated 11/4/91. It would probably be in the best interest of die community if Judge Wright was aware of the situation as well. Thank You for your time and interest FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:57At'1 P3 To
.Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 Fast Markham # 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 From: John York 7324 Knollwood Utfle Rock, AR 72209 December 11, 1994 Dear Ms Brown, After attending the meeting held at McClellan High School this afternoon, I felt that this supplemental to my letter dated DecembcrlO, 1994 was necessary in order to validate certain statements in that letter and statements made during the meeting. First of an I made statements in the letter, and at the meeting regarding the fact that residents of the Fairfield Subdivision were not contacted tn regards to planning process nor of the meeting that was scheduled for December 11th, and that it was the EHstricts respon-sibiJity to insure that all affected parties were notified. School Board President Tinda Poindexter vehemently denied that die District had anything to do with this committee or today's meeting. However, the committee's minutes as presented at the meeting as the "Committee History" indicated that District officials became involved as early as November 28th. I have received verbal information from what I believe to be a reliable source that District Officials met to discuss the closure of Watson at a closed meeting at a Board Members home shortly before Thanksgiving. Abscond source has indicated that the meeting did in fact occur but would not confirm the content of this meeting. Also noted in the committee's minutes is that on December 6th, Board Member Pat Gee " requested" that Dr. Williams approve flyers announcing the meeting be distributed through schools in Southwest Little Rock. Dr. Williams was asked to contact the principals of each school and ok distribution of the flyers to students. Statements made by Chicot PTA President Kevin McGuire to me during a telephone conversation and a fax transmission on December 6th indicated that District personnel were very much involved in file situation and intended to withhold information from file Fairfield residents and Watson parents. A copy of the fax transmission is attached.FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:58AM P4 Althou^ tniscommunicalion could be credited with portions of this situation, specifically between School Board members, and neighborhood groups. I still believe that there is suflheient evidence to support die theoty that School District .Administration took an active part in the organizational plan to close Watson as a public school, as well as concealing this action from the Fairfield Residents and Waterni Parents in direct violation of the Desegregation Plan and Federal Court orders. The fact that flyers were sent home from all of the affected schools with the exception of Watson and poswbly Mabelvale would tond to support the theory as well. There is the added consideration that would suggest that "Administration" may be playing both ends against the middle by supplying mis-information to Kevin McGuire and the Chicot PTA. During the meeting on December 5th, Doug Eaton conducted a short presentation where in he made numerous references to court approved formulas that were utilized in determining which schods should close and which should remain open based on attendance and capacities. When pressed by the Chicot parents to present and define the formula, Doug Eaton became evasive, commenting that it was a "very complex lonnula". He later admitted that there was no specific formula to make these determinations. Ihc inaccuracies and halt truths perpetuated during the meeting on December 5th are again in direct contempt of the Desegregation Plan. Specifically sectimi 9 of the Interdistrict Plan (Public relations) which deals with credibility and trust And section 3 which requires the District to H Continue to disseminate public information in ways the districts customarily employ, paying cardul attention to quality, accuracy, and a positive tone". I recognize that you are not in a position to adjudicate these complaints but I also recognize your authority in investigating this matter, and in bringing these concem-s to the attention Judge Wright should they prove vahd. Sincerely, FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:59AM P5 SCHOOL CO.MMITTEE HISTORY FIRE AT CHICOT. CHICOT PARENTS MEET AT WATSON GYMNASIUM WITH DISTRICT OFFICIALS ON IMMEDIATE CONTINGENCY PLANS ON GETTING STUDENTS BACK TO SCHOOL.i QC.T^_23Ka ADDRESS DR. PTA MEETING AT KcCLELLAH AUDITORIUM FOR PARENTS TO WILLIAMS AND SCHOOL BOARD - WILLIAMS QUOTED "COMMITTEE MILL WOULD BE FORMED IN A WEEK". NOY. DEMOGRAPHICS OF COST OF REBUILDING, COURT APPROVAL FOR REBUILDING, NEIGHBORHOOD AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WILLIAMS. BOARD DECIDED THEY WOULD NEED ALL THIS ILFCRMATIUN AND EE ABLE TO VOTE ON DECISION DEC. AGENDA MEETING. "HE ENLARGED. CLOSED. i FINANCIAL INTENDS TO DR. WILLIAMS RECOMMEND THAT QUOTED BY CHICOT BE CYNTHIA HOWELL @ GAZETTE REBUILT AND POSSIBLY IF SCHOOL IS ENLARGED, ANOTHER SCHOOL IN SWLR WOULD BE BOARD MEMBERS AGREED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AND DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION THE NECESSARY CHICOT ELEMENTARY BY EARLY DECEMBER, TO MAKE A DECISION ON Ni 'Tl' REPORT 0 SCHOOL ENTER INTO UPDATE BOARD, ON REBUILDING DISCUSSED 1 CHICOT. DOUG EATON GAVE HE HOPES DECISION ON WHETHER TO REBUILD' DAMAGE AND FACTORS THAT WILL SCHOOL, EATON STATES TO ADMINISTRATION DECEMBER, 1994. HAVE TO TRY ENOUGH INFORMATION AND VOTE ON FOR THE BOARD AND THE FUTURE OF ANOTHER ITEM THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED CHICOT. BY MID TO COMBINE THIS WITH ANOTHER SCHOOL IN THS AREA. IS WHETHER NOY.,'LTIl - KEVIN McGUIEE WITH CHICOT PTA MEET WITH FOR PROGRESS ON RAILROAD OVERPASSES IN SWLR. XT IS AT THIS MEETING WE SPOKE WITH JOAN ADCOCK, CITY DIRECTOR
B.J. WYRICK, CITY BOARD ELECT
CONGRESSMAN RAY THORNTON AND HIS AIDE DEBBIE TABLERIOU
JOA HUMPHRIES, SOUTHWEST UNITED FOR PRESIDENT. PAUL HOWELL ADDRESSED AUDIENCE OF PAUL HOWELL, SOUTHWEST UNITED XT IS RAILROAD OVERPASSES WITH JOAN PROGRESS TABLERIOV
JOA HUMPHRIES, PAUL HOWELL AUDIENCE TO RE.' ILi DE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS SCHOOL DEMOCRAT GAZETTE ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT GAZETTE 'CHICOT PARENTS MAP CAMPAIGN "DSCIS'Oh? ON CHICOT DUE INFROM : JOHN YORK' PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 1 1994 09:59AM P6 BUSINESS OWNERS, MERCHANTS. M.ElGH30RHC0D ASSOCIATION PRESIDENTS, ARD SKLR RESIDENTS ON STATUS OF CHICOT. BEFORE MEETING ADJOURNED, PTA DISCOVERED THAT SCHOOL BOARD FAILED TO COMMIT TO REBUILDING CHICOT A7 AGENDA MEETING HELD MINUTES EARLIER. IT IS THEN THAT THE GROUP PLEDGED THEIR SUPPORT, THORNTON'S OFFICE LOOKING FOR AIDE FROM WASHINGTON. ASKED ABOUT STATU NOTIFIED AS TO WHO IS OF COMMITTEE. PTA RESPONDED WK WE FREEDOM EXPRESSED CONCERN SERVING ON THE COMMITTEE OR WHEN CONGRESSMAN CITY LEADERS HAVE NOT BEEN THAT NO HAS OF INFORMATION ACT HAS BEEN INFORMATION REQUESTED TO MEET. THROUGH LARGER. PROPOSED SWLR SCHOOL CLOSURE MADE AVAILABLE AND DISTRICT NO INFORMATION IS QUESTIONED HOW THESE OR MERGERS IF CHICOT REBUILT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BEING WE HAVEN'T HEARD AVAILABLE TO BASE THEM ON. MADE IF WITHOUT LEADERS. THS SCHOOL FROM DISTRICT DISTRICT AND SOON, HE WOULD WE AGREED THAT IF INVITE CITY TA^T MEETING AND COMMUNITY UmL-JATil - THEY HAVE I ELEMENTARY. COMMITTEE MEMBERS STARTED RECEIVING NOTICES THAT BEEN SELECTED TO SERVE ON COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT NOTICE MAILED NOV. 11, 1394 FROM DOUG EATON. NOY.- LZIjaL - PTA NOTICES. CHICOT ADDRESSED LRSC SCHOOL THANKED SCHOOL BOARD. BOARD MEETING. CONFIRMED MR. McGUIRE, CHICOT COMMITTEE BOARD FOR APPOINTMENTS, REPRESENTATION AT SWLR CHRISTMAS MEET SOON POSSIBLE RECEIPT OF COMMITTEE AS AS MADE PARADE. BOARD WARE RECOMMENDATION TO REBUILD CHICOT. TO KAKE ASKED PLANS OF THAT FOR ~ CHICOT ELEMENTARY PTA ENTERS SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK CHRISTMAS PARADE WITH A FLOAT AND 150 WALKERS, WEARING "CHICOT - UNITED TO REBUILD CHICOT" T-SHIRTS. "ALL WE WANT FOR CHRISTMAS IS OUR SCHOOL REBUILT'. THIRD PLACE AND WAS WELL RECEIVED BY SUPPORTERS ALONG ROUTE. family A FLOAT ARD CHRISTMAS IS OUR SCHOOL PA8ADE/FLOAT THEME. FLOAT WINS THE PARADE --ZZCii - CHICOT ELEMENTARY PTA HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH CONGRESSMAN THORNTON'S OFFICE
STATE REP PHIL WYRICK BOARD ELECT. B.J. WYRICK
JOAN ADCOCK, CITY DIRECTOR
SC5JOOL DISTRICT AND BOARD MEMBERS. THE PTA CALLS THORNTON' PTA HAS STATE REP IN SCHOOL PTL MEETING FUR NOV. 28TH AT SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CENTER. AS A AND CITY WELL AS SPECIAL I'UK MUV. zTH AT SOUTHWEST COMMUNITY CENTER. IT WAS FELT that if public RECORDS INDICATE THAT A DECISION ON CHICOT WOULD BL MADE AT DECEMBER SCHOOL BOARD AGENDA MEETING AND HAS YET TO CONVENE THE COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT PUBLIC RECORDS INDICATE THAT A the COMMITTEE TO REBUILD CHICOT. GET ORGANIZED NOW AND NOT WATT FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT WE BETTER ilOY. 2Tli PTA ATTENDANCE CHICOT MET AT SOUTHWEST CITY BOARD PROGRESS
PTA
JOAN ADCOCK, CITY COMMUNITY CE.NTKR. IN ELECT
JOA HUMPHRIES. PRESIDENT KELLY TUCKER, NEIGHBORHOOD DIRECTOR
B.J. WYRICK, SOUTHWEST UNTIED FOR ALERT CENTER
PAT GEE, LRSDFROM : JOHN 'tORK PHONE NO.
56.:
7722 Dec. 12 1934 10
00l P7 BOARD MEMBKR. INVITED BUT NOT PRESENT
LINDA JOYCE, CITY BOARD
O.G. JACOVELLI. LRSD BOARD
WATSON ELEMENTARY PTA. SPECIAL CALLED MEETING TO ANNOUNCE EORMATION OF A COMMUNITY BASED GRASS ROOTS COALITION UNITED IN AN EFFORT TO HAVE CHICOT ELEMENTARY REBUILT. TO SET PRECEDENT FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO DETERMINE THE FUTURE OF CHICOT ELEMENTARY AND THE DIRECT IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON THE COMMUNITY. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS MADE. PLANS FOR DEC. IITH MEETING TO INVOLVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, SWLR SCHOOL PTA'S, PARENTS AND BUSINESS TO BE INVITED. DJiC__SJIh. - SOUTHWEST CHICOT COMMUNITY ELEMENTARY VISION COALITION MET CENTER. INVITED AND NOT PRESENT, ' AT LINDA JOYCE, CITY BOARD
O.G. JACOVELLI SCHOOL BOARD
WATSON PTA. SPECIAL GUESTS INVITED - DR. WILLIAMS. DOUG EATON, LEON MODESTE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THERESA COURTNEY, AND WILLIAM KETCHER OF WATSON ELEMENTARY. THE COMMITTEE EXPLAINED TO DISTRICT WHY WE MET SEPARATE FORM DISTRICT'S COMMITTEE. WE EXPRESSED THAT WITH A SCHOOL BOARD DECISION DUE WITHIN TWO WEEKS AND THE DISTRICT IS STILL TELLING US THAT THEY HAVE NO FURTHER INFORMATION TO SHARK WITH FELT IT US. THAT IT JUST WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE VISION COMMITTEE N.ECESSARY TO GET BUSY AND PREPARE A BUSINESS PLAN OF OUR OWN THAT INVOLVES INPUT FROM ALL SOUTHWEST LITTLE ROCK. WE DID NOT FEEL THE DISTRICT TOGETHER IF THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STILL DIDN'T HAVE FIGURES AVAILABLE OR THE COMMUNITY .INVOLVEMENT THAT WAS PROMISED. DR. WILLIAMS DISCUSSED WITH COMMITTEE: PARTNERSHIPS WITH SCHOOL THAT COULD MERGE CENSUS IN SWLR WITH CHICOT
BUDGET DEFICIT OF 7 MILLION
LOW DESEGREGATION NUMBERS. SCHOOLS
POTENTIAL COMMITTEE SCHOOL CLOSURES
AND ASKED FOR OPINION FROM THERESA lOUBTKEY, WATSON ELEMENTARY PRINCIPAL, ON A PARTNERSHIP WITH CHICOT AND WATSON, AS DR, WILLIAMS PREVIOUSLY HAD BE CONSIDERED WITH OTHER SCHOOL IN SWLR IF CHICOT PROPOSED COULD WEEK REBUILT LARGER. MEETING. OF WEEK. committees then met to prepare FOR DEC. IITH COMMUNITY WILLIAMS SAID KE WOULD PROVIDE INFORMATION TO US BY END PAT GEE ANNOUNCING MEETING REQUESTED DR. WILLIAMS APPROVE FLYERS WAS ASKED TO DISTRIBUTION. IITH SOUTHWEST AUDITORIUM. BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH CONTACT FLYERS
VISION PRINCIPALS Of ENCOURAGE COMMUNITY MEETING AT SCHOOLS IN SWLR. EACH SCHOOL AND HE OK INVOLVEMENT MrCLELLAN HIGH IN DEC. SCHOOL JFROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7?: Deo. 12 1994 10:01AM P8 D.fiC._aiH - BUSINESSES. fLYERS DISTRIBUTED - PRESS RELEASES TO MEDIA AND am. - FOLLOW INFORMATION REOUSST. MADE BOARD, AVAILABLE UNTIL UP ON THE OCTOBER 27TH FREEDOM DR. WILLIAMS NOTIFIED ME THEY WOULD AFTER IT WAS FIRST PRESENTED TO THE LRSD OCTOBER OF FIRST PRESENTED NOT BE -^SKRY MALONE denial of request. attorney for LRSD ABOUT RECEIVED CALL FROM MR. MALONE wAKr. . - KIS CLIENT AND UNDERSTOOD MADE AVAILABLE ON TUESDAY, DEC 13TH D.EC. 9TH. AT 9:30 PK ON DEC. MATERIAL WOULD BE MEMBERS RECEIVED NOTICE ? 00 '^SoKFSrSI!P"^'^?rT?c rebuild CHICOT IS DEC, 13TII AT OKL WlfH ELLIS, MABELVALE PTA PRESIDENT ABOUT stated her CHILDREN DID NOT 1 r? A.BOU.r DEC, IITH MEETING, SHE WAS GOING TO CHECK OHT IF OIHER PARENTS RECEIVED NOTICES CHECK OUT COMMITTEE PM. ATTRNDINO CONFERENCE. WITH THAT THE FIRST REBUILD CHICOT IS DEC. 13TII ELLIS, MABELVALE COKE HOME COMMUNITY MEETING OF THE SOUTHWEST VISION -iBEriNG. McClellan Hrn.Tr .Sntnrsr annT-nnoTF.w V-lSlUM McClellan high school auditorium - 2:00 PK. 4
FROM : JOHN YORK PHONE NO. : 562 7722 Dec. 12 1994 09:56AM Pl /'I 1/ '2^ FxRdEW>kl.jUUIJW.iJiUK:^^^^-i^WISani5yiULlMB2ML9Uimy^^ 9 1 FROM : JOHN AANSCO PHOtJE HO. : 563 T TEL 501-562 Cb o/
Dec. 12 1994 10:02fiH P9 12 :02 No .006 P.Ol 1 A/^.MSCO 9811 INTERSTATE 30 P 0 Box 190065 LATE: TO: COMPANY: LITTLE ROCK, AR (501) 562-3737 jg.- -Aws^, ye-ftK 72219-0065 FAX (501) 562-5389 (800) 221-S857 (AR WATS) FROM
Sg^. - KEVIN McGUIRE NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: NOTES: pV\>L _____________________________________ X bJoOct^ k^>p gP<Hg.Utti Vexj I / ___ .. I I CiKopk. T Kx. >NWitZh HAS fcRr6ibTHiAJfeS> Ip lUuCH- We^ ^KznctpATgb a itJ SV^Cfe IXap^l fcg> zSlcSopg roios/DgiAnoy\-~/zjc[LC/z-'&. X imdou:^ P> !fUk ^rAfe.-TC> gv
yfAaL kJfclAa- Cov^e N^trr MrnA,<AJ "iSe ^t>u^ rr Gsvub gX^ev T<\' -Fi^fepE/h ACfT QO/a^T^ (!('!> '^Q!^ LrneoJl- bcSTiticr faw<U5 ftx efeaAs^XTAXXO*-^ Woolh jiOWlei?' IF YOU DO NOT RECIEVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL 501 562-3737. CVr<U?7" f lei^ 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: December 2, 1994 To: From: Subject: Marvin Schwartz. LRSD Grant Coordinator in S. Brown, Federal Monitor Magnet School Grant Application Schedule Thank you for the November 30, 1994 memorandum from you and Estelle Matthis regarding the districts intent to apply for magnet school grants. The memo read that questions or requests for assistance were to be directed to you, the central coordinator for this project. As 1 have previously expressed, 1 continue to have several concerns about the districts desire to designate six schools as new magnets, particularly when the current magnet schools are underenrolled by hundreds of students and at a time when the district is contemplating closing more schools. 1 have also told you, the superintendent, and Mrs. Matthis that the Court will need sufficient time to review the grant application, hear the comments of the parties, raise and resolve any questions which the Court herself may have, and to rule on any modification of the desegregation plan. Because the Court will likely hold a hearing on the matter, 1 want to plan now to work a hearing date into the Courts calendar, which fills very quicldy. Please send me your grant development schedule (including all critical events, such as parent input and review by Joshua and the other parties) so we can do our best to find a potential hearing date that will mesh with your timetable as much as possible. Keep in mind*that you will need time to adjust your application pending the outcome of any hearing, motion or objection of the parties, or a Court ruling. 1 understand that your schedule is tight. By factoring in now the period required for the Court review process, we should all be able to work from a timeline that will enable you to meet your deadlines. Thanks very much for your assistance. Please give me a call with any questions. CC: Hank Williams Estelle Matthis Chris HellerC/"- 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: December 2, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: n Brown Subject: Filling Spaces in the Rockefeller Infants and Twos Program Through visits to Rockefeller Incentive School, I have become aware that Rockefellers Infant and Two-year-old Program has a number of openings for new children. School employees say that these openings have been available for quite a while, and that some of the waiting parents and staff are becoming very frustrated with the delays. 1 understand that a few of the waiting children are siblings of youngsters already enrolled at Rockefeller. The desegregation plan is clear that sibling preference is honored at Rockefeller. The plan also calls for evaluation of the schools early childhood education policies in terms of their impact on desegregation and educational goals. If the districts current placement policies and practices are causing delays in enrolling new early childhood students, its time to re-evaluate and change them so that classes are always at capacity. The success of Rockefeller is due to many factors, among them its fine early childhood education program. I know you share my desire for Rockefeller to continue to fulfill its desegregation role as a model for improving academic achievement and attracting a racially diverse student body. Please help me assess the assignment situation at Rockefeller by letting me know the following: 1. The capacity and number of current vacancies in the Infant and Two-year-old Program. 2. The length of time the vacancies have been open. 3. The timeline for filling the vacancies. 4. Why the Infant and Two-year-old Program has been running at less than capacity. 5. The current placement policies and practices. 6. How and when you will modify the policies and practices to expedite student placement. 7. The date as each of the current vacancies become filled. CC: Anne Mangan Pat Price > Olivetti FX 2100 date , TO
TRO.'-I
SS(^CE3?'s PHON: SD&.7SCT: spec
AL s?d Diai
12- 6-94 : S:29AM I LR SCHOOL DIST^ B^i n"j.7 district S10 ?/6st Ma-Khem ^OGk, AR AX (501) 324.2032 n . DCtecUf. SchcAi ^^ST^uariQi^S: (ir.clud e Cover Sb ich>c//L 5013710100
# 1 Phone Nuxb^s- 371b' f I J i ( j .'I '' '< ( '3. > 1Olivetti FX 2100 :12- 6-94 : 8
29AM
LR SCHOOL DIST-* 5013710100!# 2 TO
PftOMi ifl R1 1<ITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT * MarJthaia Little Rock, AR 72201 Oeceajber 5, 1954 rederal Monitor - offio. Of Dceyresatlo
F Ci ^X4inda Monitorin^f young, Rsstructuring Diraotor/K i rJ I $ Thank f- I Middle School steering V rutureg LiaiBon Coi&ai'ct.ee you for auggeetione. The first will be the your tijue today. I appreciate your ideaa and Ad Dec^VaV*? hool Planning Adainlatration Building. 4.15 p.. the Board roob of will notify you earlier froB this point forward* IOf'- 2^ Sc/i 6^11 n' Memorandum DEC 1 2 1004 December 6,1994 Oitice o5 Dssegr5ga
0!'i TO: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM
Marvin Schwartz, Grants Writer X- THROUGH: RE: Henry Williams, Superintendent Magnet School applicationl/^^^^^^^ Thank you for your input and clarification of the court process regarding review of the magnet school application being developed for Little Rock schools. The LRSD application will include two schools - Franklin Incentive Elementary and Stephens Elementary. This plan replaces an earlier decision to develop six schools as magnets. In accordance with your December 2, 1994 memorandum, the District is requesting your assistance in scheduling a hearing date on the Courts calendar to initiate the application review process. We anticipate having a draft narrative and budget for the magnet school application available by January 16, 1995. Please schedule the court hearing for as soon as possible following that date. Your assistance is greatly appreciated in this process.c>c
tEcras Little Rock School District k December 6,1994 to: From: Thru: Subject: MEMORANDUM Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, Coordinator of SA information Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent RHCEI .PW DK 1 5 igo^ Office of Oesegi Filling spaces in the Rockefeller infants and Two year program 1. The capacity and number of vacancies in the infant and Two-year old program are as follows: Infant capacity Two-year old 10 17 Current vacancies Current vacancies 2. The length of time the vacancies have been open are as follows: The Infant vacancy occurred in November 1994. The Two-year old vacancies occurred in September 1994 with seven vacancies, in October we enrolled (3) two-year olds and dropped (3). In November (2) seats were filled, in December (2) seats were filled and (11) two-year olds are currently enrolled. 3. The timeline for filling vacancies is as follows: Since the program is functioning on a 12 month cycle we are continuously offering seats from the waiting list on a monthly basis. Our goal is to keep the enrollment at capacity at all times. 4. Why Infant and Two-year-old programs have been running at less than capacity is as follows: The Infant and Two-year old Caucasian capacity is maximized . The remaining seats have been consistently offered to African American families from the waiting list. The cost has been the primary reason for these families declining the seats. The Department of Human Services offers assistance, but it is my understanding that the list has a two-year waiting period. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 D A 1 6 15. The current placement policies and practices are as follows
First preference, is given to students who live in the attendance zone arid have sibling attending the school. Second, is given to students who live in the attendance zone. Third, is given to students who do not live in attendance zone but have sibling attending the school. Fourth, is staff preference. Fifth, is desegregation transfer. 6. HOW and when we will modify the policies and practices to expedite student placement is as follows
Starting the month of December we have began to telephone parents and offer seats where vacancies exist. After the parent is called, a follow-up letter is sent to confirm the parent's response. 7. The date as each of the current vacancies are filled. Since we have started the telephone procedure we have filled the (1) infant seat and (5) two-year-old seats. These seats were filled 12/5- 12/8/94. 2Date: December 7, 1994 To: Chris Heller CONROeOiM. From: Subject: in Brown LRSD Board Member Request Youll recall that, a few weeks back, 1 told you that Katherine Mitchell had raised to me (in a televised Board of Education meeting) a question that she had put to judge Wright back during the summer hearings. She wants the Judge to tell the district when it has to involve Joshua and when it doesnt. When you and 1 discussed this subject, we agreed that it was not in the best interests of the district nor desegregation matters for the Judge to draw any such line. Nor is the Judge inclined to do so. At the last Board meeting, when my associate Melissa Guldin was addressing the board, Katherine once again threw down this same gauntlet. Doubtless she intends to continue doing so, as she evidently perceives that she has "caught the Court in some dereliction of duty and she is revelling in rubbing it in. Katherine needs to understand that it is in everybodys best interests for her to drop this matter immediately. Please take care of this situation, Chris, and help Katherine see that the district is far better off not having the Court draw ever tighter the districts already limited circle of options. The December Board meeting is coming soon, and well be running the risk of embarrassing both Katherine and the LRSD by having to say in public what you and 1 know is better discussed in private. Please let me know your progress as soon as possible. Thanks.O* Little Rock School District OK 9 1994 December 7, 1994 Qfnee oi Desegrayaicn MonitGriPi Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, ODM Heritage West Building, Room #510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: On November 11th, Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent of Schools, requested that you serve on a committee to assist the District in its course of action regarding the rebuilding of Chicot Elementary School. The first meeting of this committee will be December 13th, 1994, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street. The purpose of this meeting will be to update the committee on the actions that have occurred since the fire on October 13th to discuss the general process that the District must pursue in rebuilding the school, and to determine the interplay of the committee in this District's process. Should you not be able to attend, please contact me at 570-4020. incerely, Douglas C. Eaton DIRECTOR PLANT SERVICES DEPARTMENT DCE/rlh/cesc cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 I Little Rock School District 0 . QJS' December 9, 1994 OtC 1 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor, ODM Heritage West Building, Room #510 201 East Markham Street cysce c t*
H kV Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: This is to advise you that the Chicot Rebuilding Committee meeting originally set for 4:00 pm, tuesday December 13th. has been changed to 5:00 pm. tuesday December 13th, It will still be held in the Little Rock School District Board at 810 W. Markham st. room Siheerely, Director of Plant Services 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Board of Directors Through: Dr. Heiuy p. Williams, Superintendent From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: December 10, 1994 Subject: Desegregation Update Since this months desegregation update includes a number of items in progress, I have attached a summary of those items. On occasions when items continue from a previous month and no new information is available to report, I will present the report orally to you. RHCSJVSD UN 2 7 1995 Office of Desegregation MonitoringLittle Rock School District Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting December 15, 1994 Program Budget Document (PBD) When the PBD was first implemented, many non obligation items were included. At the time, we were uncertain about the precise definition of an obligation. Extensive discussions were held at that time about what was and was not an obligation. We knew then that some cleanup would be necessary. Working with the document this past year has helped. The distinction between obligations and observations or procedures is clearer. We began the cleanup process in November. Program managers were asked to review their sections of the PBD and mark items they believed were not appropriate for the document. These were two types: 1) completed, one time obligations and 2) items that were not obligations but normal procedure within the program area or simply observations. Their responses were returned to the Office of Desegregation. They are being compiled. These items will be noted in the second quarter PBD and dropped from the third quarter copy of the PBD. Some items will transfer to other documents such as the job description for the program manager or the procedures record for the program area. A paper trail will be esublished for each item dropped from the third quarter PBD. None of the ongoing obligations will be dropped. This procedure applies only to the PBD. Audit of Obligations (Attachment) The purpose of the annual Audit of Obligations is to catalogue and merge into the Program Budget Document (PBD) all desegregation obligations incurred during the previous year. In October 1993, all previous obligations under the desegregation plans were researched and included in the PBD. This years audit is for the period from October of 1993 through October of 1994. All court orders, hearing transcripts, monitoring reports, and stipulations were reviewed for that period. The obligations were extracted from the documents and listed. The list was reviewed by the Superintendents Council, the Superintendent, LRSD Attorneys, and the LRSD Office of Desegregation. This year research on the audit includes an update on the status of each obligation. Responsible persons were asked to report on the status on their listed obligations. Responses were reduced to codes. Evidence of the status of each is maintained by the person responsible. A copy of the completed audit is included with this update. Original Magnets: Geographic Preference (Attachment) The issue of geographic preference is on the Magnet Review Committees table. Geographic preference refers to the practice of considering the racial balance impact on the area school by the transfer of a student to a magnet. This means that some students may not transfer to magnets because doing so will negatively impact the racial balance of their area school.Desegregation Update Board of Directors Meeting December 15, 1994 2 At a meeting of the MRC on November 19, I informed them that we use geographic preference in selecting students for magnets. Though this issue is being reviewed as if it is a new concept, it is not. It is protected by the Magnet Stipulation (February, 1987). It is also a practice in PCSSD since magnets were established. Attached is a memorandum presented to the MRC stating reasons for supporting the practice and encouraging their support. Desegregation Plan Modifications (Attachment) A number of sections of the plan are being reviewed with a eye toward modifying them. As you know, e process is time consuming. We hope to have a number of modifications before you by the board meeting in march. Any modifications must be approved by the Board of Directors before they are filed with the Court. Therefore, you will have an opportunity to review any modifications before they are final, illustration of the plan modification process. Attached is a graphic Registration Preparation for February registration is complete almost. The details of that information will be presented to the Board at the January meeting. Generally, the dates and activities are as they were last year. Director of Communications Interviewing for the position of Director of Communications has begun. Almost 200 applications were received. We hope to have someone in the position no later than midJanuary. Mayer, OecewU>erl2, 1994Desegregation Plan Amendment Process Students Patrons Teachers Committees AdministAtors Demographic Changes Failure of Deseg. Process Propose Change (in writing) Changes in Law Changing Circumstances I Office of Desegregation (LRSD) If approved 1. Initial Evaluation 2. When appropriate: Surveys & Public Meetings held Informal Consultation with Parties 3. Final Recommendation to Superintendent 4. Superintendent Recommends to Board Submit to Court Share with Parties If the Court approves, the plan shall be amended noting the approved date. Lillie Rock School District R. MayoLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Magnet Review Committee Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent December 12,1994 Magnet Selection: Geographic Preference Little Rocks original magnets are among the most successful schools in the area. Their reason should not be blurred by the thrill of success, however. They developed from the need to voluntarily desegregate all schools. So weighty is this goal in Pulaski County, that it has bound parties and patrons in a web of priorities punctuated by dilemmas. Too often, these dilemmas ignore the greater goal of educating students. The decision before the MRC is another dilemma. In short, it is the conflict between voluntary desegregation and extra funding. If geographic preference is prohibited in selecting students for magnet schools, a few more seats can be filled, drawing more funding. Area schools, however, will become more racially identifiable violating the intent of desegregation. If geographic preference is permitted, the prospects of desegregation are preserved, but some magnet seats will be empty without additional state funding. The position of the MRC is an important one. The success of voluntary desegregation will be inhibited or enabled by the decision. This decision will be a statement about the priorities of the MRC. By opposing geographic preference, funding becomes the priority. By supporting geographic preference, voluntary desegregation remains the priority. In weighing your decision, the following information may be helpful: 1. The position of the U. S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, is clear on dilemmas involving the goal of desegregation and funding. In its 1991 decision concerning plan modifications, the Court stressed the following: .... We wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that an asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction in their commitment to desegregation....' 2. Geographic preference was and is a standing policy in the Pulaski County Special School District, according to Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation
3. The primary goal of the MRC is desegregation. The court order establishing the MRC requires that the MRC shall have as its primary objective the furtherance of effective desegregation. ..2 4. Geographic preference, applied to student selection, drives the desegregating process. It is permitted by the Magnet Stipulation as noted here: ' Appeal of Lillie Rock School Dislricl, Pulaski Courtly Special School Dislricl No. I, North Little Rock School District, 2 and Mrs. Lorene Joshua, 949 F.2d 253, 255 (Sth Cir. 1991). Magnet Review Committee Court Order (September 3, 1986), page 2.Magnet Review Committee Magnet Selection: Geographic Preference 2 SEAT ALLOCATION .... The three districts agree that each district will establish an open enrollment policy for magnet schools and will be permitted to determine how children will be selected for the magnet seats allocated to each district pursuant to that policy. This provision shall not prohibit the establishment of geographic preference areas where appropriate. 5. Regardless of the position taken by the MRC, every seat will never be filled unless the pool of white students requesting magnets increases dramatically. This condition is created by seat restrictions of race and grade level, two restrictions necessary to desegregation. The student selection practices of the Little Rock School District support geographic preference. We would appreciate your support of this practice. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney 3 Magnet Stipulation (February 16, 1987), page 5.Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Magnet Review Committee From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: December 12, 1994 Subject: Magnet Selection: Geographic Preference Little Rocks original magnets are among the most successful schools in the area. Their reason should not be blurred by the thrill of success, however. They developed from the need to voluntarily desegregate all schools. So weighty is this goal in Pulaski County, that it has bound parties and patrons in a web of priorities punctuated by dilemmas. Too often, these dilemmas ignore the greater goal of educating students. The decision before the MRC is another dilemma. In short, it is the conflict between voluntary desegregation and extra funding. If geographic preference is prohibited in selecting students for magnet schools, a few more seats can be filled, drawing more fimding. Area schools, however, will become more racially identifiable violating the intent of desegregation. If geographic preference is permitted, the prospects of desegregation are preserved, but some magnet seats will be empty without additional state fimding. The position of the MRC is an important one. The success of voluntary desegregation will be inhibited or enabled by the decision. This decision will be a statement about the priorities of the MRC. By opposing geographic preference, fimding becomes the priority. By supporting geographic preference, voluntary desegregation remains the priority. In weighing your decision, the following information may be helpful: 1. The position of the U. S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, is clear on dilemmas involving the goal of desegregation and fimding. In its 1991 decision concerning plan modifications, the Court stressed the following: .... We wish to dispel, in particular, any notion that an asserted lack of funds on the part of any of the three school districts would justify a reduction in their commitment to desegregation....' 2. Geographic preference was and is a standing policy in the Pulaski County Special School District, according to Billy Bowles, Assistant Superintendent for Desegregation
3. The primary goal of the MRC is desegregation. The court order establishing the MRC requires that the MRC shall have as its primary objective the furtherance of effective ,2 desegregation. 4. Geographic preference, applied to student selection, drives the desegregating process. It is permitted by the Magnet Stipulation as noted here: ' Appeal of Little Rock School District, Pulaski County Special School District No. I, North Little Rock School District, and Mrs. Lorene Joshua, 949 F.2d 253, 255 (Sth Cir. 1991). 2 Magnet Review Committee Court Order (September 3, 1986), page 2.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: December 13, 1994 To: Members of the LRSD Board of Education and Dr. Henry Williams From: n S. Brown Subject: Data on Southwest LRSD Schools Enclosed are some charts which my staff has prepared for me in anticipation of todays meeting of the committee which is to consider rebuilding Chicot School. Dr. Williams has graciously asked me to serve on this committee. Im sharing these charts with that group and you because 1 think youll find them informative and helpful. The charts contain information about schools in Southwest Little Rock. Weve included more detailed information about Chicot and Watson because these two schools have recently been publicly discussed in tandem with rebuilding Chicot. It would probably be helpful to the district to have this level of detailed data analysis on all LRSD schools. Such infor
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.