Correspondence

RECIEVED JAN 6 194 Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date: January 4, 1994 To: Margie Powell, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Sterling Ingra irector Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Arkansas Minimum Perfoirmance Test, 1993 As requested in your telephone call today, we are enclosing copies of the school summary reports for the 1993 Arkansas MPT. information, please let me know. If we can provide any additional bjg cc: Jerry Malone 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 January 10, 1994 Mrs. Pat Higginbotham Woodruff Elementary School 3010 West 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Dear Pat: Congratulations on 400 fight-free days at Woodruff! Thats a significant milestone to have reached, and 1 am so proud of you, your staff, and your terrific kids. As a former Woodruff parent, 1 know firsthand the importance you and your fine staff place on teaching children how to constructively handle their differences. As a result of his years at Woodruff, my son Jonathan left sixth grade last year with solid skills in decision making and conflict resolution that are serving him well now in junior high. By the way, 1 also want you to know how fondly Jonathan remembers Woodruff and his teachers. Every time we drive by the school, he heaves a sign and says, "1 wish 1 were still there." Jonathan learned so much while he was at Woodruff. He was challenged and he was also cherished, feeling secure and well-guided by his concerned and loving teachers. As a result, he gained much selfconfidence and now approaches school with an "1 can do it" attitude. As a Mom, 1 thank you for all the wonderful things your school has given my son. As a monitor, 1 salute you for your superb vision, leadership, and know-how. You dared to set a lofty goal and then you provided the direction, resources, and support that have enabled all of you to achieve your goal together. Please share this letter with your terrific Woodruff colleagues and accept my enthusiastic congratulations on a job well done. Sincerely yours, irownOffice 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: January 12, 1994 To: Hank Williams From: n Brown Subject: LRSD Communication Assistant Position 1 wrote you on December 3, 1993 regarding the status of the unfilled Communications Assistant position, but still have not received an answer to my letters inquiries. 1 will appreciate your early response to the questions 1 posed last month in my letter: By what date can the Court expect the Communication Assistants position to be filled? Also, will this position be part-time or will it be full-time? Thank you very much. LRSD SUPTS OFFICE 148 P01 JAN 19 4 17:16 LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 19, 1994 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Dr. Mayo has been given my approval to fill the position of Communication Assistant. It is my hope, that after he has concluded his interviews, filled. the position will be I understand that he has narrowed his choices. and that filling this position is a priority. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools /bjf 810 Wet Maridmin Street Little Kock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 eF.-/A'Lb Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To
From: Date: Subject: Ann Brown, Monitor Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent February 2,1994 Meeting February 1,1994 FEB 7 10Q4 Onice of Di 'Qbv< Thank both you and Bob for your help yesterday with data about our students in and out of our attendance zones. As you know. Bob and 1 are meeting next week so 1 may benefit from the file he has built. Our meeting was beneficial to me and gave me insight into ways of approaching solutions to student assignment. From our meeting, 1 understand that you will request Incentive School capacities from Doug Eaton based on a maximum of 20 students per class, rather than the current capacities. We agreed that these would be more realistic. We did not agree, however, on the method for calculating range for area elementary schools. 1 understand clearly why you are interpreting the range to be fixed at 40% to 60%. As pointed out, our average percentage black is approximately 64%. This makes it mathematically impossible for us to bring all elementary schools into compliance. We have been using 40% for the bottom of the range and using the formula for secondary schools to figure the top. That way the top of the range moves with our percentage black. Chris Heller and 1 will try to work an agreeable solution. Also, 1 want to reiterate my response to your question about the assistant communication position. We have taken a while to fill this position because of the importance of any position when much is to be done. These are long term decisions, because they affect people's lives, as you know. We want to be careful to get the right people in the right places so they are both happy and productive. The apparent conflict between my testimony and reality is easily explained. When 1 testified that we were completing interviews on Friday, January 28, that was true. The following Monday, we realized that since the position was changed to full-time, it should be re advertised. It has been and will close early next week. This means that three to four weeks may pass before the person selected is actually on the job. This estimate includes the new hire's two weeks notice to their current employer. Again, thank you for your help. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 2, 1994 Mr. Doug Eaton Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Doug: I understand that my associate, Melissa Guldin, spoke with you yesterday about the LRSD school capacity figures you sent us earlier this year. The numbers you had reported for the incentive schools were evidently taken directly from the incentive school capacity table which appears on page 147 of the LRSD desegregation plan. Those capacities are based on 18 children in four-year- old classes, 20 in kindergarten, 23 in grades one through three, and 25 in grades four through six. Although you are correct in citing the desegregation plan capacity figures, the Courts May 1, 1992 Order has resulted in the district aiming for a maximum class enrollment at the incentive schools of 20 pupils per classroom in grades K through six. Therefore, please fax me the capacity of each incentive school based on no more than 20 pupils per class in grades K-6 and the appropriate classroom maximum for the early childhood grades (which I understand is 18 in four-year-old rooms and, in the Rockefeller magnet program, 18 in the ree-year-old classes, 17 in the two- year-olds, and 10 for the infants and toddlers). 1 need this information no later than the end of the day on Friday, February 4, 1994. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Russell Mayoyf A tt^'^
Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Date: February 2, 1994 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 To: Interdistrict School Principals From: ODM Monitoring Team Subject: Request for documentation On October 26, 1993 we requested that copies of certain documents be available at our scheduled monitoring visit. To date, the following list of items have not been provided. In order to complete our report we ask you send these documents to us no later than Tuesday, February 8, 1994 by 5:00 p.m. Failure to provide copies of these documents by that time will result in a notation in the final report that your school failed to provide monitors with requested documentation. This report will be filed with the federal district court. Crystal Hill 1993-94 PTA total membership by race and gender Total number of conferences each teacher held with parents (by race and gender) during the first semester for the 1993-94 school year. Romine 1993-94 PTA total membership by race and gender Washington Documentation of 1993-94 school committees that includes parent or community representatives by committee name, a brief description of the committees mission, a membership roster (including race, gender,and position) agenda, and minutes 1993-94 PTA total membership by race and gender 1993-94 school/community partnership agreements 1993-94 volunteer program documentation including the number of volunteers by race and gender and the total number of hours served by month 1993-94 classroom enrollment Discipline Report (first nine weeks) and the definition for SIPSn* Tin V? o c:-. February 2, 1994 FE3 MS94 James L. Washington 0Siic3 ci ce -.3 Hall High School Vice Principal 6700 "H" Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Ms. Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: A few years ago-while serving the Little Rock School District as Student Assignment Officer- I was encouraged to apply for a position on your staff by a colleague. Unfortunately, I was discouraged after she allegedly visited informally with you about working in your office, solicit her assistance. unknown to me. I would like to note that I did not Being discouraged is not experience I have learned how to provide self-motivation. hard work, and sacrifice in order to accomplish my personal and professional goals. However, when we visited with Mr. Butterfield I was curious to confirm what was told to me about comments allegedly made by you in reference to what you heard about James Washington. I was particularly concerned about the terms "rude", "disrespectful", and "discourteous" being used to describe the way I conducted myself while serving our district patrons. The point to be made is that serving the public in a process that is very emotional professional liability. (student assignments) should not be a demonstrated that: When challenged in the past, it has been (1) no one has been willing to sit and state specifics, and (2) patrons frustrated with the assignment process or the system target the district's contact person. Out of respect for you and myself I won't list (nor necessarily discount) the belief that my race and gender are factors, other words, I was unfairly labeled. In You need not respond. I merely want to state that I hope what was told to me was a gross misunderstanding. Not speaking for me, it may be a disservice to our community if the best available talent is not utilized as a result of heresay. community deserves more. Our school I hope you and your staff continue to have a good year! Sincerely, ton jiic 'V<- c. ho.li cc^c^^eg^ Little Rock School District 4 Feb 1994 receiv Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham St. Heritage West Building Otiice Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann
FEB 1 1 1994 ot Desegregation UOituv. .'S Pursuant to your letter of 2 Feb 1994, contained herein are the capacities for the Incentive Schools. Elementary at Ms. Gulden's request. I have included Washington The Incentive school capacities are calculated on a maximum class size of 20 students in grades K thru 6 and 18 students in Pre-K. The special programs at Rockefeller Elementary are calculated using 10 students/class in Infant programs. old programs and 18 students/class in 3 yr. 17 students/class in 2 yr. old programs. The capacity of Washington Elementary is calculated using 20 students in K, 23 students in grades 1 thru 3, 25 students in grades 4 thru 6 and 18 students in Pre-K. The capacities listed are based on the number of class sections presently in effect during the 93-94 school year. School Franklin Elementary Garland Elementary Mitchel Elemenatry Rightsell Elementary Rockefeller Elementary Stephens Elementary Washington Elementary Capacity 434 258 298 258 469 198 836 sincerely. Doiigla\ Eaton 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 5:^0 I 02/04 94 17:23 S'oOl 324 2032 L R School Dlst ODM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FAX (501) 324-2032 TO: FROM: SENDER'S PHONED SUBJECT: q: J, @001 002 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: Number of Pages (include cover page Speed Dial___________ Fax Phone Number zss^ssiags]! T' i222:^322a*3BS22^2SS3S
fi32aS2C
^2^:S2^a^aS^ai3SM 02fri4 94 1T:24 501 321 2032- i.:.M @002'002 I y AJt L 1< JcllOOl DI Si iwiri" if j' - f' Rock School District February 4, 1994 Ms. Connie Hickman Tanner Office of Desegregation Monitorinjfg Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 E. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Connie, Thanks for offering an extension on the final copy of the Districtwide Recruitment Plan. I should be able to provide a copy of the comprehensive plan with its four components (one each for incentive, interdistrict, magnet and area schools) by the middle of next week. There will be a narrative attached. Sincerely, Jeanette Wagner Director of Communications 810 West Markham street Little Rock, Arkansas 73301 (501)834-3000 _____________________________________ % _____________________________________ 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: February 14, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: In Brown Elementary Area School Racial Balance Range 1 want to correct an apparent misunderstanding that appears in your memo to me dated February 2, 1994 which 1 received on February 7, 1994. In that correspondence, you stated that I was interpreting the range for LRSD area elementary school at a fixed 40% to 60%. Actually, in figuring the target racial balance range for LRSD elementary area schools, my calculations are guided by the specific relevant language of the desegregation plans. Both the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Plan provide for the racial balance of LRSD elementary schools to be calculated differently from that of the districts secondary schools. The plans state that the target racial balance at the elementary area schools is 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The LRSD plan refers to attendance zones that are drawn to establish this racial balance. The plans also state that white enrollment at an area school may not exceed 60%. Clearly, the desegregation plans do not provide for the target racial balance range of LRSD elementary area schools to fluctuate along with the districts black percentage. That you perceive it to be presently "mathematically impossible" to achieve the target range is not due to a matter of interpretation of a racial balance formula
rather, it is due to the districts failure to do what the desegregation plans require of it: to recruit white students into the LRSD in numbers that will allow schools to be desegregated within the range the district set up itself. One effect of a fixed target range is to act as an incentive for the district to maintain white enrollment that is sufficient to achieve the racial balance that the parties agreed upon in their settlement. The challenge the LRSD is now facing is not in reinterpreting its desegregation plans, but in living up its solemn promises, including the tough recruitment job the district committed itself to do. cc: Hank Williams Chris HellerLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM .-j V To: From: Date: Subject: Ann Brown, Monitor Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent February 2, 1994 Meeting February 1,1994 FEB 7 1004 Oifica of Des^ Thank both you and Bob for your help yesterday with data about our students in and out of our attendance zones. As you know. Bob and 1 are meeting next week so 1 may benefit from the file he has built. Our meeting was beneficial to me and gave me insight into ways of approaching solutions to student assignment. From our meeting, 1 understand that you will request Incentive School capacities from Doug Eaton based on a maximum of 20 students per class, rather than the current capacities. We agreed that these would be more realistic. We did not agree, however, on the method for calculating range for area elementary schools. 1 understand clearly why you are interpreting the range to be fixed at 40% to 60%. As pointed out, our average percentage black is approximately 64%. This makes it mathematically impossible for us to bring all elementary schools into compliance. We have been using 40% for the bottom of the range and using the formula for secondary schools to figure the top. That way the top of the range moves with our percentage black. Chris Heller and 1 will try to work an agreeable solution. Also, 1 want to reiterate my response to your question about the assistant communication position. We have taken a while to fill this position because of the importance of any position when much is to be done. These are long term decisions, because they affect people's lives, as you know. We want to be careful to get the right people in the right places so they are both happy and productive. The apparent conflict between my testimony and reality is easily explained. When 1 testified that we were completing interviews on Friday, January 28, that was true. The following Monday, we realized that since the position was changed to full-time, it should be re advertised. It has been and will close early next week. This means that three to four weeks may pass before the person selected is actually on the job. This estimate includes the new hire's two weeks notice to their current employer. Again, thank you for your help. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams. Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyOffice 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
February 16, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: in Brown Subject: New LRSD Brochure 1 hope you could read my notes on my rough edit of your new brochure, which 1 faxed to you last evening. My handwriting is not always the clearest, so please dont hesitate to ask if something isnt legible. Russ, in my hasty comments 1 did not address every edit aspect of the brochure that its important to consider, from small things like the stray period that appears in the list of registration dates to major things like completeness of information and clarity of general purpose and content. You obviously intend for this brochure to be user friend-which is laudable-and 1 like the conversational tone. However, 1 still believe it is important for you to have a technical writer review and refine the brochure before it goes to press. It has been my experience that its worth the money to delegate a job like developing a new brochure to the pros who do that sort of thing for a living and are very good at it. There is one additional aspect of the brochure that I want to stress: in information designed to inform the public about various school options, I believe its critical to address and clarify the issue of eligibility. Parents are frequently upset when they perceive that they have options which we know are not open to them. For example, you may not be fully aware of the ire many parents expressed over King recruitment activities, when both the LRSD and PCSSD failed to make it clear that only certain parents need apply. Although I believe district officials do not mean to intentionally mislead the public, it still happens all too frequently because we fail to explain up front to Moms and Dads what we understand as a matter of routine. Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District ( Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 February 18, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, .AR 72201 Dear Hank: Enclosed are a number of charts containing information which the Court asked ODM to provide the district. This information should be helpful as you consider a number of issues, particularly those relevant to the future of Stephens and a new LRSD interdistrict school. As the Court requested, the charts show the number of empty seats in the incentive schools, the number of empty seats at King, and the number of children who are enrolled in these schools. To show where LRSD children might most likely be targeted for recruitment to PCSSDs new Clinton Interdistrict School, we have prepared racial balance data on schools in various areas of town and also a chart on the Washington Attendance Zones illustrating the dispersement of children who live in that schools zones but attend elsewhere. We have also used the LRSDs data base and 1993-94 budget to generate additional information which is categorized according to the titles and subtitles of each document. For example, one chart contains information on per-pupil expenditures by elementary school. Earlier this month. Bob Morgan and I met with Russ Mayo and Chris Heller to review the charts in draft form and to stress that our calculations were all based on data given us by the LRSD. We also gave Russ a computer disc containing the student data base from which we developed our charts. We have attempted to make each chart self-explanatory through headings, footnotes, or a brief introduction. However, some of the data may not be as self-evident as we intended it to be. So, please dont hesitate to contact me if we need to be clearer about any aspect of the information. Sincerely yours, d Ou Ann S. B Brown cc
Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All CounselLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Connie Hickman- Tanner, Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: February 20, 1994 Subject: District-Wide Recruitment Plan RECE3VEP FEB 24 1994' Oifica of Desegregation Monitoring Attached is a our district-wide recruitment plan. The cover narrative explains the document. We know that changes will occur as we experiment with ideas in the plan. We believe that all of our obligations are addressed in this plan. We are open to your suggestions for the document. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Members of the Superintendents Council Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham. Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 22, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Little Rock School District 801 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: I have discovered an error in a footnote that appears on one of the charts I sent you last Friday. In the section entitled Enrollment in Downtown Elementary Schools, a note under the chart on the second page states that incentive school capacities are based on a 20-to-l or less student-teacher ratio. That statement is incorrect. The capacities we actually used in our calculations are those that appear in the April 1992 LRSD Desegregation Plan, which are higher than a 20-to-l ratio. A corrected chart is enclosed. I regret any inconvenience ODM's error may have caused. Sincerely yours, -K "Ann S. Brown cc
Judge Susan Webber Wright Bobby Lester James Smith Russ Mayo All CounselENROLLMENT IN DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Prepared by ODM February 1994 For the purpose of this document, ODM has identified a downtown elementary school as any elementary school located within these boundaries: east of University, west of Adams Field, north of Fourche Creek, and south of Markham. These boundaries create a rectangular area encompassing the six incentive schools (Franklin, Garland, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens), three magnet schools (Booker, Carver, and Gibbs), two interdistrict schools (King and Washington), one area school (Woodruff), and the kindergarten classes at Central High School. By using the defined boundaries, some schools outside the downtown area have a few contiguous attendance zones that fall within the downtown area
Bale Elementary has four zones east of University, Fair Park has four zones and a partial zone south of Markham, and Pulaski Heights has one zone south of Markham. Woodruff, which is identified as a downtown school, has one zone north of Markham. However, for the purpose of this document, all zones within the defined boundaries are identified in the downtown area. A list of the zones defined for the purpose of this document as downtown attendance zones is provided. The information used to complete the last nine columns of this document is from the Little Rock School District (LRSD) student enrollment data base as of December 8, 1993. The second column is the October 1, 1993 enrollment reported to Arkansas Department of Education. The capacity figures in the third column are reported from LRSD as the current capacities. The fourth and fifth columns are results of calculations based on enrollment and capacity.Corrected 2-22-94 School Enrollment Oct 1 Capacity Franklin Incentive 345 544 LRSD DOWNTOWN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS % Filled Available Seats Live downtown but attend outside downtown Live downtown and attend downtown Live outside downtown but attend downtown Total Black White Total Black White Total Black White 63 199 270 260 10 281 263 18 55 28 27 Garland Incentive 205 346 59 141 118 117 1 190 172 18 14 6 8 Mitchell Incentive 230 346 66 116 131 127 4 192 177 15 29 21 8 Rightsell Incentive 189 346 55 157 90 87 3 165 163 2 22 17 5 Rockefeller Incentive 340 425 80 85 74 72 2 238 192 46 142 62 80 Stephens Incentive Sub Total Incentive Schools 145 298 49 153 86 86 0 136 135 1 9 6 3 1,454 2,305 63 851 769 749 20 1,202 1,102 100 271 140 131 Booker Magnet 595 656 91 61 N/A N/A N/A 130 116 14 461 202 250 Carver Magnet 595 613 97 18 N/A N/A N/A 130 124 6 465 206 259 Gibbs Magnet Sub Total Magnet Schools 299 353 85 54 N/A N/A N/A 102 88 14 198 83 115 1,489 1,622 92 133 0 0 0 : 362 328 34 1,124 491 633 King Interdistrict 553 692 80 139 90 89 1 331 317 14 217 17 200 Washington Interdistrict Magnet Sub Total Interdistrict Schools 721 939 77 218 262 253 9 406 383 23 314 65 249 Woodruff (Area) Central Kindergarten Satellite Zones Contiguous Zones Grand Total 1,274 1*631 78 357 352 342 10 737 700 IB 1 531 82 449 236 324 73 88 17 15 2 156 113 43 75 33 42 50 50 100 0 N/A N/A N/A 46 46 0 4 4 0 N/A N/A 4,503 N/A N/A N/A 747 722 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 313 253 60 N/A N/A N/A 5,932 76 1,429 2,198 2,081 117 2,503 2,289 214 2,005 750 1255There are seven satellite zones in the downtown area wherein students are assigned and transported to schools outside the downtown area: Brady, Forest Park Jefferson, McDermott, Meadowcliff, Otter Creek, and Terry. However, all students in those satellite zones do not attend the targeted schools. For example, Terry has 138 students identified within the downtown satellite zone (all black) of which 25 attend Terry. The remaining 113 students are assigned to 29 different schools. There are no satellite zones for the downtown area that would result in students being assigned and transported to a school downtown. Targeted School Brady McDermott Forest Park Jefferson Meadow -cliff Terry Otter Creek Students in satellite zone 66 180 162 273 191 138 124 Students attending targeted school Students outside targeted school Number of schools students attending outside the targeted school 33 66 60 71 72 25 39 33 16 114 102 202 119 113 85 23 29 29 32 29 22(ff - (3'^/ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 John L. McClellan Community High School 9417 Geyer Springs Road Phone 570-4100 Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 February 23, 1994 RWU i. r? Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FcB 2 4 1994 Office ci Dessi Dear Ms. Brown
I am writing to make you aware of a situation that we feel may be detrimental to our desegregation goals. Next month the Little Rock School District will print the brochure containing the 1994-95 course offerings for grades 9-12. (lam enclosing a copy of the 1993-94 brochure.) We have been notified by Estelle Matthis that approximately 25 magnet courses at McClellan High School will again not be included in this brochure. The reason given by Ms. Matthis is that "there are too many courses for the districts course offerings brochure to include magnet programs. It is very voluminous and costly in its present format." While it is true that the 1993-94 brochure did not include magnet courses from McClellan or Parkview, at least six magnet courses were listed from the other LRSD high school with a magnet program, Central. We ask you to look at the following factors and to consider requesting that all LRSD secondary courses be placed in the brochure. This brochure is the only document that students, especially 9th grade students, use when scheduling their courses. It is also a document seen by people considering entering the district. As such, we feel that every course available to secondary students in the Little Rock School District should be printed in the brochure. Students looking at the brochure would see interesting courses offered at Parkview or McClellan and then perhaps consider enrolling in those schools, possibly increasing white enrollment there. If this brochure is to be the districts course offerings brochure, then it seems fitting that all district secondary courses be included. The argument that Parkview is a true magnet school may seem to justify their omission from the brochure. After all, their counselors go to the junior high schools and register their own incoming sophomores. Even so, it seems that inclusion in this brochure would benefit Parkview as well as McClellan by spreading the word about the wonderful programs available at the two schools, especially at a time when enrollment at both schools is down. A Business/Communications Magnet 1 Ms. Matthis suggested that we have our own course offerings brochures printed
she offered to distribute these with the LRSD course offerings brochures. We see several problems with this plan. First, this second brochure would be costly
why not apply this cost to the inclusion of the McClellan and Parkview courses in the district brochure? Second, students consider the LRSD brochure as the primary source of course information. They might look at the individual school brochures, but the district brochure will be the one they keep and use as a reference for decision-making. Third, assuming that the district removes the Central magnet courses from the new district brochure, 9th grade students will be given four different brochures-LRSD, Central, McClellan, and Parkview-to help them select their courses
this would be terribly confusing for them as well as their parents. Finally, we feel that inclusion in the district brochure gives credibility to the magnet courses at all three high schools. Inclusion in the brochure says to everyone that these magnet high schools are a viable choice for all students. We at McClellan feel that it is imperative that all courses be included in the district course offerings brochure. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Steve Geurin Curriculum Coordinator Enclosure 'Of / Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Stales 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: March 11, 1994 From: To: Subject: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Julie Wiedower, Student Assignment Coordinator Little Rock School District Shadow Zone Seats at Williams Magnet School As you may recall, the issue of Williams shadow zone seats came up yesterday during the meeting we both attended at the Student Assignment OfiBce. During that meeting I commented that the district had never met the requirement that 25% of the seats in Williams be reserved for students living in the shadow of the school. You said that the district assigned 15 neighborhood students to Williams for the 1993-94 school year and for the upcoming 1994-95 school year. If this is accuarte, 25% of the students entering the Williams kindergarten would be from the shadow zone. Your statement regarding the 15 shadow zone seats was not consistent with the information I received in a memo, dated 12/9/93, from Donna Grady Creer regarding the allotment of magnet seats. That document showed 10 seats allocated to LRSD white students. Since the vast majority of housing near the school is occupied by whites, I assumed and you later confirmed that the 10 white seats shown for LRSD represented the total shadow zone allotment. We discussed this issue during a meeting at your office on January 7, 1994. During that meeting I showed you the memo from Donna and you confirmed that it matched the magnet seat allocations you set for the 1993-94 school year. We even talked about the 10 shadow zone seats and the fact that 10 seats did not constitute 25% of the kindergarten classes. The figure of 10 was also mentioned at each of the recritmnet meetings held for Fair Park parents. In order to clear this up, I need some documentation regarding the LRSD policy on assignment of shadow zone seats to all magnet schools. Please furnish the following in writing: Copy of the policy or procedures that govern allotment of shadow zone seats at each of the stipulation magnets Definition of shadow zones Number of seats allotted to shadow zone students during 1993-94 and for the upcoming 1994-95 school year As Russ Mayo said at the meeting, I think it is important that we all have accurate information. Thank you for your cooperation. cc: Russ Mayo______r- '-' ^SS^^tnci^r' FRIDAY. ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN. JR.. P.A. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY, P.A. FREDERICK 8. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR. JAMES C. CLARK. JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM III. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III DONALD H. BACON, P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR, P.A. JOSEPH 8. HURST, JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT 8. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N . ROSE, P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-376-201 1 FAX NO. 601-376-2147 March 16, 1994 received DIANE 8. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III, P.A. KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. CLYDE TAB* TURNER, P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY, P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR., P.A. H. CHARLES OSCHWEND, JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H . TUCKER JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH GUY ALTON WADE PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY, JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN MAR 1 5 1994 Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR COUNSEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE, JR., P.A B.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON, JR., P.A. VRITER'a DIRECT MO. 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re
LRSD VS. PCSSD/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines Gentlemen and Mrs. Brown: Enclosed please find the LRSD's Notice of Filing/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines filed pursuant to the order of the Court.Attorneys and Mrs. Brown March 16, 1994 Page 2 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, JLMzca Enclosure cc (w/enc): Jerry L. Malone LRSD Attorney Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent LRSD Council Members IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 1 5 1994 Office of Oessgrogajj^ ^Qnitffrin^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO
1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS Notice of Filinq/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District ("LRSD" or "District"), for its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines, pursuant to the order of this Court, states: 1. By order filed and entered on February 4, 1994, this Court required the LRSD to develop and file specific guidelines regarding assignments to interdistrict schools in the LRSD. The order provided that the guidelines must be complete and filed within thirty (30) days from the date of the order. As such, the deadline was Sunday, March 6, 1994. 2. On Wednesday, March 2, 1994, counsel for the LRSD requested and was granted ten (10) additional days within which to file the required guidelines. Accordingly, the LRSD had through and including Wednesday, March 16, 1994.LRSD Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines March 16, 1994 Page 2 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the LRSD Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines as developed by the District's Office of Desegregation and submitted through the Superintendent of the LRSD. 4. Counsel for the LRSD has been authorized by the administration of the LRSD to submit Exhibit 1 as its student assignment guidelines for interdistrict schools located in the LRSD. WHEREFORE, the Little Rock School District submits its Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines. Respectfully Submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT B Y L. Malone Bar No. I. D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing/Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines has been mailed by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid on March 16, 1994, upon the following, except as otherwise indicated: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite Little Rock, AR 504 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown (Hand-delivered pursuant to the order of the Court) Heritage West Building, Suite 520 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone Little Rock School District Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines It is the intent of the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") that LRSD interdistrict schools exist primarily to bring non-black students from surrounding school districts together with black students from the LRSD. LRSD non-black students may attend interdistrict schools in the LRSD as outlined in the Districts assignment guidelines. The guidelines below will apply to all interdistrict schools in the LRSD. 1. 2. The assignment guidelines are consistent with both the LRSD Desegregation Plan and the Interdistrict Plan with reference to the following sections: a) b) There will be established interdistrict schools which shall seek to obtain a ratio of between 60 percent and 40 percent of either race with the ideal goal of these interdistrict schools to be 50 percent black/white. Proposed interdistrict schools shall be phased-in to these ratios over time. (Interdistrict Plan, p.3) This plan will permit the treatment of interdistrict transfers (including the NLRSD) where students are moving from a situation where their race is a greater proportion of the total student body of a school to a school where their race is a lesser proportion of the student body of a school as Interdistrict Majority-to-Minority transfers under the Courts Order. (Interdistrict Plan, p. 11, Potential Interdistrict M-to-M Enhancements) The selection process will be as follows: a) Black students from the schools attendance zone will be assigned up to 51% of capacity at each grade level. If demand exceeds capacity, a lottery will be conducted to determine assignments. Students who cannot be assigned because of capacity will be assigned to the closest school with capacity which meets racial balance requirements. Their names will, however, be placed on a waiting list for the school. If the students closest school with capacity is an incentive school, that student may choose to attend that incentive school where such an assignment would not inhibit the initial reservation of seats for pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students. (However, these students still maintain their option to be assigned to an elementary area school in accordance with desegregation considerations.) These guidelines assume that interdistrict schools will be located in predominately black attendance zones.Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines Page 2 b) c) d) Non-black students from the schools attendance zone will be assigned. Non-black students from Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and beyond Pulaski County will be assigned through the Majority-to-Minority transfer process or appropriate State statutes. Seats will be reserved up to 49% of capacity as described by the LRSD Plan, page 147. After the winter pre-registration (normally held in or around February of each year), the number of seats reserved for PCSSD may be reduced to not lower than 40% of capacity or to that percent over 40% which is occupied by PCSSD students on that date. The remaining seats between 40% and 49% may then be made available for LRSD non-black students. However, LRSD non-black students will only be permitted to transfer to an LRSD interdistrict school where it does not cause the racial balance of the sending school to fall outside of acceptable racial balance. Children of staff members will be assigned after attendance zone and PCSSD students are placed. Transfers are subject to desegregation guidelines and the Interdistrict Plan, p. 141, Transfer of Children of Employees. 3. 4. Those LRSD students currently attending an LRSD Interdistrict school may remain until they matriculate out of the sixth grade. However, the siblings of those students may not be assigned to an interdistrict school unless such an assignment complies with these Interdistrict School Assignment Guidelines. In no event will non-black students from the LRSD, PCSSD or elsewhere be allowed to enroll in an LRSD interdistrict school where to do so would cause that schools enrollment to shift from being majority black (i.e. at least 50% -i-1) to majority white, thereby negatively affecting the interdistrict M-to-M funding status of that LRSD interdistrict school.-i-o _ . _ . _____ ac
ft berf r3>o-a ffj n 4 -f-i '/e-d- /a/ aa^c. D-f I toff 4 March 20, 1994 MAR 2 1994 Oifica of Oeoegregaiion Mcmloring Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown
Recently, I was made aware of reoccurring accusations about my principal, Robert L. Brown, Jr. The accusations follow: 1. Mr. Brown does not want White children at Garland as evidenced by the uniforms that the students wear and the African nature of the instructional content. I would like to respond to this by saying that I disagree very much. Mr. Brown has done everything within his power to recruit White and Other children to Garland. I, a White female staff member, came to Garland first in 1987 as Dr. Cheryl Simmons' secretary. Our school colors have always been gold and black. Our uniforms are gold tops and black pants or white blouses and gold jumpers. Some do have African print trim along the edges. No student is required or pressured into wearing the African print. We have White children and Hispanic children who wear these uniforms. They are very pleased with them and look very cute in them. I would not mind having a jumper myself. In reference to the curriculum at Garland, each child is taught to be proud of who he is as an individual, whether it be Black, Hispanic, or White. I transferred last year to Rockefeller Incentive School. When I came back to Garland this year as Mr. Brown's secretary, I couldn't believe the difference in the attitude of the children at Garland. They had a sense of pride about themselves that I had never seen before. Our enrollment of Hispanic students has increased tremendously this year. I asked Mr. Brown about taking a couple of teachers and myself to the Landmark School Supplies Multi-Cultural Open House at the Holiday frm-Airport in February. He said that would be fine, but to let the teachers know that we would only be interested in materials for Hispanic students. Mr. Brown is intent on reaching students from their cultural perspective. Our curriculum is multi-culturally based with more emphasis being placed on cultures represented within our school population. I think Mr. Brown has the right idea in teaching about countries and their cultures from around the world, not just Black and White. 2. Mr. Brown has little or no regard for white staff members. To this I disagree, also. Mr. Brown expects all staff members to put 100% into their jobs. He believes the children deserve the best education they can get. Like in all places of employment, there are people who want to sit down and not do the job they are being paid to do. Some of these people are White and some are Black. It is true that Page - 1Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor April 5, 1994 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Debbie Gross 18 Fair Oaks Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Ms. Gross: I've received your recent correspondence expressing support of Garland Incentive School and your principal, Mr. Robert Brown. Because several of your fellow staff members also sent me similar letters on this subject, I hope you will not think me rude for mailing each of you this same reply which addresses your collective concerns. Many of the letters expressed fears that allegations of racial favoritism were circulating about Mr. Brown, along with rumors that he might be replaced as principal. I have not heard any comments or discussion, either "on" or "off' the record, that give credence to such allegations and rumors. Adthough some of the letters were addressed directly to me, I want to explain that neither I nor Judge Susan Webber Wright, who oversees the desegregation case, make decisions about school district personnel. Those decisions are the responsibility of each district's Board of Directors, based on recommendations from the superintendent and input from others, which might include a staffing committee, for example. As you know, many factors affect personnel placement, and an employer has the right-as well as the obligation-to weigh those factors to determine where an individual can best serve the organization. At the same time. Judge Wright has made it clear to both Dr. Williams and the Little Rock School District Board that the Court will not tolerate reprisals against any district employee because of that individual's testimony in the desegregation case. This school year, Mr. Brown testified at Judge Wright's request during a hearing on the incentive schools. At that time, the Court directed the district to take no retributive action toward Mr. Brown due to his having testified. It is obvious from your letter that you care very much about Garland and Mr. Brown, and also that you take pride in the important job you are doing for children. I'm sure Mr. Brown's heart has been warmed by your endorsement and many positive comments about him. I have known Robert Brown for many years, and believe him to be a man of sincere conviction who earnestly wants the very best for co-workers and students alike. Thank you for speaking out on behalf of your school and, most especially, for all you are doing to make Garland a success. 'Fan i/t., Sincerely yours, Amn S. Brown f/fcj.' C-q// Qyf/a. Ah, ~ /Vlor'^ Srm'fA i /y- /4/A'lni* K) Little Rock School District March 21, 1994 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage Building - West 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 0nic3 oi Dessgrc- ion Monstcnng Dear Ms. Brown: During a review of the School Profiles which were produced for the second semester monitoring report, it became clear that there might be a possibility of incorrect interpretation of the staffing information included in the reports submitted last fall. The computer program which generates the information counted every individual holding a unique position in the school. This method of calculation caused us to count some employees in the same school multiple times thus possibly causing the reported racial balances to be in error. This method of calculation has been altered in the new set of reports which are being submitted at this time. This change will become apparent when you compare staffing information for this semester with last semester. We feel, though, that this alteration in the program will more accurately reflect the true staffing picture in the schools. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerely, A 1 MAR 2 1 1994 Dr. Robert Glowers, Director Planning, Research and Evaluation cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney John Walker, Attorney r' 4 I 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 -['Ji J / / each LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 March 21, 1994 TO: Selected Employees FROM: Zj^Mark D. Milhollen, Manager of Support Services THROUGH: Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Blue Cross-Blue Shield Information Request The District has been notified by Arkansas Blue Cross-Blue Shield that recent federal legislation (Ommbus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993) requires an aimual reporting of employee health insurance plan information to the Department of Health and Human Services. It is very important that the information submitted to Blue Cross-Blue Shield be accurate and current. Therefore, please verify the accuracy of the attached printout generated by Blue Cross-Blue Shield and make any necessary corrections, sign the form (anywhere near the bottom of the form) and return by school mail to the Business Office by March 28.1994. Again, this information is very important in assisting employees with the processing of claims. Thank you for your help in this required reporting. MDMxa Attachment ANN 3 C0CC75 \BCBS.mdm PLEASE POST PLEASE POST Little Rock School District March 21, 1994 TO: All Employees 4! FROM: Mark D. Milhollen, Manager of Support Services THROUGH: Hen: --------, vi kjujypvil OC iiy Sbp^rintendent'of's^i Schools SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION OF APRIL 1, 1994 PAYCHECKS 1. Transportation Employees 2. Checks will be distributed at the Transponation Office Maintenance Employees on Friday, April 1, 1994. 3. Checks will be distributed at the Plant Services Office Substitute Employees on Friday, April 1, 1994. ChyCcks will be put in the U.S. mail in the same manner they are mailed each pay 4. All Other Employees Not Mentioned Ahove Adnunistration Bufldmg at 810 1 1994 Anv checks not picked up will be sent through the school mail - - - a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Friday, April 1, 1994, on Monday, April 4, 1994. MDM:ca \checks.mdin 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361MAR-31-94 THU 11:59 SUSAN W WRIGHT FAX noMo 13246576 P. 02 March 2S, 1994 CLAUDIA HOWARD 108 NORTH DEVON SHERWOOD, ARKANSAS 72X16 'J'::. 1 -i Ma. Sadie Mitchell, Principal Martin Luther King, Jr. Interdiatrict Elementary School ( ..'f 905 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Ms. Mitchell, Ma, Dovers, and Staff: I want to express my appreciation to all of you for the chili supper and talent "a effort But I am not writing this letter just because of one event at King Elementary. . . - . . ' ------- wKw wAciucuLai y My pUrpOS my-Child finally in a-school where consistently positive, upbeat, and eager. From what i can see when I am in King, is that you and the staff is a job. Appearances show that everyone is working together and eager and are happy with what is going on. time I set foot into King, see so Appearances show that person works. and eager. From what are not there just because it to do I felt that atmosphere the very first 1 am of the opinion that no matter how hard a if their attitude does not come across in a positive matter, it that begins to affect their job and relationships. being bright as they ara, pick up on I also believe, that children, our dispositions and carry it with them. On a personal note about my child (Lauren), . uirrerence in her even SaJ wL'tt'" r Lauren has always made good grades, but aV waS _ s 1 . to King. I can see a difference in her Now, she is xnterested, and she wants to do good and she tell what sho is doing at school. 3 me me she does not want to Lauren absolutely loves King Elementary and tells me She doeo not want to go back-because at King, she says, "they let you learn , oh for art, because she knows she does not possess a talent It does not come easy for her. Even though it may not be the most important area in her curriculum, Lauren tells me this is one of things at King. child from {That and computer lab.) her favorite To be honest with you, switching was -- r- uonesu wicn my our neighborhood school and taking her away from her friends there. the hardest thing I have ever done, school, I know _I ^d_ the right thing. But every time I step foot into your Thank you for your desire and determination to succeed with our children. Yours truly. Claudia Howard CH CC
The Honorable Sus an Webber Wright, U, s. District Judge Henry Williams, Ph.D., Superintendent, Little Hock School District Donna Brady Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee FPOM TO ^10100 P.05 A . LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 31, 1994 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Henr ^
'intendent SUBJECT: Proposal Funding of Business Cases ^=5S5=: Per your request, attached are itemized listings of costs for implementing business cases as submitted for your review on March 29, 1994. '5 4 r I I I r- I r TOTAL P.05 nt* nn 04-04-199'-
FROM TO 3710100 P.02 BUSINESS CASES CATEGORY 1 - INCENTIVE SCHOOLS (Required - Double Funding) a SCHOOL ITEM AMOU- 1. Franklin Theme 1.0 Spanish teacher $40,000 25,000 Rockefeller 1.0 Aide - Alternative Classroom Specialist 1.0 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation 12,000 25,000 75,000 (maxirr' rn) 3 3. Rightseli .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation 12,500 75,000 (maxintum) i 4- litchell .5 Spanish teacher 12.500 Garland .5 Spanish teacher Technology Theme Implementation 12,500 75,000 (maximum) 6 Stephens .5 Spanish teacher 12,500 n No impact on Incentive School Budget. o' 4 I ^1 h 1 1 - I ( M-,4-04-1994 11:17AM 1. 2. FROM TO Bb'SI.NESS CASES 3710100 CATEGORY II DESEGREGATION PLAN/ADE (Required - Need Funding) P.03 p I 3. 4. 5, 6. DEPARTMENT English Math/l.ang. Arts Science/Voc. Ed. Science English/For. Lang. Science ITE.M AMOUNT English as a Second Language Math/Lang Arts Revision Applied Biology/Chemistry Science Revision For. Language Revision Hands-on Science Total S 75,880 21,100 93,000* 10,000 7,500 '5,000 $139,480 I Fund source - Carl Perkins (No LRSD funds) t11 1/ I 1^- J4-04-1994 11!17AM FROM TO 3710100 P.04
BUSINESS CASES CATEGOR Y III - RELATED DESEGREGATION/ADE (Not RequiredBut Essential) DEPARTMENT/SCHQGL ITEM AMOUNT I. 2. 3. 4. Science/Math (K-3) Foreign Language Social Studies Romine Foreign Language Science/Math Reading S 18,000 Foreign Lang. K-I2 Revision (UALR) Secretary- Theme Specialist For. Lang. Immersion Total 15,000 18,000 (use existing position in District) 3,000 $ 54,000 GRAND TOTAL S193,4<S0 I I !f <'-04-1994 11:15AM FROM TO 3710100 P.01 s I p Arkansas Democrat I Q^azettc i I FAX NUMBER: NEVJ3 ROOM: (501) 372-3908 DATE: - TO: FAX NUMBER
NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: MESSAGE
hflj__ &ilivbcaiin_rOI ce. VO cnn A:/f fewi i__ C u MbjrA Fpxkfeil :JjrS 2 E 9i zm v CAPiTOL AND SCOTT P.O. BOX 2221 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203-2221 (501) 378-3400 ns^ IM LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT gsw R osH7:n. April 4, 1994 APR 5 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: In keeping with your letter of March 14, 1994, in which you requested several documents, I have enclosed the following: The Community Forum Matrix The District Dialogue Matrix Fast Track Evaluations Business Cases (With Itemized Listings of Cost) The following items are being reviewed and will be sent to you upon completion: Program Inventory Report Student Assignment Audit Needs Assessment Report Instructions for Incorporating Additional Desegregation Obligations into the Program Budget Document. Sincerely, (? Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 Little Rock School District April 4, 1994 To: Principals, Directors and Supervisors Through: Dr. He: Superintendent From: Dr. Ric iurley, Director of Human Resources APR 0 1594 Office of DeocGcs luui'i iviOhiiuiiny Enclosed you will find an Employee Intention Report for your site. Please meet with your employees to determine their plans for the 1994-95 school year. Indicate on the space provided whether the individual will return or resign. If any of your employees intend to retire or resign, please remind them that a letter to that effect should be forwarded to the Human Resources Department as soon as possible. (The deadline for the Early Retirement Incentive is May 20, 1994.) If we have left anyone off your list, please add them to the bottom. This report should be returned to the Human Resources Department no later than April 12, 1994. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)824-2000Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor April 5, 1994 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Debbie Gross 18 Fair Oaks Little Rock, AR 72204 Dear Ms. Gross: I've received your recent correspondence expressing support of Garland Incentive School and your principal, Mr. Robert Brown. Because several of your fellow staff members also sent me similar letters on this subject, I hope you will not think me rude for mailing each of you this same reply which addresses your collective concerns. Many of the letters expressed fears that allegations of racial favoritism were circulating about Mr. Brown, along with rumors that he might be replaced as principal. I have not heard any comments or discussion, either "on" or "off the record, that give credence to such allegations and rumors. zAlthough some of the letters were addressed directly to me, I want to explain that neither I nor Judge Susan Webber Wright, who oversees the desegregation case, make decisions about school district personnel. Those decisions are the responsibility of each district's Board of Directors, based on recommendations from the superintendent and input from others, which might include a staffing committee, for example. As you know, many factors affect personnel placement, and an employer has the right-as well as the obligation-to weigh those factors to determine where an individual can best serve the organization. At the same time, Judge Wright has made it clear to both Dr. Williams and the Little Rock School District Board that the Court will not tolerate reprisals against any district employee because of that individual's testimony in the desegregation case. This school year, Mr. Brown testified at Judge Wright's request during a hearing on the incentive schools. At that time, the Court directed the district to take no retributive action toward Mr. Brown due to his having testified. It is obvious from your letter that you care very much about Garland and Mr. Brown, and also that you take pride in the important job you are doing for children. I'm sure Mr. Brown's heart has been warmed by your endorsement and many positive comments about him. I have known Robert Brown for many years, and believe him to be a man of sincere conviction who earnestly wants the very best for co-workers and students alike. Thank you for speaking out on behalf of your school and, most especially, for all you are doing to make Garland a success. (L- Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown i\m ry Boil a y /-.ted-,March 20, 1994 I f'>if '* t j?9 bC'^
3>nj MAR 2 5 1994 C
'C3 0} Oeosg:
ai!on Monitoring J' Mrs. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation and Monitoring 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown
Recently, I was made aware of reoccurring accusations about my principal, Robert L. Brown, Jr. The accusations follow: 1. Mr. Brown does not want White children at Garland as evidenced by the uniforms that the students wear and the African nature of the instructional content. I would like to respond to this by saying that I disagree very much. Mr. Brown has done everything within his power to recruit White and Other children to Garland. I, a White female staff member, came to Garland first in 1987 as Dr. Cheryl Simmons' secretary. Our school colors have always been gold and black. Our uniforms are gold tops and black pants or white blouses and gold jumpers. Some do have Afiican print trim along the edges. No student is required or pressured into wearing the .African print. We have White children and Hispanic children who wear these uniforms. They are very pleased with them and look very cute in them. I would not mind having a jumper myself. In reference to the curriculum at Garland, each child is taught to be proud of who he is as an individual, whether it be Black, Hispanic, or White. I transferred last year to Rockefeller Incentive School. When I came back to Garland this year as Mr. Brown's secretary, I couldn't believe the difference in the attitude of the children at Garland. They had a sense of pride about themselves that I had never seen before. Our enrollment of Hispanic students has increased tremendously this year. I asked Mr. Brown about taking a couple of teachers and myself to the Landmark School Supplies Multi-Cultural Open House at the Holiday Inn-Airport in February. He said that would be fine, but to let the teachers know that we would only be interested in materials for Hispanic students. Mr. Brown is intent on reaching students from their cultural perspective. Our curriculum is multi-culturally based with more emphasis being placed on cultures represented within our school population. I think Mr. Brown has the right idea in teaching about countries and their cultures from around the world, not just Black and White. 2. Mr. Brown has little or no regard for white staff members. To this I disagree, also. Mr. Brown expects all staff members to put 100% into their jobs. He believes the children deserve the best education they can get. Like in all places of employment, there are people who want to sit down and not do the job they are being paid to do. Some of these people are White and some are Black. It is true that Page - 1 ftPR- 0-94 TUE 12:31 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 02 Office of Desegregation Monitoring UnKed Slates District Court Eastern Disbict of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Flock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 Date: April S, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: Irown Subject School Racial Balance and Student Assignment Guidelines As I stated during our joint staff meeting last month, 1 continue to disagree with some of the numbers which you are promulgating as racial guidelines for LRSD schools. Your February 2,1994 memorandum to me indicated that you and Chris Heller would try to work out 'an agreeable solution' regarding the racial targets. I responded in a memo, once again explaining that ODM calculations are based on what the desegregation plan sets forth as racial balance guidelines. I also emphasized that the most pressing need for the district was not to attempt to manipulate racial balance guidelines, but rather to recruit white students In numbers sufficient to desegregate the schools within the range the district set up for itself in the settlement agreements. That communication notwithstanding and without further discussion with me, you have recently published in the new LRSD Student Assignment Handbook for 1994-95 "acceptable racial ranges* that are inconsistent with the desegregation plan. The Handbook reminds Student Assignment personnel and alt principals that titey will be held accountable for following what you have set forth as requirements. Im also disturbed by your March 17,1994 memo to principals of selected schools, evidently those having a racial balance below or veiy near the minimum "acceptable" percentage of black students. The directive states that you will reserve seats for black students and give white students alternate assignments or place them on a waiting list. Ive received numerous calls from distressed parents and district personnel who perceive the directive as counter to the spirit of the desegregation plan. Its obvious that we need to sit down together to talk over student assignment issues and to reach an understanding about what is reasonable, workable, and consistent with the goals of the desegregation plan. 1 think this kind of conversation will be preferable to asking judge Wright for an Immediate healing to sort out racial guideline and student assignment matters. HI talk with either you or Chris today (depending on wlilch of you I can find first) and arrange a time to get together this week. Thanks for your cooperation. cc Chris HellerAPR- 5-94 TUE 12:31 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 03 Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM RECEIVED To
From: Date
Subject: /bin iSnown, Monitor Russ M:wo, Associate Superintendent February 2,1994 Meeting February 1,1994 FEB 7 Office of Desegregatioi'i Momtonng . Thank both you and Bob for your help yesterday witJi data about our students in and out of our attendance zones. As you know. Bob and 1 are meeting next week so I may benefit from the file he has built. Our meeting was beneficial to me and gave me insight into ways of approadiing solutions to student assignment. From our meeting, 1 understand that you will request Incentive School capacities from Doug Eaton based on a maximum of 20 students per class, ratlier than the current capacities. We agreed tliat tliese would be more realistic. . We did not agree, however, on the niediod for calculating range for area elementary schools. 1 understand clearly why you arc interpreting the range to be fixed at 4(^ to 60%. This mat^ it As pointed out, our average percentage black is approximately 64%. madiematically impossible for us to briiig all elementary scliools into compliance. We have been using 40% for the bottom of the range and using the formula for secondary schools to figure the top. That way the top of the range moves with our percentage black. Chris Hellet and I will try to work an agreeable solution. Also, 1 want to reiterate ray response to your question about the assistant comnjiunication position. We have taken a while to fill this position because of the importance of any position when much is to be done. These are long term decisions, because they affect people's lives, as you know. We want to be careful to get the right people in the right places so they are both happy and productive. The apparent conflict betw^n my testimony and. reality is Easily explained. When I testified that we were , ,, completing interviews on Friday, Januaiy 28, that was true. Tire following Monday, we realized that since the position was changed to full-time, it should be re advertised. It has been and will dose early next week. Tliis means that three to four weeks may pass before the Polson selected Is actually on the job. This estimate Includes the new hire's two weeks notice to their current employer. Again, thank you for your help. G Dr. Hejuy P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, UtSD Attorney APR- 5-94 TOE 12:32 FAX NO. 5013710100 : L'ozvf. c^ P. 04 Office of Desegregation Monitoring United Slates District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)375^200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 Date
February 14, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: Brown Elementary Area Scliool Racial Balance Range 1 want to correct an apparent misunderstanding that appears in your memo to me dated February 2, 1994 which f received on February 7, 1994. In that correspondence, you stated that I was interpreting the range for LRSD area elementaiy school at a fixed 40% to 60^ Actually, in figuring the target racial balance range for LRSD elementaiy area schools, my calculations are guided by the specific relevant language of the desegregation plans. Both the LRSD Desegregation Plan and tlie Interdistrict Plan provide for the racial balance of LRSD elementary schools to be calculated differently from that of the districts secondary schools. The plans state that the target racial balance at the elementary area schools is 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. Tire LRSD plan refers to attendance zones that are drawn to establish this racial balance. The plans also state that Miite enrollment at an area school may not exceed 60%. Clearly, the desegregation plans do not provide for the target racial balance range of LRSD elementaiy area schools to fluctuate along with the districts black percentage. That you perceive it to be presently mathematically impossible" to achieve the target range is not due to a matter of interpretation of a racial balance formula
radier, it is due to the districts failure to do what the desegregation plans require of it
to recruit white students into tlie LRSD in numbers that will allow schools to be desegregated within the range the district set up itself. One effect of a fixed target range is to act as an incentive for the district to maintain white enrollment that Is sufficient to achieve the racial balance that the parties agreed upon in their settlement. The challenge the LRSD is now fadng is not in reinterpreting its desegregation plans, but in living up its solemn promises, including the tough recruitment job the district committed Itself to do. cc: Hank Williams Chris Heller APR- -5-94 TUE 12:33 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 05 Tn Desegregation Requirements/Acceptable Racial Ranges lF* The minixnum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 40 percent, The maximum black percentage for each elementary attendance zone school will be 12 1/2 percent above the district-wide black percentage at the organizational level. The minimuin black percentage for each secondary Ounior and senior high) attendance zone school will be 25 percent below the districvwidc black percentage at each organizational level. The maximum black percentage will be 12 1/2 percent above (he district-wide black percentage at each organizational, level. The minimum and ipaximum black percentages constitute the desegregation requirement (or acceptable range) for attendance zone schools. Student Idid all building prindpials will be hdd acieountabie for complying with desegregation requirements. Ip addition to complying with desegregation requirements, building principals will be expected to assign students to classes In an equitable manner, to the greatest extent possible. The building principal should not allow resegregation to occur in classrooms. School desegregation requirements and equitable classroom assignments will be monitored by the L^SD Offices of Desegregation. School based biracial advisory committees will also monitor compliance in these areas. The acceptable range is listed below: Elementary Junior High Senior High 40.00% . 73.75% 52.50% - 78.75% 49.25% 73.75% I 1 fiPR- 5-94 TUE 12:33 FAX NO. 5013710100 P. 06 TOs FROM! SUBJECT
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 March 17, 1994 RSC. MAR 2 Q 1594 Office of Desejragascn f.^oniicring Principals of Selected Schools C. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for tie segregation 1994-95 School Assignments I All students who pre-registered during the February preregistration period for entry level grades (kindergarten,7th and 10th) were assigned to their attendance zone school for the 1994-95 school year. As a result of these assignments, your' school's racial balance is below or very near the minimum acceptable school year. percentage of black students. For that reason, all students who pre "register on or after March 14 will be assigned by the Student Assignment Office. This procedure will apply to all grade levels. Basically, we will reserve vacant seats for black students while nonblack students will receive alternate assignments. Students who cannot be assigned will be placed on waiting lists. until further notice until further nutite, J am requesting that you allow parents of students in your attendance zone to complete the pre-registration paperwork at your school, enter the information on the database in the' "NEW district and forward .the paperwork to the Student Assignment Office. If you have questions concerning this procedure, please call at 324-2271. meOffice 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 April 7, 1994 Ms. Debbie Milam Volunteers in Public Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Debbie and Wonderful VIPS Colleagues: Thank you so much for the snazzy and eye-catching invitation to An Evening For The Stars, which came in todays mail. Sounds like you are gearing up for a terrific event where a great time will be had by all. 1 wish 1 could be there to enjoy the show, but 111 be in California on April 26, visiting my folks. 111 be thinking of you on that Tuesday though, and have my family save newspaper accounts of the evening so 1 can read all about it when 1 return. Best wishes for a star-studded good time! Love to all, Ann Brown ?> I I j? itaaa^vs^^. ..saiaw.-.-: Lhtle Rock School Dihikict OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 7, 1994 bl
1 J APR 3 1994 Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Heritage West Building of DsSOGi'S^aVCri ^'tu' Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: In keeping with your request of March 14, 1994, I have enclosed the Needs Assessment Report and the Program Inventory Report for your files. We are continuing to work on the Student Assignment Audit and the Instructions for Incorporating Additional Desegregation Obligations into the Program Budget Document. will be submitted to you upon completion. Additional documents Thanks for your patience. Sincerely He^y P. Williams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr Encl. I 810 W'est Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 2201 (501) 324-2000ren^ LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 7, 1994 AS iLaj:.0 APR 8 1994 Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Cic3 oi Dsssgregalion Mcr,
c
h!g Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: In keeping with your request of March 14, 1994, I have enclosed the Needs Assessment Report and the Program Inventory Report for your files. We are continuing to work on the Student Assignment Audit and the Instructions for Incorporating Additional Desegregation Obligations into the Program Budget Document. will be submitted to you upon completion. Additional documents Thanks for your patience. Sincerely e Y P. Williams Superintendent of Schools HPW:nr Encl. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 CAO 1)324-2000 w* t' -t ye' 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 To: From: Mark Milhollen, Director of Support Services <^^^olly Ramer, Office Manager Through: Brown, Federal Monitor Re: Additional Pay for Linda Bryant and Jackie Banks Date: April 8, 1994 During the supplemental pay period beginning March 7 and ending April 8, 1994, Linda Bryant (431- 88-8471) has worked five days more than her regular work schedule (one half day on March 8, 29, April 5, and 7 and one full day on March 22, 23, and 31). Please include Linda in your next supplemental payroll, with her check reflecting 5 days at $71.51 per day for a gross total of $357.55. Also during this same pay period, Jackie Banks (432-66-0119) worked 3 days more than her regular work schedule (March 14, 16, and 18). Please include Jackie in your next supplemental payroll, with her check reflecting 3 days at $46.04 per day for a gross total of $138.12. If you need additional information, please call. Thank you. Garland 3615W. 25th Little Rock. AR 72204 "Simply Tran^ormational" 4* jii'Jii!a-08-94 -> ^Incentive Mr. Robert L. Brown, Jr.. Principal Phone: (501)671-6275 eygsgjgA ^3 liini'ii ii! lai APR Ann Brown, Director Office of Desegregation 3 1994 201 E. Markham Little Rock, AR OffiCQ cf 72201 Dear Mrs. Brown: I suppose one can only conclude that I haven't been handling the I know I've got to get a grip on In reality, I haven't. pressure well. things and use better judgment in all areas of my life. Spring Break would give me some time to recuperate, but Dr. Glowers decision to instruct Mrs. Wagner not to use our comparative academic I thought performance on our brochures didn't help matters. Perhaps I will stop complaining and just allow events to unfold without any reaction on my part. I think that might be my only answer at this point, if I am to maintain a level perspective and focus my energies on the staff and students at Garland I didn't send the attached letter to Judge Wright, but since I wrote it. If you would I thought I would at least entrust it to your care. specifically note the February 18th entry, you will see what I documented hearing from Superintendent Williams. In our meeting on March 10, 1994, I told him I would take care of my own damage control. I had already informed my white staff members of the perceptions I didn't tell them where I had heard the allegations. shared with me. but I asked them to respond on my behalf. Any denial on my part When the Superintended met with them on would only be self-serving. March 11, 1994, he indicated he had no knowledge of the allegations or rumors XX J AAC iliVlxvi.xn.zKA c Naturally, his response left some stad^f members confused. Maybe I only thought I heard him say those things.Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM RECEIVCO To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: April 14, 1994 Subject: Our Meeting of April 8, 1994 APR 1 5 1994 Office of Dssegrsgation ivoriiiOrinfj This is a brief summary of our meeting last Friday, April 8, as I understood it. Tlie meeting occurred as a result of your letter dated April 5, 1994. The primary concerns expressed in your letter related to the upper range limit for area elementaiy schools and the memorandum I sent to principals of five schools projected to be out of range for 1994-95. Items discussed were as follows: 1. 2. 3. Four Year Old Filing ~ You expressed concern about the lateness of the filing, about the naming of Stephens and Badgett as sites, and about the ambiguous last sentence in the paragraph explaining Geyer Springs. You suggested that we consider space remaining in buildings and demand. You suggested that we consider Dodd or Meadowcliff as sites. You noted that these questions will delay the response to the filing. You would like to hear from me on these questions. Elementary Racial Balance - You said that ranges were guidelines and not quotas. You also said that ODM has never said that we were out of compliance. You said that ranges published in our Student Assignment Handbook are incorrect regardless of the method. Melissa will meet with Julie Wiedower and Sue Pedersen to address this and other errors in the handbook. You disagreed with our removing the numbers of the original six magnets when calculating the racial ranges. We agreed to base range calculations on October 1 figures. 1 explained the memorandum sent to five schools freezing their enrollment of whites. Projections show them out of the acceptable range. This does not prohibit attendance zone students from enrollment. You believed that this discourages whites from coming into the district. In support of this position, Chris said that the plan states that I can make no assignment that will knowingly put a school outside of the acceptable range. Magnet Shadow Zone Question - You said that you were glad that I corrected the method of calculating the number of seats for the shadow zone. The 25% Shadow Zone seats come from the capacity before allocating seats to districts. In the past, they were part of the LRSD allocation. 4. Dunbar Magnet-Nou emphasized that Dunbar is a magnet school, not simply a magnet program. Someone in the Student Assignment Office is treating it as a program. Central and Hendersen are clearly programs within a school. You expressed concern about the Gifted and Talented program being predominantly white. 5. Educational Park - You suggested that we consider an educational park involving Mitchell, Dunbar, and Gibbs. Their convenience to each other allows for such, you said. 6. Interdistrict School Policy Filing - You objected to the limited consideration for LRSD whites within this policy. Why a maximum of 9% seats for whites? I explained thatAnn Brown, Federal Monitor April 14, 1994 2 PCSSD has a responsibility for participating in the interdistrict schools by sending whites to help us. I also told you that the county students bring us money. You suggested that we consider submitting an amendment to the policy to permit more LRSD whites. 7. King Interdistrict School Magnet Status - You asked where we were on this and suggested that something be submitted soon. You implied that you thought it may grow more difficult to achieve the status if we wait too long. Chris said that he made a request for information of Principal Sadie Mitchell a few weeks ago. She submitted it to Estelle Matthis for approval. Chris has placed a reminder call. You reemphasized the need to file soon. I will call you by phone with responses to your concerns. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyOffice 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: April 15, 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: Brown Comments on your summaiy of our April 8, 1994 meeting Today I received your memorandum summary of the April 8, 1994 meeting between Chris Heller, Melissa Guldin, Bob Morgan, you, and me. I want to clarify, below, some of the points you chose to address as your understanding of the discussion. However, I want to first point out that 1 do not intend for us to routinely engage in this type of post-meeting correspondence. Since we verbally summarized the "to do" points of our meeting at its conclusion, I fail to see the necessity for trading follow-up memoranda. On the other hand. your memo reveals some misunderstandings that trouble me. If necessary, I will make arrangements for a stenographer to be present in the future so a meeting transcription can speak for itself, leaving us time we can devote to something other than creating paper trails. Since you concluded your memo by saying that you will phone your responses to my concerns, I believe that verbal communication should ordinarily suffice for other types of information exchange as well. A. Concerns expressed in my April 5, 1994 letter were for the errors in both the lower and upper range of the racial balance guidelines for secondary schools printed in your Student Assignment Handbook, not only for the upper range for elementaiy schools as stated in your memo. B. During our discussion of the U^D filing to add four-year-old programs, 1 asked why certain schools had been selected (such as Badgett and Stephens) and others excluded (such as Dodd and Meadowcliff, although I acknowledged that limited space at Meadowcliff might made additions difficult there). I named these schools as examples, not an exhaustive list. My questions regarding Stephens were more specific, focusing on the incongruity of the proposal with ree highly relevant factors: (1) very low enrollment in the schools single four-year-old class
(2) the districts intention to propose a motion that would essentially substitute Washington for Stephens to satisfy settlement terms
and (3) uncertainty about the future of Stephens. I asked about the criteria the district used in naming the proposed sites for new or expanded four- year-old programs. You explained that someone else had made the placement decisions and that you were not certain why specific sites were selected.April 15, 1994 Page Two C. 1 strongly disagree with your characterization of my remarks regarding compliance with racial balance guidelines. 1 stated that the Circuit Court has termed racial balance ranges as guidelines, not quotas. 1 stressed that, therefore, ODM has avoided using the term "out of compliance" in regard to target racial balance. However, we have repeatedly pointed out that a large number of schools do not lie within the target range. Semantics in no way excuse the district from striving to operate its schools within the specific target ranges set forth in the plan and court orders. My concerns included that the LRSD Student Assignment Handbook (1) contains ranges for secondary schools that are either mathematically incorrect or based on unknown or faulty enrollment figures
(2) that the Handbook range for elementary schools directly conflicts with that named in the desegregation plans. We discussed ODMs 1993-94 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report, filed January 12, 1994, to which the LRSD had not responded. The report is clear about how we calculated racial balance ranges based on specific plan provisions and October 1 enrollment figures. Yet the LRSD Handbook contains racial balance guidelines that conflict with those in the report. Part of my concern is that you are issuing directives about student assignments based on erroneous racial guidelines and, thereby, excluding children from their assignment zone schools. Im aware that the plan provides for the district not to make assignments that promote racial unbalance, but you continue to sidestep my primary point. My prevailing concern about your approach to student assignments remains is as 1 have repeatedly expressed it: manipulating ranges and freezing enrollment for certain groups of children amounts to taking the easy way out. Instead, the districts overriding obligation is to live by its espoused voluntary desegregation credo by consistently, energetically, and early-on carrying out the tough recruitment job to which the district has committed itself, but nevertheless continues to botch year after year. Recruiting to voluntarily move students in and out of schools is a big key to success. Another is returning children to their zoned schools after their families have moved, and 1 was pleased that you had issued a memo dealing with this assignment aspect. 1 also stressed the importance of your following through on the disaggregation of student assignment data that Bob Morgan had begun. 1 inquired about progress on the assignment study James Jennings is conducting, but received no clear answer about a finish date nor any indication of the "who, what, when, and how" of district plans for using this information to make important and pressing changes. D. Im pleased that you have modified some magnet school shadow zone assignments after Melissa Guldin brought a problem to the attention of Student Assignment. However, the issue concerning ODM was not the one you expressed in your memo. Melissa became aware that the district had been allotting less than 25% of kindergarten seats to shadow zone students at Williams. Although the district has now increased the number of kindergarten shadow zone seats to 15 at Williams, which is 25% of the available K seats, this number will not be sufficient to continue meeting the schoolwide requirement. SAO must also develop a system to add shadow zone seats at the first and fourth grades (when class size increases) and to place new shadow zone students in the school when others move out.April 15, 1994 Page Three E. The educational park idea stems from my suggestion that the district consider the feasibility of a new relationship between Dunbar, Gibbs, and Rightsell (not Mitchell as your memo stated), because the three schools are so close to each other. The federal government is significantly increasing magnet school grant dollars and the district needs to investigate how to take advantage of those new dollars. F. Regarding the filing on King intradistrict transfers, I have always understood PCSSDs responsibility for interdistrict desegregation, and am fully aware that M-to-M student transfers provide money for both the sending and receiving district. During the meeting, 1 hope Chris, my staff, and 1 clarified for you that funding for magnet school students is different from that of M-to- Ms, and that it does not "cost you money" in the M-to-M sense to "lose" a student from a magnet. Our concern was that the filing did not adequately take into account the issues raised in the Courts February 4, 1994 Order. Moreover, the districts new policy sets a highly restrictive precedent, severely limiting the number of white students you will allow yourself to place in your own interdistrict schools. Such a move cuts you off from a valuable tool for addressing racial balance challenges, such as burgeoning white enrollment in certain schools. The Court invited you to shape policies that would allow you to use voluntaiy intradistrict transfers to take advantage of the white enrollment in areas where you are now freezing white students out of their attendance zone schools. CC: Hank Williams Chris Hellerd/- 'T^ur'i /fr- 5 .LRSD,TRANS DEPT TEL:570-4009 Nov 2501 17:26 No .019 P.02 Little Rock School District Transportation Department April 19, 1994 Ms. Melissa R. Guldin Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern Division of Arkansas 201 E. Markham, Suite 510 LR, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Guldin, With regard, Mr. Montgomery has asked me to respond to your request for information. Whenever there is a new student or an address change for an M-to-M student, a request from the LRSD Student Assignment Office is sent to this department by means of phone, mail, and fax. It takes approximately 3 days before a stop goes into effect from the time this information is received in our office. Bus routes are given to the M-to-M Drivers to pass out to the students whenever there is a change in a particular route. This action is because some M-to-M Schools do not feel that it is their responsibility to get this information to the students. This office has always made every effort possible to get current route information to parents/students and will continue to do so. Please feel free to contact this office for any further information or assistance. Sincerely, Jayne Agnes Safety supervisor 810 West MarkJiani Street Little Rock, .irkansas 72201 (501)324-2000LRSD TRANS DEPT TEL:570-4009 Nov 2501 17:26 No.019 P.Ol LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Transportation Department 5400 Murray Street Little Rock, AR 72209 FAX (501) 57(M009 DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE # SUBJECT 4GtiO_________________________ parhJnfn M nL COMMENTS Numbar of Pagoa (ineluda covar page) rax rhoM NwtMr .!i"1l-6!0OOffice 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: May 3, 1994 I To: Mark Milhollen, Director of Support Services Little Rock School District From: Polly Ramer, Office Manager Through: 4J in S. Brown, Federal Monitor Subject: ODM's 1993-94 Budget I have sent with previous correspondence a copy of ODM's 1993-94 budget and the court orders adopting that budget. You will note on page two that LRSD's share of our budget, after the 1992-93 credit, is $200,498.00. Our records indicate that from July 1, 1993 through March 31,1994, ODM salaries have totaled $351,492.72, resulting in a difference of $150,994.72 between LRSD's budget share and the amount the district has paid. Enclosed you will find a check for that amount. By the end of May, you will receive a check to reimburse ODM's April salaries, in June you will receive a check for ODM's May salaries, and in July, a check for our June salaries. When the 1993- 94 books are closed, please send me a year-to-date print-out of each ODM employee's salary, social security taxes, and benefits. For your information, I am including a breakdown of the enclosed check
Salaries FICA Insurance Total Regular Payroll 321,682.56 21,853.67 6,181.95 349,718.18 Supplemental Payroll 1,648.44 126.10 1,774.54 Total 323,331.00 21,979.77 6,181.95 351,492.72 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you.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: May 5, 1994 To: Hank Williams From: Subject: in Brown Information on potential principal moves Yesterday, I asked Polly Ramer to contact you for a list of the principal changes you are contemplating. 1 realize both the tentative and sensitive nature of this information, so I assure you that I will neither release nor discuss the names on your list until such time as you make them public yourself. Im weary of the rumors and will appreciate having solid information from you. Thanks very much./ /Cs a 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: May 10. 1994 To: Russ Mayo From: n Brown Subject: Registration Information Now that the LRSD has completed its main thrust of pre-registration for the 1994-95 school year, please immediately forward to me the total number of children (whether new students, M-to-Ms, desegregation transfers, or magnet assignments) currently registered by school, race, and grade level (including kindergarten and the four-year-old program). Because 1 had not received a 1994-95 registration brochure, we called your office today to ask for one. Sue Pedersen said that the brochures are still being printed but did not know a delivery date. Please let me know when you expect to receive the brochures and also send me a few copies as soon as you get them. Thanks. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK i Ti J, MCRSCHEU H. FRIDAY. P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM M. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W . MOORE SVRON M. EISEMAN. JR., R.A. JOE 0. BELL. r.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRV, R.A. FREDERICK 8. URBERY. R.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR., R.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR., P.A. THOMAS r. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. RAUL B. BENHAM III. R.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET, JR.. F.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, R.A. J. RHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III, P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT 8. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. HOSE. P.A. MICHAEL 8. MOORE. P.A. DIANE 8. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL III. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201*3413 TELEPHONE 601*370*2011 FAX NO. 601*376*2147 May 20, 1994 KEVIN A. CRABS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL. JR . P A CUyOE 'TAB* TURNER. P.A CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER. P.A. JERRY L. MALONE. P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH. JR.. P.A. J. LEE BROWN. P.A. JAMES C. BAKER, JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWENO. JR.. P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A GUY ALTON WAOE. P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID 0. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF CARLA 0. SPAINMOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY.JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZSL JOHANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY 0. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY received COUMBIk WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELOREOOE. JR.. P.A B.8. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A VNiTIH'S OIRiCT HO. (601) 370*1606 Mr. Michael E. Gans Clerk of the Court United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court & Custom House 1114 Market Street St. Louis, Missouri 63101 MAY 2 1994 Oihce of Desegregation Monitoring RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District - No. 93-3592 Dear Mr. Gans: The referenced appeal is one of three consolidated appeals concerning the Pulaski County desegregation litigation. The Little Rock School District and the Joshua Intervenors are appellants. Our reply briefs are due today. I have reviewed the briefs and deteirmined that there is no need for me to file a reply brief in this matter. Appeal No. 93-3592 raises the issue of whether the district court properly rejected a certain site as the location for the construction of a new interdistrict school. On April 20, 1994 LRSD filed a motion in the district court which could have an impact upon the issue on appeal. LRSD contends in its motion that it has already constructed the required number of interdistrict schools and that it should not be required to build another interdistrict school. If the district court agrees, the issue in Case No. 93- 3592 could become moot or could become intertwined with an appeal of a district court order finding that the required interdistrict schools have been constructed. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of LRSD's motion and brief in the district court.The other consolidated appeals are not affected by this situation. I am open to suggestions from you and the parties as to how to make the most efficient use of the Court's time in Appeal No. 93-3592. Yours ver' tru Christopher Heller CJH/k Enc cc
M. Samuel Jones John W. Walker Steve Jones Richard Roachell Ann BrownBCC: Henry Williams Russ Mayo Jerry MaloneTO: 9t" C^: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS JUL 1 9 1994 May 26, 1994 Office oi Desesfegaion M&riiwing /r/. a/-/ REC^--^^^ Forest Height Jr. High School Principal Interview 'ommittee Members FROM: He Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Principal Interviews Thank you for accepting our invitation to participate in the selection process for the principal of Forest Heights Jr. High School for the 1994-95 school year. The interviews will be held in the Little Rock School District Board Room, 810 West Markham Street, on June 8, 1994, from 1 to 4 p.m. Your assistance and cooperation are appreciated.Ca^/ 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: June 1, 1994 To: From: Doug Eaton, Director of Plant Services, Little Rock School District Melissa Guldin ^ssociate Monitor Subject: LRSD Facilities Studies Members of our office staff met with LRSD Deputy Superintendent, Estelle Matthis, yesterday. During our meeting she mentioned that the Junior High Capacity Study is nearly ready for publication. As you are aware, the court has been concerned about this study for quite some time. The capacity study is an essential element of the districts long-range planning. I would greatly appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the information you have prepared for the Junior High Capacity Study and any other facility study your department may have made. The deputy superintendent also indicated that the district had studied the feasibility of closing Baseline. If you have information on a facilities study related to closing of Baseline, or any other school, please forward that to me too. While I realize how busy the end of school is for all district employees, I do need copies of these reports by Friday, June 3,1994. Please do not prepare any special reports for our office. I will gladly accept the information in any format. If none of the reports are currently available, please let me know when we can expect their completion. Thank you for your cooperation./^z^c't/ZVf^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 FSCSn/iD Date: June 14, 1994 JUN 1 4 1994 To: Board of Directors Offics of Oessgrogsiic.n Mi :cr
ng From: :e: :ams, (eimtendent Re: Great Expectations Pilot Project Great Expectations Teaching Model is an instructional model based on Je concepts implemented by Marva CoUins at the Westside Preparatory Srnnnl tn r*hi*zorTz\ 'TTia j .. . . School in Chicago. The belief that all children can learn is transformed to all children wiU learn. Teachers accept the responsibility to find a ..... ... every child and to believe in the childs ability to learn. The model seeks enhance self-esteem through academic achievement. a way to reach to an effort to support and strengthen instruction in our schools, we have ^entified Mitchell and Rightsell as potential pilot sites for the Great i^ectations Teaching Model. Each school staff has received a brief overview of the model in anticipation that we would be able to establish a oilot program for the 1994-95 school year. Great Expectations Summer Institutes will be conducted during June 20-25 Md July 25-29,1994, at Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, Oklahoma. A major emphasis of e inservice is the integration of curriculum areas. We believe these sessions provide an excellent opportunity to provide support for , P - * ----------rr'** ouuuui L lUi dehvery of our current curriculum. At least six teachers from each school have been identified as the core group who wiU receive the initial training We expect to build within the District the ability to support the model through existing personnel. Information relative to the basic concepts of the model is attached.cr LRSD Guidelines for News Media R JUN 1 1 1994 Oif!C3 cf ii3ssgrsg: iiion iVwiiiw''''j The main goal of the Little Rock School District is to provide a quality education for all of our students. To that end, we must make every effort to minimize distractions during regular classroom instruction and to ensure the rights of privacy of oiu students, most of whom are under the age of 18. We also want to foster a mutually beneficial relationship between all media personnel and the LRSD staff. We ask for your assistance in reaching our goals and provide the following guidelines for yoiu: information: School level activities: Each Monday morning during the regular school year, the Office of Communications distributes a list of events and photo opportunities to central Arkansas media outlets. This news release serves as an invitation for all media to cover the events. The coordinators of these special events have planned for media coverage and will welcome the publicity for the LRSD. When planning a story around an event or person that is not included in the weekly release, please contact the Office of Communications and speak to the Director or the Communications Specialist for clearance to enter a school. Your contact in Communications will coordinate your visit through the appropriate personnel at the school level. If you choose to go directly to the school, you may be asked to wait outside the school until such clearance is obtained through the central office. Interviews, photography, and filming of teachers or students must be scheduled before school, during lunch, or after school when at all possible. We cannot give permission to interrupt classroom instruction. At times, a release form signed by a students parent or guardian may be required. The communications personnel will direct you in such cases. When reporting on a physically or emotionally challenged student (i.e. special Olympics, academic support programs) parental consent must be obtained. Further, no students may be interviewed or photographed in relation to the school health clinics. They are protected by physician-patient confidentiality rights. Clinic and administrative personnel are available to discuss these LRSD services. Administrative Offices: If you need information on the school district, please route your questions through the Office of Commimications. If the answers to your questions are not readily available, the appropriate personnel will be contacted on your behalf and your call will be returned. When planning to interview or photograph personnel in the administrative offices, please call the Office of Ci nmications ahead of time. This will allow the communications personnel to collect the information you need and to assist you in locating the correct person. If you choose to go directly to the administrative offices, you may be asked to wait until your subject's schedule permits your visit. Other Media opportunities: Board Meetings: All media representatives are invited to attend the monthly agenda meetings and regular meetings of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. These meetings are usually scheduled on the second and last Thursdays of the month respectively. Notification of Special Board Meetings will be made by fax in accordance with Arkansas FOI requirements. These notifications will include the scheduled agenda items of the meetings. Meeting agendas and special seating are available at the media table in the front of the board room. Personnel from the Office of Communications are available at these meetings to answer questions or provide additional information. News Conferences: Special situations may require the scheduling of a news conference. Central Arkansas media will be notified by news release of the date, time and content of the news conference. The LRSD is committed to upholding the policies outlined in the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. If at any time you feel that your request for information has not been granted in accordance with the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, please notify the Director of Communications.^i^prci-e, Cji^' < ' -y' * > ? B. LriTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT 7? _ -1 M 2 1. June 21, 1994 JUN 2 4 1994 Mrs. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street, Suite 520 Heritage West Building urncs of usss^rs^i lion iwi. J Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: I have enclosed for your perusal and records a copy of a document that was forwarded to me by Mr. Eaton in response to your partial report on the physical condition of particularly Mitchell and Franklin. the incentive schools, The report provided by Mr. Eaton seems to suggest that the buildings are not being neglected and are on a regular maintenance schedule and obviously do receive special consideration when circumstances warrant special attention. It might be a good idea, Ann, for us to meet with Doug regarding the incentive schools so that you and your people are aware of what the capital plans call for with regard to the repairs of all District facilities. Should you require additional information on the incentive schools. please let me know, and I'll get it for you. In the meantime. please consider the possibility of scheduling a meeting with Doug to look at all of the facilities. Sincerely, Hl P. Willicuns HPW:nr Encl. Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, .4ri<ansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 4, Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: July 1, 1994 To: Jeanette Wagner From: Subject in Brown Incentive School Brochure Review Thanks for sharing your mock-ups of the new incentive school brochures. I didnt find much that I ought you might want to think about changing, but I put a few comments down. Take them or leave them. Youve done a good job on these. Ill be glad to see them all done-and 1 know you will be too!B0708941 Date
July 11, 1994 To: Robert Glowers From: Bill Mooney Subj
June Project Management Tool I have reviewed e June Project Management Tool and have a few items to offer for consideration. There are also several items I thought of which would impact the Cycle n Project Management Tool. Since we were not able to meet this week, I just wanted to write down these thoughts and offer them to you. Task 7. For Cycle II, I would consider including the following data reports in the needs assessment: * Report from the blue ribbon committee on safety and security * The report of the NASE/NCAC Curriculum Audit performed in 1990. * The Coopers Lybrand report. Task 80. I would recommend dropping this task into the Cycle II tool since it really has nothing to do with Cycle I. It also prevents you from closing out the Needs Assessment (Task 7), which makes you look way behind (Nov 4, 94). Task 98. I would recommend dropping this task into the Cycle II tool for the same reason. Tasks 99-116. The Community Forum tasks belong in the needs assessment section since they represent perceptual needs data. I would recommend leaving them where they are for Cycle I, but moving them into the Needs Assessment for Cycle H. Tasks 117-130. The District Dialogue tasks also belong in the needs assessment section for the same reasons. Same recommendation. Tasks 154-155. These tasks are critical input for the budget sub-process. In Cycle n, don't forget to follow-up with actions to gather data. Mark should start working on shortfall strategies as soon as they are identified and have the analysis ready by the December timeframe. The data does not have to be fresh in most cases. Get this work done so it will be available when you really need it. Task 168. The Program Development sub-process is the place for lining up all of your new, modified, or cut programs and preparing them for the budget development. Be sure to include tasking for any program changes in this sub-process. Initiatives like the changing to middle schools should be cranked into the program development sub-process right off so that everyone knows they must be planned for. In fact, I recommend not only including middle schools in the program development sub-process but also requiring the project leader to set up a separate, detailed project management tool for just managing that big project. Some other program development items need to be picked up
see task 210 below. Task 185. For Cycle 11, I recommend including a whole sub-set of tasking on contract negotiations within the budgeting sub-process. This critical item needs to be completely tasked out and put under watchful eyes. Some of the tasks are already included in the Cycle I tool. Task 191. Somewhere after task 191, Mark needs to include an additional task or tasking for budget preparation. This tasking should deal with analyzing actual expenditures, projecting them for the rest of the year, and basing the proposed budget on those actuals rather than budgeting on budget. If this is not clear, give me a call and we can talk about it. Tasks 193, 205, 238, 241. Last year, the district generated a proposed budget document, a tentative budget document, and a final budget document. The Cycle I budget sub-process was set up with this same progression in mind. However, this year's actual practice is not real consistent with the design. A proposed budget was generated for task 193. There never was a tentative budget generated for task 205, even though it shows 100% complete. Tasks 238 and 241 call for what appears to be the final budget, although it does not specifically say "final." For Cycle II, I recommend defining "proposed budget", "tentative budget", and "final budget." Mark, you. Bob and I need to get together and have this clearly defined, and work out the timing for next year. You might be able to save some time and work if this is done before you finish the Cycle n "gray book revision and the Cycle II tool. Tasks 210, 214-232. These tasks aU belong in the Program Development sub-process instead of the budgeting sub-process. I recommend not worrying about it now, but move any of them into Program Development if they are carried over into Cycle H. Task 225. This task calls for business cases in January, 1995. This is a Cycle II item, and should be moved. Otherwise, your Cycle I will not end until January. Task 351. This task should not be 100% until all Cycle I tasks have been completed and aU reports for the Cycle I have been submitted. I recommend getting the Cycle II under control as soon as possible. The district is already slipping behind for the next budget year, and will soon be farther behind an our late start last year. I stand ready to help you in any way I can
just give me a call. You and Marjorie have done a good job of bringing the project management process along. The district will be far more successful if it will learn how to maximize the benefits of this project management tool and use the fruits of your labor. Well done.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201. received July 12, 1994 Ms. Margie Powell Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Street Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 JUL 1 5 1994 Offiea oJ Oasesrasanai^ iojtoinfl Dear Ms. Powell: Per your request, please find enclosed the results of the 1993-94 Arkansas Minimum Performance Test. We have included a copy of the comparative five year district summary for the sixth and eighth 94. grade students and individual school summaries for the years 1990- Also, included is a matrix of those schools that will require a school improvement plan. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Dr. Robert Glowers Director RLC:it cc: Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent (?zcf<*c//'A/eZ? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 received JUL 1 9 1994 Oltice of Desegregation Moniionng TO: All LRSD Personnel FROM: ^I^Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation SUBJECT: Reorganization of the Student Assignment Office DATE: July 15, 1994 Effective July 18, 1994, the Student Assignment Office will be undergoing a change. This change will include: Personnel New Telephone Equipment and Numbers This transition will require time to train personnel on the new equipment and Student Assignment polices and procedures. Attached is a copy of the Student Assignment Timeline. Indicated are dates we will be involved in special training. We realize that the transition will be difficult, patience during this critical time. and we are requesting your The services which the new system will provide will be beneficial to each of us. Beginning July 18, 1994, all district personnel will be able to reach Student Assignment through the district system by using *44. This special number will connect you directly. All previous private numbers have been changed, therefore you must use *44 to reach Student Assignment personnel, use the published number, 324-2272. information will be heard by the caller, routed to a Student Assignment Assistant. The public will continue to A taped message with pertinent and the call will be The taped messages will be changed periodically to keep announcements current. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. RM:dk cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Superintendent's CouncilSTUDENT ASSIGNMENT TIMELINE DATE EVENT July 12 - 18 July 21 Telephone Installation Telephone Etiquette Training 9:00 a.m. July 22 Completion of equipment installation. July 28 - August 5 August 1 August 2 5 Student Assignment Office will NOT accept paperwork during this time period so that assignments can be made prior to registration. This is done annually. Print Pre-Printed PIF forms August 4 Student Assignment personnel will be unavailable due to training on the new phone system and office procedures and policies. Registration Inservice Secretaries / Registrars August 8 and August 9 Incentive /Magnet - 9:00 a.m. Area'Schools - 11:00 a.m. Secondary -2:00 p.m. Registration All Schools 10:00 a.m. 7:00 p.m.1 0 e 5OS2 West 56 Little Rock, street Arkansas 72209 Thursday July 14. 1994 Mrs. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring JUL f 8 1994 201 East Markham Heritage West Building Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansa: 72201 Office of Dcjogre.jaiic.'i .V.: ., Dear Ann, Ai promised in our recent telephone conver letter and a sample of the writing of the Advisory perceive the Council to become. sation. here i Council as I my I realise that ample could be changed a
ome of the might tend to met and the p ee changed. per the need tipulations reflected in thi or desire ubiic is served. As long as the childrens of your office chool need must be changed. Whatever it takes. I am not alarmed if are ome of the wording least two I am a firm believer in advisory boards. uch board
the best of either world. and then Having served on at erving on governing boards. opinionated advisory board of true purpo
giddy governing board all to pieces! But I am fully aware that a strong, Ive seen and perseverance beat
a The crux of the matter i and read?/ to work - would. that
uch a Council - once approved or hould give the hungering chool-house crowd the truest picture of whats going on in the citys public chools, because the Neighborhood Association would ee to that. and the Council itself It would be easier to send information down or back to the Neighborhoods from those persons vein of interest than to read it in the erving in that particular newspaper and much more truthful in content than the newspaper - while at the same time reach more honestly interested folk than the papers can, or do daily reach. We might even be able to reach into parents main interest children - and nurture the PTAs back into existence again. - their a new direction just over the horizon... but right in their own backyard. Thank you for your time and effort and your here in the city: we are each and everyone of u gratitude to your offices for the excellent way you Again, Ann. thi maze of if there i glad to do what I can. interest in us Landing in out ee to our people. an?/thing I can do to help in any manner in chool business, all you need do i let me know. Ill be Sincerely. >a Stafford-Humphrey. Chairperson Southwe
Little Rock United for Progre
LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD ADVISORY COUNCIL With the consent and advise of the Little Rock Public School Board, herein notated a
LRPSB, and the Superintendent of chool and the Little Rock Neighborhood Associations, an inclusive Council shall be established, each with equal representaion on the Council. personnel, The little Rock School District, it the Community a
shall be utilised for the pupils. a whole, environs and it
their parents and for commonly referred to herein a
the Public. (14)member The Advisory Council shall comprise not le and not more than ixteen member than fourteen (16). The Superintendent hall have two (2) designated appointees to the Advisory Council. Two (2) persons from each designated ward. or district, shall have appointment to coincide with the LRPSB member geographic locale. Each appointee shall provide a resume coincidental with the wishe of the Board, the Superintendent, Each appointee to the Council and the wishe of the Public. hall have a two-third vote from the three (-3) entities: the Little Rock Public School Board, the Superintendent, together with the approval of the (2/3) Neighborhood A:ssociation from whence the appointee i ma.jority vote where the appointee lives
but the Neighborhood recommended by a A: ociation hall have the actual and final vote to approve each appointee The term of office for the appointee shall be two (2) years. In the case of resignation or the death of an installed appointee, Neighborhood Association from whence came the appointee shall have the jurisdiction for appointing another erson to fill the vacancy. If the appointee should die within the time-frame of election to installation. person to fill the vacancy. the Neighborhood Association shall recommend another by the Neighborhood A
ociation. Any other vacancy hall be filled likewise or by the LRPSB, or by the Superintendent from whichever the vacanc?/ occur (30) time-frame from the time of the vacancy. , within a thirty-day Installation of each and every appointee shall occur at the first Little Rock Public School Board meeting following the appointment of the member, or the election of the Little Rock School Board members, whichever come: first. extended to the member unless the press No installation hall be and called the Public hall be addressed. he people otherwise either by mail or by telephone calling attention to the installation and an invitation issued to same. No busine: of any nature hall be conducted unless the press and the public shall have been notified and invited either by mail or by telephone from the three entities(3). the Little Rock Public School Board, from the Associations. uperintendent office, and from the Neighborhood The Neighborhood Association(s) receive material other i wherea
Public tated entitle: and/or information hall have due right to consistent with legalities to pertaining to the Freedom of Information Act
each Neighborhood Association is intended as an arm of the and
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.