B5030602 MEMORANDUM Date: March 6, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Bill Mooney fiM Oiirr,pl
4C- ocr/i Subject: Latest Revision to Brainstorming List As you requested, I am sending you a copy of the latest revision to the brainstorming list. The attached copy is up to date as of today, March 6, 1995. The next revision will be around the end of the week. Copy to: Ann Brown//i'll Date: March 6, 1995 To: Judy Magness From: Subject: Court Orders ?Vy.<4nn Brown In Judge Wrights most recent order (regarding the LRSD budget and the March 24,1995 hearing), she referred to two previous orders, one dated December 30,1992 and the other August 26,1993. Since both of those orders pre-date your election to the LRSD Board, I thought you would want to read them for yourself. So here they are. Ive also sent them to Linda Pondexter because, since she hasnt been on the board too long, I wasnt sure whether she was aware of them. Both of these orders are very important documents which LRSD administrators should have taken into account (along with the desegregation plan and other court orders) as they considered proposals for initial budget cuts and business cases. The mandates contained in these orders should have been included in the LRSD audits which the district has filed with the court. (I know that the importance of the McClellan Advisory Committee is in the October 25, 1993 LRSD audit.) These audits, for which Russ Mayo is responsible, are the means by which the district is to stay on top of court orders and other desegregation directives. The audits are to be accurate, accruing catalogues of desegregation obligations culled from the desegregation plans, hearings, ODM reports, and court orders from month to month. It does not take a lawyer to either do or keep up with the audits. (In my office, the assistant office manager keeps our audits current
I set the expectation and model for these audits being used as part of our daily life at ODM.) A histoiy of good faith on the part of the LRSD is crucial to "getting out of court." When the district gives even the appearance of willfully disregarding Court orders, good faith goes down the drain. Also, ignoring the plan or Court orders invariably results in wasted time and embarrassment for the LRSD. And, because John Walker currently has a motion before the Court to hold the LRSD in contempt for failing to follow the desegregation plans and court orders, sanctions against the district could also result./r/. 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 March 9, 1995 Mr. John Riggs, IV J.A. Riggs Tractor Company P.O. Box 1399 Little Rock, AR 72203 Dear John: Thank you for your fax, which I received this morning while I was in my office. I appreciate your suggestion for convening a committee to help name experts and issues to address in future hearings on desegregation progress. However, Judge Wright has been very clear that she does not envision anything that approaches a public referendum on the desegregation plans. Since you were in the courtroom this morning, you probably heard the Judge's response to Mrs. Hendrix's inquiry regarding public input. While citizens are free to call me to talk over concerns and suggestions, or to communicate their ideas to counsel, I will follow the procedures for identifying potential witnesses that Judge Wright outlined this morning. Sincerely yours, lA Ann S. Brown i_i\bD ur I
Ut-r K , j0: H01 riAR 14 "95 11:24 i!> > 3 Little Rock School District 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 SUPERINTEP4DENTS OFTICE FAX (501) 324-2146 DATE TO FROM SENDERS PHONE # SUBJECT SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: No. of pages (including cover page) Fax Phone No. OlPQ Speed Dial IT School Bale Bradv Cloverdale Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Fulbright Geyer Springs (Resubmitted) Jefferson Meadowciiff Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Terry Watson Western Hills Woodruff FOCUSED ACTIVITIES 1995-96 Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded November 22 October 6 September 8 (1st) February 1 (2nd) ( December 8 January 17 February 7 February 10 December 6 (1st) January 17 (2nd) October 18 October 3 September 2 (Isi) October 4 (2nd) March 2 February 2 (2nd) December 13 (1st) January 9 (2nd) February 9 December 12 November 28 October 17 February 13 December 12 January 23 February 20 February 13 December 12 February 20 October 31 October 31 October 31 March 6 February 6 January 23 February 20 December 19 510,000 510,000 510,000 I 510,000 $8,700 (partial) 58,886 (partial) I 510,000 57.070 (partial) 52.852 I 510,000 510,000 510,000 57,900 (partial) 510,000_________ 55,102.20 (partial) 52,686 (partial) 510,000 TOTAL: $135,296.20ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCENTIVE GRANT - SECONDARY 1995-96 School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Central Hall Pulasld Hgts. January 25 January 9 March 2 January 30 January 9 March 6 $10,000 $10,000 $1,700 (partial) TOTAL: $21,700 ACADEMIC PROGRESS INCEimVE GRAxNT - ELEMENTARY School Date Submitted Date Approved Amt Funded Bale Brady Pulaski Hgts. Watson Woodruff February 14 February 14 February 22 February 27 February 14 February 20 February 20 February 27 March 6 February 20 $5,000 $5,000 $600 (partial) $5,000 $5,000 TOTAL: $20,600Little Rock School District RECEIVED To: From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Ann Brown Russ Mayo March 21,1995 Memorandum of March 10,1995 MAR 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring I have researched questions from your March 10 memorandum. The subject of that memorandum was the Report to Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the Districtwide Recruitment Plan, November 11,1994. Unfortunately, the author of that document, Jearmette Wagner, is no longer with us. So my answers are limited. I was told by Dina Teague, Communications Specialist, that Jeannette prepared and sent this document to you as stated in my earlier response. I am uncomfortable to learn that you did not receive it. Considering the date of the document, this was the period of time when Jearmette was about to take another position outside of the school district. Dina was attempting to carry much of the responsibility until a replacement for Jearmette was found. Notice the date of the attached memorandum about Becky Rather assuming districtwide recruitment responsibilities. This was during this same time period. Nothing has changed from this memorandum. Becky is responsible still for districtwide recruitment. While I did not see this document until it was sent to you recently, I am aware that the table, LRSD Recruitment Needed by School, reflects inconsistencies. I am uncertain as to why. I do remember a discussion that concluded with the + sign meaning that additional students could be recruited beyond the number given. As I understood the discussion, the number itself is the minimum necessary to achieve balance. Had I been aware that you did not receive this document in November, I would have requested a revision with updated numbers and accurate listings. I note the two day difference in dates on the survey cards, as you have. I can not be certain about why the difference exists. As you probably know, a date like that on the survey card usually reflects the computer print date and helps us know the latest revision. Occasionally, I type documents, with attachments, dated the day I type them. I ask others to review the document. That can take several days. If 1 revise an attachment, I may not change the date of the document. Thus, the revision date and the date of the document may be different. Attch: (1) C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, SuperintendentLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM T o: Becky Rather, Coordinator of Parent Recruitment From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent Date: November 20,1994 Subject: District-Wide Recruitment Responsibilities Attachment / As you may know by now, Jeanette Wagner has resigned as Director of Communications. Her last day will be November 30. Though the position is advertised, time will be required to interview and acclimate the new person. Currently, we are estimating that the new person will join us no later than January 16. Unfortunately, that person will begin in the middle of the busiest part of our recruitment season. Once in the position, that person will need time to learn policies and procedures of the district. Dina Teague will assume temporarily the responsibilities of the communications department and have no responsibility for recruitment beyond assisting in having materials printed. As a result, 1 am asking you to take full responsibility for implementing the LRSD District-Wide Recruitment Plan beginning immediately until further notice. You have the experience and were involved in writing the plan. Please include in your responsibilities the revising and writing of all printed materials noted in the plan. 1 suggest that you establish a tickler system for reminding you of what must be done when. 1 suggest also that you meet with Jeanette before she leaves to make the transition as smooth as possible. The recruitment plan is specific about when things are to be done. Please let me review anything you write or revise that will be sent to district employees or to our patrons. This includes any memoranda. One responsibility not in the recruitment plan is the bimonthly updating of the Bi-Racial Committee on incentive school recruitment. The next update is due at the January 10 meeting. Meetings are held the first Tuesday of the month, except January. With your experience in communications and in recruitment, 1 am confident that we can continue executing our recruitment plan without missing a step. Let me know if you meet obstacles or need me to speak to the topic in principals meetings, council meetings, etc. Deana Keathley will schedule a meeting soon which will include you and Dina Teague. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss recruitment and communication concerns during the transition period. C: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Superintendents Council Dina Teague, Communications Assistant Ann Brown, Monitor Chris Heller, LRSD AttorneyCo^T'plc^t A 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.. JOE 0. BELL. P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS. P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRV. P.A. FREDERICK S. UR8ERY. P.A. H.T. LARZELERE. P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS. JR.. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201*3493 JAMES C. CLARK. iR THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON. P.A. PAUL S. BENHAM IM. P.A. LARRY W. BURKS. P.A. A. WYCKtIFF NISBET. JR.. P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM. P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON. P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT, P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON. P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON 11. P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN. P.A. RICHARD 0. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN. P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WILLIAM M. GRIFFIN III. P.A. THOMAS N. ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE, P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL Ml. P.A. TELEPHONE 601-376*201 1 FAX NO. 601*376*2147 March 23, 1995 7.1 |995 Office of Desesresaton
v!cfiorjng KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WAOOELL. JR.. P CLYDE *TA8* 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 HARRY A. LIGHT. P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P GUY ALTON WADE. 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 G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY. JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY O. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. OEMORY COUNBEL WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR.. P.A B.8. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR., P.A. VRITIR** DIRECT NO. (6011 370-1606 \ Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Richard Roachell ROACHELL and STREETT 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Counsel: I have enclosed for your consideration some proposed modifications or refinements to the LRSD Desegregation Plan. The LRSD desegregation office has conducted an initial review and analysis of these proposals. Please review these proposals so that we may have the benefit of your responses before the desegregation office makes a final recommendation to the superintendent. I request that each party provide a written or verbal response to these proposals within two weeks. Please let me know if that will not be possible. I will be happy to meet with any of you or ail of you and to provide any additional information that may be helpful to your review of these proposals. You: Christ' er eller CJH/kEnc cc: Ann Brown Dr. Henry P. Williams Dr. Russ Mayo05032302 Date: March 23, 1995 To: Fred Smith From: Bill Mooney AM Subject: Finance Analysis Model We both know that the financial situation of the district makes sound decision-making critical to the future. As resources become increasingly strained, decision-makers operate with less margin for error. The chance of making a good decision is increased by having useful information readily available. The main purpose of the Program Budget Document is to link program accomplishments with program expenditures so we would have better information to guide the district. We must always seek better ways of collecting data and analyzing it into useful information. One of the better ways might be the Finance Analysis Model. I want to share the attached pamphlet with you, and get your thoughts into further investigation of this model. Since the model is PC-based, it could probably run in our existing environment. Such a tool might assist the administration, Board, and community in making better decisions. The model has something of a history around Little Rock. Last year, Ann Brown and I encouraged Gene Wilhoit to look into using the models forerunner, the Micro-Finance Model, statewide. Additionally, one of the authors of the model, Sheree Speakman, was the lead person on the Coopers & Lybrand study conducted for the district. I would bet she used some of her experience from that project as material for the model. Please read the pamphlet, then let me know what you think. I will be glad to help you in any way I can. Copy to: Ann Brown Hank Williamsc.c: 'ia/ 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
March 27, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Subject: m Brown Information on Board Retreats I noticed in both the January and Februaiy Project Management Tools that the district had reported the outcomes of the Board retreat held on January 24, 1995. I would appreciate your sending me a copy of that report. Also, I read that you had determined the need for an additional Board retreat, but I havent heard whether any date had been set. Will there be another retreat during this budget cycle? If so, when? Thanks for the information.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: March 30, 1995 To: From: Mark Milhollen, Manager of Financial Services Little Rock School District oily Ramer, Office Manager I- Through: ^V.Ann S. Brown. Federal Monitor Subject: ODMs 1994-95 Budget Attached is a copy of ODMs 1994-95 budget and the court orders adopting that budget. You will note on page two of the annotated budget that LRSDs share, after the 1993-94 credit, is $175,061.00. Our records indicate that from July 1, 1994 through February 28, 1995, ODM salaries paid through the district have totaled $304,379.56, resulting in $129,318.56 more than LRSDs portion of our 1994-95 budget. Enclosed you will find a check to reimburse the district for that amount. Hereafter, by the 15th of each month, beginning in April, you wiU receive a check to reimburse ODMs salaries for the previous month. When LRSDs 1994-95 books are closed, please send me a year-to-date print-out of each ODM employees salary, social security taxes, and benefits. For your information, I am including a breakdown of the enclosed check: Salaries FICA Insurance Total Regular Payroll 278,105.50 18,101.54 4,702.89 300,909.93 Supplemental Payroll 3,223.06 246.57 -0- 3,469.63 Total 281,328.56 18,348.11 4,702.89 304,379.56 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you.f LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation TO: Ms. Estelle Mattliis, Deputy Superintendent Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Mr. Dennis Snider, Assistant Superintendent, Secondaiy Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources i/Ms. Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Mr. Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Mr. John Walker, Joshua Intervenors Attorney RECEh^SD fromO La^' r. Robert Glowers, Director APR 7 1995 RE: Chapter 1 Information for Secondary Schools from School Profiles Oificu oi Dosenropalion MQinicriiig DATE: April 6, 1995 Enclosed is the Chapter 1 enrollment information for those LRSD secondary schools that have Chapter 1. (Some secondary schools do not have Chapter 1 programs). As you may recall. Chapter 1 information for secondary schools was not available on February 20, 1995, when the school profiles for the second semester were provided to you. This data is current as of the printing date of March 17, 1995. As you know, the enrollment for these programs is constantly changing, and updates are made periodically as the information becomes available from the schools. If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact Dr. Paul J. Smith at 324-2120. RLC:pjs Enclosure cc
Dr. Henry P. Williams SchoPr_2.Doc01 LRSD GIFTED , CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL
007 DUNBAR INT'L STUDIES MAGNET JH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Total Female Male Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 38 50 39 77 5 3 212 41.5% Chapter 1 Reading 78 49 6 3 1 0 137 92.7%01 LRSD GIFTED f, CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 009 FOREST HEIGHTS JR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Female Male Other Other Female Male Total Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 34 65 22 15 0 2 138 71.7% Chapter 1 Reading 58 55 2 5 0 0 120 94.2%01 LRSD GIFTED & CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 010 PULASKI HEIGHTS JUNIOR HIGH Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Total Female Male Female Male Female Count % Black Gifted/Talented 36 51 69 85 3 0 244 35.7% Chapter 1 Reading 72 54 4 0 0 0 130 96.9%01 LRSD GIFTED & CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: Oil SOUTHWEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Female Male Total Female Count % Black G1fted/Talented 30 37 4 10 2 0 83 80.7% Chapter 1 Reading 45 55 5 2 3 3 113 88.5%01 LRSD GIFTED & CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 013 HENDERSON JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Diack White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gi fted/Talented 62 73 34 31 3 4 207 65.2% Chapter 1 Reading 77 55 3 0 1 0 136 97 . 1%01 LRSD GIFTED & CHAPTER/PROGRAMS ENROLLMENT 03/17/95 SCHOOL: 015 CLOVERDALE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL Program Black Male Black White White Other Other Female Male Total Female Male Female Count % Black Gif ted/Talented 21 35 9 2 0 0 67 83.6% Chapter 1 Reading 07 60 11 5 0 0 171 90.6%LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE Date: To: From: Re: 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 March 30, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Henry P. J^ni^nl^p^^nifeident Requested Information WKS. /SD APR 3 1995 Office Ct Desssi .ng This is in response to your request for information, dated March 27,1995. The board retreat conducted on January 24,1995, was for the purpose of improving internal board relationships. There were no minutes taken and all board members agreed that the session should be conducted in confidentiality. A reporter from the newspaper attended the meeting for a short time early in the day, but excused herself from the meeting because of the sensitive nature of the planned discussion. There is, therefore, no report. A follow-up to this retreat is tentatively scheduled for April 29, 1995. If the decision is made to hold this session, we will let you know as soon as the plans are final. Im sure the board will also be conducting worksessions as we follow through with this years budgeting process. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information.Little Rock School District Board Retreat January 24,1995 Sponsored by New Futures for Little Rock Youth Facilitated by Center for Leadership in School Reform Phillip Schlechty, President Marty Vowels, Vice President Agenda Anticipated Outcomes: The superintendent and the board will have reviewed present operations and, where appropriate, made changes in those operations. The superintendent and the board will have increased their understanding of the nature of the issues the board must address in the future. The superintendent and the board will have developed strategies for dealing with those issues. The superintendent and the board will establish a framework to assist the board in making the tough decisions it will face. 11:00 a.m.. Welcome and Overview Framing the Roles of School Boards and Superintendents Individual Assessment of Board Operations 12:30 p.m. Lunch Group Analysis of the Assessment Establishing a Framework for Operations and Decision Making ) 6:00 p.m. Next Steps 6:30 p.m. Adjournment Center for Leadership in School Reform 1.19-95 lr-ioOffice 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 12, 1995 To: Sterling Ingram, Associate to the Deputy Superintendent Little Rock School District 3s. From: Melissa Guldia,' lociate Monitor Subject: Job Descriptions for Instructional Aides On April 10, 1995, you testified in District Court that the LRSD had prepared a job description for the position of instructional aide several years ago. Could you please send me a copy of that job description, as well as those you may have for other types of aides such as: supervision. Writing to Read, computer, and the like? Please forward that information to me by Friday, April 21, 1995. Thank you for your attention to this matter.Fl i jj Ac 1 a 1995 LmuE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OffiCS or DeScCJi'tQSij: April 13, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: In John Walkers parting remarks in court Monday, he suggested that we were moving toward segregated staffs and were out of compliance with the racial balance of two of the districts departments
the student assignment office and information services. Since his allegations were not refuted in court, I want to offer the following information as evidence of how carefully we are balancing the administrative services of the district STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 1993-94 1994-95 POSITION TOTAL V/ TOTAL I tvicriitOMiK^ B W B Student Assignment Coordinator Information Management Coordinator 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Parent Recruiter 2 2 1 1 2 Student Assignment Assistant 4 1 5 3 2 5 Secretary 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 4 6 10 5 5 10 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 (501) 334-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 INFORMATION SERVICES 1993-94 1994-95 POSITION B W TOTAL B W TOTAL Manager - Systems Development Manager - Computer Operations Computer Electronics Technician Computer Operator Programmer Analyst Systems Analyst Training Coordinator Secretary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 6 6 12 7 5 12 If you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools & 1 Lrio APR i 8 19'^5 < OUice of iDesogrbgaiicn < - LriTLE Rock School Disraicr OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 14, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: J Suggestion - Creation of an Oversight Committee for Monitoring Operation of Incentive Schools Dear Mrs. Brown: An idea was presented by John Walker during the court session that seemed to "intrigue" the Judge. He suggested the formation of an oversight committee as a means of overseeing the management of the Incentive School operations. It would appear that the Judges interest is based on her perception that the LRSD is "unwilling or unable" to manage the incentive schools in such a manner that they meet all of the obligations of the incentive schools as required by the desegregation plan. There is also strong intimation that even when the obligations are met, that the district is not managing the schools in such a way as to make them effective for all students by the administrators who are assigned as principals. The impression was left by Mr. Walker that Incentive School principals are incompetent is unfair and does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the Incentive Schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. I take issue with the notion of creating another oversight, review, or management committee that may possibly interfere with the responsibilities of the board and superintendent in organizing and discharging the obligations of school operations. If a committee of this nature is formed there is the possibility that it will take on an unplanned dimension and become more of a management body, much like that of the Magnet Review Committee. By establishing another committee which essentially has some veto power, it becomes clear that the effectiveness of district administration and the board in the decision-making responsibilities of the district are greatly reduced. While the board and the superintendent are held responsible for the effective operation of the schools, oversight management groups which can, and do, restrict the decision making authority of the district are not accountable for their management decisions. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock. Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 Even if we set aside the notion of the ability to manage versus the responsibility for management, the creation of another committee would add another layer of administration to the current organization. Time delays and levels of bureaucracy cause frustration for patrons as well as the people ultimately responsible for the decisions which are reached. It has always been my understanding that a school board, irrespective of court monitoring, should be charged with overseeing the district operations. The superintendent is the boards agent assigned to and responsible for carrying out the day to day operations of the school district. In this case, however, it appears that the boards authority and the superintendents authority are being diluted and fragmented with the establishment of the oversight committees. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Walkers suggestion that another committee be formed to oversee the operations of the Incentive Schools. I would rather suggest that if there are concerns that need to be addressed by this administration, that we have more dialogue between the parties where concerns can be expressed. Unfortunately, when we have attempted to have dialogue with the Joshua Intervenors, they have not been amenable to dialogue. Nonetheless, it seems to me that face to face dialogue is a much more desirable manner of dealing with concerns regarding the management of the incentive schools than the establishment of another committee. Considering this, I would hope that Judge Wright is not so intrigued by this idea that she would order the formation of such a committee. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg cc
Chris Heller John Walker1 /'j .7 c-r- 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: April 18, 1995 To: Russ Mayo From: Brown Subject: Registration Figures According to your March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update to the Board of Directors, all student assignment letters were scheduled for mailing by April 17, 1995. Since that date has now passed, please immediately forward to me the following information, current to date: 1. The number of students who have registered for the 1995-96 school year, including new students, returning students, M-to-M transfers, intradistrict transfers, and magnet assignments. Include all kindergartens, four-year-old programs, and other early childhood classes. 2. The number of students by school, grade level, race, and gender. 3. For magnet schools (the original, six stipulation magnets), registration by sending district and the number of vacant magnet seats still remaining by district and by grade level. 4. The number of vacant seats currently remaining at each LRSD school by grade level. 5. The number of attendance zone students who still have not registered for next year, by school attendance zone and grade level. 6. Tlie extent to which the number of students attending school in their home attendance zones has changed up or down from last year, by both number and percentage, for each schools attendance zone. (List and compare the figures for both 1994-95 and 1995-96.) In addition, Id appreciate your clearing up some confusing information that appears on page two of the March 30, 1995 Desegregation Update. Item #1 reads. 'Two years ago by this time, about 1,200 Idndergartners registered. Last year, it was 1,400, and this year it is 1,490. We are doing a better job with advertising pre-registration..." Yet, the chart immediately following does not reflect the narrative numbers for 1994-95, so the initial impression the table gives is that kindergarten registration is considerably below that of last year. Perhaps the chart mixes the final first-day total kindergarten enrollment for 1994-95 with the preliminary February registration numbers for 1995-96? Please explain.Page Two April 18. 1995 Also on the same page in the Update, the chart depicting four-year-old applications for the 1995- 96 school year does not contain a comparison to 1994-95 numbers from a similar time during last years recruitment period. Therefore, please provide me the total number of black children and white children who had applied for the four-year-old program for the 1994-95 school year at the conclusion of the pre-registration period last year (or at the date which most closely corresponds to the date of the four-year-old information in the Update. Please designate the date of the preliminary 1994-95 numbers as well as those for 1995-96.) Thank you very much.APR 2 0 1995 0ffic3 of Desegreqsiion ivicn'i log LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: April 19, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Offtce of Desegrega^on Monitoring From: He! .ms,^Liperintendent Re: ODM Correspond^ce 3 On a number of occasions you and members of your staff have corresponded directly with employees and staff of the LRSD. While you, as the monitoring arm of the court, have the right to request information from people who work directly for me, I would appreciate the courtesy of receiving copies of all written communications and requests for information directed to my staff unless they are of a personal nature. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.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: April 24, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: in Brown Subject: ODM Correspondence Ive received your memo of April 19, 1995, in which you ask that my staff and 1 send you copies of all written communications sent from ODM to your staff. Perhaps youre unaware that, in a September 8, 1993 Order, the Court addressed the topic of communication between ODM and the LRSD. That Order was prompted by actions of other LRSD superintendents tliat, like your recent request, were intended to control ODMs communication process. The Order observes that "free, open, and prompt communication and information-sharing is essential to the monitoring process for which this Court is responsible," and then emphasizes that the Court will "not tolerate any funneling of information through a central office, either in receiving requests from ODM or in forwarding responses to ODM." 1 consider copies to your central office to be a form of fiinneling. If you're experiencing communication difficulties with your staff, 1 suggest that you find a solution for those problems within your own organization instead of mine. 1 will not place an additional paperwork burden on my staff by asking them to copy you on ODM correspondence. However, you are certainly free to require your-'own staff to send you copies of any correspondence they receive from ODM.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 1995 mi Date: May 2, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor I From: Heni4 C- WillBi\qs^ </ u^rintendent Re: ODM Correspondence I In response to your memorandum of April 24, I would like to provide the following comment. No one is asking you to do any "funnelling." All I asked was for a courtesy copy of correspondence (such as you have forwarded to select board members) that is forwarded to my staff. What is wrong with that? My communications problem is not with my staff, but rather with those who seek to manage and not monitor.n APR 2 0 1995 ffica of OesegregoGon ivton-
o
ing LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Date: April 19, 1995 To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegrega^on Monitoring From: ffice T P. ms. uperintendent Re: ODM Correspond^ce H On a number of occasions you and members of your staff have corresponded directly with employees and staff of the LRSD. While you, as the monitoring arm of the court, have the right to request information from people who work directly for me, I would appreciate the courtesy of receiving copies of all written communications and requests for information directed to my staff unless they are of a personal nature. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.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) 3710100 Date: April 21, 1995 To: Sterling Ingram From: /'^^nn Brown Subject: job Descriptions for Aides Tlirough my associate, Melissa Guldin, 1 have received your response to her request to forward to us the job descriptions for aides, which you recently testified had been prepared several years ago. I see that what you sent us are various job announcements for aide positions, which the district posts as a means of publishing job openings. You noted that the district didnt have any job announcement on file for a Writing to Read aide. However, our request was not for job announcements, but for the job descriptions you testified about in court earlier tliis month. In some of our monitoring reports, we have noted the lack of job descriptions for aides, and recommended that the district develop specific, comprehensive job descriptions for all instructional and supervision aides. We have observed that such descriptions would be especially useful at the building level, not only to help delineate job responsibilities during the hiring, orientation, and training process, but also as the basis for performance evaluations and developing professional growth plans. It was this recommendation for developing such job descriptions that Judge Wright was referring to when she asked you .about job descriptions during the hearing. So, please sent us the written job descriptions for aides. Tliank you very much.OF Gat April 24, 1995 fj 1*1 MAY 1 1995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rode Public Schools 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 3&3 of DessgregaiiCT Monitoring REF
Mrs. Diane Barksdale Dear Dr. Williams
Thank you for allowing us to address you with our recommendation of Mrs. Diane Barksdale, the interim Principal, at Carver Magnet School. We began tins year with mixed emotions as we had on board all new office staff. We appreciated your letting Mrs. Barksdale have the internship and this year to show all of us and yourselves that her qualifications were not mere words on paper but words in action. We have found her easy to work with, attuned to all situations and always ready with solutions to problems that have worked. She has always made hersdf available to us and is more than willing to meet with different committees during school or afterwards. We have not had any instances that we have called upon her that she matte us fed she didn't have the time to consult with us. We feel our school in its excellence has progressed under her leadership. That we have not only survived the change of leadership we have made excellent progress in the same direction in winch we had previously been led. We, as the Patent Teacher Association Executive Board, give her a standing ovation as wdl as a hardy well done. We further solicit your approval to appoint her our permanent replacement this coming year. Mrs. Barksdale has a heart for Carver and fbr it's students andfiKuIty. We feel that we are the Best in the State and are led by the best...Thank you for approving her as our new Principal, we remain Sincerdy, PTA Executive Board George Washii^on Carver Magnet School CC
L.R. School Board Magnet Review Assistant Superintendents Office of Desegregation MonitoringOffice 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 24. 1995 To: Hank Williams From: m Brown Subject: ODM Correspondence Ive received your memo of April 19, 1995, in which you ask that my staff and I send you copies of all written communications sent from ODM to your staff. Perhaps youre unaware that, in a September 8, 1993 Order, the Court addressed the topic of communication between ODM and the LRSD. That Order was prompted by actions of other LRSD superintendents that, like your recent request, were intended to control ODMs communication process. The Order observes that "free, open, and prompt communication and information-sharing is essential to the monitoring process for which this Court is responsible," and then emphasizes that the Court will "not tolerate any funneling of information through a central office, either in receiving requests from ODM or in forwarding responses to ODM." 1 consider copies to your central office to be a form of funneling. If youre experiencing communication difficulties with your staff, 1 suggest that you find a solution for those problems within your own organization instead of mine. 1 will not place an additional paperwork burden on my staff by asking them to copy you on ODM correspondence. However, you are certainly free to require your-'own staff to send you copies of any correspondence they receive from ODM. ^cc: (2^1,5Office 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 28, 1995 To: From: Linda Pondexter and Judy Magness in Brown Subject: Business case guidelines At last nights board meeting, I was puzzled by questions and comments that arose about business cases. If I understood correctly, your discussion was whether or not the board should expect to see business cases in conjunction with certain programmatic and position changes that are proposed during the budgeting process. For quite some time now, the Court has routinely required business cases for all programmatic and position changes. Tliat requirement has been clearly specified in several Court Orders. Long-term board members will recall that the district requested assistance from ODM in developing the business case process as one of five short-term district projects in the spring of 1993. Furthermore, die district has led the Court to believe that business cases are a decision-making tool that have been institutionalized within the LRSD. For example. Im enclosing a handout which was developed by district administrators and distributed to employees during the December 6 and 8, 1994 sessions which the district held to train its budget managers in the program planning and budgeting process. Participants were given guidelines that all employees were to follow in using business cases as an integral part of decision-making and planning. When leaders set the expectation that employees will follow certain procedures, it is incumbent upon those leaders to set an example by following those procedures as well. 1 want to stress that the Court requires business cases not as a written exercise in a fill-in-the- blanks format. Rather, business cases represent discipline, thoroughness, and quality in guiding the decision-making process before decisions are made
they are not designed to serve as rationalization or justification after decisions are made. The real issue wrapped within the context of business cases is the execution of decision-making in the Little Rock School District. Its also important to keep in mind the link between decision-making, accountability, and public confidence. Solidly-built business cases can do important work for the district they can help the community understand the problems and constraints you face, and they can also demonstrate the level of care and skill you devote to making the decisions that affect so many. Business cases can be an open, honest, and easy way to let the community know-before decisions are final-what changes you are considering. Such openness can help the district avoid even a hint that publicly- accountable officials are making decisions in a clandestine manner.Page Two April 28, 1995 Sure, developing business cases takes time, but time invested in solid decision-making will not only pay off in planning and management terms, but will yield a bonus in public trust. After all, the desegregation plan promises that the district will refrain from springing surprises and that it will work to build a strong, trusting relationship with both its internal and external publics. 1 know that both of you understand how vital that relationship is. If the board should decide to ask the community to support a millage increase, the success of that campaign will doubtlessly be determined by the extent to which the public believes in the dependability, credibility, and integrity of its leadership. Enc. CC: Hank Williamsn^^C^iS t43K.KSH0f^^ In general, a Business Case should be developed when one or more of the following condition(s) exist: Position Changes or Additions Addition of a position Deletion of a position Modification of a position (i.e., when changes in job function are substantial) Monetary Amounts Any change for a dollar amount exceeding 525,000 Program Changes Major program changes in philosophy, direction, etc. Superintendents Directive Business case(s) as directed by the Superintendent bus^reql.docODM MONITORING REPORTS AND FILINGS 6/5/92 1991-92 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report 7/31/92 Monitoring Report on the 91-92 LRSD Four-Year-Old Program 10/8/92 Status Report: LRSD's McClellan High School Business/Communications Magnet Program 11/16/92 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Biracial Committees 12/18/92 1991-92 Monitoring Report on the Alternative Schools: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD 2/26/93 Monitoring Report: NLRHS - West Campus 1992-93 Spirit Teams Recruitment and Selection Process 7/19/93 Monitoring Report: PCSSD School Racial Balance 12/9/93 1992-93 Incentive School Monitoring Report 1/12/94 1993-94 School Racial Balance Monitoring Report: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD 9/6/94 Monitoring Report: Involvement in the 1994-95 Principal Selection Process in the LRSD 12/1/94 Letter from Ann Brown to Judge Wright with attached revised business case for the Director of Student Assignment 12/21/94 1993-94 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report ^12/22/94 Monitoring Report: Focused Activities and Academic Progress Incentive Grants in the LRSD 1/19/95 Letter from Ann Brown to Judge Wright with attached 1994-95 MRC budget >^5/17/95 1994-95 Incentive Schools Monitoring Report ^/26/95 Monitoring Report: 1994-95 Four-Year-Old Program in the LRSD 6121/95 Status Report on Achievement Disparity: LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD Z'V15/95 Status Report on Staffing: Elementary Classroom Teachers in the LRSD, NLRSD, PCSSD 9/20/95 Replacement of Portable Classroom Buildings in the PCSSD Cf- O - o 1^ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT T X DATE: January 5, 1995 TO: Bill Mooney, Office of Desegregation Monitoring JAN 1 5 1995 FROM: r, Robert Glowers, Director Office of Desegregation .Moniiorinc RE: Desegregation/Non-Desegregation Extended Program Evaluations Below is a listing of the Desegregation/Non-Desegregation programs that were selected for an extended evaluation. They are listed by program sequence number and program names. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. SEQ # Program Name 4-Year-Old SEQ # 15 14 ~3~ 227 2^ 24/23 33 231 07 207 213 215 01 228 Academic Incentive Academic Support Communication Services Computerized Transportation Contingencies Data Processing Facilities Family Life/New Futures Federal Programs Gifted and Talented Guidance Services Health Services HIPPY Human Resource Services 13 226 222 223 224 79 78 25/225 203 05 ~2i 204 08 Program Name McClellan Community School New Futures Planning & Evaluation Plant Services Pupil Transport Purchasing Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Romine Interdistrict School Safety and Security Services Special Education Special Education/Learning Staff Development Vocational Education Vocational EducationLittle Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Principals From: Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent ^4^ Date: January 6,1995 Subject: LRSD 1995-96 Pre-Registration JAN 9 1994 Clbca of Deseci LRSD 1995-96 PRE-REGISTRATION TIMELINE DATE JANUARY 23-31 JANUARY 23 JANUARY 24 JANUARY 25 JANUARY 30 JANUARY 31 FEBRUARY 6-17 EVENT MAISCH 17 MARCH 27 - JUNEl MARCH 27- APRIL 7 APRIL 3 APRIL 17 "Check Us Out' Week at LRSD Elementary Schools Open House - Incentive/Interdistrict Schools_______________ Open House - Elementary Magnet Schools_________________ Open House - Secondary Magnet Schools__________________ Open House - Elementary Area Schools___________________ Open House - Secondary Area Schools____________________ PRE-REGISTRATION at all schools and LRSD Student Assignment Office____________________________________ Assignment notification letters mailed for students in grades K-12_________________________________________________ Pre-Registration continues at Area Schools TIME 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. 5:30 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. JUNE 2- JULY 21 Desegregation Transfer applications (Secondary students) accepted in Student Assignment Office____________________ Assignment notification letters mailed for 4 year old students Assignment notification letters mailed for secondary Desegregation Transfer applicants________________________ Summer registration at LRSD Student Assignment Office 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. FS[JOB r^. * "Check Us Out " Week is a time we have set aside encouraging prospective patrons to tour our elementary schools during school hours. C
Superintendent s Council Office of Desegregation Monitoring North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District Joshua Intervenors Knight Intervenors Chris Heller I asatssssss^ .iKafii't!!g^ j^anfAt LrrTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT January 6, 1995 Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann, JAN 1 1 1995 OHice of Deseg! As a follow up to my letter of November 11, 1994 regarding the Beacons additional inforaation Initiative, for attachments
1) you I in am the providing following Little Rock City Board of Directors resolution of support for the Beacons School Initiative and, 2) Little Rock School District Board of Directors resolution of support for the Beacons School Initiative. Both the city board and the school board voted unanimously to support the respective resolutions. Further information will be provided to you as the planning process proceeds. Sincerely, Henirryy PP.. WW
illies, Superintendent of Schools 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000 Art lAtf .-s 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: January 10, 1995 C To: From: Subject: Pat Price, Early Childhood Education Coordinator Little Rock School District Melissa Guldin,"Associate Monitor Monitoring Visits to Classes for Four-Year-Olds As you know, early childhood education is an area of great emphasis and importance in the LRSD desegregation plan. This school year marks the first time that the district has operated the full complement of early childhood classes. In order to monitor the program for four-year-olds, we will be visiting a number of early childhood classes. These drop-in visits will be informal, lasting no more than thirty minutes or so. During each visit, we will note areas such as curriculum and instruction, staffing, class size, racial balance, materials and equipment, facilities, and outdoor play areas. I am not publishing a schedule of visitations, but schools may expect a drop-in visit anytime after January 16, 1995. Monitors will not require any special documentation or an interview with the principal or teacher(s). As always, monitors will check in with the office staff before going to classrooms. In addition, we will conduct an exit interview, if the principal requests one. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this monitoring, please contact me. Thank you. cc: Dr. Hank Williams Estelle MatthisRE- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PUPIL SERVICES DEPARTMENT JAW 1 6 1995 To: From: January 17, 1995 Safety and Security Task Force Jo Evelyn Elstdn/^irector, Pupil Services Oifice Of Morhjor.iiig Enclosed is a "clean copy of the Safety and Security Task Force Recommendations Checklist that we reviewed at our January 4, 1995 meeting. refine the draft. Thank you for your comments and suggestions in helping to I will be presenting this information to our Board of Directors at the January 25, 1995 regular board meeting. You are all invited and encouraged to attend. Your support would be appreciated. Thank you again for agreeing to continue to serve on the Task Force. Your commitment to the District and our children sincerely appreciated. is We agreed to meet guarterly. Our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, 1995, 6:00 p.m., in the Boardroom. We hope you can make the January 25th Board meeting. JEE/mab
:c: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1994 SAFETY AND SECURITY TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST January 12, 1995 A. D. IMPLEMENTED B. PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION NOT IMPLEMENTED [ C. DEFERRED DOE TO BUDGETARY CONSTRAINTS 1. Implement a standardized Violence Prevention curriculum in all schools. 2 . Establish Peer Mediation Program in all schools. Violence Prevention Curriculun Conflict Mediation C D B D A B C A z Central z Z Fair Z z Hall Z Z McClellan Z z Parkview Z z Cloverdale J.H. Z Z Dunbar Z Z Forest Heights Z z Henderson Z Mabelvale J.H. Z Z Mann Magnet Z z Pulaski Heights z J.H. z Southwest Z Z Badgett Z Z Bale Z z Baseline Z z Booker zA B C D A B C D X Brady X X Carver X X Chicot/Ish X X Cloverdale X X Dodd X X Fair Park X X Forest Park X X Franklin X X Fulbright X X Garland X X Geyer Springs X X Gibbs X X Jefferson X X King X X Mabelvale X X McDernott X X Meadowcliff X X Mitchell X X otter Creek X X Pulaski Heights X X Rightsell X X Rockefeller X X Romine X X Terry X X Wakefield X X Washington X X Watson X X Western Hills X X Williams Magnet X X Wilson X X Woodruff X -2-IT ir A A I 3 J . Provide 1g JG event ion and A I 3 D Confli staff. t Mediation Training to a 11 --r X I --r 3 3 5. C D X X C X j * D 3 C D X 1 Educate and Sensitize all Teachers and Staff to the correlation between students being fully engaged in a positive educational experience and the low incidence of those students becoming involved in violent or disruptive school behavior. Provide Conflict Resolution Training to parents and students involved in violent or disruptive behavior. a. Require students involved in weapons violations and who commit acts of violence resulting in a L.T. suspens ion/expu Is ion to attend conflict resolution training as a condition reinstatement. b. Teach conflict resolution skills t for to all students assigned to in-school suspension because of physica**. verbally aggressive benavior. 6. Expand the District's Alternative School Program to provide a variety of educational options to meet the Educational, Personal/Social and Career needs of At-Risk Students. 7. Locate and utilize additional community resources. Designate one person in the District to be responsible for developing a comprehensive directory of community resources and serve 3s indistrict contact for referral assistance to Little Rock School District staff. -3-5 I:' ii T ! T -cc DI 11 co sccondarv I r 1554-95 II I li li school vear and to all eemen extent ary chools to the 3 D 5 . ir li ir T n I I r I I II i: 1! Il Prov Staf trail ie Violence Prevention Development and to all ittle Rook School District employees. A 8 D ! ! X ! li p I i I II 10. Strenpthen Parental Ivenent in the schools. 8 D n 11. ' X I T A I I Create and maintain an ongoing Safety and Security Task Force. 3 h I.. I X I i + I A 3 h X I I I D I I |l I D I 1 -4- 12. Enhance school bus safety. Utilize transportation department security personnel to make random scans on school buses. 13. Develop safe school plans distrcctwide.A B X I I I X i) A B C D a. i I i X b. c. X I X d. e. f. X X X . De 1 t f.1 . ~p]eneat or d i n po i Hid n.indatc-
n 11 1 A. Request Li Department tie Roch Pc lice to enforce loitering law round school canpuses. B. Request Alert Center assigned police officer be allowed to monitor school grounds in areas where Alert Centers and schools are in close proximity. 15. Establish "Target Hardening Procedures". a. Selective fencing around school campus area. b. Locked doors. c. Rearrangement of existing facilities for better security. d. Use of cameras & mirrors. e. Safe environment design for new or remodeled facilities. f. Trimming of large shrubbery and trees to limit hiding places. A B C D X 1 16. Enhance Metal Scanning Procedure. B C D X 17. Study the feasibility and advisability of school uniforms. -5-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: January 17, 1995 To: Hank Williams n From: /-^J^Ann Brown Subject Information Request Thanks for bringing us up-to-date on some of the districts activities in todays joint staff meeting. We share your concerns about the budgeting process and the tough decisions that will be necessary to align the budget with declining revenues. Weve received copies of the needs assessment which the district recently completed, but we would like the folloAving information so we can keep current: 1. All of the extended evaluations. 2. All of the business cases which have been submitted so far, and others as they are submitted. 3. A copy of the status chart on the facilities study which Russ referred to this morning. Thanks very much for your assistance.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (501) 3710100 c January 18, 1995 Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Little Rock School District 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Russ: When I attended the December meeting of the LRSD Board of Directors, I was pleased that you have revived the practice of a monthly desegregation update. It is important that the board members be well informed regarding desegregation issues. I noticed that your oral report was accompanied by a rather weighty packet of written information. Would you please furnish me a copy of that packet and any other written updates you provide to the Board in the future? By receiving copies of these monthly updates, our office can keep abreast of the districts progress towards meeting its desegregation goals. Sincerely, Melissa Guldin Associate Monitor MH Little Rock School District OFFICE OF TKE SUPERINTENDENT 4^ January 25, 1995 JAN 3 0 1995 Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Offics of Dsc
Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Mooney: I am delighted that you have agreed to serve on the strategic planning team for the Little Rock School District. I am certain that this process will help determine the future direction of the district. Dr. Howard Feddema will serve as the facilitator for the strategic planning process. He is associated with the Cambridge Management Group located in Montgomery, Alabama. Listed below is the schedule for the planning sessions, to be held at the Excelsior Hotel. Tuesday, Feb. 14 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Planning Session (Light supper provided) An Wednesday, Feb. 15 Thursday, Feb. 16 Friday, Feb. 17 informational session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Planning Session for members of the planning team. community organizations, and others will be held on Monday, Feb. 6 from 5:30 7:30 p.m. in the Board Room of the Administration Building, 810 West Markham. Please plan on attending this meeting. 810 West Markham Street 11 a I I I a Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 Page 2 Feel free to invite other members of your group. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 to make your reservations so that we can provide adequate seating. Looking forward to working with you. Thanks again. Sincerely, Henry P. illicims Superintendent of Schools Leser- fe- -- *,Su Ltitle Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT REcsnz.?^ January 25, 1995 JAN 3 0 1995 Bill Mooney Office of Desegregation Monitoring ffics tj! 2C1 Eai Little Rock, AR Markham, Suite 510 72201 4 < Dear Mr. Mooney: I am delighted that you have agreed to serve on the strategic planning team for the Little Rock School District. I am certain that this process will help determine the future direction of the district. Dr. Howard Feddema will serve as the facilitator for the strategic planning process. He is associated with the Cambridge Management Group located in Montgomery, Alabama. Listed below is the schedule for the planning sessions, to be held at the Excelsior Hotel. Tuesday, Feb. 14 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Planning Session (Light supper provided) An Wednesday, Feb. 15 Thursday, Feb. 16 Friday, Feb. 17 informational session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. Planning Session 7:30 8:00 a.m. Breakfast 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Planning Session for members of the planning team. community organizations, and others will be held on Monday, Feb. 6 from 5:30 7:30 p.m. Building, 810 West Markham. in the Board Room of the Administration Please plan on attending this meeting. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, .Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000Page 2 Feel free to invite other members of your group. Please call Linda Young at 324-2112 to meike your reservations so that we can provide adequate seating. Looking forward to working with you. Thanks again. Sincerely, Henry P. illiams Superintendent of Schools -i' Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOD 371-0100 Date: January 25, 1995 C.om 4o To: Rudolph Howard, Principal, Little Rock Central High School schowU I From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Central High School International Studies Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification. For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach. Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings. Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25,1995 To: Nancy Acre, Principal, Dunbar Magnet Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Dunbar Junior High School International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification. For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach. Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings. Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25,1995 To: Jodie Carter, Principal, McClellan High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the McClellan High School Business/Communications Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification. For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach. Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings. Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25,1995 To: James Washington, Principal, Henderson Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Henderson Junior High School Health Science Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification. For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach. Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings. Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25, 1995 To: Rudolph Howard, Principal, Little Rock Central High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Central High School International Studies Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification. For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach. Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings. Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25, 1995 To: Nancy Acre, Principal, Dunbar Magnet Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Dunbar Junior High School International Studies/Gifted and Talented Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested For each year since e programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification. For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach. Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings. Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25, 1995 To: Jodie Carter, Principal, McClellan High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the McClellan High School Business/ Communications Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification. For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach. Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings. Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.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: January 25,1995 To: James Washington, Principal, Henderson Junior High School From: Horace Smith, Associate Monitor, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Subject: Magnet Program Information As part of ODMs ongoing monitoring of secondary schools with magnet programs, I would like to receive the following information regarding the Henderson Junior High School Health Science Magnet Program by Friday, February 10, 1995. If you have any questions or concerns, please dont hesitate to call me at 376-6200. Thank you for your assistance. Documentation Requested For each year since the programs inception, magnet program enrollment by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program course enrollments by course title, race, sex, and classification. For each year since the programs inception, the number of students new to the school attracted as a direct result of the magnet program by race, sex, and grade level. 1994-95 magnet program staff by race, sex, and the title of the magnet courses they teach. Furnish an existing comprehensive magnet program description (e.g. philosophy, goals, objectives, structure, curriculum) and any literature describing individual course offerings. Documentation of yearly recruitment activities by the school (e.g. recruitment committee meetings, presentations, site visits to the school by potential parents and students, recruitment visits by staff to other schools) since the programs inception.Cc: i =/ R' JiN 3 0 Ottice ct Desegr it-. I*of: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 Date: January 26, 1995 To: AnfLBrowri<-Federal Monitor From: He Williams, Superintendent Re: Information In response to your request dated January 17, 1995, the business cases you requested are still in draft form. When these have been finalized, we will certainly provide copies for your office. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information.JW30'W OHice ol Desegtsi iPauCn w*- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 Date: January 26, 1995 To: Ani<Brown<-Federal Monitor From: He Williams, Superintendent Re: Information In response to your request dated January 17, 1995, the business cases you requested are still in draft form. When these have been finalized, we will certainly provide copies for your office. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information.4 A r t J J. Arkansans for Gifted And Talented Education DUNBAR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL A.G.A.T.E. AFFILIATE 1100 Wright Avenue, Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 Elizabeth Shy Dowell, President January 26, 1995 Dr. Henry Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 a' JAN 3 1 1995 0. 'ij
e.i M
Dear Dr. Williams
ig In follow-up to the Dunbar A.G.A.T.E. Position Paper of last fall, we reiterate our concerns for the International Studies and Gifted and Talented magnet programs as outlined. While all four points remain very high priorities, at this time we want to recapitulate item 1 .b. of the position paper,(see attached.) Specifically, the ratio cap among attendance zone black students and the recruitment of identified gifted and talented black students from outside the Dunbar attendance zone. When Dunbar Junior High School opened as a magnet programs school, to meet court ordered desegregation guidelines, a 60% ratio cap for black students from the attendance zone was established. The Student Assignment Office initially required a student, who elected not to participate in either program, to return a form to the SAO. At that point, the student would be assigned to another school in the district. If the number of black attendance zone students electing to opt out of Dunbar dropped the ratio below 60%, the school could then recruit G & T identified black students from other attendance zones. Three years ago, without informing either the school administration or the parents of participants, the Student Assignment Office stopped sending out the above mentioned forms. This left prospective students and their parents with the impression they could come to Dunbar and not participate in the either of the magnet programs. As this information circulated and SAO never said anything to the contrary, students who in the past had opted out, returned to Dunbar. Not only did this unpublished SAO policy have a devastating effect on our programs, i.e. the elimination of some courses and the number of sections available in others, but each year we fall further behind in meeting the court ordered desegregation guidelines. Our numbers are approximately 69% black, 31% non-black for the current school year. We believe it is imperative, for the viability of the programs and for student recruitment, the Student Assignment Ofiice for the 1995-96 school year should: A. in order to be in compliance with the courts, reinstate the ratio cap
B. require students to return a form committing themselves to the Dunbar program(s) or be allowed to opt out of Dunbar.As cautioned in my cover letter of October 11,1994, regarding what might happen when the quality of Fuller Junior High School's G & T program became known, we have lost two Pulaski County Special School District white students to Fuller and a third is actively looking into making the switch. Lest this leave the impression that Gifted and Talented programs are of most import to white parents, I pass along the concerns some black parents have brought to me. More pointedly, the small number of black students in the G & T program at Dunbar. One parent told of how her son felt uncomfortable with so few black males in his G & T classes and the pressure put on him by peers to not participate. Of those who came to me, all said virtually the same thing, their children need others like themselves to withstand the peer pressure. We can only accomplish this through the proper use of the ratio cap. While we understand and sympathize with your daily pressures, we implore that these matters be given an immediate and high priority by you and your staff. Sincerely, Elizabeth Shy Dowell President, Dunbar A.G.A.T.E. Enclosure: 1 cc
Ms. Aim Brown, Desegregation Monitor Dr. C. Russell Mayo, LRSD Student Assignment Office LRSD School Board Members: Ms. Patricia Gee Ms. Oma Jacovelli Ms. Judy Magness Dr. Katherine Mitchell Mr. Kevin O'Malley Ms. Linda Pondexter Mr. John A Riggs, IV Ms. Nancy Acre, Dunbar Principal ESD/esd 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 27, 1995 31 1995 s. !: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: 1 am dismayed at a comment you made during last nights Board of Education meeting. You told the board members, as well as the audience and viewing public, that you had dropped plans to pursue magnet grant funding, in part because ODM opposed the idea. ODM does not oppose LRSD attempts to obtain magnet money. As a matter of fact, both my associate, Melissa Guldin, and myself have spent more than a little time supporting the districts pursuit of the magnet grant application which had been underway. At the invitation of the districts grant writer, we had talked with him on more than one occasion, giving him background information and historical data, pointing out potential stumbling blocks, and working out a schedule so that the district could bring the grant proposal before the Court in time to meet the application deadline. It was also I who, at the districts request, arranged with Judge Wrights scheduling clerk for the Court to hold a hearing in late January so the district would have ample time to meet its proposal deadlines. All along, we repeatedly assured your grant writer that we would be pleased to help in any way, including reviewing draft proposals in order to expedite Court approval. Furthermore, in a November meeting between you and me and our staffs, we had placed the magnet grant application process on the agenda so we could all discuss some issues that we feared would hinder grant development and, ultimately, could decrease the changes of grant approval. During that meeting, we brought up certain sticking points which we urged you to anticipate so you would be prepared to deal with them as work on the grant continued and as you went before the Court fbr approval.January 27, 1995 Page Two For example, we suggested that you should plan how you would convince the Court and the other parties that you needed six more magnet schools (the number then under consideration), when the district already had hundreds of empty magnet seats and was also planning to close schools. We asked about parent input and the extent to which Joshua and the other parties had been involved, because, if the desegregation plan were amended to add more magnets, the amendment process would require the parties early involvement. We asked about the schools which had been targeted and whether they could realistically become successful magnets due to such factors as size or location. We suggested that Romine be considered as a magnet target, because it was already an interdistrict school but needed much help in fulfilling its mission. We brought up the issue of ti.ming and the need to mesh the grant development timeline with the Courts calendar so all could proceed according to a mutually acceptable review and approval schedule. We brought out such points not to deter you, but to alert you to the types of problems the district needed to anticipate, think through, and solve in order to successfully complete the grant process and obtain e magnet money. Our questions were not calculated to confound or discourage you, but rather to forearm you. 1 am baffled that, rather than recognizing our efforts as supportive attempts to ward off problems, you have instead chosen to construe them as opposition. I am thoroughly weary of hearing complaints that the Court wont allow the district to do one thing or another. That you have elected-for whatever reasons-to abandon attempts to obtain magnet money was your decision, a decision you had every right to make. But 1 believe it is important for the Board members and others to understand that ODM did not oppose you
we just asked hard questions. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Members, LRSD Board of Education 'i Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371-0100 January 27, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: 1 am dismayed at a comment you made during last nights Board of Education meeting. You told the board members, as well as the audience and viewing public, that you had dropped plans to pursue magnet grant funding, in part because ODM opposed the idea. ODM does not oppose LRSD attempts to obtain magnet money. As a matter of fact, both my associate, Melissa Guldin, and myself have spent more than a little time supporting the districts pursuit of the magnet grant application which had been underway. At the invitation of the district's grant writer, we had talked with him on more than one occasion, giving him background information and historical data, pointing out potential stumbling blocks, and working out a schedule so that the district could bring the grant proposal before the Court in time to meet the application deadline. It was also 1 who, at the districts request, arranged with judge Wrights scheduling clerk for the Court to hold a hearing in late January so the district would have ample time to meet its proposal deadlines. All along, we repeatedly assured your grant writer that we would be pleased to help in any way, including reviewing draft proposals in order to expedite Court approval. Furthermore, in a November meeting between you and me and our staffs, we had placed the magnet grant application process on the agenda so we could all discuss some issues that we feared would hinder grant development and, ultimately, could decrease the changes of grant approval. During that meeting, we brought up certain sticking points which we urged you to anticipate so you would be prepared to deal with them as work on the grant continued and as you went before the Court for approval.January 27, 1995 Page Two For example, we suggested that you should plan how you would convince the Court and the other parties that you needed six more magnet schools (the number then under consideration), when the district already had hundreds of empty magnet seats and was also planning to close schools. We asked about parent input and the extent to which Joshua and the other parties had been involved, because, if the desegregation plan were amended to add more magnets, e amendment process would require the parties early involvement. We asked about the schools which had been targeted and whether they could realistically become successful magnets due to such factors as size or location. We suggested that Romine be considered as a magnet target, because it was already an interdistrict school but needed much help in fulfilling its mission. We brought up the issue of timing and the need to mesh the grant development timeline with the Courts calendar so all could proceed according to a mutually acceptable review and approval schedule. We brought out such points not to deter you, but to alert you to the types of problems the district needed to anticipate, think through, and solve in order to successfully complete the grant process and obtain the magnet money. Our questions were not calculated to confound or discourage you, but rather to forearm you. 1 am baffled that, rather than recognizing our efforts as supportive attempts to ward off problems, you have instead chosen to construe them as opposition. I am thoroughly weary of hearing complaints that the Court wont allow the district to do one ing or another. That you have elected-for whatever reasons-to abandon attempts to obtain magnet money was your decision, a decision you had every right to make. But 1 believe it is important for the Board members and others to understand that ODM did not oppose you
we just asked hard questions. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown CC: Members, LRSD Board of Education 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 27, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Uttle Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank
I am dismayed at a comment you made during last nights Board of Education meeting. You told the board members, as well as the audience and viewing public, that you had dropped plans to pursue magnet grant funding, in part because ODM opposed the idea. ODM does not oppose LRSD attempts to obtain magnet money. As a matter of fact, both my associate, Melissa Guldin, and myself have spent more than a little time supporting the districts pursuit of the magnet grant application which had been underway. At the invitation of the districts grant writer, we had talked with him on more than one occasion, giving him background information and historical data, pointing out potential stumbling blocks, and working out a schedule so that the district could bring the grant proposal before the Court in time to meet the application deadline. It was also I who, at the districts request, arranged with Judge Wrights scheduling clerk for the Court to hold a hearing in late January so the district would have ample time to meet its proposal deadlines. All along, we repeatedly assured your grant writer that we would be pleased to help in any way, including reviewing draft proposals in order to expedite Court approval. Furthermore, in a November meeting between you and me and our staffs, we had placed the magnet grant application process on e agenda so we could all discuss some issues that we feared would hinder grant development and, ultimately, could decrease the changes of grant approval. During that meeting, we brought up certain sticking points which we urged you to anticipate so you would be prepared to deal with them as work on the grant continued and as you went before the Court fbr approval.January 27, 1995 Page Two For example, we suggested that you should plan how you would convince the Court and the other parties that you needed six more magnet schools (the number then under consideration), when the district already had hundreds of empty magnet seats and was also planning to close schools. We asked about parent input and the extent to which Joshua and the other parties had been involved, because, if the desegregation plan were amended to add more magnets, the amendment process would require the parties early involvement. We asked about the schools which had been targeted and whether they could realistically become successful magnets due to such factors as size or location. We suggested that Romine be considered as a magnet target, because it was already an interdistrict school but needed much help in fulfilling its mission. We brought up the issue of timing and the need to mesh the grant development timeline with the Courts calendar so all could proceed according to a mutually acceptable review and approval schedule. We brought out such points not to deter you, but to alert you to the types of problems the district needed to anticipate, think through, and solve in order to successfully complete e grant process and obtain the magnet money. Our questions were not calculated to confound or discourage you, but rather to forearm you. 1 am baffled that, rather than recognizing our efforts as supportive attempts to ward off problems, you have instead chosen to construe them as opposition. 1 am thoroughly weary of hearing complaints that the Court wont allow the district to do one thing or another. That you have elected-for whatever reasons-to abandon attempts to obtain magnet money was your decision, a decision you had every right to make. But 1 believe it is important for the Board members and others to understand that ODM did not oppose you
we just asked hard questions. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown CC: Members, LRSD Board of Education I w-'-* SENT BY
J A Ri, >r Cpaftiany 1-31-95 : 8:12AM
JA RIGGS LIHLE ROCK-P. O. Box IJW, Little Rock, AK 72203 50137101&(>:i 1/ 6 t J. A. Riges Tractor Company Date
LLLL-Number of pages including cover sheet: i S II I .n I To: j From: { t 1 if I 'I Phone
Faxphone: CC: Phone
Faxphone: (501) 570-3100 (501) 570-3525 i-REMARKS
Urgent For your review Reply ASAP Q Please comment i ^1 -1 SENT BY
1-31-95
8:14AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 5013710100:# 5/ 6 fC'S rfOff.Al -CAP I r fi'x kue LlTTueO 'X AA ^22^3 rpSDT Coordinator County Social Services Section 1 - Patient IdenUflcafion [ |*TlF^tTSkA^^#)MMt7n ORIGINAL epsdt Provi der County Office HAS 12) U< <31 1 fLA$gnf AOS NANfeTf.)' TCr>jAt'^&^ ' fftilLLNCt
n I iF HAIgNT IS A AtFtHRAL HU ENltANAMEOF OFCapiNU PH*SI31AM pnOk'ipfr OThCfi HEAL*H INSLPANCE COMEHAceTiAJ 'iTnT eh HAMe'Hp Pi jN ANO PatCVNl.'MSEA) I PRiMAR* OACNOcrlG on NATUAC OT INJUO* SECTION II - Social Worker Identification .isi Signature Telephone No. f Section III Examination Report iWi Type of Tear or Examirtdton ! A,. Resic Scfeerting I--------- Hn- - T Growth and Nutrition 2. DeyfUQprtcr.i Asse^ssment 1 i IiEA (41 TiKffc tTyaiH foT MO f)Ar YlAft 1 1 ! I I yMEPICAI Afcono HvMeEO (Vl I DiAGnOS.S CO ! \!2Q.2 1 3 a o 2 t A >'rffeE Ao'dHESS idi On , PATIENT i 15 >, C^TV (N6 T*pncvioen PHONE NVUBER j 324-2161 a w 3 lAiASCOND<TlONALArOTo (IS) A Patients 6mplovwent *E3 a AN accident ves mo no A.ii^Oi^rt^Lnr OKinui MO TIME. DAY_______YR PAY TO: PBOViOEH NAME ANO ADDRESS tl3| Little Rock School District PAY TO PROVIDER NUMBER 121047761 EPSDT Request Date or Certification Data TTpecrfscResN (isj initial PERIODIC y I I I- .... I 3. unciotnca Physical a. Neurological Exam_________ 0 Cardiac Status_____________ 4. Vision 5. Hearing 6 Teeth (Children under 3 years) 7. Lad Tests (Appropriaie tor aga and population group) a. Hematologic b. Urinalysis C, Other (Specity)______ B. immunization Status C Other (Specity) (B) fC) (D) 1 (E) (f) (G) (H) (I) rSh I PHOM f>ATt OF SERVICE TO 1 T a I I I I (J) (K) fl) (M) (2) 4 I t 1 Date 5S-694 Sent to Provider o Ui LU VJ. 2 I 5 a* c o 3! o I I O LU LU a c c UJ w 9 COMMENTS .711 C KtALT CiESuH<<t: *AtXiuuPE& MEUiual SiWViMi^ on Sv*PLIC^ ' KACe fOfi EACH Pa~ GIVEN OF *:*wc 0 0 O HAOCEOuRe CCbt JOINTIFy Z1636 ! Z163? I tCtPkAiff WVtVAL 5f*V'CfS on C/ACt/M5 ZANCf SI 'Periodic Vision Screening Periodic Hearing Screeninc Thu IS Id crf^y t^tl lh lOt^tfOih^ inlormat-crA u iruv ACCt'rRta Ann compteto 1 u^dprtlAnd Ihtl payTient tna nt stfct'on ol this ciAim wA Ct Iront Pt3ri inci &iaie funds And th1 any dlAimi. sia(mniA Qf decumantt or coi^CAAirn^nt of a riatria< ftM my c>A p/QiACt^led under appirCAbi* Fcdc'A dr &ia( law* Ma I adatirpnat chargos lor cAu^Dvr'saOci )kA*>'CM w.n be made AtiA'f'A' 4nyn/t paym^t *fi Q4iACAbt^> ai DAyfficnl " Full, that tre acow ><r>yi-.*B clotmAC fi)/ [-^yrnttrf r>Ay& been botrpieied inn inAi irte aoova aav* rueen furnished n rufl cOr'iCf'I'ice I'Aiiinout dSer rn nti(>ni with'n Ihe cit(ivi<,i(>ns ftl Tiii* Vi of me Frcerai Civil n>Q(it<i Ad ana ^ert'or- 60* Monetji .taiir.n a
i ai t^yj I ,i I PROVIDER S SIGNATURE. ~^bS4 'Hbv 7 Gt? Billing DATE (?: lAQNO&tS ) cooc E Charges F 0**0 Cft UNITS T G* I FEA6C)6M'f*i>RCv'befi 105 ^12^.2 V20.2 IZJI TOTAL CHARGES' (2X1 COVERED BY INSURANCE .3S> i 16 ii 29 00 66 66 I I 1 1 .. HANV^ ri . __0_ BALANCE due I _________j__2a. 00 J i Uttle Rock 6 School District ILittle Rock 4 .School Dis inc _L FOR OFFICE USE (?*|SENT BY: 1-31-85
8:12AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 501371 0100:# 2/ 6 To: From: Through: Re: Little Rock School District Health Services January 24, 1995 Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent Gwen Efir<r^ Coordinator of Health Services Jo Evelyn Elston, Director of Pupil Services Medicaid Reimbursement for Health Services Currently, the Little Rock School District is being reimbursed by the Medicaid program for selected services provided by our school nurses. Listed below are the amounts we have received since the onset of this program. Year Applications Filed $ Received Medicaid Private Insur. S Received 91-92 Approximately 200 $1,387,26 None None 92-93 Approximately 1000 $11,471.37 Approximately 1500 $59.00 93-94 Approximately 1100 $12,365,44 Approximately 1600 $29.50 We receive a total of $23.73 for the hearing and vision tests, and $50.50 for the EPSDT screening. If the screening is the child's initial screen, which is unusual because roost children have been examined prior to age 4 o 5, the fee goes up to $80.00. Application Process Applications were filed with the Medicaid office requesting the provider numbers that would allow us to bill Medicaid. Separate numbers are required for the hearing and vision screening and the Early Periodic Screening for Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT). Nurse and Health Room Certifications Our nurses have been certified by the Arkansas Department of Health to provide hearing and vision screening
which is a requirement to receive a provider number. Eighteen nurses are now certified to do EPSDT, however only 9 health rooms have received the additional certification from the Health Department required for provision of the EPSDT, The additional equipment to meet the requirements costs approximately $500,00 per health room.SENT BY: 1-31-93
8:14AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 5013710100
4/ 6 Pulaski County School District has used an electronic system which assists them with the billing and assures them of a more accurate medicaid number. billing. A staff person, who works half days does their It is uncertain how they handle the private insurance billing. The medicaid office has provided some information on the availability of using the electronic billing. However, it is to be recognized that even the electronic billing will take an individual's tine and will only do the medicaid portion, which is the least time consuming. hiring someone individual was $640.00. to work after hours. We have accomplished both parts with The amount paid this As has been noted, some medicaid money comes from providing EPSDT physical examinations. provided than we have been reimbursed for. Many more physical examinations have been This relates to the fact that EPSDT screens are provided according to a periodicity schedule. Several of our younger children have had a physical within the limited time frame and payment for the physical given by the school nurse was rejected. As parents become more aware of this service, they may rely on the schools to provide it. Nurses, particularly in the Incentive Schools have been encouraging non ... , This could participants who are eligible to apply for medicaid. also contribute to a greater amount of revenue. School nurses provided several clinics this past school year to give Kindergarten children their required physical examination. Increasing the number of certified health rooms will assist us in increasing revenue, year. We intend to increase this number by four thisSENT BY: 1-31-85 : 8:13AM .JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 50137101006/ 6 HS 36 9-93 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Dear Parent: Teacher's Name The Little Rock School District can be reimbursed for certain health services provided by our school nurses. hearing/vision screening and a modified health assessment. These include Medicaid is the main source of reimbursement, but other insurance plans are also involved. We are asking every parent to complete the information below and return it to school tomorrow. Thank you, School Nurse Child's Name Birth Date (Be sure that you use the name known by Medicaid or your insurance provider.) Insured Parent's Name Parent's SSN Is your child on Medicaid: Yes No If your child is on Medicaid, please indicate the number or send a copy of your Medicaid card. Do you have other health insurance? Yes No If yes, please provide the following information: Name of Plan Policy Number Name of Insurance company Address of Insurance Company ****************************************************************** (TO BE FILLED IN BY SCHOOL NURSE) School Nurse Hearing screening Date Results Vision Screening EPSDT EvaluationSENT BY: 1-31-95
8:13AM :JA RIGGS LITTLE ROCK- 501371 0100: s 3' 6 Student Medicaid Numbers Starting in the 1992-93 school year and continuing to . present we have requested medicaid numbers and private insurance numbers from students who were scheduled for hearing and vision screening. This includes Pre-Kindergarten, Kindergarten, first, third, fifth, seventh and tenth grades. insurance companies if we bill medicaid. We are required to bill private Billing Process When the forms with medicaid numbers are returned to the nurse, she uses the information to complete the HICFA form, (see attachment A.) 4 !. i nd i rt This information is sent to the Health Services office where RS are made and then sent to the Medicaid office. Forms that Sf company. the child is on private insurance are completed with the f the hearing and vision tests placed in the appropriate (see attachment B). The bill is then sent to the insurance concerns one would hope that the Medicaid reimbursement money could provide more financial benefit to the district. that it would fund positions. Initially, we had hoped Because of budget cuts in recent years, the reimbursement money has provided funds to replace the budget reductions. The money has been used to , part of the school physicians salary, purchase health room supi^^ies, provide money to purchase more equipment for the health rooms and the cost of the person who does the billing. It should also be noted that 25% of the money received is to be returned to the state. Because of the time involved in the billing process, especially the private Insurance, we have paid someone to work after hours to do the billing. This year, we hopefully will equip four additional health rooms so they can be certified for EPSDT. For consideration: Although we do not know exactly how many Little Rock School District students are medicaid eligible. it should be more that the 1000 that we are billing. It has been estimated that 10 to 15 % of our children may be medicaid eligible. We screen approximately 12,000 students which would result in 1800 being eligible. If we could get accurate medicaid numbers from more students and in some cases assist children who are eligible to get on reimbursement. the program, we could receive a greater amount of Sending requests home to parents for medicaid numbers has had limited response. Consideration should be given to obtaining this information when the child registers. The parent at that time could fill out the form providing the medicaid and insurance information, or a copy of the medicaid card could be made.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: January 31, 1995 To: Hank Williams From: Subject in Brown Second Information Request Thanks for getting back to me in your Januaiy 26, 1995 memo about the business cases we requested on January 17. Since I havent received the business cases and other information I had asked for, 1 apologize if my original memo was not clear. Ill try to clear up any miscommunication on my part by restating my request below. Realizing the district had a deadline of January 13, 1995 for business cases to be submitted to the Superintendent and Board (Task 215 on the 12-22-94 Project Management Tool), I am requesting all of the business case write-ups being considered by the district as of todays date. At this time. Im interested in seeing the input coming from the field into the decision process, rather than a finalized product after you have made decisions. In other words, what you have received so far to date is what I want to see. In your memo to me, you did not mention the extended evaluations and the status chart on the facilities study which 1 had included in my earlier request. I assume those documents are being assembled and will be forwarded soon. ODM still needs them so we can keep current. Thanks very much for your assistance.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: January 31, 1995 To: From: Brown Russ Mayo Subject: Riling spaces in the Rockefeller Infants and Two-year-old Program On December 2, 1994, I sent you a memo asking a number of questions about the Rockefeller program for infants and two-year-olds, including the number of openings. Audrey Lee responded on your behalf and indicated that, at the time. Rockefeller had one vacancy for infants and six openings for two-year-olds. 1 had asked to be notified of the date as each of these vacancies was filled. In the same memo, Audrey indicated that the one opening in the infants had been filled along with five of the seats for two-year-olds. Since that time 1 have received no update as to the dispensation of any remaining empty seats. Please let me know immediately the number of any openings in the infant, two- and three-year-old program at Rockefeller. Id also like to know total current enrollment by race in each of these groups. Thank you very much. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENTS OFFICE 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-2012 RECEIVSi^ FEB 21995 Date: February 1, 1995 Office of Desegreg3iiCi> i'-! To: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor From: He, Re: ntendent Requested Information I am enclosing the requested facilities study chart and a set of the extended evaluations as requested by your memorandum of January 17, at this time. As I stated in my memorandum of January 26, the business cases are still in draft form and continue to be working documents. They will be submitted for your perusal when they are completed and ready for submission to the Board. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or if I can provide additional information. i) ^'^0(1 uaL'cn s /* 2- hbira^y ) if Fac.'h-hei Pc<c:li4i>i)Little Rock School District ecc^SVSD February 3,1995 TO: From: Thru: Subject: Memorandum Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, Coordinator of SA information Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate superintendent J/\ Rockefeller Early Childhood Programs FEB 8 1995 ctxe oi Ds32ii.'e3C.u: h'Aj As Of January 19, 1995 the enrollment in the early childhood programs are as follows: infant (Pl) Two-year old(P2) 10 enrolled 15 enrolled Three-year old (P3) 11 enrolled 0 vacancies 2 vacancies 7 vacancies B 5 6 7 NB 5 9 4 students were assigned to the Two and Three-year-old programs from January 9 through January 17,1995. At the present time there are no two-year olds on the waiting list. There are no nonblack students on the Three-year-old waiting list to fill the five available seats. The two black vacancies in the Three-year program have been offered and we are waiting for a response from the parents. 810 West Markham street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000Office 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 9, 1995 To: Russ Mayo From: Subject: ^^^j^nn Brown LRSD Registration Information Yesterday, I received in my mail at home the new LRSD brochure which contains a variety of information pertaining to pre-school registration. The brochure is certainly attractive and contains handy references to dates for open houses and registration, along with information on enrollment options. Unfortunately, the usefulness of the brochure is limited because it was not mailed in time to give parents adequate notice of many of the dates listed. For example, none of the brochures were distributed until after the open house dates (all in January) were past. When I called to inquire about the dates the brochures were mailed, your associate, Deana, helpfully answered my questions. She said that the brochures targeted at private school patrons were mailed February 1. Those for LRSD patrons were processed by a local advertising agency, and about two- thirds of those brochures were mailed on February 6 and 7
however, because the agency discovered it was short some 5,000 covers, the remainder of the brochures will not be mailed until the week of February 13. In addition to the timing of the brochure, I also have concerns about the costs associated with it and some of the information it contains. I'll appreciate your answers to the following questions: 1. According to the district's monthly management tools, the brochures were 100% complete by November 30, 1994. Why, then, were the brochures distributed so late, after pre-school registration activities had begun? 2. How much did it cost the district to produce this brochure, including preparation and printing? How many hours of LRSD staff time were devoted to all phases of preparing the brochure? How much was (or will be) paid to the local advertising agency which helped process the brochures for mailing? What is the grand total of the costs associated with producing the brochure?Page Two February 9, 1995 3. How many brochures were mailed to private school patrons, how many to LRSD patrons, and how many to any other category? What is the total cost for mailing the brochures? 4. The brochure contains an insert entitled "Applying for Choices." which includes information on M-to-M transfers and directs readers to refer to another insert. "Choices," for schools involved in such transfers. "Choices" lists only the three PCSSD interdistrict schools as options for M-to-M transfers for LRSD children, and states that PCSSD students may apply for transfer to two LRSD schools. Why does the brochure not inform parents that most PCSSD schools, not just three, can accept M-to- M transfers from the LRSD? Why does the brochure not inform parents that PCSSD students may apply for transfers to many LRSD schools, not just two (even though the LRSD has three elementary interdistrict schools)? Why is the information not explicit that only black LRSD students and white PCSSD students may apply for M-to-M transfers?k
! ' 1 i' /ys' '*4 / J - l^ [l h' I i< .k iV L p k. -. t .u k S53! >ggy ,t. ^U'-'i* B5020801 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS CONCERNING JANUARY LRSD PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOL FEBRUARY 9, 1995 Note: All task numbers refer to the January report, dated 01/30/95. Summary task 6. The April 28 scheduled finish date for the summary task is keyed to the scheduled finish of task 154, a Board work session to review the data from the needs assessment. If the Board is not going to review the needs assessment data until April 28, the reason for having the session will have passed. The intent was to use the data to assist them in making wise decisions during the program development phase, a phase which will hopefully be completed by April 28. The Board should use the needs assessment report now, not in April. If the scheduled finish of task 154 is not prior to 3/9/95, the date the proposed budget is prepared, I would recommend deleting task 154 and saving the effort. Summary task 71. The report shows no progress on the facilities study since last month. This is a key part of decision-making for school closings and budget actions. The facilities order came out this morning, and, while I have not yet read it, it may have some impact on your plan. I fear this task is slipping behind and will not make the target of August 15. We should get busy on this one. Task 75. This task shows that data collection will not be completed until the date of the final report. This date should be adjusted to allow for time to analyze the data and write the final report. Also, see note below. Tasks 76-78. These tasks were written when the original plan was to produce a facilities study by 11/23/94. Once the district changed its mind to go for a study running to 8/15/95, the tasking should have been updated to reflect the new strategy. Additional tasking should be inserted at this point to show the districts plan for completion (bidding, award, start, data collection, data analysis, report preparation, report delivery). Summary task 79 and summary task 87. The October 93-94 audit was filed last week. I recommend you consider adding a task into each section for incorporating the results into the PBD. Even though after the fact, it will serve as a reminder next cycle and help us stay on time. Task 157. In my opinion, the needs assessment document is an improvement over what we were able to achieve last cycle. We are still not where we need to be with the assessment. The document contains many recommendations rather than needs. I suggest a training session for council-level folks to make sure they understand what a needs assessment really is. The needs assessment is the variance between our goal and our current position. A need is to close the achievement disparity gap by x points, not to add a new reading program. This is something we should work on for next cycle. Summary task 196. This task shows 100% complete. I assume it is complete because this work session was the Board session with the consultant held on 1/24/95. If this is the case, then we have really screwed up our tasking. Again, summary task 196 was set up to review the needs assessment data and go right into program development, the very next set of taskings. I have been assured that the Board session on 1/24/95 did not deal with decision-making on any substantive program or budget issues. This Board session was for bonding and bringing the Board together. I fear we might be changing our tasking to cover unplanned wants, rather than working our plan with discipline toward defined needs. Task 204. Task 205. Task 210. I would like to get a copy of this report of outcomes. Will an additional Board retreat be needed? What was done here? What trends and what experts? Task 214. What were the results? Tasks 215, 217, 218. These tasks show that the business cases are 100% complete, but the Superintendent has told us twice that they are only in draft form. These appear to be conflicting statements. What is the deal? Task 216. What program modifications were reviewed? Task 229. This task shows 100% complete. On 2/3/95, Mark told Bob and me that he had not done this. Was it done by someone else? Is the report not true? What is the deal? Task 232. This task shows 100% complete. On 2/3/95, Mark told Bob and me that he had not done this. Was it done by someone else? Is the report not true? What is the deal? Task 233. This task shows 100% complete. On 2/3/95, Mark told Bob and me that he had not done this. Was it done by someone else? Is the report not true? What is the deal? Tasks 239 and 240. Good to see you modifying your plan as you go. Task 254. Mark? Task 308. (Was task 253) There were still no changes in the one day duration. Is this fine with Where do we stand on Q2 PBD? Task 349. We were able to get the extended evaluations after twice requesting them from the Superintendent. We are in the processing of reviewing them.Task 383. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Task 384. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Task 385. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Task 386. this task? There is still no subordinate tasking for this summary level task. What is going on with Robert, I am getting concerned that we may be falling behind on our process timing. Many things must be done in order for Mark to be able to produce a meaningful proposed budget document on 3/9/95. Our decision-making seems to be following the same pattern as previous years. Past performance tells us that delaying decision-making benefits no one, and places an unnecessarily difficult burden on Mark to produce budgets within deadlines. When I see us start shorting performance on tasks and not tasking out major evolutions, it suggests to me that we may be abandoning our planning process and rushing ahead without the benefit of sound, informed decisions. This would be a return to past practices which got us into this financial mess. If there is anything I can do to get us on task, just let me know and I will do my best.\u-.Jt^ 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 9, 1995 To: From: Subject: Incentive School Principals Ann Brown, Melissa Guldin, Margie Powell, Horace Smith, and Barry Ward Monitoring the Incentive Schools Enclosed you will find a schedule of our upcoming visits and a draft copy of the incentive school monitoring guide. The guide has changed very little since last year. During our visit, we will need to interview you and conduct classroom observations. We will need a workspace and a copy of the following 1994-95 records. Staff development activities held specifically for Instructional and Supervision Aides Teacher inservice sessions regarding the use of instructional aides Theme implementation plan Discipline, Suspension, and Expulsion by race and gender Building-level discipline plan Field Trips Pre-professionals Individual student test profiles Building-level counseling plan Parent Center Committee by race, gender, and position (e.g. parent, teacher) Parent Center recommendations and an indication of the suggestions incorporated into the center The name, race, gender, and position of the parent trained to operate the center Monthly communications packets distributed by the Parent Center List of parent meetings including topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets The total number of home visits conducted as of February 1995 A description of the mechanism designed to ensure that parents regularly sign homework List of community meetings and activities by topic, time, location, and sign-in sheets List of three key communicators by race, gender, and position The number of signed contracts and a description of follow-up proceduresSpeakers Bureau roster by name, gender, race, and position, along with a list of speaking engagements including the time, location, and participant sign-in sheets Recruitment Team roster by race, gender, and position Recruitment Plan, including a list of all recruitment strategies implemented and planned Extended Day schedule Extended Week schedule If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call our office.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 Uttle Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 February 10, 1995 Dr. Henry P. Williams 810 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Hank: At last night's Board meeting, I heard you tell the group that the district often was not receiving copies of court orders until some time after the date of issue. You expressed frustration at sometimes first learning of an order by reading about it in the newspaper. I certainly understand how you would find such a situation aggravating. I would too. You suggested that this problem would be solved if you had a staff attorney. However, adding another lawyer to your payroll won't eliminate late receipt of orders. That's because the rate of receiving orders isn't a function of having more or less attorneys
rather, it is related to the mechanism the courts use for distributing orders. When the Federal Courts issue an order, the documents are filed in the Clerk's Office. The Clerk then mails copies of the order to the relevant parties and simultaneously places one in a press box, which newspaper staffers routinely check once or twice a day. That's why the reporters usually get orders the day of issue and you read all about it the next day. I wasn't aware that it was sometimes a matter of days before the district received orders. In the future, since I usually know the same day that Judge Wright issues orders in this case, I will be happy to notify you immediately by phone. Then, you can send a runner to the Clerk's office to retrieve a copy of the order, just as the newspapers do. A simple phone call from my office to your's should prove to be a very economical solution to the problem you've described. 1 know how concerned you are about finding ways to hold down expenditures, so I'm happy to do what I can to contribute to cost-containing measures for the district. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Brown cc: Board members Chris Heller C-C: EEEEHS Little Rock School District d u Ft3 J c 1995 OilicQ ot D February 14,1995 TO: From: Thru: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, Coordinator of SA information f Dr, Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Subject: Filling Early Childhood spaces at Rockefeller Since my last memo i stated that there were seven vacancies in the three-year-old program, as of February 10, there are only two vacancies in the three-year-old program and one vacancy in the two-year-old program. In the past Rockefeller's recruitment team has been responsible for recruitment. However, we have provided assistance in the following ways: 1. Providing pre-school and private school directories, so that these parents could be invited to open house and other events. 2. Assisted in providing information to west Little Rock churches. 3. Provided brochures to parents who called with inquires. 4. Highlight the programs in all recruitment presentations. in an effort to capitalize upon the school's high quality early childhood education as a desegregation tool, we are only filling the seats with students that help to maintain the racial balance. 810 West Markham street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-20004 J 'J Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor A gV-xA-'' 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376.6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: February 14, 1995 To: Estelle Matthis From: Melissa Guldin fV' Subject: Monthly Meeting Between LRSD and ODM After surveying the staff members in our office, we have five items to be placed on the agenda for our next meeting on Tuesday, February 21,1995. If any additional issues arise, I will contact you. We look forward to meeting with you. Proposed Agenda Items Strategic Planning Effort Legislative Initiatives Budget Status Facilities Study Status Progress Report on School Closings'k' Tv KtCBBBS Little Rock School District R itiSi TO: Ann Brown, Federal Monitor FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MAR 1 1995 Office cf Dessgragcticn wZ:.-, C. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation February 17, 1995 LRSD Registration Information This is a response to the concerns raised in your letter dated February 9, 1995, regarding Little Rock School District registration brochure information. J. According to the district's monthly management tools, the brochures were 100% complete by November 3
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.