Correspondence

more programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum. A third administrator will be assigned to provide supervision to the schools as an assistant superintendent. The assistant superintendents will report to the Deputy Superintendent. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The development and implementation of a leadership academy and training program for current and prospective principals, assistant principals, and central office administrators. The development and implementation of a teacher mentoring program as a key component of the District's staff development. The revision of the District's overall staff development program to provide greater concentration in e elivery of key components co our personnel. Special emphasis will be given to effective teaching strategies and use of current technologies for teaching and learning. Development of school-based parent training programs in every school emphasizing parent workshops and other sessions held at schools and other locations which emphasize the following: Discipline strategies and order in the home Time management for children and parents Planning and monitoring home study Building self-esteem for parents and children Communication within the home and with the school Substance abuse prevention Nutrition and health Development of an Early Childhood Education curriculum that includes components from successful programs in our District (e.g. HIPPY) and other districts. Assuming that the administration is directed to implement these recommendations and following documentation through systematic and comprehensive assessment that significant progress is being made, the Little Rock School Board should reconsider the timeframe for implementation of a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation after the end of the 1992-93 school year. The decision as to whether the requirement should be implemented and when, should be based upon the Board's analysis of how effectively the above recommendations are being followed. 8TIMELINES Proposed timelines for reconsideration of the 2.0 requirement is outlined for your consideration and approval: 1. Reports to the Board and community documenting progress made in achieving each of the sixteen recommendations in the "Plan to Increase Learning for All Students.' 2. * * August 1991 January 1992 April 1992 July 1992 * November 1992 February 1993 May 1993 August 1993 and ongoing s to the Board an community regarding grade icution and test scores for the Little Rock students. July 1991 February 1992 * July 1992 February 1993 July 1993 and ongoing Reports to the Board from the Biracial Advisory Committee concerning the District's remedial and compensatory programs. Should the Committee wish to make recommendations for changes, they will be included in these reports. August 1991 * June 1992 * * * * * 3 . * * January 1993 * June 1993 and ongoing twice yearly. 4. Reconsideration of the recommendation to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation from the Little Rock School District. * August, 1993 MONITORING AND EVALOATION Through the use of the reports outlined above, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors will have access to the data it needs to decide whether to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. graduation requirement. It is recommended that this years as a seventh graders be used as the base population from which to track an increase in students' ability to achieve a 2.0. If by the end of the 1992-93 seventh graders have demonstrated a 10 percent increase each year in the number of students achieving a 9C average, then it may be reasonable to assume that the 2.0 g.p.a. could be fairly required of the 1995-96 graduating class. This would extend by only one year the original time frame as described in the December report. Reports tracking the District's progress in achieving the recommendations in the report and student progress in achieving a 2.0 will be supplied to the parties in the desegregation case and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with the view that what is learned in this process will be helpful both to educators and the community at large. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent March 28, 1991 10Z AO Little Rock School District December 12, 1991 D J gZi
'>! W' H J
DEC 1 5 1991 Mr. Bob Morqan Office of Deseqregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Office of Desegretjalioii Moniioring 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bob: Attached are our responses to the questions posed in Ann Brown's letter to Dr. Steele on October 28. I believe you will find them to be essentially the same as our previous verbal responses. Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, Tony Wood Deputy Superintendent TW/ch 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361Question 1. Question 2. LRSD ANSWERS TO ODM QUESTIONS (Reference 10/28/91 Ann Brown letter to Dr. Steele) What are the district guidelines for identifying expenditures as desegregation costs? Answer: Desegregation is one of the basic objectives of the District. Almost everything we do is directed to some degree to this goal. It is not possible therefore, and we have not attempted to identify all the cost associated with it. Our approach has been to identify personnel and materials that are required for the specific programs mandated by the Desegregation Plan, to set up budget accounts for those expenses, and charge to them as the programs are implemented. This approach may result in our charging less than possible to desegregation, but it should allow us to account for the settlement funds. It has never been the view of the LRSD that the settlement funds would cover the total cost of desegregation. Using the funds for court-mandated programs will allow us to use the money and to be able to show that it was used for proper purposes. For the purposes of showing that settlement funds are properly spent, budget/expense accounts are established for the specific programs in the Desegregation Plan. Expenses associated with those programs are charged to those accounts. What process is used to project the desegregation budget? Answer: Building principals, department directors, and others responsible for various functions in the LRSD are designated as budget managers. Each spring the budget managers submit requests for each of the budget account codes assigned to them. If an individual has responsibility for a program mandated by the Desegregation Plan, he or she will have account codes for that. These budgets are approved by the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendents, Assistant Superintendents (where appropriate). Manager of Support Services, and the Controller. All of these codes will show a fund code of 13. If a Desegregation Plan program requires office supplies, for example, there will be an amount coded in the budget for expenses of that description that are related to the desegregation program.QDM Response Page 2 Question 3. How do these costs correspond to the specific provisions of the desegregation plan, i.e., what is the correlation between the settlement monies and specific desegregation objectives? Answer: The costs can be tied to programs that are specified in the Desegregation Plan. This will not be obvious from accounting reports but can be done through discussion with budget managers and the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation. Question 4. If a cost item is determined to be both a desegregation and nondesegregation item (staff development might be a fair example), what criteria determines the apportionment of cost to the desegregation budget (Code 13) and the "regular" budget? Answer: If, at budget time, it is determined that an individual will divide time between Desegregation Plan mandated programs and other activities, appropriate portions of that persons cost will be budgeted to the fund source codes. That persons cost will be automatically charged as budgeted through the year. For non-personnel costs, most of the expenses that can be charged to desegregation programs are easily identified, such as PAL computers and four-year- old program equipment. We have the capability to apportion costs, if needed. Question 5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted in Code 13? Answer: The budget managers make this decision with review by the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendents, the Manager of Support Services, and the Controller.QDM Response Page 3 Question 6. Who makes the decisions about which costs are actually debited to Code 13? Answer: The budget managers either make this decision or review monthly expense listings to make sure it is properly done. The Associate Superintendent for Desegregation also reviews all Fund 13 expenses monthly. Since many Desegregation Plan projects are the responsibility of the Associate Superintendent for Educational Programs, she also closely reviews these expenses on a monthly basis. Further, our computer system will not allow a budget account to be overdrawn. To transfer additional money into an account from another account requires approval of the Manager of Support Services. These processes are the same as those used to control all LRSD expenses including those that must meet certain state regulations. practices are sound. Independent audits show that LRSD accounting Question 7. What criteria determine how budgeting and debiting decisions are made? Answer: The accounts are clearly named so there is little confusion. The budget managers code the expenses. Question 8. What checks are built into the accounting/bookkeeping system to prevent arbitrary debiting of cost items to one budget category or another? Answer: The procedures described above with the monthly reviews described are intended to catch any improper coding. If an expense is improperly coded to a valid account that has sufficient funds, manual reviews like those described above are the only possible ways to detect it. As stated above, these are the same procedures used throughout our system, and independent audits have consistently found our procedures to be sound.QDM Response Page 4 Question 9. What are the districts spending priorities and how have they been determined? Answer: The district must implement the programs mandated by the Desegregation Plan, must meet state education standards, must meet debt service commitments, and must make the capital improvements committed to voters in millage elections. All salary expenses are under contracts. There is little to prioritize. As Desegregation Plan programs are implemented and their effectiveness is determined, we can petition the court and the other parties to allow us to discontinue or modify those that are not effective. Until we reach that point, we can do little to prioritize our costs. Question 10. What is the districts plan and corresponding timeline for reaching the 90% achievement goal for black students, thereby attaining forgiveness of state loans the district otherwise must repay? Answer: The LRSD will implement the plan called "No More Excuses: A Plan to Increase Learning for All Students in the Little Rock School District." This plan, which was adopted by the Board of Directors on March 28, 1991, provides the framework for attaining the 90% achievement goal for black students (see attachment). Question 11. What steps is the district taking to prevent a funding shortfall that will inhibit carrying out the desegregation plan to its full extent? Answer: As stated in response #9 above, LRSD will measure effectiveness and attempt to remove ineffective programs in the plan. We will address overall funding problems through reducing programs that we can reduce, better management practices and, if necessary, a request for increased millages. F
odminfo2.wpdNO MORE EXCUSES
A PLAN TO INCREASE LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The purpose of this report is twofold: first, to identify and discuss problems and issues which the Little Rock School District must address if we are to substantially improve the level of learning in our schools
and second, to outline a plan to empower all our students to be successful learners. BACKGROUND import te-che What students are learning in our schools is the most ant issue School Board members, administrators, and rs must consider as decisions are made about education in cur community. The elimination of academic achievement disparities between black and white students, the enrollment in upper level courses, appropriate remediation for the students who are not learning, assignments, the use of school libraries, homework minimum grade point requirements for graduation, the number and quality of reading assignments, multi-cultural education, "tracking. If higher order thinking skills, and many other issues are all related to this central question: How can we get students to learn what we think they should know and how can we be sure they are learning as much and as well as they can? Last fall the administration was asked to consider a proposal to require a 2.0 grade point average as a requirement for graduation and to subm consideration by December. , a re
The 3' to the School Bcax ,5 ministration submitted i rcr ts it report December 3 and recommended that the 2.0 requirement be phased in starting with certain minimum requirements for the 1991-92 school year and implemented fully by 1994-95. The recommendation was presented to the Board at the December meeting and tabled for further consideration at a later meeting. In January, 1991, the Little Rock School District received the Curriculum Audit conducted in September 1990 by a team of administrators and professors from the National Academy of School Executives. This audit was authorized by the Board when it adopted the budget in August 1990. The audit found that the District's curriculum is disjointed, uncoordinated, and inappropriately sequenced. It found that district-wide curricu im objectives do not exist, grading practices are ent, promotion criteria are unclear. assessment is not d to the curriculum, and curriculum guides lack internal ency. In short, even though the Little Rock School ."is-rict is performing "reasonably well" according to the Curriculum Audit, much work needs to be done to improve curriculum design, content, delivery, sequence, and assessment of student learning.Following the December Board meeting, three public hearings were held to give District patrons an opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed 2.0 requirement. were evident during these hearings. Two opinions The first was that people were generally in favor of the schools setting higher learning expectations for students. The second opinion was that schools are responsible for seeing to it that students receive every possible opportunity to develop their intellectual abilities to the fullest extent and that this responsibility is not being met in all cases. Concern was also expressed for the student with identified learning deficits who might not ever be able to achieve the requirement of a 2.0 g.p.a. Since the public hearings, a survey was sent to teachers and principals requesting their opinions concerning the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. The results showed support for the 2.0 but most thought it should be phased in. The District's Biracial Advisory Committee took the position that the effectiveness of the current remedial and compensatory programs should be assessed before the Board decides to implement the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. PROBLEMS AND ISSUES The problem of low student achievement in the Little Rock School District is not unique in our community. In a report entitled Accelerating Academic Achievement: A Summary of Findings from 20 Years of NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress, September 1990] the following points are made: 1. "Most of the data in this report show that our present education performance is low and not improving." 2. "Research shows that student academic performance is likely to be greater when pupils work hard, when parents are actively involved in their children's education, and when teachers and school administrators incorporate research tested improvements in the classroom. Yet, this report ....shows that these things are not typically happening." 3 . "Time devoted to some subject areas is limited... II 4 . "Homework is often minimal or non-existent. II 25. "Most classroom work is dominated by passive learning activities that feature teacher and textbook-presented information despite research findings indicating that these techniques are not the most effective. It 6. "Although parents are our children's first and most effective teachers, large proportions of students are not reading outside of school, are spending excessive hours watching television, and are spending little time on homework. II 7. "Students can read at a surface level, getting the gist of material, but they do not read analytically or perform well on challenging reading assignments. It 8 . "Small proportions of students write well enough to accomplish the purposes of different writing tasks
most do not communicate effectively. II 9 . "Students' grasp of the four basic arithmetic operations and beginning problem solving is far from universal in elementary and junior high school... II 10. "Only small proportions of students appear to develop specialized knowledge needed to address science-based problems and the pattern of falling behind begins in elementary school. It 11. "Students are familiar with events that have shaped American history, but they do not appear to understand the significance and connection of these events. It 12 . "In recent assessments, more students appear to e gaining basic skills, yet fewer are demonstrating a crasp of higher-level aoolication of these skills. It 13 . "Despite progress in narrowing the gaps, the differences in performance between white students and their minority counterparts remain unacceptably large." 14. "r.? ge proportions of students.... are not enrolled in challenging mathematics and sc: nee coursework. It 315. "Across the last 20 years, little seems to have changed in the way students are taught. Despite much research suggesting better alternatives, classrooms still appear to be dominated by textbooks, teacher lectures, and short answer activity sheets. II Other findings from the NAEP report are also highly disturbing: 31 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 read five or fewer pages per day from ajJL textbooks in both homework and school. 52 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 said they never or rarely borrow books from the school or public library. 97 percent of the 4th graders reported that they completed workbooks or skill sheet assignments on what they read
only 45 percent said they talked in pairs or groups abou their reading. More than 30 percent of the eighth and twelfth graders reported never talking to someone at home about things they read. Nearly three-fourths of the eighth graders had teachers who reported spending an hour or less on writing instruction and assistance each week or less than 15 minutes per dav. At grade 12, half the students assessed in 1988 reported that they had written two or fewer papers as part of school assignment in the six weeks before the assessment. Only 14 percent of the 8th graders and 9 percent of the seniors reported weekly writing assignments of three or more pages. At grade 3, 49 percent of the teachers reported spending one to two hours a week teaching science. In 1985, one g-aarter of the eleventh graders assessed were no enrolled in a math course nd anopher one quarter were taking lower reVv math courses such as General Mathematics, ?re-algebra, or Algebra I. 4Slightly more than half said they were not taking type of science course. More than two-thirds of the high school seniors typically do an hour or less of homework each day. Only 29 percent had two or more hours of homework each day. These findings are by no means all that the NAEP Report presented. Many others are equally distressing. The inescapable conclusion is that students, for the most part, do not learn nearly what they are able to learn. This appears to be the case for several reasons: (1) they are taught in ways that have been proven ineffective over and over by well-documented research
(2) the curriculum is content-deficient, and (3) expectations from both parents and educators are set at an unacceptably low level. While these findings are based on nationwide research, they are nc typical of what we find locally and should give us cause for e concern. In fact, the grade distribution, test scores. level of expectations, a large amount of "seatwork" in our classrooms, and the limited use of libraries are among the indicators in our own District that support these findings. As we examine our schools in relation to the NAEP report and decide whether to impose a minimum requirement for graduation, we must reflect upon events that have greatly affected our ability to deliver quality education to our students. 1983, we have been in court almost continuously. Since January, During that period, no less than four desegregation plans have been written. Weeks were spent in 1988 and 1989 negotiating a settlement with the State to bring an end to the desegregation litigation. The District has experienced significant changes in its geographi boundaries. Board governance, and administration. As was ted out in the Curriculum Audit, the District has had five different superintendents since 1982. The issues we have dealt with and the rapidity of the changes which have occurred in the District have contributed in varying degrees to weakening many of our internal processes and organizational procedures. We have seen job roles become less clearly defined, lines of authority eroded, and employees not held accountable for their work. The result as was vividly and painfully described in the Curriculum Audit is a district in which "Learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse unless administrative direction, expertise. and intervention are provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School istrict." (P-14) .n fulfil 1 ~y opinion, two things are necessary before we can che responsibilities we have as a school district toward 5our patrons and students. reviewed, revised. First, Board policies must be and in some cases improved. Coherent, consistent regulations, directives, and procedures must be developed where needed to support the enactment of these policies. Then all employees must be held accountable for carrying out Board policies and adhering to regulations, directives, and procedures developed to support them. Second, as the Audit pointed out, the curriculum must be reviewed, revised as necessary, developed in an appropriate scope and sequence, and capable of supporting carefully written educational objectives. In my opinion, we cannot afford to take three to five years to complete this redesign of our curriculum. It must be started now. Core areas of the curriculum (reading. language arts, math, science, social studies and fine arts) must be appropriately scoped and sequenced in time for use during the 1992-93 school year. This will require enormous work by a cadre of teachers and administrators, and it may very well require the expertise of curriculum designers who can work with our staff in putting our entire curriculum together in the proper scope. sequence, and format, K-12. It most certainly will require reorganization of the central office administration and an allocation of sufficient resources in order to accomplish this major goal. Not until these things are done can we move forward as a district to address in a meaningful way the evaluation of effective teaching and building management, assessment of student learning, overall school success, and the effectiveness of central office leadership. In my opinion, it would be unfair to place the full burden of improvement in student learning on the students and the parents. is our responsibility to take appropriate and immediate action to remove all barriers to improved performance and at the same time raise expectations for student achievement. RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF INCREASED LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS I am recommending the following: 1. A review and adoption of revised Board policies in Curriculum and Instruction by the Little Rock School Board at a work session to be held before the end of the current school year, preferably during the month of April. All other Board policies will be reviewed. revised as necessary, and adopted by September, 1991. A decision by the Board at this work session as to the educational outcomes we want our students to have whe.n rhey leave our schools. 63 . A decision at the work session regarding the priority the Board wishes to assign to the thirteen recommendations of the Curriculum Audit. 4. An acknowledgement by the Board that the proper way for 5. 6, 7. 8. 10. 11. the schools to address dispar ies in academic achievement is first to have a wrircen curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12 and then to teach the curriculum effectively to all students, setting forth clear expectations and using strategies that have been proven successful for student learning. Authorization by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for Little Rock School District students which incorporates the characteristics in recommendation number four. Authorization by the Board to develop a comprehensive grade level assessment program to determine the extent to which our students are mastering the curriculum. A revision of the District's grading policies to make them more consistent from school to school and from classroom to classroom. It should be clear that grades are to be assigned on the basis of mastery of specific curriculum content. Periodic reports to the Board, preferably each semester, showing the distribution of student grades at the secondary level. These reports will indicate courses in which students have the greatest difficulty and will track the progress of individual students on a random basis from grade to grade. An ongoing review of the District's remedial and compensatory programs by the Biracial Advisory Committee with recommendations for changes presented to the Board yearly for the next three years. The implementation of an Instructional Management System by the 1992-93 school year that will enable us to track the progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. The immediate reorganization of the central office administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development and appropriate supervision of schools. To that end, the Associate Superintendent will devote her time primarily to curriculum design and development and staff development. The job roles of the curriculum supervisors will be redefined to include 7more programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum. A third administrator will be assigned to provide supervision to the schools as an assistant superintendent. The assistant superintendents will report to the Deputy Superintendent. 12. 13. 14 . 15. 16. The development and implementation of a leadership academy and training program for current and prospective principals, assistant principals, and central office administrators. The development and implementation of a teacher mentoring program as a key component of the District's staff development. The revision of the District's overall staff development program to provide greater concentration in the delivery of key components co our personnel. Special emphasis will be given to effective teaching strategies and use of current technologies for teaching and learning. Development of school-based parent training programs in every school emphasizing parent workshops and other sessions held at schools and other locations which emphasize the following: Discipline strategies and order in the home Time management for children and parents Planning and monitoring home study Building self-esteem for parents and children Communication within the home and with the school Substance abuse prevention Nutrition and health Development of an Early Childhood Education curriculum that includes components from successful programs in our District (e.g. HIPPY) and other districts. Assuming that the administration is directed to implement these recommendations and following documentation through systematic and comprehensive assessment that significant progress is being made, the Little Rock School Board should reconsider the timeframe for implementation of a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation after the end of the 1992-93 school year. The decision as to whether the requirement should be implemented and when, should be based upon the Board's analysis of how effectively the above recommendations are being followed. 8TIMELINES Proposed timelines for reconsideration of the 2.0 requirement is outlined for your consideration and approval: 1. Reports to the Board and community documenting progress made in achieving each of the sixteen recommendations in the "Plan to Increase Learning for All Students.' * * * * August 1991 January 1992 April 1992 July 1992 * November 1992 February 1993 May 1993 August 1993 and ongoing Reports to the Board and community regarding grade distribution and test scores for the Little Rock student * * * July 1991 February 1992 July 1992 February 1993 July 1993 and ongoing Reports to the Board from the Biracial Advisory Committee concerning the District's remedial and compensatory programs. Should the Committee wish to make recommendations for changes, they will be included in these reports. August 1991 * June 1992 * * 2. 3 . * * * January 1993 June 1993 and ongoing twice yearly. 4. Reconsideration of the recommendation to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation from the Little Rock School District. * August, 1993 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Through the use of the reports outlined above, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors will have access to the data it needs to decide whether to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. as a graduation requirement. It is recommended that this year's seventh graders be used as the base population from which to track an increase in students' ability to achieve a 2.0. If by the end of the 1992-93 seventh graders have demonstrated a 10 percent increase each year in the number of students achieving a 9C average, then it may be reasonable to assume that the 2.0 g.p.a. could be fairly required of the 1995-96 graduating class. This would extend by only one year the original time frame as described in the December report. Reports tracking the District's progress in achieving the recommendations in the report and student progress in achieving a 2.0 will be supplied to the parties in the desegregation case and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with the view that what is learned in this process will be helpful both to educators and the community at large. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent March 28, 1991 10Little Rock School District December 12, 1991 D g a is Lu 3 DEC 1 3 1991 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Office of Desegregaiioii toantionng 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Bob
Attached are our responses to the questions posed in Ann Brown's letter to Dr. Steele on October 28. I believe you will find them to be essentially the same as our previous verbal responses. Please call if you have questions. Sincerely, Tony Wood Deputy Superintendent TW/ch 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361Wjt'V fe FROM: THROUGH
SUBJECT: Dec 17,91 KtCBBgS Little Rock School District * t- 5' December 13, Rnn Brown, Otfic r
28 No.002 P.Ol ot DeKAfircgaticu Monitor.i nf
James Jennings, Assoniate Superintendent Desegregation Moul tori ng and Community services Dr. Ruth Stw]e, Superintendent oi Scliool p Homework Hotline Log TEL : TO
B T Please find attached the homework hotline log for October . hope to have the log tor November to you before the end of of have the log for next week.TEL: Dec 17,91 11 26 No.001 P.O! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION 501 Sherman Little Rock, AR 72202 FAX (501) 324-2281 A TO .r7zcr->C' FROM <> SENDERS PHONE # 324-2271 SUBJECT Special Instructions Number of Paget (include corer p<u
t i Fax Pbone Number LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street DEC 1 0 by| TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock, Arkansas December 16, 1991 72201 Offica of Desegieg
icn f.'oniiorirg Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for 3 Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Jlecruitment in Incentive Schools I am providing my latest update on recruitment for the incentive schools. It should be noted, however, that most of the recruitment activities listed on the incentive school timelines (Re: or March. 02327-02333) are scheduled to begin in January, February, It would be counterproductive to implement all of these activities during the first quarter of school even if the recruitment timelines did not exist. recruitment is from January through April. The peak period for I will continue to keep you apprised of recruitment activities in the incentive schools by sending you a copy of my monthly updates on desegregation. Highlight Sheets The highlight sheets have been revised and reprinted. distributed as part of the KIDSFAIR activities. They will They were continue to be used on a routine basis as handouts or special mailouts. They are included in all packages sent to parents who request information about our schools. Incentive chool Video Our eight-week production schedule for completion of an incentive school video is on target. Video footage research is one-fourth complete and script development, tape logging, script writing and research is one-third complete. and assistance is being contributed by AP&L. Four days of editing facility completion date is still projected for January 10. Anticipated Incentive School Brochures Copy is due to the Communications Department from each incentive school January 10 for preparation of the individual school n "cards. These will be prepared to supplement the overall incentive program brochure on which final artwork is beingRecruitment page two completed presently. Each school will have the opportunity to offer its brochure with the overall brochure to provide the overview and specific information about incentive programs. At the end of the school term, an updated, expanded version of these individual materials can be produced that will further enhance the recruiting/awareness effort. Incentive school brochures will be distributed to target audiences including realtors, businesses, neighborhood areas, etc. KIDSFAIR Over 500 parents visited the Little Rock School District incentive schools booth during KIDSFAIR at Barton Colieseum, November 1-3, 1991. The'booth was attractively set up with information about incentive schools' offerings, and students' work was neatly displayed. The art teachers, media specialists and regular classroom teachers did an outstanding job in helping to plan and set up the booth. Flyers and bookmarks with the incentive school logo were given to prospective parents. Also displayed was a bicycle which had been donated for a prize, bicycle was awarded to one of the parents that registered. This The parent recruiters will put the names and addresses of the parents on a database, set up parent meetings, and provide appropriate follow-up as indicated on the parent sign-up forms. Neighborhood Blitz The Student Assignment Office is in the process of updating its database of private school students. This information will be used to send printed information to targeted neighborhoods. The speaker's bureaus in the incentive schools will also have access to mailing labels for targeted neighborhoods. In addition to the database for private school students, we will also use the names that were acquired at KIDSFAIR. Finally, we are in the process of attempting to purchase a pre-kindergarten database of white students in Pulaski County. Speaker's Bureau A speaker's bureau has been formed for each incentive school. A list of the members was sent to your office on an earlier date by Arma Hart. Inservice training for the speaker bureau members was The provided by Julie Wiedower and Dianne Woodruff (11/25/91). members will be available to assist with school tours, help arrange recruitment meetings, and be involved in meetings in targeted recruitment areas.Recruitment page three Special Media Coverage Special public service announcements will coincide with the announcement of pre-registration for the 1992-93 school year. The State Press, the radio stations in the black community, the Quapaw Chronicle, the Maumelle Monitor, and others will also be asked to publicize the incentive school program. These announcements will be a part of an ongoing media blitz. Telephone Hotline The District expects to have a hotline for incentive and interdistrict schools operative by the end of January. ' The hotline will have a recorded message about the special programs offered in these schools. Tours The parent recruiters will schedule ongoing parent tours in the incentive schools cc: Arma HartJ - It - SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON NOVEMBER 19, 1991 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS RECEIVED JAN 6 1992 TO: December 19, 1991 Board of Directors Office of Desegregation Monitoring Kt - 1 FROM: Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of School THROUGH: 2 Tony Wood, Deputy Superintendent K uny YiLUJU., oupex xuceHueiiu '^^im Ivey, Manager of Support Services SUBJECT: NEW PARTNERSHIP: Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet School and The Olive Garden Restaurant I recommend that the partnership between Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet School and The Olive Garden Restaurant be approved as follows: Booker T. Washington Math/Science Magnet and The Olive Garden Restuarant have united as Partners in Education for the 1991- 92 school year. The students at Washington Math/Science Magnet School will provide art displays for all the major holidays. They will also send homemade birthday cards to the employees of The Olive Garden. The Olive Garden will sponsor field trips to demonstrate to the students how pasta is made. They will also provide resource speakers for various subject areas and events. In addition, The Olive Garden will participate in the cafeteria behavior incentive program in cooperation with the LRSD Food Service Department and in accordance with federal. state. and District guidelines governing school lunch programs. The school has been very pleased with the positive improvements in students' behavior while in the cafeteria and the students are eager to demonstrate appropriate table manners and noise level because they are eager to receive the Olive Garden's incentives.TO: FROM: THROUGH: t i-ti I [CCCfBBBS Little Rock School District December 27, 1991 RECEIVED JAN I 5 1992 Office cf DesegrsgaBon bioruiuring Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation'^'^ Monitoring and Community Services Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of School SUBJECT: Update on Desegregation - December Please find enclosed a copy of my update on desegregation for December. cc: Chris Heller enc. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361Little Rock School District OcLober 2',, I'JQ'l AUMINI5THATIVt DIRECTIVE O3-O9AI) - Revised October, 1984 TO: E1 oiiiGutafy Principals FROM: r . Ruth S. Steele, Acting Associate Superintendent For Curriculum and Instruction SIJU^Etl: Preparation and Maintenance ol Permanent Record Cards The following |>rnceduies . h<i 11 be used in the preparation and .naintenance of Permanent Record (birds (PRC's) for students in the elementary schools (Primary, Intermediate, and/or K-6 level schools). A. GENERAL PREPARAIION 1. All infonnation entered by school personnel shall be typed or printed LEGIBLY IN BLACK INK. are eventually photocopied.) (This is necessary because records 2. Fill in all blanks on the two top lines anu the pupil's I.D. Number at the beginning of the third line, on both the front and back side of the card. Complete these lines a. Use only the LEGAL name of the student, placing the last name first and writing out the 'omplete middle name, if the student has a middle name. b. Record birthdate, birthplace (city and state), name of person verifying birth certificate (either principal, school secretary, school nurse or certified personnel) and the date on which verification was made, on the pupil data fonn. This infonnation is available c. Record the pupil's I.D. Number as it is recorded on the pupil data fonn. d. Check all information for accuracy and correct spelling. (See example below.) birih Cart. Brown Lisa (t1 I.,I Iw, Hr.I Hofold Neal Brovin Anne t Ic nliii. J - M- 77 lirth 6*t Ho, 6 0y city IIata raaantaj Mary r>r>nccs Brovin F a I Mr t Full r.pir. 1.0. o.oigg77 .1 i If rwt with both ^rntt :t '-ilimiAlY SCHOOl RECORD FMOTOCdAFM F w Vr I by HdffiS 1'1 l-lui .. 1 Md i II l.lMIdllCe III l'l'||lld(lllll. I(|'(I)
I tdlils ( t.DIi I ' <1. . 3. CoiiipleLe left side of llie cdrd as lolliws
a. School - Enter nniiie of school. b. School level: KiiH^rgarten - ho entry rei|u i red. I'rjmary - Enter-grade placement -1,2, or T WITHIN PARENTHESIS, enter grade level of assigned reading and math materials. The grade level for the reading book may be obtained by referring to the chart on page 4 of this directive. EXAMPLE: Primary 1 (Heading = 1-1, Math = 2) Intennediate - Enter grade placement -4,5, or 6 - 'and, WITHIN PARI NTIILS1S, enter grade level of assicpied reading and math materials The epade level for the reaifing book may be obtained by referring to t.lie chart on page 4 of tfiis directive. EXAMPLE: Intennediate 5 (Reading - 5, Math = 5) c. Residence - Give complete address of student. d. Teacher- Hr./Ms. (full n aine). e. Entered from - name of sctiool, if Little ick School District. - city and state, if outside Little Rock School District. f. Date - Record first day attended. g. Assigned to Phase - No entry required until the end of the (See Section C, P.4.) school year. 5CMO01 13wnca jQ PL, Tli!____ Aaadinj (n(rd kiAf Trnttfr tanjuAQ* A<&l9nd lo rh LpS Aruy-lf*
C.A- B. MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP DE PRC 1. After all identifying infonnation at the top of each side of the card has been completed and checked and after the left side of the current school year has been recorded, the card should be folded with the primary section to the inside, stapled tn Hie PRC. At no time should any documents be 2. PP''s musj. be kept on file in the school office at all timest They are not to be removed from the sctiool building and should be returned end ofeacl^^ y EHlLIij LL and,fl eprii uL Ion iind M,iiiilendin.i' nl I'riiihinenl Ki.'i.nrd Ldi tls ((.onl'd., J. J. UuriiKj the school year: a. When school pictures become available during the pupilirst year of school (Kindergarten or Grade 1 or upon first entry at another level) in the primary school, attach the picture r rubber cement ilesignati .1 PRC. Attach an updated picture in designated place on side two when student reaches in lies iijna l.i d place on IliC. tirade 4 or the Inlennediate Level. W 1 e.l / b. Special tests - Record the name and date onjy^ of all special tests that are administered. (Examples: "WISC-R, 1-4-83
Burks Behavior Scale, 12-8-82
Gray Oral Reading, 1-5-83
Audiological, 2-3-84.) The test scores and full reports are filed in the student's Due Process folder. c. Coiiunerit sectjon - Indicate special assignments (such as: Resource Rofxn Special Class, Reading Lab, Math Lab, or home teacher). d. When a student enters from another Little Rock school during the school year, dci nt start a new block but draw a line through the other school infonnation that is no longer applicable and record the now school information. (See example below.) liiL wilC-R nc ___t a ?<i_LxitKirY Aad1n^ Hndr I iTnj iX- lO-BM "I n I.. i d_r Jtf fI ------------------------- r jiorv___ A new block may be started if the student transfers more than two times during the year. e. When a student transfers 1rom one Little Rock school to another during the school year, the sending school shall record (IN BLACK INK) the name of the school to which the student is going and the date of transfer (top left side of PRC under ELEMENTARY SCHOOL RECORD section). Special note: Do not record interim progress or attendance data in pencil on the PRC, but be very, sure that it is forwarded (in pencil) to the next school on the office copy of the Progress Report Card and the student copy of the Progress Report Card. fonn should be inserted in the PRC. A copy of the District's Transfer f. When a student withdraws from the District during the school year, the sending school records (IN BLACK INK) the school and/or city to which the student is transferring and the date of withdrawal. The sending school also completes, in BLACK INK, the progress section of the PRC (for any student who has been in attendance for at least 15 school days. ) should ' '.ent for all students. Attendance dataPt'tjpdrd 1. Ion and Mdintendncc of Pcniidiietil Record Cdrds (Coiit'd.) 4. C. AT ENO OF SCHOOL YEAR 1. Dottom Left Une, "Assigned to Phase" a. Draw a line through "phase. tl and write in the word "grade." b. r Record the assigned grade i.iacement for the next school year (use Arabic numeral). c. WITHIN PARENTHESIS, enter the grade level of the recommended reading book and the grade level of tfie reconniended mathe- matics book. (Use "R" for reading and "H" for math.) flotation (code) for the grade level of the reading book may be obtained from the chart below. The reading level (n^o_t the math leyej^) should be the major consideration in determining the reconinended grade placement for the next / school year. EXAMPLE: Assigned to-Phafre- Grade 3 (R = 3-1, H = 3) 2. Progress Section a. Ye^r - Record school year (1904-85). b. Grade in Subject Areas - Record the final grade for the year on the appropriate subject area line. c. Record the Days Present and Times Tard '-, on the blank line and record those da> write in Days Absent Hwoot .Ir-ETei-iorT Fdlb-riQWt LL AXEerulu IML IX- Ui- AM wise -P. T.kU" Stiin Lag tun. JI- (MeV > 04 J__ - --------- An I to 3 f R* ^'1 x, H* 's. _____B_ ____n _____Lii. _______1_ Mr. -pifYS yiWlnin htl'M - 11 t'o* ** K 3. -Include 1n the folder the following: standardized achievement test scores, the Individual Skills Profile (ISP), and other appropriate test data (Arkansas Minimum Performance Test, etc.). HOUGHTON MIFFLIN READING PROGRAM GRADE LEVEL OF BOOKS GRADE R TITLE PP-1 PP-2 PP-3 1-1 1-2 2-1 2-2 Getting Ready to Read Bells Drums Trumpets Parades Carousels Adventures Discoveries GRADE 3-1 3-2 4 5 6 7 0 TITLE Caravans Joprneys Fl ights Explorations Celebrations Pageants Tri umphsI. II. 111. LITTLE POCK SCHOOl DISTRICT I PS (.01)1.
HOMI.I/OPK PPCOMMI.HOATlOd', Pm-pos_e riDcjlluL?! (General) (1) Each teacher i|ivin(| an as jonsJ IKI! - R where only classroo'm'\7('slexl. in a class P'Ovisiofts for hooks Lo he Laken home*' (?) Teachers will seen clearly and h, them. J liresenl. m iitieoqraph,.,| .1 ve ''''l|llc(.iotls ''''''i'lls that t a ft be (3) Homework <i s s i <iimien t >* .. 11 i l concepts Skin-/, In lo' used in complel ini) ('I) Homework Il-evioijsly iriiroflm ed. e, ,, , " con.,Hl,TP,, i . .......... '"'"-il'c ............ ,,.,,.k Stifdenis' Ufitlers Landi no are.is of we.iknf,' concepts anj/o,- Ifovifh' i 1 eachf.'r I'tfio i s i I. ioii of skills. (f>) The type of homework ass ii,n,neLs should he vari-d. ffj II r ( Spec i He) 0) The following ipiidelines shoul.l i r n ""o s..,........ ' Io (|iviti(| lioiiic. K iodertpirteii - TIroerally WHik (IS s t-odeiil.s Primary 1 - S f oilffi t s 1 qnitjeii (s may Im , <ioe rmt. (,iv,. p, nt the I. iiider(),irLeri level. Pfimary |i . fo PO miinjfes assitjiied hoiiii
work for 15 a fti((lit. -lodeiits may he Io .'ll) minute) assignefl hoiiieworl for
f) > oi'iht. Poimary 111 - SI odeiits (?) Homt.Work Ih',
,)',""''' 30 .'.'.'y .loofjer Ilian i qHHiffip, for |r,( oiOht.. (3) Homework with an average of m, for each of the ooi' hour. .eH'H>d,ale l.pvpl s Lodefl Ls '>ss ic,fiments f,,,- Pp Serondar work with huildinq assignments or soh.jec I. should itoL 7 I evftl shoo I,J |. pi ven (3'.')'minotes - Secondary prinrinal'' to help coordinate areas. requi red shall Poo.lef ts whif.h I'li'jhL coni 1 itt. long- Let-IllLITTLE nOCK SCHOOI DISTRICT TPS CODE: 1 KU IIOMLUORK The Little Rock School District ma iotii ins tli.it homov/oi k cao he ao important. activity to help students learn. Homework should hi.> inclinled as an integia part of the instructional program and a mcmns hy which students are provided extended time to master learnim) concepts and olijectives. Homework should be a positive experience and provide students the opportunity to: (1) reinforce skill development
(2) manage learning time away fr,om the school setting
(3) coniiiunicate to parrnts learning activities provided during the school day
and (4) involve other adults in helping them to learn. In the Little Rock School District, all homework assirjnments will be
. directly I'elated to tlic curriculum and the current learning object i ves
. explained thoroughly in terms of content, process,.and expectations
. reasonable and will not preclude pupils from assimiini) ottior homework and community responsibilities
. designed Io ent ouionje and soppoi t. efforts It) develop the skills to learn independently. I Adopted
TO
FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: 'CKCBBBS Little Rock School District March 1, 1990 Eugene Reville, Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Special Assignments for Children of Teachers 5- '5. av: The Little Rock School District abandoned the practice of giving school assignment preference to the children of teachers in 1987. Prior to 1987, teachers who lived outside of the attendance zone of their worksite could transfer their children to that particular school. It is my understanding that this practice was abandoned because of the adverse effect that it could have on desegregation requirements. The Pulaski County Special School District has allowed teachers to transfer their children for at least the last five years. According to Eddie Collins, PCSSD does not consider desegregation requirements in considering such transfers. A teacher in the Pulaski County Special School District can transfer hisAier child to any school in the district, including the teacher's worksite. Although the Little Rock School District has not given preference to a teacher's child since the 1986-87 school year, the district has attempted to grant such transfers in cases that would not adversely affect desegregation requirements. The purpose of this memo is to recommend procedures to allow the children of teachers to transfer to the parent's worksite. The procedures for special assignments are listed below for your review and approval. A. Teachers will be allowed to transfer their children if a seat is available and desegregation requirements can be maintained, transfers will only apply to the teacher's worksite. Such B. Attendance zone students will have priority over the children of teachers. C. The same requirements will apply to Act 624 transfers. However, Act 624 transfers will not take priority over special assignment transfers and/or attendance zone students. D. All special assignments for teachers will be processed and approved by the Student Assignment Office. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 ? C-Special Assignments page two E. Special assignment transfers will not apply to magnet schools. Please let me know if you have any questions. cc: Dr. Herb Cleek Estelle MatthisOFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: July 12, 1990 To: Mr. Bobby Lester, Superintendent Pulaski County Special School District Mr. James Smith, Superintendent North Little Rock School District From: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock Scjipol District Arma Hart, and Ann Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisors Subject: Preparation for Desegregation Monitoring In order that we may prepare to monitor the desegregation activities of the three school districts during the 1990-91 school year, we request the following information by Friday, July 27, 1990: A complete list of those programs, facilities, operations, which you intend to implement for the 1990-91 school year. or activities A complete list of any provision of the Tri-District Desegregation Plan which you do not intend to implement for the 1990-91 school year, and the specific reason why any provision will not be implemented. Thank you for your assistance. cc: Judge Susan Webber Wright(IF .. - s
4 Little Rock School District July 26, 1990 Mrs. Arma Hart and Mrs. Ann Brown Associate Metropolitan Supervisors 201 East Markham Street Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 SSS Dear Mrs. Hart and Mrs. Brown: In response to your memorandum of July 12, 1990, we are preparing to move ahead with implementing the Tri-District Plan in accordance with the July 2, 1990, order of the Eighth Circuit panel. Paragraph 1 of the Order states: "The Tri-District Plan provides for the use of presently operating school facilities in a manner different in some respects from the uses proposed by the parties under the settlement plans. To the extent of any such differences, the presently operating school facilities involved shall be used for the 1990-91 school year in accordance with the Tri-District Plan." In concurrence with this paragraph of the Order, the following schools will be opened in 1990-91. 1. 2. 3. 4. Dunbar International Studies Magnet School Washington Interdistrict Magnet School Central High School International Studies Program Incentive Schools: Rockefeller (with Early Childhood Magnet), Stephens, Garland, Rightsell, Mitchell, and Ish. In addition, building expansion projects for Woodruff, Western Hills, and Cloverdale will continue. We are also renovating space for housing the Safety and Security Office and have tentative plans for modification of the Incentive Schools. It Paragraph 2 of the Order addresses both facilities and programs, states, "New facilities required under the Tri-District Plan but not under the settlement plans shall not be constructed absent agreement of all parties. New programs required under the Tri-District Plan but not under the settlement plans may, if planning can be completed in time, be operated for the 1990-91 school year." In concurrence with Paragraph 2, facilities planning for the Aerospace Magnet, Business Communications Magnet, Downtown Early Childhood Center, MacArthur Park Magnet, and Science (Zoo) Magnet, while continuing. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361.A Mrs. Arma Hart and .Mrs. Ann Brov.n July 26, 1990 Page Two cannot be finalized until we receive final orders from the Eighth Circuit Court. With regard to programs, those initiated in 1989-90 and continuing in 1990-91 include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Before and after school care in incentive schools Early Childhood Education (Garland, Franklin, Badgett, Ish, Stephens, Rockefeller, Washington) Staff development (Director and Trainers) Homework centers in incentive schools. HIPPY Library media program (REACH) Multicultural curriculum enhancement and staff development materials (art, English, foreign language, mathematics, reading, science, special education) Program for Accelerated Learning (reading and mathematics) Summer school tuition program Expanded plant services assistance (construction managers, custodial assistance, additional craftsmen) Expanded special education services (including Learning Center) Development of multicultural curriculum guides Minority teacher recruitment program Parent involvement (expansion of VIPS services) Secondary alternative school program Parkview Science programs Additional programs to be implemented in 1990-91 include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. n. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Academic progress incentive grants for area schools Human relations training for all employees Expanded communications and public relations programs Safety and Security Office Curriculum audit Expansion of the Student Assignment Office/Recruitment Program Two-run transportation system Incentive School program Extracurricular activities program Area school improvements (collaboration with area schools committee) Positive student discipline (including hearing officer) Badgett aviation theme (planning only) Senior high alternative school program Precollege testing Junior high restructuring McClellan Community School program Expanded elementary counseling/social work program Implementation of multicultural curriculum (grades 7-12) Planning for the implementation of programs and services in special education, gifted and talented education, and parent involvement as described in the addenda to the Tri-District Plan will also continue.Mrs. Arma Hart and Mrs. Ann Brown July 26, 1990 Page Three Cooperative planning as directed in Paragraph 3 of the Order will continue in the area of public relations, staff development, teacher recruitment, alternative schools, multicultural education, methods for reducing academic disparity, and parent/community involvement. In addition, we wish to state strongly our commitment to the implementation of the attendance zone plan as described in the Tri-District Plan. Students are and will be assigned according to procedures of the Plan. Please let us know if you desire additional infonnation. Sincerely J I llkCf C I J ) GSolz A
Aw Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/pkk cc: Dr. Herb Cleek Mr. James Jennings Mrs. Estelle Katthis Mr. Chip JonesLittle Rock School District August 3, 1990 Mrs. Arma Hart and Mrs. Ann Brown Associate Metropolitan Supervisors 201 East Markham Street, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Hart and Mrs. Brown: It is my understanding that you would like for us to provide additional information to that contained in our letter to you of July 27, 1990. It would be helpful if you would describe in writing the additional information you need since we provided everything you asked for in your first request. We are, I might remind you, less than a month from the opening date of school and tim.e is a precious commodity right now. I am sure both of you recall the intense level of activity needed to have a smooth school opening and get everything off to a positive start, especially in light of the many new programs we will be implementing as a result of the Tri-District Plan, all of which were listed in our July 27 letter. When James Jennings returns from school after August 9, he will be happy to work with you and our parents in addressing the concerns you have as we wait for the final ruling from the Eighth Circuit Court. Sincerely, Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/pkk 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 8, 1990 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Steele: Thank you for your letter of August 3, 1990, requesting a written request from this office regarding information that I described to you over the phone July 31, 1990. As I stated at that time, the information provided by the district was helpful and very much appreciated. I am more than happy to comply with your request for information in writing and will continue to work in a spirit of cooperation with the Little Rock School District. I am most cognizant of planning activities and events that occur prior to the opening of school
therefore, what was requested was not in addition to information identified in the Tri-district plan. What I discussed with you, however, was primarily related to format, i.e., listing the programs, etc., under the appropriate headings according to the plan and making some items clearer by succinctly denoting the degree of implementation, i.e.. Junior High Restructuring. Please let me know if further information is needed
and I will be happy to talk with Mr. Jennings, who has been most helpful in the past. Sincerely Arma Hart Associate Metropolitan Supervisor AJH/parQp - 0 Little Rock School District October 12, 1990 TO: All Budget Managers FROM: Brady Gadberry, Labor Relations Specialist f/'' THROUGH: '1 Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Drug Free Schools and Campuses Enclosed are copies of the LRSD policy and regulations covering drug free schools and campuses. Federal law mandates that each employee must be provided the policy and made aware of the possible conse- quences of failure to comply. The law also requires that each employee sign a statement acknowledging receipt of the policy. Please distribute the policy and acknowledgment form to each employee in your building or unit. each employee. Collect the signed acknowledgment from possible inspection. You should keep the signed forms on file available for 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 1^TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District October 24, 1990 Donna Creer, Executive Director, Magnet Review Committee Bobby Acklin, Assistant Superintendent for Student Affairs, NLRSD Billy Bowles, Administrator for Research, Planning, and Quality Assurance, PCSSD Mable Bynum, Assistant Superintendent, Desegregation, NLRSD Eddie Collins, Assistant Superintendent, Pupil Personnel, PCSSD Office of Metropolitan Supervisor James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation '3'^ Monitoring and Program Development New Location of Student Assignment Office The LRSD Student Assignment Office is now located on the southeast corner of Capitol (5th) and Sherman Streets. 324-2272. Our new office telephone number is Mailing Address: LRSD Student Assignment Office 501 Sherman Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 1 I cr.' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS January 24, 1991 TO: Board of Directors FROM: 6$^ Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: SALARY RECOMMENDATIONS I recommend your approval of the following salaries for the 1990-91 school year for the senior administrators listed below: 1989-90 Salary 1990-91 Salary Difference % Amount Associate Superintendent $56,500 Estelle Matthis $59,890 +6% $3,390 Associate Superintendent James Jennings 58,500 59,890 +2.4% 1,390 Manager, Support Services Chip Jones 49,600 52,576 +6% 2,976 Asst. Superintendent Margaret Gremillion 50,000 53,000 +6% 3,000 Controller Mark Milhollen 50,539 53,000 +4.9% 2,461 Total $13,217J'm- - Little Rock School District February 1, 1991 Vi^ TO: Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring Arma Hart, Office of Desegregation Monitoring FROM: THROUGH: gii James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools ^Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT: Semi-annual Monitoring Report According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District was required to provide a written monitoring report to the court on a semi-annual schedule (February 1, or the nearest work day, and July 15, or the nearest work day). Although the Tri-District Desegregation Plan is no longer in effect, the Little Rock School District is still in the process of preparing a semi-annual monitoring report. This report should be completed for submission on or before February 28, 1991. cc: Chris Heller Sterling Ingram 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361TO
FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 November 6, 1990 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District oily Ramer, Administrative Assistant .rma Hart, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor 1990-91 Interim Budget With Judge Wright's Order of October 30th approving our 1990-91 interim budget, I am in the process of determining each district's contribution for that budget and bringing my books up-to-date, need to be followed to complete this process: The following steps 1. LRSD send to this office a print-out determining the exact amount due LRSD for the 1989-90 retroactive pay for Ann Brown, Arma Hart, and Polly Ramer. 2 . LRSD send to this office a print-out determining the exact amount due LRSD for the 1990-91 retroactive pay for Ann Brown, Arma Hart, and Polly Ramer. 3. Using the above information, OMS pro-rate and credit the remaining 1989-90 budget against the districts 1990-91 budget contributions. 4. The three school districts cut checks for the amount due OMS for the 1990-91 budget. 5. OMS cut a check for the to-date reimbursement due LRSD for salary, travel allowance, and benefits for Ann Brown, Arma Hart, and Polly Ramer for 1990-91. 6. Monthly the OMS cut checks for reimbursement of salary, travel allowance, and benefit payments for Ann Brown, Arma Hart, and Polly Ramer. As you see by the above steps, the completion of the 1990-91 budget process cannot begin until this office receives the print-out of the retroactive pay. greatly appreciated. Whatever may be done to expedite this process will be with you or Mark Milhollen, if you so desire. If any questions arise, I will be glad to meet Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.OFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 November 2, 1990 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District Markham at Izard Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ruth: This is to confirm our meeting next Tuesday morning, November 6, 1990, at 8:00 A.M. at the Apple Blossom restaurant in the Excelsior Hotel. Since my colleague, Ann Brown, and I work closely together. believe it is directly with you. very important that both she and I communicate After our meeting next Tuesday, I expect that both Ann and I will meet together with you in the future. I I look forward to seeing you on November 6. Sincerely, Arma J. Hart Associate Metropolitan SupervisorOFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM. SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 August 24, 1990 To
Bobby Lester, Superintendent, PCSSD James Smith, Superintendent, NLRSD Ruth Steele, Superintendent, LRSD From
^^Ann Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Arma Hart, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Subject: 1990-91 Budget: Salary Adjustments On July 30, 1990, a letter was sent from this office to the financial directors of each school district regarding the 1990-91 budget for the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. As stated in that correspondence, we will continue to operate on the same budget total that was approved by Judge Henry Woods for the 1989-90 fiscal year. In accordance with an agreement with the late Eugene Reville, employees of the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor are to suffer no financial loss as a result of their temporary employment move from a school district to this office. Anytime there is a salary increase for employees in one of the school districts which has previously been the "home" district of a Metropolitan employee, that staff member is to automatically receive the same salary increases as employees in the home district. Our agreement with Mr. Reville also specified that salary adjustments would be made after negotiations between the districts and the unions are completed. According to news reports, the Pulaski County districts have reached salary agreements with their employees. At this time, compensation at the rate commensurate with the salary increase settlement reached in the Pulaski County Special School District has been made to the former Associate Metropolitan Supervisor whose home district has been the PCSSD. However, compensation commensurate with both the retroactive and current salary increase settlements reached in the Little Rock School District has not been received by the three employees (both current Associate Metropolitan Supervisors Administrative Assistant) whose home district is the LRSD. and our You will note from the attached copy of our July 30 memo that the budget will accommodate such salary increases for the Metropolitan staff without any additional cost to the districts. Since Judge Woods' order of July 6, 1990, clearly bars retaliation against any member of the Metropolitan Supervisor's staff, we believe that the failure to receive the adjustment in salary is inadvertent. correcting this oversight will be appreciated. Your immediate attention to Thank you.* . OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 August 8, 1990 Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Steele: Thank you for your letter of August 3, 1990, requesting a written request from this office regarding infoarmation that I described to you over the phone July 31, 1990. As I stated at that time, the information provided by the district was helpful and very much appreciated. I am more than happy to comply with your request for information in writing and will continue to work in a spirit of cooperation with the Little Rock School District. I am most cognizant of planning activities and events that occur prior to the opening of school
therefore, what was requested was not in addition to information identified in the Tri-district plan. What I discussed with you, however, was primarily related to format, i.e., listing the programs, etc., under the appropriate was etc. --------, f eui..., ujiuer cne appropriate headings according to the plan and making some items clearer by succinctly denoting the degree of implementation, i.e.. Junior High Restructuring. Please let me know if further information is needed
and I will be happy to talk with Mr. Jennings, who has been most helpful in the past. Sincerely, Airma Hart Associate Metropolitan Supervisor AJH/parLittle Rock School District V,' August 3, 1990 Mrs. Arma Hart and Mrs. Ann Brov/n Associate Metropolitan Supervisors 201 East Miarkham Street, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mrs. Hart and Mrs. Brown: It is my understanding that you would like for us to provide additional information to that contained in our letter to you of July 27, 1990. It would be helpful if you would describe in writing the additional information you need since we provided everything you asked for in your first request. We are, I might remind you, less than a month from the opening date of school and tim.e is a precious commodity right now. I am sure both of you recall the intense level of activity needed to have a smooth school opening and get everything off to a positive start, especially in light of the many new programs we will be implem.enting as a result of the Tri-District Plan, all of which were listed in our July 27 letter. When James Jennings returns from school after August 9, he will be happy to work with you and our parents in addressing the concerns you have as we wait for the final ruling from the Eighth Circuit Court. Sincerely, Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/pkk 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361TO: FROM: RE: DATE: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District Arma Hart, Associate Director Board Agendas and Slip Sheets January 28, 1991 The staff of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring is requesting copies of all slip sheets that accompany board agendas. Slip sheets that are not prepared at the time the board agendas are sent may be sent the day following the board meeting or given to representatives from our office that are in attendance at the board meeting. Obtaining board agendas without the slip sheets does not provide adequate information. Your assistance in this matter will be appreciated.(if: 1 Little Rock School District r's.'' February 6, 1991 I*' ^2 1 Ms. Ann Brown Ms. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Monitoring of Desegregation Plan in LRSD Dear Ann and Arma: Now that we are certain there will be no further appeals of the Court of Appeals December 12, 1990 order, I believe we should establish, to the extent possible, a systematic approach to compiling and sharing the information necessary for you to monitor the implementation of the approved desegregation plan. Two of the most important functions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring are to gather the information necessary to determine whether the desegregation plan is being properly implemented and to establish a means by which implementation problems can be quickly resolved. We want to provide necessary information to you in a timely manner and to act quickly to resolve implementation problems. We believe there are two ways we can help you get the information you need to effectively monitor desegregation implementation in the District. First, once you have determined what information you will need on a regular basis (monthly, quarterly, annually), we will establish a system to provide you that information on the dates requested. Second, we will designate one person at LRSD who has sufficient authority to provide any information requested by your office to serve as the person responsible for insuring that you get a prompt response to any ad hoc information request. We believe it will be helpful to both LRSD and ODM if we could establish a calendar of information which will be necessary on a regular basis and designate a person who is responsible to insure that all other information requests receive a prompt response from LRSD. We understand that regular reports and ad hoc information requests will not provide you with all of the information you need for effective monitoring and that there is no substitute for visiting the schools and talking with teachers, parents, and students. We will assist you in whatever way O 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000Ms. Ann Brown and Ms. Arma Hart February 6, 1991 Page Two we can or in whatever way you would find helpful to facilitate this aspect of your work. We are committed to the successful implementation of our desegregation plan and will work quickly to resolve any problems which are brought to our attention. I urge you to make us aware immediately of problems you find concerning the implementation or operation of our desegregation plan. We want to be able to respond quickly and effectively in resolving whatever problems exist and to work cooperatively with you in addressing them. You may already have some ideas about how we can work cooperatively to insure that our desegregation plan is successful. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss any of the proposals set out in this letter or any other steps we can take to insure that our efforts are successful. Sincerely, A. Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/pkk O 02 08-91 ' 12
fl5 B'S 111 374 7609 001 ?n b L R School Dlst t Little Rock School District February 6, 1.991 .. : f Ms. Ann Srown . 1 . Ms.- Arma Bart. ' Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 51-0 201East Markham Street Little Rock. AR 72201.
Re: J 3 Monitoring of Des.egregation Plan in LRSD Dear Ann and Arma: Now that we are certain there will be^no further appeals of the Court _ of Appeals December. 12, 1990..order,-! belieye we should establishj ' - to the'extent possible, a systematic approach to compiling and sharing... the information necessary for you to-irionitor the implementation.of the approved desegregation plan. Two of the-most important functions of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring-are to gather the information -'necessary to determine whether the desegregation plan is being properly implemented and to establish a means by which implementation problems-- . can be quickly resolved. We want to -provide neces.sary information to-- you in a timely .mannerand'to'act quickly to resolve impTemehtation problems. .. . - . We believe there are two ways we can help you get the information you-- .- need to effectively mon-itor desegregation-implementation in- the District. . First, once you have determined what-information you wil.l need on a regular basis (monthly, quarterly,' annually)-, we will-establish a system, to provide you that information-on- the dates requested. Second, we will - designate one person at LRSD who has'sufficient authority to provide any ' information requested by your-office to.serve as the person responsibTe -for insuring that you g'et-a'prompt response to 'any ad hoc information request. We beTieve.it will be helpful to-both LRSD and ODM if we could establ.ish a calendar-of information which will be. necessary on a regular - basis and designate a-person who is responsible to insure that all other information requests receive, a-prompt response froiir LRSD........- We-understand that regular reports and ad hoc information requests-will not provide you with all of the information you need for effective morritoring and that there is no substitute for visiting the-schools and talking .with teachers, parents, and students. We will assist you in whatever way FAX ANSMI, TTAL SlO V FAXx T R A N S M L T T >5 TP: DEPT:/ FR0M
g CO
MEMO NO. OF PAGES 12g- PHONE
PosMfbfanc lax transniina: meniQ 7571 1)324-2000 FAXfc f'z/- o EBSaW 1 02 06 91 12:06 501 374 7609 L R School DIst @002 f Ms. Ann Brown and Ms. Arma Hart February 6, 1991 Page Two we can or in whatever way you would find helpful to facilitate ti aspect of your work. We are committed to the successful implementation of our desejr-.c=tion plan and.will work quickly to resolve any problems which are bt to our attention. I urge you to make us aware immediately of nt\. ,ems you find concerning the implementation or operation of our desegregation plan. We want to be able to.respond quickly and effectively in resolving whatever problems exist and to work cooperatively with ycu in addressing them. I You may already have some Ideas about how ive can work cooperatively to insure that our desegregation plan is successful. We iirould be'happy to meet with you to discuss any of the proposals set out in this letter or any other steps we can take to insure that our efforts are successful. 3 Sincerely, Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/pkk February 15, 1991 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Dr. Ruth S. Steele Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ruth: Thank you for your letter of February 6. reaffirmation of We certainly have no doubt that your completely genuine. commitment to the success of the desegregation plan i s The conversion of the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor into the Office of Desegregation Monitoring has led us into a transitional period when we recognize that there are questions about how the office will operate. This is also an interim time as well, for the new director of ODM, when appointed, will have a major role in defining the specific functioning of this office and in shaping its relationship with the districts. During this interim period, while we are considering the approach we'll use in monitoring desegregation compliance, our deliberation di stricts priority need to meet the Court's March 30, i s affected by the 1991, deadline: identifying the "appropriate fit" between the Settlement and Tri-Di strict Plans within one unifying document. While this time-consuming task is underway, and until a director of this office is appointed, we do not intend to impose any major new monitoring requirements upon the school districts. Previous court orders already require the districts to submit quarterly reports on desegregation programs and activities. School and district biracial commi ttees are al so involved in school-by-school moni tori ng activities. Furthermore, district administrators present monthly reports on desegregation to the Board of Education that, when shared, help keep us abreast of progress. Although the quarterly reports, observations of biracial committees, and status summaries to the Board are valuable, we don't expect that they will ultimately provide an adequate picture of desegregation in the schools
however, we expect them to suffice for the time being. If the search for a monitoring director should prove to take longer than we presently expect, or if other circumstances should necessitate changes, we will modify our interim requirements for regular reports accordingly. In the meanwhile, we expect quarterly reports to be filed on time, the findings of the biracial committees to be submitted immediately after each review cycle, and the monthly reports to the Board to be forwarded as a matter of routine. Of course, we will also continue to ask for any ad hoc information needed in order to deal with specific questions or issues which may arise.February 15, 1991 Page Two Additionally, since the Circuit Court has directed that the use of desegregation funds is to be carefully monitored, we will be looking closely at how the districts are spending desegregation monies and how they are financially assuring that programs and activities are consistent with court orders. We'n notify you of specific information requirements within the next few days as we begin reviewing the districts' budgets and spending. We were pleased to read in your letter that you remain committed to providing information in a timely manner and that you expect quick action in resolving implementation problems. We recognize your prerogative to define an internal management process by which you choose to move information. Your idea of a data coordi nator may prove expeditious within your organizational framework, particularly for compiling regular reports and gathering complex or lengthy data. We would be pleased to work with a coordinator or overseer should you designate such a position in your district. However, it is inappropriate and unreasonable for us to expect to be limited to a specific person or process through which we access information from any school district. During the recent January 25, 1991, hearing. Judge Wright specifically addressed the need for ODM to be able to rely on the districts for speedy and accurate information. A highly formalized or structured routing system through one individual may actually hinder the "quick response" Judge Wright has called for, especially when it comes to routine, day-to-day facts. Therefore, we hope we can count on all levels of district staff being responsive to our inquiries, within a reasonable time frame, whether the requests are oral or written. It's difficult to be patient with delays resulting from personnel who counter our verbal requests with a mandate to "put it in writing." When employees are unable to comply with a request for whatever reason, surely they can take responsibility for redirecting inquires they aren't personally able to handle. Also, "I don't know, but I'll find out" is an acceptable answer to a question when it describes the truth
we won't be offended by such a response. A tremendous amount of important work lies ahead for all of us and many critical decisions are still to be made. We want to work with you in a spirit of mutual cooperation and responsiveness to meet the challenges and solve the problems we'll inevitably encounter. We will do our best to make our expectations clear and reasonable and urge you to contact us whenever you have suggestions, questions, or just want to talk things over. We're confident that, together, we can all success in providing the best of educational look forward to much growth and service to our community. Very truly yours. Ann S. Brown Associate Director Arma''J. Hart Associate Director bio Little Rock School District 810 VJest Markham Street TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock, Arkansas March 1, 1391 72201 Ann Brown and Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Monitoring Reports Please find enclosed the following information: A. Educational Equity Monitoring First Quarter Report - Incentive Schools B. First Educational Equity Monitoring Report - Semi-Annual Summary Report By copy of this memo. reports to the court and the parties. I am asking Chris Heller to submit these cc: Chris Heller 9)^ 0^ Little Rock School District 810 V/est Markham Street TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: Little Rock, Arkansas March 1, 1991 72201 Ann Brown and Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent Monitoring Reports Please find enclosed the following information: A. Educational Equity Monitoring First Quarter Report - Incentive Schools B. First Educational Equity Monitoring Report - Semi-Annual Summary Report By copy of this memo. reports to the court and the parties. I am asking Chris Heller to submit these cc: Chris Heller TO: FROM: OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK James Jennings Hart ARKANSAS 72201 I RE: Desegregation Monitoring Report on Incentive Schools DATE: March 27, 1991 Thank you for the monitoring information on Incentive Schools. Areas that you did not address were: 1. 2. The scholarship program for incentive schools (p. 32) Field trips (local and national) for incentive schools (p. 42, 66, 73) 3. Foreign Language Programs and science lab
at each school 4. Number and percentage of parent involvement in various activities in Incentive Schools (p. 103-104), e.g.: 5. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) training workshops to develop parenting skills, etc., two way system of communication between the home and the school, parent volunteers and PTA participation, inservice to help parents assist students at home, and training sessions to help parents ideas in decision making. assume active Statistical data to support the number and percentage of white parents who were recruited during the 1990-91 school year and the recruitment and marketing program presently in effect. These are only a few of the areas that I'm sure you agree should be carefully implemented and monitored since they are vital to the success of the program. Also, your assistance in providing information on the programs presently being implemented during the regular day and during the extended day program in each school would be helpful to this office at this time. any changes will be approval. I am cognizant that ubmitted in your final Court submission for I appreciate your assistance.QF! 1 u OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 TO: James Jennings FROM: Hart RE: Desegregation Monitoring Report on Incentive Schools DATE: March 27, 1991 Thank you for the monitoring information on Incentive Schools. Areas that you did not address were: 1. The scholarship program for incentive schools (p. 32) 2. Field trips (local and national) for incentive schools (p. 42, 66, 73) 3. Foreign Language Programs and science labs at each school 4. Number and percentage of parent involvement in various activities in Incentive Schools (p. 103-104), e.g.: (a) (fa) (c) (d) training workshops to develop parenting skills, etc., two way system of communication between the home and the school, parent volunteers and PTA participation, inservice to help parents assist students at home, and (e) training sessions to help parents ideas in decision making. assume active 5. Statistical data to support the number and percentage of white parents who were recruited during the 1990-91 school year and the recruitment and marketing program presently in effect. These are only a few of the areas that I'm sure you agree should be carefully implemented and monitored since they are vital to the success of the program. Also, your assistance in providing information on the programs presently being implemented during the regular day and during the extended day program in each school would be helpful to this office at this time. _ __ __________ ____ any changes will be submitted in your final Court submission for I am coanizant that approval. I appreciate your assistance.IL SLIP SHEET FOR REGULAR BOARD MEETING ON 3/28/91 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 March 28, 1991 TO
LRSD Board of Directors FROM
James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH
Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools |4c Dr. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent SUBJECT
Update on Desegregation Early Childhood Education According to the settlement plan, all incentive schools will have a four-year-old program. Plans are underway to add a four-year-old class at Mitchell and Rightsell. These construction projects were approved by the court on March 21, 1991. Incentive Schools The Biracial Advisory Committee recently completed another monitoring visit to the incentive schools. All principals will be asked to respond to concerns identified in the monitoring reports. The next monitoring visit will occur after the administration of the MAT-6 test. The Semi-Annual Monitoring Report was submitted to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on March 1, 1991. New Interdistrict Schools The administration is continuing to work on long-range plans for two new schools in the 1-630 Corridor. Three of the sites referred to in the February update on desegregation seem to have the greatest potential for accommodating our needs. Philander Smith College has expressed an interest in developing a model teacher education training program and would like to develop a partnership with the District. Presently, we have proposed two possibilities for locating a school on the Philander Smith campus, and
he President of Philander seems to prefer a two-story building located between 12th and 13th treats on the west side of the campus (Chester Street). The District is considering the idea of placing intermediate students (grades 4-6) at the Philander Smith site, if approved, and placing pre-kindergarten through 3rd grade at the old West Side site (14th and Marshall Streets). The placement of the younger students at the old West Side site will enhance the/ , Update on Desegregation page two proposed partnership between the District and the Arkansas Children's Hospital. program will serve both sites. Philander's teacher education training All of these ideas e still under exploration by the administration and the respective parties. The administration is also exploring the possibility of building a new school at the current site of Stephens School. The current Stephens site is adequate to support a school for approximately 656 K-6 students and 40 four-year-old students for a total of 696 students. The next few weeks will he used to develop final proposals for the new interdistrict schools. Plan Modifications Proposals for plan modifications will be shared with all of the parties. According to the December 12 order from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, 11 it may be necessary, in order to make a smooth transition, for the details of the settlement plans to be adjusted to produce an appropriate fit between their future application and existing circumstances, parties should be able to agree as to whether any such The adjustments are necessary, and, if so, what they should be. ti A considerable amount of work has been devoted to this effort. Each change, whether an addition or deletion, is highlighted for easy identification. Also, each edit page (page with changes highlighted) is accompanied by a clean copy that incorporates all of the changes, near future to review all changes. The parties will meet in the Recruitment The parent recruiters are currently involved in conducting building tours for prospective four-year-old parents. Tentative plans have been developed to conduct recruitment activities in the office complexes throughout the 1-630 Corridor. These activities will focus on recruitment to Woodruff School, the Incentive Schools, and other schools that are difficult to desegregate. The District will proceed with the development and completion of a marketing plan for the incentive schools. Recruitment plans will be shared with the respective building principals immediately after spring break.Update on Desegregation page three Romine Interdistrict School According to the settlement plan, Romine is to be converted into an Interdistrict School. Its student population will be composed of those students from the Romine attendance zones and white students recruited from PCSSD, particularly the western sector. White students returning to LRSD will also be recruited to Romine. PCSSD shall engage in early, rigorous and sustained recruitment of white PCSSD students to assist in the desegregation of Romine Elementary School. Romine shall have an early childhood education program. A survey has been developed to send to LRSD parents in the Romine area and PCSSD parents in the Baker School area. The Pulaski County Special School District Office of Desegregation has approved the survey. determine a specialty theme for Romine. The purpose of the survey is to The survey will be sent home by the students at both schools after spring breadc. Student Assignments Final assignment letters will be mailed to all parents on April 8 . This includes kindergarten and new students who pre- registered by March 8. Desegregation transfer applications for secondary schools will be accepted during the period of April 8-19. Summer Learning Program The Summer Learning Program provides remediation in the areas of reading and math for secondary students participating in the Summer Youth Employment Training Program. The Summer Learning Program is sponsored by the City of Little Rock's Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Program. Students who need remediation attend school for half of a day and work half of a day. Planning is underway to begin this program shortly after the end of school. The Offices of Desegregation and Planning, Research and Evaluation have held several meetings with the JTPA Office to prepare for implementation. The administration is in the process of selecting a school site for the program. The program will last for six weeks.CLP OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 April 3, 1991 James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Jennings: Thank you for the March 28, 1991, Update on Desegregation. There are, however, a few questions and/or concerns that I have listed, along with some additional information needed: Early Childhood Education Specify the date the four-year-old classes will be in place at Mitchell and Rightsell and the plans to recruit and notify parents of these programs. Incentive Schools The Biracial Advisory Committee reports findings at each incentive school and the principals are asked by the administration to respond in writing to those findings that need corrective action. Keep the ODM informed of the actual dates the corrections were made by each incentive school and/or the plan of action regarding the problems cited in the monitoring report. It is not enough to report deficiencies unless there is deliberate and specific followup. New Interdistrict Schools It is gratifying to know that the president of Philander Smith College has expressed an interest in developing a model teacher education training program and would like to develop a partnership with the district. Has there been any written agreement that outlines a plan in which the district will have property at 12th and 13th streets to build a two-story school? Without such an agreement in place, will the district proceed in the next few weeks to develop final proposals for the interdistrict schools Philander (grades 4-6) and West Side (14th and Marshall)? at will these students primarily come from within LRSD? plans to close Ish or any other district school? projected enrollment and timeline for completion? Where ' Are there What is theLittle Rock School District March 28, 1991 O'V'ce Ms. Ann Brown and Ms. Arma Hart Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, RR 72201 Dear Ann and Arma: I have enclosed for your review a report which I am presenting to the Board on Thursday, March earlier recommendation regarding the The report grew out ' ! implementation of a of an 2.0 grade point average as a requirement for graduation, Since the recommendation was tabled, I have continued to think about how we can best improve student learning so that the achievement of 2.0 is the norm rather than the exception. I believe a the approach contained in District blueprint for this report will provide the Board and improving our school system and consequently enhancing learning for students. I invite your comments and suggestions. Cordially, V ' A* 28 . a 0^ ^00'^'"'^ Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools Pk 810 West Markham Street Little RocR, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 NO MORE EXCUSES: A PLAN TO INCREASE LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS IN THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The purpose of this report is twofold: first, to identify and discuss problems and issues which the Little Rock School District must address if we are to substantially improve the level of learning in our schools
and second, to outline a plan to empower all our students to be successful learners. BACKGROUND What students are learning in our schools is the most important issue School Board members, administrators, and teachers must consider as decisions are made about education in our community. The elimination of academic achievement disparities between black and white students, the enrollment in upper level courses, appropriate remediation for the students who are not learning, the use of school libraries, homework assignments, minimum grade point requirements for graduation, the number and quality of reading assignments, multi-cultural education, "tracking," higher order thinking skills, and many other issues are all related to this central question: How can we get students to learn what we think they should know and how can we be sure they are learning as much and as well as they can? Last fall the administration was asked to consider a proposal to require a 2.0 grade point average as a requirement for graduation and to submit a report to the School Board for its consideration by December. The administration submitted its report December 3 and recommended that the 2.0 requirement be phased in starting with certain minimum requirements for the 1991-92 school year and implemented fully by 1994-95. The recommendation was presented to the Board at the December meeting and tabled for further consideration at a later meeting. In January, 1991, the Little Rock School District received the Curriculum Audit conducted in September 1990 by a team of administrators and professors from the National Academy of School Executives. This audit was authorized by the Board when it adopted the budget in August 1990. The audit found that the District's curriculum is disjointed, uncoordinated, and inappropriately sequenced. It found that district-wide curriculum objectives do not exist, grading practices are inconsistent, promotion criteria are unclear, assessment is not related to the curriculum, and curriculum guides lack internal consistency. District is performing In short, even though the Little Rock School II reasonably well" according to the Curriculum Audit, much work needs to be done to improve curriculum design, content, delivery, sequence, and assessment of student learning.Following the December Board meeting, three public hearings were held to give District patrons an opportunity to express their views regarding the proposed 2.0 requirement. were evident during these hearings. Two opinions The first was that people were generally in favor of the schools setting higher learning expectations for students. The second opinion was that schools are responsible for seeing to it that students receive every possible opportunity to develop their intellectual abilities to the fullest extent and that this responsibility is not being met in all cases. Concern was also expressed for the student with identified learning deficits who might not ever be able to achieve the requirement of a 2.0 g.p.a. Since the public hearings, a survey was sent to teachers and principals requesting their opinions concerning the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. The results showed support for the 2.0 but most thought it should be phased in. The District's Biracial Advisory Committee took the position that the effectiveness of the current remedial and compensatory programs should be assessed before the Board decides to implement the 2.0 g.p.a. requirement. PROBLEMS AND ISSUES The problem of low student achievement in the Little Rock School District is not unique in our community. In a report ent it1ed Accelerating Academic Achievement
A Summary of Findings from 20 Years of NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress, September 1990] the following points are made: 1. "Most of the data in this report show that our present education performance is low and not improving. II 2 . "Research shows that student academic performance is likely to be greater when pupils work hard, when parents are actively involved in their children's education, and when teachers and school administrators incorporate research tested improvements in the classroom. Yet, this report ....shows that these things are not typically happening. II 3. "Time devoted to some subject areas is limited... II 4. "Homework is often minimal or non-existent." 25. "Most classroom work is dominated by passive learning activities that feature teacher and textbook-presented information despite research findings indicating that these techniques are not the most effective. II 6. "Although parents are our children's first and most effective teachers, large proportions of students are not reading outside of school, are spending excessive hours watching television, and are spending little time on homework." 7 . "Students can read at a surface level, getting the gist of material, but they do not read analytically or perform well on challenging reading assignments." 8. "Small proportions of students write well enough to accomplish the purposes of different writing tasks
most do not communicate effectively." 9. "Students' grasp of the four basic arithmetic operations and beginning problem solving is far from universal in elementary and junior high school... II 10. "Only small proportions of students appear to develop specialized knowledge needed to address science-based problems and the pattern of falling behind begins in elementary school." 11. "Students are familiar with events that have shaped American history, but they do not appear to understand the significance and connection of these events." 12. "In recent assessments, more students appear to be gaining basic skills, yet fewer are demonstrating a grasp of higher-level application of these skills. II 13. "Despite progress in narrowing the gaps, differences in performance between white students and their minority counterparts the 14. remain unacceptably large. II "Large proportions of students....are not enrolled in challenging mathematics and science coursework. II 315. "Across the last 20 years, little seems to have changed in the way students are taught. Despite much research suggesting better alternatives, classrooms still appear to be dominated by textbooks, teacher lectures, and short answer activity sheets." Other findings from the NAEP report are also highly disturbing: 31 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 read five or fewer pages per day from all textbooks in both homework and school. 52 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 said they never or rarely borrow books from the school or public library. 97 percent of the 4th graders reported that they completed workbooks or skill sheet assignments on what they read
only 45 percent said they talked in pairs or groups about their reading. More than 30 percent of the eighth and twelfth graders reported never talking to someone at home about things they read. Nearly three-fourths of the eighth graders had teachers who reported spending an hour or less on writing instruction and assistance each week - or less than 15 minutes per day. At grade 12, half the students assessed in 1988 reported that they had written two or fewer papers as part of school assignment in the six weeks before the assessment. Only 14 percent of the 8th graders and 9 percent of the seniors reported weekly writing assignments of three or more pages. At grade 3, 49 percent of the teachers reported spending one to two hours a week teaching science. In 1986, one quarter of the eleventh graders assessed were not enrolled in a math course and another one quarter were taking lower level math courses such as General Mathematics, Pre-algebra, or Algebra I. 4Slightly more than half said they were not taking any type of science course. More than two-thirds of the high school seniors typically do an hour or less of Only 29 percent had two homework each day. or more hours of homework each day. These findings are by no means all that the NAEP Report presented. Many others are equally distressing. The inescapable conclusion is that students, for the most part, do not learn nearly what they are able to learn. This appears to be the case for several reasons: (1) they are taught in ways that have been proven ineffective over and over by well-documented research
(2) the curriculum is content-deficient, and (3) expectations from both parents and educators are set at an unacceptably low level. While these findings are based on nationwide research, they are not atypical of what we find locally and should give us cause for grave concern. In fact, the grade distribution, test scores. level of expectations, a large amount of "seatwork" in our classrooms, and the limited use of libraries are among the indicators in our own District that support these findings. As we examine our schools in relation to the NAEP report and decide whether to impose a minimum requirement for graduation, we must reflect upon events that have greatly affected our ability to deliver quality education to our students. 1983, we have been in court almost continuously. Since January, During that period, no less than four desegregation plans have been written. Weeks were spent in 1988 and 1989 negotiating a settlement with the State to bring an end to the desegregation litigation. The District has experienced significant changes in its geographic boundaries. Board governance, and administration. As was pointed out in the Curriculum Audit, the District has had five different superintendents since 1982. The issues we have dealt with and the rapidity of the changes which have occurred in the District have contributed in varying degrees to weakening many of our internal processes and organizational procedures. We have seen job roles become less clearly defined, lines of authority eroded, and employees not held accountable for their work. The result as was vividly and painfully described in the Curriculum Audit is a district in which "Learning is not likely to get any better, and it could continue to get worse unless administrative direction, expertise, and intervention are provided in the educational programs of the Little Rock School District." (p.l4) In my opinion, two things are necessary before we can fulfill the responsibilities we have as a school district toward 5our patrons and students. First, Board policies must be reviewed, revised, and in some cases improved. Coherent, consistent regulations, directives, and procedures must be developed where needed to support the enactment of these policies. Then all employees must be held accountable for carrying out Board policies and adhering to regulations, directives, and procedures developed to support them. Second, as the Audit pointed out, the curriculum must be reviewed, revised as necessary, developed in an appropriate scope and sequence, and capable of supporting carefully written educational objectives. In my opinion, we cannot afford to take three to five years to complete this redesign of our curriculum. It must be started now. Core areas of the curriculum (reading. language arts, math, science, social studies and fine arts) mu^ be appropriately scoped and sequenced in time for use during the 1992-93 school year. This will require enormous work by a cadre of teachers and administrators, and it may very well require the expertise of curriculum designers who can work with our staff in putting our entire curriculum together in the proper scope. sequence, and format, K-12. It most certainly will require reorganization of the central office administration and an allocation of sufficient resources in order to accomplish this major goal. Not until these things are done can we move forward as a district to address in a meaningful way the evaluation of effective teaching and building management, assessment of student learning, overall school success, and the effectiveness of central office leadership. In my opinion, it would be unfair to place the full burden of improvement in student learning on the students and the parents. It is our responsibility to take appropriate and immediate action to remove all barriers to improved performance and at the same time raise expectations for student achievement. RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF INCREASED LEARNING FOR ALL STUDENTS I am recommending the following: 1. A review and adoption of revised Board policies in Curriculum and Instruction by the Little Rock School Board at a work session to be held before the end of the current school year, preferably during the month of April. All other Board policies will be reviewed. revised as necessary, and adopted by September, 1991. 2. A decision by the Board at this work session as to the educational outcomes we want our students to have when they leave our schools. 63. A decision at the work session regarding the priority the Board wishes to assign to the thirteen recommendations of the Curriculum Audit. 4 . An acknowledgement by the Board that the proper way for the schools to address disparities in academic achievement is first to have a written curriculum that is comprehensive, relevant, challenging, and properly scoped and sequenced in grades K-12 and then to teach the curriculum effectively to all students, setting forth clear expectations and using strategies that have been proven successful for student learning. 5. Authorization by the Board to design and develop a curriculum specifically for Little Rock School District students which incorporates the characteristics in recommendation number four. 6. Authorization by the Board to develop a comprehensive grade level assessment program to determine the extent to which our students are mastering the curriculum. 7. A revision of the District's grading policies to make them more consistent from school to school and from classroom to classroom. It should be clear that grades are to be assigned on the basis of mastery of specific curriculum content. 8. Periodic reports to the Board, preferably each semester, showing the distribution of student grades at the secondary level. These reports will indicate courses in which students have the greatest difficulty and will track the progress of individual students on a random basis from grade to grade. 9. An ongoing review of the District's remedial and compensatory programs by the Biracial Advisory Committee with recommendations for changes presented to the Board yearly for the next three years. 10, The implementation of an Instructional Management System by the 1992-93 school year that will enable us to track the progress of individual students and provide corrective prescriptions to improve learning. 11. The immediate reorganization of the central office administration to provide concentrated effort in curriculum development and appropriate supervision of schools. To that end, the Associate Superintendent will devote her time primarily to curriculum design and development and staff development. The job roles of the curriculum supervisors will be redefined to include 7more programmatic responsibility for the delivery of the curriculum. A third administrator will be assigned to provide supervision to the schools as an assistant superintendent. The assistant superintendents will report to the Deputy Superintendent. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The development and implementation of a leadership academy and training program for current and prospective principals, assistant principals, and central office administrators. The development and implementation of a teacher mentoring program as a key component of the District's staff development. The revision of the District's overall staff development program to provide greater concentration in the delivery of key components to our personnel. Special emphasis will be given to effective teaching strategies and use of current technologies for teaching and learning. Development of school-based parent training programs in every school emphasizing parent workshops and other sessions held at schools and other locations which emphasize the following: Discipline strategies and order in the home Time management for children and parents Planning and monitoring home study Building self-esteem for parents and children Communication within the home and with the school Substance abuse prevention Nutrition and health Development of an Early Childhood Education curriculum that includes components from successful programs in our District (e.g. HIPPY) and other districts. Assuming that the administration is directed to implement these recommendations and following documentation through systematic and comprehensive assessment that significant progress is being made, the Little Rock School Board should reconsider the timeframe for implementation of a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation after the end of the 1992-93 school year. The decision as to whether the requirement should be implemented and when, should be based upon the Board's analysis of how effectively the above recommendations are being followed. 8TIMELINES Proposed timelines for reconsideration of the 2.0 requirement is outlined for your consideration and approval: 1. Reports to the Board and community documenting progress made in achieving each of the sixteen recommendations in the "Plan to Increase Learning for All Students. * * * August 1991 January 1992 April 1992 July 1992 * November 1992 February 1993 May 1993 August 1993 and ongoing 2. Reports to the Board and community regarding grade distribution and test scores for the Little Rock students. * * * July 1991 February 1992 July 1992 February 1993 July 1993 and ongoing 3. Reports to the Board from the Biracial Advisory Committee concerning the District's remedial and compensatory programs. Should the Committee wish to make recommendations for changes, they will be included in these reports. August 1991 * June 1992 * * * * * * January 1993 June 1993 and ongoing twice yearly. 4. Reconsideration of the recommendation to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. requirement for graduation from the Little Rock School District. * August 1993 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Through the use of the reports outlined above, the Little Rock School District Board of Directors will have access to the data it needs to decide whether to implement a 2.0 g.p.a. as a graduation reguirement. It is recommended that this year's seventh graders be used as the base population from which to track an increase in students' ability to achieve a 2.0. If by the end of the 1992-93 seventh graders have demonstrated a 10 percent increase each year in the number of students achieving a 9C average, then it may be reasonable to assume that the 2.0 g.p.a. could be fairly required of the 1995-96 graduating class. This would extend by only one year the original time frame as described in the December report. Reports tracking the District's progress in achieving the recommendations in the report and student progress in achieving a 2.0 will be supplied to the parties in the desegregation case and the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with the view that what is learned in this process will be helpful both to educators and the community at large. Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent March 28, 1991 1004.12 91 09:45 0301 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 0002 'ssai. Little Rock School District NEWS RELEASE April 12, 1991 For moi I information, contact Dianne G. Woodruff, 324-2020 M Dr. Herbert H. Cleek, 51, deputy superintendent of the Little Rock School District, suffered a fatal heart attack Thursday evening, April 11, at his home, 2200 Andover Square, Little Rock. Cleek, who has been responsible for the day-to-day operations of the staters largest school district since July 1989, became ill at his home at 10:30 p.m. Thursday. Attempts to revive him were unsuccessful after emergency personnel were called and he was taken to St. Vincent Infirmary. Cleek is survived hy his wife, Janecia, and a son. Philip, who is a teacher at Kensett High School. Superintendent Dr. Ruth Steele, who has worked with Cleek for a number of years, expressed the profound shock and loss of the school_district: 810 West Markham Street Little Roch, Arkansas 72201 {501)374-336104 12 91 09
46 501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM @003 "Herb Cleek was an outstanding educator and a man of exceptional integrity and ability. The progress our District has made in recent months would not have been possible without his perseverance, tenacity and intelligence. His professionalism, character and devotion to education were exemplary. "I am proud to have had the opportunity to work with him for the past four years and to have known him for many years as a good friend and colleague for whom i had the very deepest respect and admiration," Dr. Steele said. "Our hearts go out to Janecia and Philip at this time of great loss. They will be in our prayers," she added. Cleek was hired by the District's Board of Directors as deputy superintendent on July 13, 1989. As deputy, he served as acting superintendent in the absence of the superintendent
consulted daily on all aspects of the day- to-day operations of the District's 50 schools and nearly 26,000 students
developed plans, budget recommendations and policy recommendations
and worked extensively on the implementation of the District's desegregation plan. Prior to joining the District in 1989, Cleek served as deputy director of the Arkansas Department of Education General Education Division, for two years where he was responsible for the oversight of the Department's general operations, especially budgetary matters, legislative relations and coordination with local school districts. He was the state's representative on the Interstate Migrant Education Council, a board member of the Southwest In HBH 04 12 91 09:47 501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 004 Educational Development Laboratory and a member of the Study Council of the Council of Chief state School Officers, From July 1985 to July 1987, Cleek was director of the Wilbur D. Mills Education Service Cooperative at Beebe, one of 15 regional education service agencies that assist local school districts in more effective use of educational resources. I Cleek was superintendent of the Marshall School District from July 1981 through June 1985. In 1983, the vocational agriculture program in the Marshall District was one of only 59 in the United states to receive the Gold Award of Achievement. The district was chosen as one of only 21 in the state to receive funding from the Instructional Microcomputer Project for Arkansas Classrooms Project (Project IMPAC) in 1934. Prior to being employed at Marshall, cleek was associate superintendent for supportive services in the Little Rock School District from 1978 through 1981. In that position, he was responsible for data processing, personnel, purchasing, accounting and budgeting, school food services, student transportation and school plant services, areas which required the services of approximately 800 employees under his supervision in addition to 1,200 certificated employees. A breakfast program was begun during this time for all elementary schools in the District and the school food services program was improved. Also, an extended day care program in the District's primary schools was implemented. TjSuSk'SSTTESSISSFZ^04-12 91 09:47 0501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM @003 From July 1977 to July 1978, cleek was an administrative services supervisor by the Arkansas Department of Education where he assisted local administrators with budget preparations and in establishing bookkeeping procedures under a new accounting system. He was superintendent at McRae from 1974 through 1977. Prior to that, he held various positions in and closely related to public education, including employment as a media specialist and math teacher from 1972 to 1974 in the England School District, He served as president of a local classroom teachers' association during this period. Prior to that, he worked as a civilian employee in federal government and four years as controller of a school equipment firm. From 1958 to 1964, he was an employee of the Arkansas Assessment Coordination Department. Cleek received his bachelor of science degree from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1962, a master of science in education degree from the university of Arkansas at Fayetteville in 1976 and his doctorate in education from Vanderbilt University at Nashville, Tenn, in 1986. He was a member of the American Association of School Administrators, Phi Delta Kappa Educational Association, Arkansas and International Association of School Business Officials, Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators and Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.04/12 91 09:48 0501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 0006 Funeral arrangements will be by North Little Rock Funeral. Home. -30-04-12 91 09:45 501 374 7609 L R School Dlst ODM 0001 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 W. MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 FAX (501)324-2032 DATE TO FROM SENDER'S PHONE # SUBJECT uSpedallbstructiciK Number of Feger (include cover pegs) Fox Fbone. Number. Speed Dial I FOR DATA FROCESSING OFFICE VSE ONLY Transmitted By .J)ate Time R 03/91 i . j Little Rock School District r.'- i3 . April 19, 1991 ^f B '.- 5 n r kN- To
Ms. Ann Brown, Desegregation Monitor From: Through: Subject
kJ- VAngela M. Sewall, Assistant Superintendent Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent - Educational Programs and Staff Development A+ Arkansas and ACTION Proposal Attached you will find a copy of the Parent Involvement Project which three of our schools are undertaking in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, A+ Arkansas and ACTION. These are for your information. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361TO: FROM: THROUGH: SUBJECT: 0-3 I r* j LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 May 9, 1991 All Employees Covered by Short Term Disability Insurance Mark D. Milhollen, Controller|(j^ Chip Jones, Manager, Support Services 6 CHANGE OF CARRIER Effective May 1, 1991, the District's short term disability carrier will be Washington National. ~ change an approximate 5% rate reduction will be pu
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.