Desegregation plan audit

Arkansas Democrat (gazette Judge reassigns desegregation duties U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright issued an order Friday allowing the Little Rock- School District to eliminate the position of desegregation facilitator and assign the duties of that position to others. The order also created a new position, director of student as- signment. Wrights order assigns most of the responsibilities of the facilitator to the associate su- perintendent for desegregation. The judge stressed that the
duties assigned to the facilitator are very important to achieving desegregation goals and must not be neglected. None of the parties in the desegregation case objected to the school districts proposal.New desegregation plaSludJiTfied ! 1 Judge called earlier version sketchy, wrong and hard to read BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District on Monday filed a revised desegregation plan audit that attempts to correct deficiencies U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright cited in the first version. some Wright said last month that the districts initial audit a listing of all the districts desegregation obligations based on desegregation plans and past court orders was glaringly incomplete, inaccurate and far from user-friendly. The document omitted some obligations and did not include an organizational chart of the districts administration, the judge said. She also said the document was difficult to decipher because it contained no cover or title page, no table of contents, no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, and no other signposts to guide her or any other reader through the more than 206 pages. District officials need the audit system to determine what tasks they need to complete and to serve as a basis for budgeting, Wright said. The revised audit submitted on the day the judge made the deadline for doing so does have a table of contents, an introduction, and an organizational chart. It also includes a listing of obligations, not only from the districts desegregation plan but also from the interdistrict plan and court -- ---------- xxviii3 i . t.iiuaiiis. ! Tho Acting Associate Superin- i introduction to the re- tendent for Programs and Cur- officials riculum Development Dennis audit Glasgow, the three assistant su- matter to eliminate duplication. The audit is organized like this: The page number of the desegregation plan or court order is listed and then all the obligations listed on that page follow. For example, the audit says language on page 148 of the de- or- segregation plan obligates the district to have a maximum I pupil-to-teacher ratio of 20-to- ! 1 in the districts incentive ele- ! mentary schools. The plan also ! lists what the district must do ' to increase staffing if the ratio ' is exceeded. The audits organizational chart shows that Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, Associate Superintendent for De- segregation Russ Mayo and Sterling Ingram, director of planning, research and evaluation, report directly to Superintendent Henry P. Williams. f 1 manager for support services 11 report to Matthis. Jeanette Wag- 1 ner, director of communica- ij tions, reports to Mayo. J The district did not have a j deputy superintendent until I Williams recently named ? Matthis to the position. No court date has been set I for a hearing on the revised au- dit. I I 1 1 IArkansas Democrar "^(gazette FRIDAY, OCTOBER 8. 1993 . LRSD document indecipherable, judge says testily . BY CYNTHIA HOWELL
Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The federal judge presiding in the Pulaski County school desegregation lawsuit has once again sharply criticized the Little Rock School District for failing to comply with her directives. U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright said in a sevenpage order Thursday that a desegregation plan audit submitted to her by the school district Sept. 10 was glaringly incomplete, inaccurate and far from user friendly. She directed the district to correct the deficiencies and submit a completed report by 5 p.m. on Oct. 15. Jerry Malone, an attorney for the district, said Thursday that the district had made a gallant effort to submit the audit to the judge by the Sept. 10 deadline, and it was understandable that changes might be necessary. He had not seen Thursdays order birt said the district would correct the deficiencies listed by the judge. -The districts desegregation plan audit is supposed to list its desegregation obligations, including those contained in the districts court-approved desegregation plan, an interdistrict desegregation plan, past court orders and monitoring reports,
The judge found that the document submitted by the district omitted dozens of the desegregation plan requirements and included none of the provisions from the interdistrict plan, .The document also wrongly said that certain desegregation tasks were complete when they are not, she said. Other tasks were listed as one-time projects when they should be recurring. The document does not include the organizational chart she requested, ,'Wright said the districts document was difficult to decipher because it contained no cover or title page, no table of contents. no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, no explanation of the documents format, no clarifying notes, nor any other signpost to guide the court or any other reader through the tomes 206 pages in a quest for meaning, The LRSD audit in its present scope and form cannot serve as an adequate foundation for building the districts long-term program and budget planning, Wright wrote, Without a complete and accurate inventory of its legal obligations, the district will not know whether it is doing all that it is required to do, will not be able to determine the extent of implementation, and will not be able to measure its progress toward fulfilling desegregation plan commitments and complying with court orders, And, she said, if the LRSD cant identify what works and what doesnt, it cannot possibly build a case for modifying its de- segregation plan should the district wish to do so. The judge first asked for the audit in February and was told it was under way. She became an- g^ later when she learned that district staff members were not even told to begin the audit until March 22. In a Sept. 8 order, Wright requested the audit to be submitted by Sept. 10. She said if the audit was incomplete, the district should file a plan for completing it. Earlier this year, Wright ordered Little Rock School Board I i members to attend court hear- ! ings because either they did not understand her court orders or they were deliberately ignoring them. She said in June that the district was suffering from repeated and continuous mismanage- > ment. She put the district on notice that its desegregation-related problems could justify the imposition of a receivership.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT VS. No. LRC82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER u 'awe ) :TC?U37 ''AS OCT 7 1595 cahl >' 2^ .TG^CLSRK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On September 8, 1993, the Court issued an Order requiring the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide the Court with the completed desegregation plan audit that, according to testimony from LRSD administrators, the district has been working to complete since early 1993. In the alternative, if the audit were still unfinished. the Court required the district to provide information on the audit process that included a list of the complete and incomplete audit steps, the person(s) responsible for each of those steps, a timeline for completing each step, and a firm audit completion and submission date. The LRSD responded by filing, on September 10, 1993, a document referred to in the Notice of Filing as the "LRSD Desegregation :
p CL! Audit, although the document itself was untitled. The Court has found it difficult to decipher the document because it contains no cover or title page, no table of contents, no designation of author or preparer, no introduction, no explanation of the document's format 3or organization, no key to the item numbering system or its significance, no clarifying text notes. nor any other type of signpost to guide the Court or any other reader through the tome's 206 pages in a guest for meaning. The filing appears to be a partial listing of LRSD Desegregation Plan provisions, although the submission lacks any specific document or page references save for occasional "Comments," some of which state "Taken from Narrative," and at least one of which states "See Court Order," although which Court Order is not specified by date or any other identifying reference. The audit, which is to serve as a basis for the district's longterm program and budget planning, was, by Court Order, to comprise a complete inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court directives. Unfortunately, the LRSD Desegregation Audit as submitted is glaringly incomplete. missing literally dozens of provisions from the LRSD Desegregation Plan alone. Some of these omissions are listed by way of example in the attachment to this order. Furthermore, the Court had suggested in a July 8, 1993 hearing that the audit include an organizational chart which reflects accountabilities and designates the administrator responsible for carrying out programs and other aspects of the plan. During the same hearing, the Court also directed the district to include in the audit the requirement for issuing regular quarterly reports to the Court. The next month, during an August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court directed that the audit include the role of the McClellan Community School -2-Advisory Committee in certain budgeting decisions. Yet none of this information is reflected in the audit. Not only are LRSD Desegregation Plan items absent from the audit, but the document appears to contain not a single one of the numerous provisions of the Interdistrict Plan, for which the district is as responsible as it is for the plan which bears its name alone. Moreover, the audit does not include any of the requirements found in Court Orders, nor does it contain any of the recommendations from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) June 1992 Incentive School Monitoring Report, all of which were ordered into law July 10, 1992. Yet, to be a tool useful for facilitating comprehensive planning and budgeting as well as for aiding monitoring and evaluation activities, the audit must contain the provisions of all desegregation plans and relevant court orders for which the district is legally obligated. In addition to being incomplete. the audit also contains numerous inaccuracies. For example. it lists an Incentive-wide Parent Internship Program as having been completed prior to 1992-93. Yet, ODM monitoring has confirmed that this program has never been established. The audit lists brochures for each incentive school as completed in 1992-93, but such brochures are still being developed according to ODM. An ongoing media blitz to heighten public awareness of incentive schools appears in the audit as completed in 1992-93, but hearing discussions and ODM monitoring has revealed that no such blitz has taken place. Page 203 of the document lists, in the Incentive Schools section. an item 2.3 as requiring "special emphasis on school recruiting minority students, adding a "Comment -3-that "no need exists." The correct provision that appears in the Incentive School section of the plan is that there is to be emphasis on recruiting minority teachers for which a need most certainly exists. Also, a number of items labled in the audit as "one-time activities" are actually recurring in nature, such as certain special education inservices, surveying students as needed to determine vocational education awareness, and incentive school staffing and staff development activities. On the other hand, the audit states that the district has not started some activities in the incentive schools that ODM has determined it has. including mini-workshops. requesting that parents pick up report cards, and recognizing parents and community volunteers. These few examples of audit inaccuracies are far from exhaustive. Furthermore, the format and organization of the audit is far from user-friendly, leaving any reader without guidance as to the purpose of the document, what it is based upon or refers to, the scope of its contents, how it is to be read for understanding and accessed for information, its correlation with planning and budgeting activities. and how it will relate to monitoring and evaluation processes. Any document that is not readily understandable as to either its content or its functional context and purpose will not be readily usable and, therefore. will have little or no operative worth. The LRSD audit in its present scope and form cannot serve as an adequate foundation for building the district's long-term program and budget planning and, ultimately, for shaping its future. Without a -4-complete and accurate inventory of its legal obligations, the district will not know whether it is doing all that it is required to do, will not be able to determine the extent of implementation, and will not be able to measure its progress toward fulfilling desegregation plan commitments and complying with court orders. If it cannot measure progress, the district will be unable to identify what programs or other desegregation activities are working. And if the LRSD can't identify what works and what doesn't. it cannot possibly build a case for modifying its desegregation plan should the district wish to do so. The Court is at a loss to understand why the LRSD has failed to produce a complete, accurate, and understandable audit to serve as a basic tool for the district's own planning use. The Court has not imposed stringent conditions about the audit, dictating neither the inventory process, production timeline. format, nor completion deadline. Instead, the Court left all those decisions up to the LRSD, imposing only the basic requirement that the audit include all desegregation plan and court order requirements. However, the Court had also urged the district to finalize the audit with deliberate speed, and, trusting that LRSD administrators had grasped the crucial nature of the audit with its critical link to budget and program planning, the Court also expected the audit to be accurate. Neither has the Court surprised the district by asking after the audit process dragged on for months for the completed audit to be filed. Far from it. In numerous hearing discussions, directives from the bench, and Orders, the Court has repeatedly stressed the -5-importance of the audit. In response, the district has repeatedly told the Court since early in the year that the audit was underway, beginning in February 1993 with testimony from Superintendent Mac Bernd that the audit process had begun. However, in a July 1993 hearing, testimony revealed that the audit actually had not even been commissioned until March 22, 1993, but administrators assured the Court that the process was nonetheless nearing completion. Again, at an August 12, 1993 hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, the LRSD's lead planning specialist and director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that audit completion was imminent and submitted, as Exhibit 162, a Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report. But a finished audit did not subsequently appear, so the Court required in its September 8, 1993 Order that the district file the audit immediately if it were complete, laying out alternative steps in the event the audit still remained incomplete, as the Court has now determined that it is. Because the audit must be inextricably linked to an ongoing cycle of planning, tasking, monitoring, evaluation, and financial appropriation, it must meet reasonable criteria for completeness. accuracy, understandability, and usability. The LRSD Desegregation Audit as submitted on September 10, 1993 is wholly inadequate because it is neither complete, accurate. understandable, nor usable. Therefore, the Court requires the district to correct the deficiencies in the audit that have been discussed in this Order and to submit a complete, accurate. and self-explanatory desegregation -6-.. audit no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 25, 1993. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 ,-X- of October 1993. UNITED SPATES DISTHICT . JUDGE mis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SH^ IN ^OMPLIANCe WITH RULE 58 ANO/OR 79(a) FRCP JN BY -7-.. ATTACHMENT Examples of omissions from the LRSD Desegregation Plan (citing plan section or subsection title and page reference): Commitment to desegregation, pg. 1, lacks Board commitments A through H
Leadership, pp. 2-3, is missing seven of the commitments listed in that plan section
Summer Learning Program and ASSET program requirements, pp. 21-22 and 24-25, evaluation
are bereft of the components that include goals and Multicultural curriculum, pg. 64, is minus the specific ways human relations are to be integrated into the curriculum
Focused activities, pg. 81, omits the three purposes of these activities
Private school recruitment lacks requirements on pg. 95
certain Vocational Education commitments on page 98 and some aspects of special education collaboration, pp. 111-112, are absent
Some components of the Parent Involvement/Community Linkages section on pp. 131-138 are lacking
Items from the VIPS timeline. pp. involvement and minority partners do not appear
134-138, regarding parent Significant portions of the student assignment section, pp. 139- 148, are left out, including school racial balance requirements
Some provisions under Incentive School Parent Recruitment, pp. 215-223, are not included
and Educational Equity Monitoring, pg. 226, Desegregation Facilitator position. does not mention the(J c n-'/j?' RECEIVSI5 93 SEP 23 SEP 2 2 IW3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Office Of Desgsregaiion Moniiofing
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION BY--------------- ' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE OF JOSHUA TO THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S NOTICE OF FILING REGARDING THE LRSD DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT The Joshua Intervenors submit to the Court that the school district, in submitting its Desegregation Plan Audit, has failed to address the Incentive School benefits which include scholarship commitments and double funding to Incentive School children. Wherefore, Joshua pray that the Court withhold approval of the school district's desegregation audit until after a hearing is held on the issues raised. The Joshua Intervenors also pray for their costs and reasonable counsel fees for having to reply to this filing and to participate in these proceedings. Respectfully submitted. ^hn W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE has been mailed. I hereby certify that a copy of the foreqging qe prepaid to the counsel of on this -- day of September, postage prepaid 1993. Jbhn W. WalkerTHURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9.1993 * Wright wants desegregation audit Judge says delay on list impeding other district operations BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright on Wednesday ordered the Little Rock School District to immediately provide her with a desegregation plan audit listing all desegregation obligations. If the audit is not completed, she said, the district must submit an interim report by Friday afternoon telling what steps are being taken to complete the document, who is taking the steps and what schedule will be followed in finishing the work. Wright said the audit is crucial to the districts efforts to make long-term program and budget plans. She said district officials are taking far too long to conclude the document, which is impeding the progress of other district operations. Wright also pointed out that she first asked about the audit in February and was assured repeatedly throughout the year that its completion was imminent. In a second order Wednesday, Wright said a Little Rock district system of funneling information to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring through the superintendents office was unsatisfactory. The office is an arm of the federal court. The judge said the Little Rock system carries too much potential for delay, inaccuracy and laundering. She also said the district has a history of management bottlenecks, stagnated communication and general tardiness, and she will not allow the district to create one more means of slowing itself down..c ii JLED eas?erVctK ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 08 1995 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER carl r, ^r- I Sf^^NTS, CLERK OEP, PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS During a hearing on July 8, 1993, the Court asked the Little Rock School District (LRSD) to provide an update on the status of the district's desegregation plan audit. The Court has repeatedly
rk expressed concern about this audit because of its crucial relationship to the district's planning and budgeting processes. The audit, which is an inventory of all the district's obligations contained within the desegregation plans and related court orders, is to serve as a basis for the district's long-term program and budget planning. It will enable the district to determine not only what it is required to do, but also to ascertain the status of progress toward implementing each requirement. In response to the Court's inquiry at the July hearing, Mr. Sterling Ingram, Director of the LRSD's Planning, Research and Evaluation Department, testified that he is in charge of conducting the desegregation audit, a task which was assigned him by the superintendent in March 1993. He stated that he expected the desegregation audit to be ready by August 1993. At the hearing, the Court once again stressed the importance of the audit and expressed a I 6 8concern that it would be as late as August before the audit's completion. The Court directed the LRSD to provide the audit as soon as possible to the Court, the LRSD Board of Directors, and the other parties. The Court also directed Mr. Ingram to meet immediately with the Court-appointed Budget Specialist, Mr. Bill Mooney, to discuss information that would expedite audit completion. Again, at a hearing to consider the LRSD budget on August 12, 1993, the Court inquired about the status of the district's desegregation audit. In response. the district offered a memo (Exhibit 164), dated August 3, 1993, documenting that the meeting with Mr. Mooney had taken place. The LRSD also submitted Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report (Exhibit 162) which had been presented to the LRSD Board of Directors at its regular monthly meeting on July 22, 1993. The progress report indicates that the audit was not yet complete at the time of the board meeting. Mr. Ingram, whom council identified as the district's lead planner. testified that the plan audit was still not complete as of the hearing date, but that he expected to finalize it soon. This important audit process is taking far too long to conclude and is, thereby, impeding the progress of other critical program and budget planning processes. Superintendent Mac Bernd told the Court on February 1, 1993 that the audit was underway, although later evidence revealed that Dr. Bernd did not even commission the audit until March 1993. Now, almost six months later, the audit still is not complete despite assurances from the district in both July and August 1993 that its conclusion was imminent. Even though the Court -2- arecognizes that certain follow-up aspects of the audit will be ongoing, the initial audit must be complete before other aspects of program and budget planning can be developed. During the August 12, 1993 hearing, the Court praised the LRSD for beginning to make planning headway, all the while stressing that the district had only made a beginning and that diligent follow- through and continuous execution would be necessary. The LRSD does not appear to have take that admonition to heart. The Court hereby requires the district to submit immediately the desegregation audit it has promised for so long. If the audit is still incomplete at this time, then by 5:00 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of this Order, the district must file the following: (1) a complete and succinct list of the audit process steps that are complete and those that remain to be completed
(2) the precise timeline for completing each of those unfinished steps
(3) the person(s) responsible for each of those steps
and (4) firm a completion and submission date for the audit. The Court reminds the LRSD that it and the other parties are required to provide simultaneously to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring a copy of any submission to the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED this Sth day of September 1993. ^ITED STATES DISTRICT :t judge rms document entered on docket sheet in COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP -3- CN BYA RECEIVED SEP 1 0 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION r
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAIlT^zfF- - PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. directing the On September 8, 1993, this Court entered an order Little Rock School District to submit its desegregation audit to the Court by 5 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of the order. In accordance with those instructions, attached hereto is the Desegregation Plan audit as commissioned by the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District during the 1992-93 school year. In particular, the Director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department of the Little Rock School District was instructed to: In particular. 5tP 10 vs. "audit" that indicates . . prepare a report or the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of [the] programs outlined in the [Desegregation] Plan. . . 2. Attached hereto is the LRSD Desegregation Plan audit report dated September 10, 1993. The report includes a narrative providing background information on the audit as well as summary data as revealed by the audit. Thereafter, the audit identifies those programs or activities completed prior to the 1992-93 school year
those programs or activities completed during the 1992-93 school year
those programs or activities identified as occurring on a one-time basis
those programs or activities which are or activities which recurring in nature
those programs or activities which are yet to be implemented
and, those programs or activities which have been deleted. 3. The desegregation audit as presented herewith relates to those programs and activities identified by the court-approved Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan dated April 29,1992, as well as the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April 29, 1992. Although one section of the audit refers to activities which were completed prior to 1992-93 and another section refers to activities completed during 1992-93, the Little Rock School District hastens to point out that many of those programs and activities are recurring in nature. 4. The document as filed herewith constitutes the audit commissioned by the Superintendent. However, the document must still be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, submits this desegregation plan audit. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK Attorneys for the Little Rock School District 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR (501) 376-2011 72205 B- J Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I.D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing notice of filing has been served upon the following persons by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 -2-Mr. Richard Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs, Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 L- m aio^ -3- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT Planning, Research and Evaluation September 10, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT The Desegregation Plan Audit/Review, as approved by the 1992-93 LRSD Superintendent, required two major tasks: (1) collecting and compiling data to determine the degree to which each program of the Desegregation Plan has been implemented
and (2) developing a format for reporting the data. Although additional tasks were discovered to be necessary during the process, this document serves as the final report for the project as originally designed. During the development of the project, assistance was sought from Bradley Scott of the Desegregation Assistance Center in San Antonio, Texas
Thelma Cook, Support Program Manager of the Equity Assistance Center, Arkansas Department of Education
and Bill Mooney, Budget Specialist, Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Additional resources were provided by Diane Barksdale, currently an assistant principal at Carver Magnet School. An audit as conducted in business and education is based on a set of predetermined standards. The standard for this review is the Desegregation Plan. Therefore, program status was tied to the written requirement of the Plan. A review of the Plan's timelines and narratives for each program was conducted by Planning, Research and Evaluation (PRE) staff to deteirmine the requirements of the Plan. When reviewingDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 2 the narratives, the staff did not attempt to interpret the intent of the original writers. Rather, an effort was made to identify requirements as literally written. The data gathering forms (Attachment 1) were prepared by the PRE staff to include a list of all identified requirements. Program managers were requested to verify all requirements for assigned areas and to identify the status of each requirement. Many of the items identified as completed recur annually, response choice included: The * * Completed prior to 1992-93 Completed during 1992-93 * One-time activity * Recurring activity * Not started * Deleted (deletion approved by Court) * Addition (addition approved by Court) * Comments Supportive evidence to demonstrate completion of each requirement was to be gathered for possible use at any court hearing, as well as to improve, modify or delete programs. Upon receipt of the data gathering forms, the responses from the program managers were tallied according to the choices (Attachment 2) and revealed the following: response * Eighty-six percent of the reported activities had been completed. * Fourteen percent of the reported activities had not been implemented. * Sixty-seven percent of the reported activities identified as recurring activities. were These programs were * Eleven program managers reported completing all activities. However, as previously stated, many of the reported activities recur annually. These programs were Commitment to Desegregation, Summer Learning Program, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA Program), Program forDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 3 Accelerated Learning/Instructional Technology, Giii.cd , Talented education. Multicultural Curriculum, Parkview Magnet, Vocational Education, Library Media, Special Education and Staff Development. Gifted and In the Interdistrict Plan, managers for Staff Development, Special Education and Vocational Education reported completing all activities. It should be noted that many of the reported activities in the LRSD Plan and the Inter-district Plan each year. occur In addition, Program Managers identified activities for programs specified in the Desegregation Plan that are to be implemented. A list of programs and number of activities is provided (Attachment 3). Since the audit process was based on self-reporting it was necessary to implement means for ensuring a reasonable level of accuracy. Activities were sorted and printed by category in order to provide the information necessary for further review. During the data gathering and review process, some discrepancies were discovered regarding the status of some activities. Accordingly, adjustments were made during the development of the management plans. A complete list of the responses by category is attached. Each program manager was requested to review the sorting and to develop management plans for recurring activities and activities that are to be implemented. The Program Budget Document (Attachment 4) is the format for developing the management plans. What began as an assessment of the Desegregation Plan has evolved into the formation of the ProgramDesegregation Plan Audit Report Page 4 Budget Document which includes the means for monitoring, reporting and determining the level of success for each program. In the future, auditing of the Desegregation Plan to detexTnine implementation status or effectiveness can be accomplished through reporting process of the Program Budget Document.LITTLE ROCK CHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM DESEGREGATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS PROGRAM MANAGER Act ivities COMPLETED PRIOR TO '92-'93 during '92'93 ONE-TIME activity recurring activity HOT STARTED DELETED ADDED COMMENTS I i J I I I > CU n 3- 3 n> deletion Approved by Court JProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 1 . Commitment to Desegregation * Narrative 1. Leadership Narrative 3 . Early Childhood 33 Special Programs Narra tive Sommer Learning - 3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Humber of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started I of 3 Total Humber of Recurring Activitie.s 1 9 107 4 8 1 1 80 3 8 0 8 27 1 0 1 J 7] 3 6 6. J I PA Asset Program * 3 31 31 0 31. I . School. O[)erations 41 90 76 14 7 7 8 . A c a d e m i c S11 [i o r t 1 41 38 3 3 5 9. P.A L/1 n s t r uc t i 0na 1 Technology 5 50 50 0 22 LO. C i f ted/TaJen ted Education * 7 13 13 0 1.2 IJ . Multicultural Curriculum * 17 123 123 0 6G 12. Eocused Activities 1 26 17 9 17 Ol r> rr 3 m : ro 13. Parkview Science Macnet * 5 18 18 0 11 L4 . McClellan Community School Narrative 4 3 1 1 * (.ompleted all objectives as identified in the written planProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 15. Recruitment of Pri- va te School Students'!: Narra tive 16. Federal Programs 1 17. Vocational Education* 11 18. Librafy/Nedia 1 19. Special Education * 13 20. Staff Development * 8 21 . Support Services Narrative 1.1. Parent Involvement/ Community Linkage 3 23. Student Assignment Narrative 24. Facilities Narrat ive 25. Incentive Schools 73 26. Educational Equity Mon 1 tor ing 1 27 . Transportation Narrative 28. Data Processing Narrat ive LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAH Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 2 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Ac tivi ties 8 8 34 34 56 39 2 34 11 8 294 19 23 8 8 7 34 29 56 39 2 28 11 5 240 18 19 8 * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 6 0 3 54 ]. 4 0 8 6 24 3 53 35 2 25 4 165 21 14 8 cu o zr 3 m ZJ ro a ro1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. Prograjn Interdistrict Plan Overview S tuden t Choices/Options Summer School Staff Development - School Operations Muit i-Dis tric t Library Media Special Education * Vocational Education* Cuidance and Counseling Parent Involvement/ Community Lin.kages Public Relations TOTAL Total Number of Obj ectives Narrative 11 2 29 5 11 5 Narrative See LRSO Plan Narrative 303 ei" I i 1' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number . of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 41 4 3 1 54 8 101 10 6 See LRSD Plan : I,.., I : r : 4 6 1421 I I,,, 29 33 1 17 7 101 10 4 See LRSD Plan T : I-' 41 1217 12 10 0 37 1 0 0 1 See LRSD Plan 5 204 3 of 3 Total Humber of Recurring Activities . 26 3 2 1 n 1 90 9 1 See LRSD Plan 40 951 j=> O) n 3 'ro OJNUMBER ACTIVITIES LRSD PLAN IN PLAN COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS ATTACHMENT 3 TO BE IMPLEMENTED PERCENT OF ACTIVITIES COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS Leadership 9 1 8 11% Early Childhood Education 107 80 27 75% Special Programs 4 3 1 75% School Operations 90 76 14 84% Academic Support 41 38 3 93% Focused Activities 26 17 9 67% McClellan Community School 4 3 1 75% Federal Programs 8 7 1 88% Facilities 8 5 3 63% Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 34 28 6 82% Incentive Schools 294 240 54 82% Educational Equity Monitoring 19 18 1 95% Transportation 23 19 4 83% INTERDISTRICT PLAN Overview/Student Choices and Options 41 29 12 71% Summer School 43 33 10 77% School Operations Multi-District 54 17 37 31% Library Media 8 7 1 88% Guidance and Counseling 6 4 2 67% Public Relations 46 41 5 89%ATTACHMENT 4 LRSD FY 93-94 TENTATIVE PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT Program Seq #: Program Name: Page: 2 Revision Date: Progrsm Code: Primary Leader: Program ObJecUve: Secondary Leader: Plan Rclcrcnce Page Number Ob|ccUvea StTBlcglca Beginning Date Completion Date Responsibili ty Evaluation Criteria 3 IRECEIVED SEP 10 1993 - tr>.. Office of Desegregalicn Mcniionng IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Sep / Q jC,Q? LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIEF - vs. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, for its Notice of Filing, states: 1. On September 8, 1993, this Court entered an order directing the Little Rock School District to submit Little School to its desegregation audit to the Court by 5 p.m. at the end of the second working day from the date of the order. In accordance with those instructions, attached hereto is the Desegregation Plan audit as commissioned by the Superintendent of the Little Rock School District during the 1992-93 school year. In particular, the Director of the Planning, Research and Evaluation Department of the Little Rock School District was instructed to: In particular . . . prepare a report or "audit" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of [the] programs outlined in the [Desegregation] Plan. . . 2. Attached hereto is the LRSD Desegregation Plan audit report dated September 10, 1993.
The report includes a narrative providing background information on the audit as well as summary data as revealed by the audit. Thereafter, the audit identifies those programs or activities completed prior to the 1992-93 school year
those programs or activities completed during the 1992-93 school year
those programs or activities identified as occurring on a one-time basis
those programs or activities which are recurring in nature
those programs or activities which are yet to be implemented
and, those programs or activities which have been those programs or activities which deleted. The desegregation audit as presented herewith relates to those programs and activities identified by the court-approved Little Rock School District Desegregation Plan dated April 3. 29,1992, as well as the Interdistrict Desegregation Plan dated April Although one section of the audit refers to activities 29, 1992. which were completed prior to 1992-93 and another section refers to activities completed during 1992-93, the Little Rock School District hastens to point out that many of those programs and activities are recurring in nature. the The document as filed herewith constitutes the audit commissioned by the Superintendent. I ' 2_______ still be presented to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. 4. However, the document must Wherefore, the Plaintiff, Little Rock School District, submits this desegregation plan audit. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE AND CLARK Attorneys for the Little Rock School District 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR (501) 376-2011 72205 B: 7 Jerry L. Malone Bar No. I.D. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jerry L. Malone, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing notice of filing has been served upon the following persons by First Class Mail, postage pre-paid: Mr. John W. Walker John Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 -2-Mr. Richard 'Roachelle First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Mrs. Ann Brown Heritage West Building, Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 m A1oaJ L- -3- 'Pfa LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN AUDIT REPORT Planning, Research and Evaluation September 10, 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: August 3, 1993 life lb 0 AUH u 1393 '1 To: Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney From: Sterling Ingram/ irector Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: LRSD Desegregation Plan Audit Thank you for meeting with Bill Mooney and me on Friday, July 9, 1993, as instructed by Judge Wright on Thursday, July 8, 1993. The audit is well underway. Bill and I have come to an agreement regarding the desegregation plan program inventory which is a necessary component for both the audit and the budgetary process to be developed by us. regarding these matters. I will continue to consult with him The initial survey results have been compiled. will be verified. That information This is being done so that an accurate determination can be made regarding our implementation status. I have conducted several meetings with various program managers to provide assistance in completing the initial tasks. I met with curriculum program managers on July 20, 27, and August 3, 1993. In addition, I met with the program managers for support services on August 2, 1993. I will continue to monitor the development of the documents and provide assistance to those managers who need help. I envision the audit process as an ongoing activity. As such. this should be helpful in the budgetary process to allow continuous program evaluation, modification, revision or elimination/replacement. We will continue the efforts currently underway. bjg cc: Bill Mooney, Budget Specialist Estelle Matthis, Interim Superintendent I^SCEIVSD AUG 4 1993 OWce of Dssg! 3f3>>tioii Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: July 22, 1993 To: Board of Directors From: Sterling Ingram
Director Planning, Research^ and Evaluation Through: V*' Kk Estelle MatthisS Interim Superintendent Re: Desegregation Plan Audit Progress Report As requested in the agenda meeting, I am providing a progress report relative to the Desegregation Plan Audit. I am available to answer your questions. bjgATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Bernd Memorandum to Ingram Implementation Memorandum Attachment 3 Assessment Memorandum Attachment 4 Program Status Composite Total by Program Attachment 5 Audit/Review ChronologyLittle Rock School District Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report The Little Rock School District must accept the affirmative responsibility to execute the steps necessary to convert to a unitary school system. Unitary status can be achieved only through good faith implementation of the Plan and attainment of the desegregation goals and outcomes. Identifying the status of the Plan requirements is the first phase in strengthening the desegregation process. In the budget document submitted to the Federal Court in July 1992, the Little Rock School District committed to conduct an audit of the Desegregation Plan. The purpose of the audit was to provide information relative to the implementation of the plan. The task of conducting the audit or review was assigned to the Planning, Research, and Evaluation (PRE) Office on March 23, 1993 (see attachment 1). A review of the Plan's timelines and narratives was conducted by the Planning, Research and Evaluation staff to determine the requirements of the Plan. Data gathering forms were developed and forwarded to each program manager (see attachments 2 and 3). Program managers were requested, to verify all requirements for assigned area and to identify the status of each requirement. Supportive evidence to demonstrate completion of each requirement was to be gathered for possible use at any court hearing, as well as to improve, modify or delete programs. The initial phase of the audit/review is a self-reporting process. An audit as conducted in business and education is based on a set of predetermined standards. For the purpose of this audit/review, the Plan requirements are the audit/review standards.LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 2 The initial review of responses from the program managers revealed that: (See Attachment 4) * Eighty-six percent of the reported activities have been completed. * Fifteen percent of the reported activities have not been implemented. * Sixty-eight percent of the reported activities were identified as recurring activities. * Twelve program managers reported completing all activities. These programs are the Commitment to Desegregation, Summer Learning Program, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA Program), Program for Accelerated Learning/Instructional Technology, Gifted and Talented Education, Multicultural Curriculum, Parkview Magnet, Recruitment of Private School Students, Vocational Education, Library Media, Special Education and Staff Development. In the Inter-district Plan managers for Staff Development, Special Education and Vocational Education reported completing all activities. It should be noted that many of the reported activities in the LRSD Plan and the Interdistrict Plan occur each year. Program Managers reported a number of activities for programs specified in the Desegregation Plan that are to be implemented. A preliminary list of these unverified programs and number of activities follows:LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 3 NUMBER ACTIVITIES LRSD PLAN IN PLAN COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS TO BE IMPLEMENTED PERCENT OF ACTIVITIES COMPLETED OR IN PROGRESS Leadership 9 1 8 11% Early Childhood Education 107 80 27 75% Special Programs 4 3 1 75% School Operations 90 76 14 84% Academic Support 42 39 3 93% Focused Activities 27 18 9 67% McClellan Community School 4 3 1 75 tt. *0 Federal Programs 8 7 1 88% Facilities 8 5 3 63% Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 34 28 6 82% Student Assignment 11 10 1 91% Incentive Schools 294 240 54 82% Educational Equity Monitoring 19 18 1 95% Transportation 23 19 4 83% INTERDISTRICT PLAN Overview/Student Choices and Options 41 29 12 71% Summer School 44 34 10 77% School Operations Multi-District 53 17 36 32% Library Media 8 7 1 88% Guidance and Counseling 6 4 2 67% Public Relations 46 41 5 89%LRSD - Desegregation Plan Implementation Status Audit/Review Progress Report Page 4 Continuing audit/report activities include
* Verification of self-reporting by PRE staff and Program Managers. Special attention will be given to activities that have not started and those activities that recur each year. Development of management plans for recurring activities and activities that are to be implemented. The plans will include a * reporting cycle for monitoring implementation and program results. Development of assessment plans for each plan component to include identification of results since the 1989-90 school year. * * Integrating court orders into the audit/review process. Integrating data into the planning and budget process.Attachment #1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: THROUGH: LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS March 22, 1993 Mr. Sterling Ingrain Mac Bernd C Marie Parker 72201 ! 0 > < s J SUBJECT: DESEGREGATION PLAN ISSUES The purpose of thi memorandum is to direct you to address several priorities associated with the implementation of the Desegregation Plan as rapidly as possible so that we may be sure that we are making good faith effort to address the requirements of the Court with respect to these priorities. 1. Please report in writing any specific programatic assessment processes required by the Desegregation Plan and the status of the implementation of these processes. report please timelines that herein. include outline As a part f this 2. any plans. the assessment systems documents, or processes mentioned Please develop a plan and implementation schedule for any of the above assessments that have not been implemented. Please develop a plan to meet the general requirement that we assess all aspects of the Desegregation plan. This assessment plan should specify each aspect of the Desegregation Plan in terms of two issues: (1) the purpose.of the aspect of the plan being evaluated
and (2) the measure which will ascertain the fulfillment of said purpose. Please prepare a report or "audit" that indicates the status of implementation efforts with respect to each of programs outlined in the plan so that a document for the Federal Court can be developed as soon as possible. You may want to contact Diane Barksdale regarding this matter because she has done considerable work on this issue The as a graduate school project. information she has gathered may be quite useful you prepare your report. o you as 3. , 4 . In conclusion, please make an appointment with me to discuss the issues outlined in this memorandum. I believe all of them are important if we are to correctly implement our Desegregation Plan. c. cc: Cabinet Mr. Chris Heller Date: To: From: Re: Attachment #2 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, June 15, 1993 ARKANSAS 72201 Selected Administrators Mac Bernd, Superintendent Desegregation Plan Implementation Status In order to implement a more effective system of monitoring progress of the Desegregation Plan, a series of activities will be conducted during the next several months. These activities will help to ensure compliance relative to implementation and program outcomes. Enclosed you will find management timelines that identify required activities for each Plan component. requirements taken from the narrative sections of the Plan, but not contained in the timelines are also included. Additional Each program manager should verify all requirements for his/her area of responsibility and identify the status of each requirement, each activity place an "x" in the appropriate column. This For in the appropriate column. status report will go to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) and at some later date we will probably participate in a The ODM monitors will expect the district to have supportive evidence to demonstrate our completion of each requirement. It would be helpful if you would begin to secure the supportive evidence so that we can be fully prepared for a court hearing. court hearing. Identifying the status of the Plan requirements is only the first phase in strengthening our desegregation process, determine the degree of effectiveness of each program component. Therefore, it will be necessary to conduct a review to ascertain if programs are working to achieve the expected outcomes that should benefit all students of the Little Rock School District. We must Please return the management timelines to the Planning, : and Evaluation office by June 21, 1993. If you have any questions, contact Sterling Ingram at 324-2124. Research bjg cc: Board of DirectorsPROGRAM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION STATUS PROGRAM MANAGER I ! I 1 I i Activities COMPLETED PRIOR TO '92-'93 during '92'93 ONE-TIME ACTIVITY RECURRING activity NOT STARTED DELETED ADDED COMMENTS > rf rt 03 O Et 3 fl) 3 rt N3 NJ ' Deletion Approved by Court * A Addition Approved by CourtAttachment #3 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: June 15, 1993 To: Selected Administrators From: Mac Bernd, SuperintendentCLVVA^.j Re: Desegregation Program Assessment The Little Rock School District must accept the affirmative duty to take all steps necessary to convert to a unitary system. Unitary status can be achieved only through good faith implementation of the Plan and attainment of the desegregation ,,j ~~2. Your assistance is needed to accomplish our task. goals and outcomes. In order to effectively manage attainment of plan outcomes, want to establish consistency in formatting assessment . procedures ~ ' .-_ - we Enclosed you will find forms for reporting your assessment procedure. In addition, we have included a auide - _ In addition, we have included a guide sheet to assist you in completing the form, forms as succinctly as possible. Please complete the All desegregation programs should have a clearly defined goal purpose, objectives, activities and timelines for completion. Measurements should be established that will identify the degre of success relative to the goal or purpose, originate from the Plan section titled or e II Programs should Commitment to Desegregation in the Little Rock School District." . ---------------- This section establishes the foundation for all desegregation operations. Please return the assessment forms to the Planning, Research and Evaluation office by August 6, 1993. into a concise evaluation document. The forms will be compiled A follow-up meeting will be scheduled later to clarify your assessment procedures. If you have any questions, contact Sterling Ingram, at 324-2124. If you bjg cc: Board of DirectorsPROGRAM TITLE Guide heet PROGRAH DESEGREGATION GOAE(S) Identify the for inclusion purpose in the Desegregation Plan How will racial inequities be improved I-------------------------------------------------------------- Oupl icale, i f needed. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan EXPECTEU OUTCOMES What do achieve When do achieve you expect you expect your goal to to PROGRAM f-lAMAGER EVALUATION PROCEDURES/HEASURE What is the measure success How will gress Staff NECESSARY RESOURCES of you monitor pro- What are the necces- sary items/actions needed to cess . ensure suc- These should items/actions require funding. > to o rr g (t 3 * Co -O tolittle rock school district DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan PROGRAM TITLE Example PROGRAM ECnegation GOAL(S) PROGRAM MANAGER Staff expected OUTCOME.S evaluation procedures/measures IIECESSAPY RESOURCES I)f Effectiveness: Hard data * Program gains/losses (annual) I *Comparison *Longitudinal study Soft data Survey *Interviews < etc. Use of outside for review persunnel I Duplicate, if needed. Data collection timeline Reporting Schedule > (u o 3" 3 re 3 rt * Co T3 CoPROGRAM TITLE Special Education PROGRAM desegregation GOAL(S) 1 . Io reduce the number of minority student enrolled in special education to reflect the District's racial population and to be comparable to national statistics in the ('revision of free, appropriate public education to handi- capped students ( J Oc icaLe, if needed. little rock school district DESEGREGATION PROGRAM assessment plan PROGRAM MANAGER Matthis/Kohler expf.cted OUTCOMES Dy the end of the 1994-95 school year the number of minority students categorized and receiving services as Mentally Retarded will be deduced by 20 percent. Dy the end of the 1994-95 school year all staff members involved in the referral stra te of all process will deinon- underslanding aspects of the referral/placement process as outlined in local, state, and federal legislation. I evaluation PROCEDURES/MEASURES Comparison of 1909-90 MR enrollment to the 1994-95 MR enrollment (race and gender). Annual review of enroll- ment data will be Oucted to monitor gress con- pro- IIECESSARY RESOURCES Staff development relative to referral/ placement procedures > 03 o 3- 3 (0 3 It * to X)PROGRAM TITLE program desegregation GOAL{S) I 1 L Ouplicate, i f needed. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT desegregation program ASSESSMENT PLAN PROGRAM MAHAGER EXIECTEO OUTCOMES I evaluation PROCEDURES/MEASURES HECE.SSARY RESOURCES > (u o 3 n> 3 * co >0 LnPrograjn Total Number of Obj ectives 1. Commitment to Desegregation * Narrative LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL BY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 1 1 0 2. Leadership Narrative 9 1 8 3. Early Childhood 34 107 80 27 4. Special Programs Narrative 4 3 1 5. Summer Learning * 5 8 8 0 6. JTPA Asset Program * 3 31 31 0 7. School Operations 41 90 76 , 14 8. Academic Support 5 42 39 3 9. PAL/Ins tructional Technology * 6 50 50 0 10. Gifted/Tal.ented Education * 7 13 13 0 11. Multicultural Curriculum * 17 119 119 0 12. Focused Activities 1 27 18 9 13. Parkview Science Magnet * 5 18 18 0 14. McClellan Community School Narrative 4 3 1 1 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 1 1 70 3 6 31 77 35 22 12 66 17 11 1 * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan > rt Q> Q tr 3 (D 3 rtProgram Total Number of Obj ectives 15. Recruitment of Private School Students* Narrative 16. Federal Programs 1 17. Vocational Education* 11 18. Library/Media * 1 19. Special Education * 13 20. Staff Development * 8 21. Support Services Narra t ive 22. Parent Involvement/ Community Linkage 5 23. Student Assignment Narrative 24. Facilities Narrative 25. Incentive Schools 7 2 26. Educational Equity Moni tor1 ng 7 27. Transportation Narrative 28. Data Processing Narrative LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL DY PROGRAJ-I Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Gtartod 8 8 34 17 58 39 2 34 11 8 294 19 23 8 8 7 34 17 58 39 2 28 10 5 240 18 19 3 * Completed all objectives a.s identified in the written plan 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 3 54 1 4 0 2 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 0 5 24 3 55 35 2 25 4 5 165 21 14 8 > rt 0) O tr 3 o 3 4: -0 to1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Progreun Interdistrict Plan Overview Student Choices/Options Summer School Staff Development * School Operations Multi-District Library Media Special Education * Vocational Education* Guidance and Counseling 9.- Parent Involvement/ Community Linkages 10. Public Relations TOTAL Total Number of Obj ectives Narrative 11 2 31 5 22 5 Narrative See LRSD Plan Narrative 318 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DESEGREGATION PLAN PROGRAM STATUS COMPOSITE TOTAL BY PROGRAM Total Number of Activities Total Number of Completed Activities Total Number of Activities Not Started 41 44 1 53 8 101 19 6 See LRSD Plan 46 1405 29 34 1 17 7 101 19 4 See LRSD Plan 41 1206 86% * Completed all objectives as identified in the written plan 12 10 0 36 1 0 0 2 See LRSD Plan 5 199 1 3 of 3 Total Number of Recurring Activities 26 35 1 15 7 91 9 2 See LRSD Plan 41 956 68% > 0) n tD 4^ O CJMarch 22 ATTACHMENT 5 IMPLEMENTATION/ASSESSMENT PROJECT - CHRONOLOGY Memo from M. Bernd to Ingram April 2 - May 19 Reviewed plan for narrative requirements Developed forms to be included with timelines for implementation and assessment reporting May 24 Requested approval of forms and memo to administrators June 2 Approval of forms received June 2-13 Typing of information on implementation forms completed June 14 Memo and forms sent to cabinet level members Associate Superintendents Manager, Support Services Communications Director Forms forwarded to program managers with instructions to: 1. 2 . 3 . Review plan timelines and narratives Identify activities used to achieve objectives Add activities that have been omitted Forms for School Operations distributed on 6/23/93 June 21 - July 15 Implementation forms returned and reviewed Activities sorted according to the form columnsOFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING UTTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 Date: October 11, 1991 To: BiUy Bowies, PCSSD Mable Bynum, NLRSD James Jennings, LRSD From: Ann Brown Subject: Request for Information Attached is a comprehensive list of basic information which we require at ODM for monitoring purposes. Please forward immediately as many of the listed items as are presently available. If you should need additional time to furnish certain facts or materials, let me know when to expect that data. Meantime, please dont delay forwarding any information that is complete. There are a few starred items which appear at the end of the list This information is of a recurring and/or ongoing nature such as the agendas and minutes of school board meetings. WeU expect to receive this information as appropriate: monthly (e.g. school board agendas and minutes), quarterly (e.g. discipline data), or as produced (e.g. district publications, press releases.) Im aware that ODM has received some of the requested information, so there is no need to send duplicates of data youve already forwarded (October 1 enrollment figures, for example.) By requesting this amount of information at the first of the school year, I hope to minimize the number of separate requests for data that might otherwise be necessary. However, you can expect requests for specialized information from time to time as we monitor certain specific programs and aspects of the desegregation plan. Thank you very much for your assistance.General Information for Office of Desegregation Monitoring Attendance zone maps (as changes occur) ^^Alternative school poIides, procedures, and referral process t-^oard of educatiorVcommittee meeting schedule R J Capacity of each school buildin
O i-dlAkE manual (LRSD) //Ia/oOaZ District Bi-ratial committee meeting schedule ocr 2 8 1991 u-District Bi-radal committee membership list, induding race and address izEarly childhood education manual (polities, etc.) Office of Dasegragstion Mcnitcnnc / ^{-5arly childhood enrollment by school, txEnrolImeni
final Occober 1 data by s , age level (e.g. four-year-old program), race, gender txEnrolIment
October school, giade, dass, i^, gender /zExtracurricjIar/co<urricular participation by school, acdvity. race, gender /failure and retention rate, by schooL gra^, dass, race, gender tXlifced/talented, AP, enriched, and honors enrollment by school, grade, subject, race, gender Graduation and retention rate for preMous semester by school, grade, race, gender i/filPPY partidpation, induding area served, race, gender i/fnservice dates, schedule, training topics, trainers (by race, gender) for all employee groups o-b'/ M-to-M, magnet, and desegregation transfers by race, grade, sending and receiving school t/Monitoring schedules of all distnct monitoring groups including bi-radal committees vdVIulticuItural education curriculum guides (with revisions as completed) xuz,' ' ex>PTA/PTQ officers and committee membership by school, race, gender PTA/PTO total membership by school, race Policies on extracurricular and co-curricular activities t-^chool improvement plans School profiles v J z-^chool partners in education listing (updated as expanded) ^chool and district PTA/PTO meetings and school open house schedule -*^chool volunteer building coordinator listing, induding ra^g, gender j^pedal education enrollment, by sdrosl, dassification, rag, gender i^taffing data by position, race, gender (school and central office) Standardized testing results by school, grade, race, gender -Student rights and responsibilities handbooks t-Volunteer training schedule *^oard of education/committee agendas and minutes ^Discipline documentations, suspensions, expulsions, referrals to alternative dass or school by school, g^e, r^e, gender District Bi-radal committee minutes District publications (newsletters, brochures, etc.) Dropouts and reason for withdrawal by school, grade, race, gender Monitoring reports of all district monitoring groups iz^Monthiy calendar of events (special events, meetings, etc.) Press releases Denotes information of a recurring or ongoing nature Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 376-6200 Fax (SOI) 371 -0100 September 17, 1992 Marie Parker LRSD Student Assignment 501 Sherman LR, AR 72202 Dear Marie: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit win include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date the information is generated. convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed, districts audit by Monday, October 19,1992. For your Please return a copy of your In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive LRSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Connie Hickman Associate MonitorOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 17, 1992 Mable Bynum NLRSD P.O. Box 687 2700 Poplar Street NLR, AR 72115 Dear Mable: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit will include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date the information is generated. convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed, districts audit by Monday, October 19,1992. For your Please return a copy of your In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive NLRSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Sincerely, Connie Hickman Associate Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376.6200 Fax (SOI) 371.0100 September 17, 1992 BiUy Bowles PCSSD P.O. Box 8601 925 Dixon Road LR, AR 72216 Dear Billy: In order to coordinate our information requests during the school year, our office is requesting each district to conduct a report/information audit to determine what data each district produces. This audit will include the title, a brief description, department and contact person responsible, and the date e information is generated. For your convenience, an audit form and an example are enclosed. Please return a copy of your districts audit by Monday, October 19, 1992. In addition, please alert our office when new reports, not listed on the audit, are produced. Once we receive PCSSDs audit our office will review and request the information we need to monitor compliance with the desegregation plans. It is our hope that this audit will give us a better understanding of each districts available information and reduce the number of separate requests for data. I will call you by September 23 to discuss any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Connie Hickman Associate Monitor Title Incentive Schools Latin Program Incentive Schools Spanish Program__ Special Education Enrollment Results of School. Monitoci-ng------- Action Plans for Dvpirpprp
pntati J R REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Update report on approach, methods, an used in participating schools strategie
Up'date report on approach, methods, and strategie used in participating schools____________________ Enrollment in special education by school, grade, subject, race, gender Corrective action forms on each student in a building receiving.s.pecja1 ediiratinn________ Individual school action plan to remediate defiripnciPS______________________________ OCT PO i9>2 December 1 Child Count Total district special education population by disability, age, race, etCi____________________ Inservice '92-'93 Academic Support Program Educational equit Inservice 1992-93 Purchase Math Manipulatives Academic Support Program Educational Equit' Mui ticultural Purchase Trade Books/Material Dispersed information on multicultural college nffprings
development and implementation of multicultural curriculum guides K-12
identification and incorporation of multiculatural inDepartment Responsible/Contact Person supervisor oT Communi Date Available dations, English, ESL, & Foreitn Languages Supervisor of Communi English, ESL, & Forei Director Division of Exceptional Children Director Division of Exceptional Children ( ( ations n Languages 10-01-92 09-15-92 12-01-92 Director Division of Exceptional Children/ Pri nci pal Director Division of Exceptional Children Mathematics/Wood Mathematics/Wood Readi ng/Stoval1 Reading/Stoval1 Curriculum and Learning Imurovement, Estelle Matthis 10-15-92 12-15-92 12-01-92 June, 1992 June, 1992 June, 199^ June, 1992Title Multicultural cont'd African/African- American Program
Rites of Passage Program New and Vacant Teaching and Instructional Aice Posi tions for 4- Year-old Classes Classroom Set-Ups For New 4-Year Old Program G/T Enrollment Library Use Report aff Developmen' Staff cHal oque elopmen /Calend REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Department Reaponalble/ Contact Person structional materials into instructional programs
recorded multicultural inservice training Progress on Incentive Schools' implementation of African/Atrican-American Program and Rites of Passage Program Teaching and Instructional Aide positinns fur nev Four-Year-Old classes will be submitted to the Dirpctor of Human Rpsniircps for annniincptnpnf on_ the known vacancy list Timeline for ordering materials, supplies and equi pment Enrollment in G/T by school, grade, race and gpndpr______________________________________ Data on use of library by students and teachers, library instruction, circulation District-wide staff development activities r scheduled for the 1992-93 school year_____ SchoQl.Staff Dev Participation Rei . Identification by school, participants, aiid. number of hours of the comiletion of specific staff development activities Date Available Curriculum and Learning Improvement, Estelle Matthis E.ar.Iy...Childhnfid Education Dept. EarlyChildhood Education Dept. 6-Q1-93 5-03-93 G/T Supervisor/Coord. 11-15-92 Instructional Techv coor. Lib services Marvin Zimmerman Staff Develop. Dir. Maryin Zimmetman Staff Dev. 0ir. 25th of each mo. 10-15-92 End of I quarter ea.Title OCTOBER 1 FNROI 1 MERI______ ANNUAL RETENTION REPORT- ANNUAL -DROP-OUT REPORT- QUARTERLY ATTENDANCE REPORT QUARTERLY ENROI I MENT REPORT QUARTERLY MITHDBAWAl REPORT ANNUAL ATTENDANCE REPORT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT HANDBOOK---------- CAPACITIES________ BI-RACIAL COM. M1NUTE.S----------- EQUITY COMPLIANCE REPOB.I------------ BIRACIAL MONITOR ING REPORTS------ Btai REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Deecriptton Enrollment data by school sorted by r^ace and gender Retentions by school, grade, race and gender Pupils in grades 7-12 who "dropped-out" of school. and'did not return hv 10/31---L----------------- . 1-5 Attendance (ADM, ADA) by school, grade and gender wi th Di strict totals ------------------------------------------------------------------ Enrollment last day of qtr. by school, grade and race-------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Pupils in grades 7-12 who withdrew by school, grade race and gender-------------------------------------------------------- Attendance (ADM, ADA) by school, grade and gender with District totals Includes report of punils who entered from another state and a report of graduating seniors. ---------------------- Published handbook with District procedures for assigning students to schools--------------------------------------------- Capacity listing for each school_______________ Recorded minutes of each hi^-acia.lcommfifttjnt}. Department Reaponaible/Contact Peraon Office of Organizationa learning Equity____ Office of Organization? I.P^^rii ng Eqiii^ty ,--- ice of Organizational &-Learainq Equity----------- Office of Organizational & Learuinq Equity----------- Office of Organizational a learning EqiiLty----------- Office of Organizational A Learning Equity______ Rppnrt nf I RSD compl iancewi th .SQF eniii tv. -guidflline: Monitor Incentiye Schools Date Available 1Q./I5. L lQ/1 11ZJ 0____ 15 days aft ?nd of qtr. 15 days aft eniL.flJ.jQlE,- 15 days aft end .af .qtr.- 7/1 r r r Office of Organizational A,I.gaming Equity------ Office of Organizational &earni.ng Equity----------- Office of Organizational X I parni ng Eqiii ty---------------- Office of Organizational & Learning Equi-ty----------- Office of Organizationa & Learning Equity 2Z1 ^qth 5>f pach month in/is QuarterlyTitle Board Agenda Board Meeting Mi nutes School Plans REPORT/INFORMATION AUDIT Content Description Printed agenda of all Board meetings Approved minutes of Board meetings School Improvement Plan State Annual Repc't Meeting State Standards School Profile School Profile EK Department Responaibie/ Contact Person Mac Bernd Mac Bernd Annual Report Report to patrons of District's progress on long-range goals Janet Bernard Assoc.Supt. . Janet Bernard_______ Planning Research and Evaluation Sterling Ingram Communications Dept. Dianne Woodruff Date Available 4th Wed. ea, mo. Monthly as avallable 10-15 10-15 10-15 9-30 annu. News Coverage analysi s Weekly report details category and amount of print news coverage for LRSD, etc. Communications Dept. Dianne woooruff Weekly/ garter! y Press Release analysi s Analysis of kind and amount of news coverage generated from LRSD press release Communications Dept. Dianne Woodruff QuarterlyMEMORANDUM Date: November 20,1992 From: Connie To: Polly Subject: Report/Information Audits The following is a list on information needed that was not listed on the districts information audit BIRACIAL COMMITTEE - Membership list, by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # from LRSD & PCSSD Monitoring instruments used by all three districts Monitoring team lists (district and school-based) by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # from LRSD and PCSSD Meeting and monitoring schedule for the school year from all three districts Meeting agendas from all three districts Monitoring reports - LRSD building level biracial committee reports and semester reports from planning and evaluation. PCSSD - local building reports, district biracial committee summary reports and the Office of Desegregations semester reports. PARENT COUNCIL (only LRSD) - Membership list, by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # Monitoring team list by race, gender, representative position, address, and phone # Meeting and monitoring schedule for the school year Meeting agenda and minutes Quarterly monitoring reportsPTA/PTO - Officers and committees by race and gender from PCSSD and LRSD. membership by race and gender from all three districts. Total MISCELLANEOUS - Press releases from PCSSD and LRSD Recruitment plans from LRSD and PCSSD??? Public relations log or some tracking system from aU three districts District publications (ie newsletters, brochures, videos,... for all three districts (NLRSD did list updated brochures and a quarterly newsletter) VIPS/ PALS monthly or quarterly hours by school, number of hours served, race, and gender from all three districts VIPS/PALS training schedule from LRSD and PCSSD (PCSSD did list a volunteer monitoring training schedule) LRSD Incentive School Mentors by race, gender, and number of hours served monthly or quarterly List of volunteer coordinators by race and gender at each school in aU three districts - List of each schools business and community partner in LRSD & PCSSDGsnersi Information for Ofnca of Desegregotian Monitorin
O vAttendanca zone maps (as changes occur) ~7 V izAltemative school policies, procedures, and referral process -^Eoard of education/committee meeting schedule iXlapadty of each school building CARE manual (LRSD) i-Distnct Bi-radal committee meeting schedule i/District Bi-radal committee membership list, indudin: t-driy childhood education manual (polides, etc.) 9 race and address i-Edriy .childhood enrollment by school, age level (e.g. four-year-old program), race, gender u-EhroIIment
final Cctobe.^ 1 data by school, grade, class, race, sender L-Ectracurricular/co-curricular participation by school, activity, race, gender '-d^ailure and retention rate, by school, grade, dass, race, gender i-Cifted/talented, AP. enriched, and honors enrollment by school, grade, subject, race, gender Graduation and retention rate for prerious semester by school, grade, race, gender iz'KlPPY partidpation, induding area ser/ed, race, gender z.''lfise.nnce dates, schedule, training topics, trainers (by race, gender) for all e.mployee groups -'M-to-M, magnet, and desegregation transfers by race, grade, sending and receiving school i-'fflonitoring schedules of all district monitoring groups including bi-radal committees i-d^ulticulturai educadon curriculum guides (with redsions as completed) -^A/PTO officers and committee membership by school, race, gender '-'PTA/PTO total membersiiip by school, race vdPolides on extracurricular and co-curricular activities , z- <-^chool improve.mem: plans v^chool profiles i'-SchooI partners in education listing (updated as e.xpanded) - i>-School and district PTA/PTO meetings and school open house schedule '9 c-SchooI voluntee. building coordinator listing, induding race, gender u-Spedal education enrollment, by,school, dassification, race, gender I'Slaffing data by position, race, gender (school and central office) iz5tandardized testing results by school, grade, race, gender '-'Student rights and responsibilities handbooks 'Volunteer training schedule ^oard of education/commictee agendas and minutes '^yiscipline documentations, suspensions, expulsions, referrals to alternative class or school by school, grade, race, gender i/Distnct Bi-radal committee minutes 'district publications (newsletters, brochures, etc) "Dropouts and reason for withdrawal by school, grade, race, gender "Monitoring reports of all district monitoring groups ^''Monthly calendar of events (special events, meetings, etc) ^ress releases "Denotes information of a recurring or ongoing nature
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.