Finances

FINANCE COMMITTEE SUMMARY November 21, 1989 GOVERNING GUIDELINE FOR THE COMMITTEE: "How to achieve adequate funding for our schools." 1. 2. 3. 4 . Areas to explore: to review present operating cost. Ways to increase revenues. Best ways to Invest the money we do have. Propose Immediate and long term options. TOPICS DISCUSSED AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Reorganize district debt to lower payments over the next few years by extending that debt over a longer period of time. *B. Shift current debt mills that are no longer needed to fund debt payments to maintenance and operations so that additional revenues may be realized through the forty percent (40S() pullback provision of State law which allows the pulling back of revenues from the succeeding year for current year use. *C. Participate in inter-district schools designed to enhance the desegregation programs of all three districts located In Pulaski County, which will enhance the revenue condition of the districts by providing more State funding. D. Merged Services (ranked according to savings potential). 1. 2. Food Service - seemed to have most promising value. Transportation - although complicated. Is a likely area for significant savings when thoroughly studied. 3. Printing services - some savings presently realized by utilizing vo-tech program. 4. E. F. G. Should investigate to maximize utilization. Data Processing - unlikely due to widely differing methods of operation. 5. Purchasing - all three districts are already appear to be receiving maximum benefits due to their own high volumes. 6. Warehousing Functions - no obvious savings apparent. exploring further. other non-profit sector? Selling Services *1. But worth Can excess space be leased to other districts or Food Services - sales to other districts not just to North Little Rock and Little Rock. 2. Data Processing Services - explore possibility of selling services to other districts. Continue To Build On "Business Partner's" Relationship. Positively Take Full Advantage of Free or Low Cost Programs. (Recent Commercial News Deal Pulaski County Accepted Is a Good Example). H. Grant Money - Maximize our opportunities to receive all funds that are available. *1. All Incentive and magnet programs should be closely monitored to assure a favorable cost:benefit ratio. J. Voluntary pupil movement may cost more initially, but is necessary to guarantee parental support, and provide necessary stability that will produce greater long term savings and enhance ability to raise funds. *K. Develop Slick Advertising Campaign to Promote: Theme - "Good things that are happening in our schools." 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Parent Involvement with school and administration. Teachers and administrators - quality and commitment. Combat negative media image. Quality of education In every school. Extra opportunities available: magnets, incentive. Inter-district. 6. The Importance of parents and patrons. Perceived stability through positive ad campaign will promote real stability which will enhance our opportunities for increased public funding. FINAL COMMENTS Our committee felt that time allowed was too short for adequate study of Pulaski County Special School District's financial condition. We also believe current committees should be continued beyond the planned preparation to monitor and enhance implementation. Which would promote the essential parent/patron Involvement which is needed in our school system. *Indlcates areas we consider to have a high probability for immediate Impact on our financial condition..5 Deloitte & Touche Ill Center Street, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-4420 Telephone: (501) 374-0206 Facsimile: (501) 374-4809 March 7, 1990 Mr. Eugene Rev i I Ie Metropolitan Supervisor Office of Metropolitan Supervisor Her i tage West Bui Iding 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Revi lie: Deloitte & Touche is pleased to respond to your request for assistance in performing an assessment of the costs incurred by the Little Rock School District (the "District") which are attributable to the U.S. District Court (the "Court") desegregation order. This proposal is based upon: Information supplied to us during personnel and yourself. interviews with both District read i ng of the February 16, 1988 II Recommendations of the Special Master. II Interim Report and A A reading of Volume I of the "Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan" dated January 31, 1989. A reading of the District's Fund 13 (i.e.. Desegregation Account) record of expenditures for fiscal year 1989. Based upon our initial interviews and preliminary assessment of the documents supplied to us by the District, we believe that a more detailed accounting of District desegregation activities would appear to de desirable in order to: Establish rules for the District's accounting and reporting of desegregation costs for reimbursement by the Court's desegregation fund. Estab I i sh a base year II programs and associated costs. benchmark for allowable desegregation order This procedure is necessary in to both provide the District with a basis for financial forecasting and for the Court to have a mechanism to readily identify new initiatives of the District which are additions to the approved "base year" programs. Since each succeeding year's budget for the District builds upon the platform of the District's prior year desegregation programs, it is essential to clarify allowable base year desegregation costs so that both the Court and the District can monitor program performance and costs.STATEMENT OF THE EXISTING SITUATION The Metropolitan Supervisor serves as an agent of the U.S. District Court in allocating funds to the Little Rock School District to implement Court mandated changes in the District's operations and programs to achieve a goal of desegregation. The Metropolitan Supervisor has a responsibiIi ty to ensure than desegregation funds are used in an appropriate and prudent way In recent months both the to implement the directives of the Court. Metropolitan Supervisor and the Court have expressed concerns regarding the reasonableness of costs which the District has reported as being incurred to achieve the desegregation goal. A more detailed accounting of program expenditures for desegregation activities Fs essential to provide the Court and the Metropolitan Supervisor with the assurances that: Claimed desegregation costs fully conform with the plan for desegregat ion. Claimed costs are reasonable and have been incurred by the District. Claimed costs correlate to the specific programs identified in the plan, and that actual expend i tures by the District for desegregation programs conform to the budgets set forth in the plan. The Little Rock District s i m i I a r I y i s reimbursement process for desegregation costs. experiencing problems with the operated at a deficit, and is experiencing H The District recently has cash flow" problems. In this environment the District's financial planning can be greatly disrupted if: Claimed reimbursements for desegregation costs are disallowed by the Court. Court payments are not made on a timely basis. Certain financial Distr ict can be alleviated forecasting difficulties currently experienced by the if a set of rules for the accounting and reporting of allowable desegregation costs can be developed. POLICIES NEEDED TO ASSURE RELIABLE INFORMATION Our preliminary analysis of the existing situation has identified a series of policies that must be developed to define an H cost. H allowable desegregation It should be noted that the listing of policies identified here is preliminary in nature and is based upon our initial two-day assessment of the existing situation in order to develop this proposal. During the performance of the project, we would expect to substantially refine this preliminary listing of required policy decisions. Policies which appear to be required include addressing the following questions
- 2 -) What percentage of target group students which must compromise program beneficiaries in order to permit 100% of program costs to be al lowed? Should desegregation costs not presented or itemized in the plan be al lowed? Should claimed desegregation costs be allowed to vary significantly form the budgeted amounts set forth in the plan? Should programs implemented before the desegregation order funded in whole or in part from the Cour Vs desegregation funds? be The preliminary listing of policy issues described above and other issues that will possibly be identified during the project must be addressed and resolved in order to establish the allowability of certain costs claimed by the District. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT Our objectives in performing this project include: Assisting the Metropolitan Supervisor in establishing a financial report ing procedure which prov i des means of report ing desegregation costs associated with specific desegregation programs Iisted in the plan. a Identifying policy decisions which are necessary to establish which programs and costs will be allowable reimbursable desegregation costs. Contrasting program expenditures with the beneficiaries of those program expenditures to identify instances where the costs of a desegregation program activity should possibly be shared by the District and the Court. Identifying expenditures, if any, which vary significantly from the budgeted amounts for the program set forth in the plan. Identifying expenditures, if any, claimed by the District which may not be clearly attributable to the plan. Developing recommendations to strengthen the process for updating and monitoring the District's plan for desegregation. In conducting our analysis we plan to use fiscal year 1989 plan, budget and expenditure data as the benchmark year for establishing programs and costs which are allowable and reimbursable costs. The policy, procedure and reporting issues identified during our analysis of fiscal year 1989 data should provide the necessary foundation for the Court to evaluate and act upon subsequent fiscal year claims by the District for cost reimbursement. - 3 - WHAT WE PROPOSE the District's claimed The appropriate starting point for analysis of desegregation costs would appear to be the fiscal year 1988 operating The fiscal year 1988 expenditures will provide a basis for expend i tures. the subsequent evaluation of fiscal year 1989 expenditures to determine whether fiscal year 1989 District activities are new initiatives in response to the desegregation order or are reclassifications of previously existing activities and programs. In establishing the fiscal year 1988 expenditure data, we will analyze and document: District programs existing in served and costs. 1988 in terms of size, students Identify teacher/pupiI ratios by school. We will also prepare a profile of each school for which desegregation costs were claimed in fiscal year 1989. The profile for a school will document the status of the school with respect to the desegregation activity in fiscal year 1988. As an example, the District has indicated that additional custodial employees were assigned to certain schools in fiscal year 1989 as part of the desegregation initiative to improve the cleanliness and Our profile of fiscal year 1988 practices would appearance of the school. establish whether a custodial employee claimed in fiscal year 1989 was or was not performing substantially the same duties in fiscal year 1988. Once we have established the fiscal year 1988 benchmark data, we will then Activities claimed by the District analyze fiscal year 1989 District costs to isolate desegregation related activities instituted by the District. will be costed on a program basis. We will then contrast the fiscal year 1988 benchmark data with the fiscal year 1989 desegregation costs claimed by the District to: Identify on a program-by-program basis new desegregation activities implemented by the District. Building upon the custodial example, we might indicate that five new custodians had been retained and assigned to schools A, B, C, D and E. V,' We would also estimate the cost of this program. Identify instances and associated costs where a preexisting fiscal year 1988 activity had been reclassified as a desegregation cost. Again as an example. if a student/teacher ratio at a particular school were ten to one in fiscal year 1988, we would identify a claimed desegregation cost in fiscal year 1989, if it purported to be for the purposes of reducing the student/teacher ratio at the school to a ten to one ratio. - 4 -t It should be stressed that both the custodial and teacher/student ratio examples are presented only as examples to facilitate an understanding of our planned approach. We have no information which indicates these examples are factual and they should not be construed as factual by the reader. After we have isolated the specific desegregation activities of the District in fiscal year 1989, we will perform additional tests. One test wiI I consist of a program activity-by-activity review to determine whether the program activity is focused upon the targeted disadvantaged student group or serves a I I students. If all students participate in a particular program activity, we will determine a reasonable allocation of the program activity's costs between those allocable to the target group and those allocable to the non-target group. We will contrast each desegregation program and its associated costs with the desegregation plan to identify, if any: Programs which are not referenced in the plan. Programs where expenditures have been claimed by the District which vary significantly from planned amounts. We wi I I select expenditures on a random basis and will examine 1) support to verify the desegregation related nature of the expenditure and 2) related disbursement support. We will then prepare a report for the Metropolitan Supervisor which lists in sequential order each program activity claimed by the District in fiscal year 1989 as a desegregation related activity. For each program, we will: Briefly describe the purpose and objective of the program activity. Identify the costs of the activity. Identify and explain, if applicable, any costs which appear to be reclassifications of an activity which existed and was performed in fiscal year 1988, the base comparison year. Identify program activities which are shared by disadvantaged and other students and recommend an appropriate proration of costs. Finally, we will track and list legal expenditures by the District from fiscal year 1981 to the present. If District records permit, we will also classify legal expenditures as related or unrelated to the desegregation suit. Our final report will also identify certain policy decisions required in order to clarify the reimbursement process and wiI I further present recommendations for the types of reports which should be prepared by the District to support future claims for reimbursement. - 5 -Only the Court can and should decide whether a particular District desegregation initiative meets the intent of the Court order. Our proposed I eve I of assistance intended to ensure that both the Metropolitan Supervisor and the Court are in full possession of the facts with regard to the financial and program activities data. Such facts wi11 ass i st providing them with sufficient information to permit them to make difficult decisions regarding the appropriate allocation of funds to the District for desegregation activities. I s i n PROJECT STAFFING Our proposed project team for this engagement will include: Mr. David Bankard, a partner from our Firm's national public sector pract ice. Mr. Bankard will serve as the engagement partner and will be responsible for the overall performance of the work and for all deliverable products which are developed. Mr. C. Michel Haigh, the partner in charge of our Firm's Little Rock office. our Firm. Mr. Haigh is a very experienced audit partner with He will serve as the technical partner for the project and will advise our project team regarding accounting treatments and testing procedures. Ms. Rozanne Thompson. pract ice, wi I I serve a manager as our the project manager. Firm's pub Iic sector She wiI I be responsible for the development of our detailed project work plan and the supervision of the day-to-day performance of the work. i n Ms. Lee Ann Shell, an audit manager in our Little Rock office, will serve as a team leader. The team will be further supplemented with senior and staff accountants from our Little Rock office. Our team collectively possesses the necessary blend of K through 12 expertise and knowledge of accounting and costing procedures to efficiently and effectively perform this analysis in a manner which is highly responsive to your needs. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COSTS We estimate that the analysis can be accomplished in a six week period, are prepared to begin work on the project immediately. We - 6 - Our fee quotation for this project is $65,000 plus expenses. This quotat ion represents a significant discount from our usual and customary fees. The fee quotation includes an oral presentation and discussion of our findings and recommendations for the Metropolitan Supervisor and/or the Court. The fee quotation does not, however, include any expert witness testimony which may result from the performance of the work. Should expert witness testimony be required, we would plan to bill these services at our full standard rates. * We appreciate this opportunity to assist "the Metropolitan Supervisor with the performance of this important project. It is our belief that the accounting rules and procedures which are developed during this project will provide the necessary framework for controlling and monitoring desegregation expenditures for many years to come. road It More importantly, the rules of the which are developed during this project will improve relationships between the Court and the District by establishing the financial parameters under which desegregation costs will be reimbursed by the Court. Our ability to perform the work described in this proposal is clearly predicated upon the cooperation of District personnel who will need to provide access to program and financial data. We look forward to working with you. Should you have any questions regarding this proposal, please feel free to contact either Mr. David Bankard at (312) 856-8130 or Mr. Mike Haigh at (501) 374-0206. Very truly yours. David M. Bankard Partner C. Michel Haigh Partner - 7 - TO: Little Rock School District March 16, 1990 Members of the Metropolitan Supervisor's Financial Committee FROM: Ruth Steele, Superintendent We need to seek endorsement from the Financial Committee on two items with respect to the use of desegregation settlement funds. 1) We have provided documentation to support our position that a hearing officer and related expenses should be included in the desegregation budget. Both our preliminary plan submitted to the Metropolitan Supervisor and the Court approved plan address' the needs to reduce the disparity of disciplinary actions. In our preliminary plan, we also submitted a funding proposal that included a hearing officer and a budget for positive student discipline. 2) The district has had a serious cash flow problem for the past year and a half. Although we received the first payments from the Settlement a couple of months ago, these payments merely reimbursed the district for desegregation expenses already incurred. cash. As a result, we are on the brink of running out of The Settlement provides for a $6,000,000 loan to be "loaned" to district for desegregation programs. We have asked our attorneys and the State to draft the loan documents so that these funds will be available to fund desegregation efforts. We are requesting that the Financial Committee establish and endorse a procedure that permits the LRSD to make withdrawals from the proceeds of the loan fund that are in the Metropolitan Supervisor's escrow account. It is requested that the procedure provide for timely withdrawals that will assist LRSD in avoiding unnecessary interest costs. The district has been negotiating with local banks for several weeks to secure a line of credit to alleviate our cash flow problems. They have requested that we pledge as additional collateral for the line of credit the Settlement payments to be paid on July 1, 1990. We request that the Committee endorse the district pledging the payments as collateral for a line of credit. The necessity to pledge these payments will be minimized if a procedure is established with regards to loan fund proceeds. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361Little Rock School District To: From: March 21, 1990 V. a r
Office of Metropolitan Supervisor - Finance Committee "KUth S. Steele, Superintendent of Schools Subject: Request for Determination on Allowable Desegregation Costs MW 2 1 W i..2! In keeping with efforts to ensure that desegregation funds are used in an appropriate way, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) submits for your consideration the following expenditure estimates for planned desegregation activities: 1. Curriculum Audit A description of this activity, as written in the January 2, 1990 Tri-Distrlct Desegregation Plan is enclosed as Exhibit I. Current estimates on the cost for this activity are $5,000 for 1990-91 and $50,000 for 1991-92. Original cost estimates provided by LRSD for the curriculum audit were $5,000 for 1990-91 and $100,000 for 1991-92. It is our belief that the curriculum audit should be accomplished during the first semester of the 1990-91 school year to provide maximum effectiveness in the development of plans for reducing disparity in the academic achievement of students. Further, we believe that it would be beneficial to have advanced training in the 1989-90 school school year for two or more staff members who will serve on the internal audit team. This approach will permit members of the internal audit team to become familiar with the audit process and thus enable preparation of information for use by the external audit team. 2. Two-Run Bus System -- Exhibit II provides details on changing from a three-run to a two-run bus system. At this time, it is estimated that the annual cost for this part of the Desegregation Plan will be $600,000 for 1990-91 plus Increases 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3301of three percent for the next four years of the capital lease payment period. Revised costs estimates will be provided no later than the end of the five year payment period. We have been advised that an order for new buses should be placed no later than April 2, 1990 to ensure delivery for the beginning of the 1990-91 school year. 3. Information on Magnet Schools and Programs required by the Trl-Dlstrlct Desegregation Plan Is enclosed as Exhibit III. According to the Plan, Dunbar Junior High School will open In the fall of 1990 as an Interdlstrlct Magnet School for International Studies and for Gifted and Talented Education. A joint planning committee has de- veloped recommendations on facilities renovations that would be appropriate to the themes at Dunbar and would enhance recruitment of students to the new Interdlstrlct Magnet School. Cost estimates for Initial renovations at Dunbar are enclosed as Exhibit IV. He are seeking approval on the described renovations at this time so that work might proceed on schedule. Additional estimates will be submitted as planning continues on Dunbar.From: Tri-District Desegregation Plan - January 2, 1990 Exhibit I INFORMATION ON CURRICULUM AUDIT These recommendations are made in addition to the ones proposed by the districts. The individual district plans follow. PLANS FOR REDUCING DISPARITY
LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Little Rock School District has identified three problems related to equity in the academic achievement of its students. First, disparity continues between black and white achievement, as evidenced by grades and standardized tests. Second, black and white students are disproportionately represented in certain classes, programs, and activities. And third. the level of learning expected from students often varies according to a student's race. These problems will be addressed in the following ways: Problem One
Disparity in Educational Achievement Despite years of awareness of the problem and numerous attempts to combat it, the disparity in educational achievement between black and white students continues, worsening as students move from grade to grade. The Little Rock School District will develop the following programs to address this problem. Five-Year Program Review
The district will immediately develop a five-year schedule for the review of all courses and including incentive programs, and magnet schools. to determine whether their content is sufficiently challenging, students. relevant, and enriching to all 5Curriculum Audit: The Little Rock School District will conduct a "curriculum audit" of instructional programs and services during the next five years according to a schedule, in order to prearranged assess their effectiveness for all students. Programs to be audited include, but are not limited to: Chapter 1 Reading and Math Drug Education Foreign Languages Four-Year-Old Program Gifted and Talented Education Guidance and Counseling Homework Centers Kindergarten Language Arts Learning Lab Library-Media Mathematics Music Physical Education, Health, and Nutrition Education Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) Reading Science Social Studies Special Education Vocational Education The first programs to be audited will include Chapter 1 Reading and Math, Guidance and Counseling, PAL Learning Lab, and Foreign Languages. The purpose of the review will be to determine whether programs need to be modified to increase their educational value to students. In some cases programs may need to be eliminated or drastically changed. Review Multiethnic Curriculum Guides: Curriculum supervisors will be required to review the use of the multiethnic curriculum guides in order to propose necessary revisions and modifications. This review will be done yearly so that problems which become apparent can be quickly resolved. Instructional Management: The Little Rock School District will seek assistance Instructional Management System in for establishing an Technology now exists that can analyze every a student. student's learning style and achievement level, predict success or failure in school based on certain factors, and prescribe the necessary interventions in a timely manner. The 6district will inunediately engage experts in instructional technology to devise such a system. It should be noted that this approach is intended to benefit the successful as well as the unsuccessful student. The district will attempt to have this program in place by 1991-92. Problem Two
Disproportionate Representation in Programs The disproportion representation of blacks and whites is not' a problem that can be addressed by simplistic solutions such as quotas or percentages, which are often humiliating and frustrating to students. All students, both the gifted and the low-achieving. must be provided every opportunity to excel, contribute, produce. and be challenged in school. A necessary precondition for this to occur is a strong basic education for all students beginning with kindergarten or before, and enrichment for disadvantaged children so they can compete with the more advantaged without losing ground over the years. Enrichment activities include additional or extended homework centers, summer learning programs, Saturday classes, extended day programs, academic incentive programs, and tutorial services. In schools that lack these programs, the district will allocate funds to establish at least one such program in each school. Principals, teachers, and guidance counselors can positively affect this problem. However, Boards of Education and administrators must support their efforts and insist on optimum learning opportunities for all students. The extent to which staff development can assist teachers and administrators in dealing with this problem will be discussed in the staff development section of this plan. 7From: Tri-District Desegregation Plan January 2, 1990 Exhibit II DETAILS ON TWO-RUN BUS SYSTEM student Assignment Appeals Conunittee
The Appeals Committee will consist of one representative from each of the following organizations: the Biracial Advisory Committee the PTA Council the Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association The Appeals Committee will also include two members at-large appointed by the Board of Directors, and one ex-officio member (an administrator) appointed by the Superintendent. The Appeals Committee will meet once each month to hear appeals. It will review only the following types of appeals: --geographic isolation racial isolation medical hardship --extenuating circumstances (as defined by the parent) Transportation: For the 1989-90 school year, the Little Rock School District is using a three-run bus system with schools opening on the first run at 7:55 a.m., on the second run at 8:50 a.m., and on the third run at 9:40 a.m. For the 1990-91 school year, the Little Rock School District will use a two-run bus system with the first-run schools opening at 8 a.m. and the second-run schools opening at 8:50 a.m. The Little Rock School District will also attempt to have all 17From: Tri-District Desegregation Plan - January 2, 1990 Exhibit III INFORMATION ON MAGNET SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS PROPOSED INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS 1990-91 1. Washington Basic Skills/ Math and Science Magnet Grades Pre K-6 2. Dunbar International Studies/ Gifted and Talented Magnet Grades 7-9 3. Central High International Studies Interdistrict Program Grades 10-12 4. Rockefeller Cooperative Early Childhood Education Demonstration Magnet Grades Pre K-6 1991-92 1. University Laboratory Magnet Grades Pre K-9 2. Franklin Early Childhood Environmental Science/Basic Skills Magnet Grades Pre K-6 3. Romine Gifted and Talented/ Basic Skills Magnet Grades Pre K-6 Aerospace/Technology Pre-Engineering Magnet Grades 7-12 1992-93 1. Business/Coiiununications Magnet Grades 7-12 2. Environmental Sciences/Zoo Magnet Grades 7-9 3. Garland Montessori Magnet Grades Pre K-6 4 . 1993-94 1. MacArthur Park Science/Natural History/Arts Magnet Grades Pre K-6 8elementary schools on the first run and all secondary schools on the second run. In order to move from a three-run to a two-run bus system, the Little Rock School District will need to acquire approximately forty additional buses before the 1990-91 school year and plan to replace approximately 15 to 20 buses per year, beginning in 1991-92. Financing these purchases with capital leases should reduce the first-year impact on the budget. In addition. the two-run system will require approximately thirty additional drivers and two route supervisors. 18DESCRIPTION OF INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS There will be twelve additional interdistrict magnet schools in the Little Rock School District, with student ratios of 55-60 percent black and 40-45 percent white, and one, Central High School, that will be a limited interdistrict school. The 55-60 ratios will be implemented in the initial grades at the six existing magnets. There will be one interdistrict magnet school in the Pulaski County Special School District, and one. Oak Grove Jr./Sr. High School, that will provide an interdistrict program. Student ratios will be set at the maximums allowed by the court. Some funding for the interdistrict magnets will be through majority-to- minority transfers. The themes of every school will be further discussed and reviewed with parents for possible modification. LITTLE ROCK INTERDISTRICT MAGNET SCHOOLS Washington Basic Skills/Math/Science (Pre K-6) This school will open in 1990-91 for students who learn well in a highly-structured setting
who are motivated by academic. physical, and social competition
and who are interested in math and science. 9Dunbar International Studies/Gifted and Talented (7-9) Dunbar Junior High School will open in the fall of 1990 as an Interdistrict Magnet School for International Studies 4nd for Gifted and Talented Education. A joint planning committee of area businesses, school administrators from the three districts, staff. and parents will be formed to supplement present plans developed by the district. They will start Feb. 1, 1990, to develop international studies programs for both Dunbar Junior and Central High Schools. A pledge of cooperation and support has been secured from the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce and from Arkansas-based businesses interested in seeing the schools of Arkansas succeed. Those area businesses include Systematics Inc., Stephens Inc., Jacuzzi, Maybe1line. Timex, Orbit Valve, and TCBY. Other businesses will be approached to seek their assistance in this process. These corporations have significant international business interests. Central High School (10-12) A limited interdistrict magnet program will be offered at Central High School. Approximately 175 seats will be opened to students from North Little Rock, Pulaski County, and other neighboring districts at the beginning of the 1990-91 school year. Other seats will be made available to any student on a space available basis and in compliance with desegregation limits. The program will be developed around a theme of international studies 10TO: FROM: Exhibit IV COST ESTIMATES FOR DUNBAR RENOVATIONS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 South Bryant Street Little Rock, AR. 72204 Bob Robertson, Vernon E. THROUGH: DATE: Principal, Dunbar Junior High School Smith, Construction Manager Doug Kendall, Director of Plant Services March, 14, 1990 SUBJECT: received mak 1990 SERVICES Proposed Renovations to Dunbar Junior High School The following is an estimated cost for proposed renovations of a rpeting, windows, and grounds, cosmet ic building, and materials to complete the job. improvements to the DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST Carpet and Pad Removal and Replacement (16,348 Stage Curtains Lighting in Auditorium sq. ft.) Auditorium P.A. Main System Intercom System (Console Only) Electrical (Computer Room) Seif Sufficient Air Handler (B-5) Masonary Cleaning Window Replacement (Clear Plexiglass) Parking Lots (New) Asphalt Drive for Bus Drop Off Sidewalk Repairs Basket Ball Courts &. Goals Landscaping Removal of Two (2) Existing Flagpoles From Old Carver & Gilliam and installation at Dunbar Junior High (Completion Date, April 15, 1990) $ 15,000.00 3,707.60 3,882.00 1,200.00 2,500,00 1,250.00 5,500.00 3 ,090.00 30,720.00 14,775.00 4,599.41 1,500.00 3,500.00 8,725.00 1,500.00 Sub Total cc: Contingency, Fees, Permits, etc. (10%) Total $101,449.01 10,144.90 $111,593.91 Chip Jones LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANT SERVICES 3601 South Bryant Street Little Rock, AR. 72204 TO: Jackie Boykin, Director of Food Services FROM: Vernon E. Smith, Construction Manager THROUGH: Doug Kendall, Director of Plant Services DATE: March 12, 1990 SUBJECT: Renovation of Dunbar Jr. High Kitchen The following is an estimated cost for proposed renovations to the Kitchen at Dunbar Jr. High School, and items required to complete the job. DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED COST Partition Walls Exhaust Fan and Duct System For New Dishwasher Hot Water Heater & Booster Security Gate (Steel) Electrical Pantry (Wall Removal & Build New Shelves) $2,358.00 1,517.00 1,700.00 1,950.00 425.00 585.00 Total $8,535.00 . cc: Bob Robertson Chip Jones V-'" To: From: Subject: Little Rock School District April 3, 1990 Office of Metropolitan Supervisor - Finance Committee 0^ A Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent Request for Determination on Allowable Desegregation Costs The Little Rock School District (LRSD) submits the following expenditure estimates on planned desegregation activities for your consideration and approval as allowable desegregation expenditures: 1. 9JJ-i-Se of Safety and SecurityExhibit I summarizes the recommendations made in the TriDistrict Desegregation Plan relative to establishing an Office of Safety and Security. The LRSD requests authorization to establish this office for the 1990-91 school year at a cost of $850,000 per year plus annual increases of approximately three percent (3%) for ongoing maintenance and operations expenses. In addition, approval is requested for a one-time capital improvements expenditure of $100,000 for renovation and modification of the former LRSD Transportation building located at 21st and Barber Streets so that this facility might be used as headquarters for the Office of Safety and Security. 2, a description of the science magnet program which was initiated in 1989-90 in accordance with Volume I of the LRSD Desegregation Plan dated January 31, 1989. Implementation costs for the second year of the program are estimated at $180,000 for one-time facilities expansion/im-provement and $70,000 per year for personnel costs. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 It is respectfully requested that a decision be given on these requests by April 16, 1990 so that necessary actions can be taken on a schedule that will enable programs to be in place by the beginning of the 1990-91 school year. RSS:nr Encl. Exhibit I Exhibit II Security Parkview Science Magnet SchoolExhibit I - Tri District Desenregation Plan - January 2, 1990 SECURITY SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the many meetings and forums held throughout Little Rock and Pulaski County last fall, a recurring theme was the concern of parents, black and white, about school safety and security. These themes involved apprehension about the safety of children in and around schools. and with black parents and community members. concern about the disproportionate numbers of black students suspended and expelled, particularly black male students. School programs in desegregated settings will suffer greatly if positive discipline policies aren't consistently and equitably enforced. Parents and community members must be involved in the preparation of programs to deal with this important problem. Staff development involving human relations, prejudice reduction. and discipline is an essential element of any program. The districts have included in their plans excellent suggestions regarding codes of conduct, security forces, and parent and community involvement. These plans must go forward in addition to recommendations contained in this report. The school principal is the key to this effort. School principals must be concerned about the safety of children in and around schools. and their leadership is essential in providing a safe school environment for children. For this reason, selection of school principals, inservice training in the area of discipline 14 . Establish a school-based student attendance incentive system at each school. discipline and 5. Activate discipline/attendance intervention teams at schools. Mandate that the pupil services team will do monitoring and involve the counselor with students who have discipline/attendance problems. 6. Involve parents in the team process regarding their children through meetings/conferences. 7. Establish discipline-review committee and sub-committees to include principals, staff, patrons, students, and at least one Board member to review discipline data and recommend modifications to ensure equity of policies and policy administration. The committee will be involved in the process of analysis of data and planning for reducing disparities in discipline. 8. Appoint a joint committee with Pulaski County Special School District and North Little Rock School District to coordinate discipline policies. 9. Put in place alternatives to suspension across the district with at least one such intervention to be placed at each school. Safety and Security To parents whose children may be attending school in a part of the community that is unfamiliar to them, the issue of safety and security is extremely important. The Little Rock School District Board of Directors is determined to have safe, secure schools for children. Therefore, the following are proposed: 1. Establish an Office of Safety and Security with a coordinator and approximately thirty safety supervisors who will patrol campuses. follow and/or ride school buses, and perform other duties intended to protect the safety and security of school children. Salaries for safety supervisors will be in the $20,000 range. 2. Establish by 1990-91 a two-run bus system. thus eliminating a system requiring junior high students to begin their school day at 9:40 a.m. 12Exhibit II - Little Rock School District Proposed Desegregation Plan - January 31, 1989 PARKVIEW SCIENCE MAGNET SCHOOL Overview Parkview became
' 1987-88 school year, arts, drama, and dance the fine arts an interdistrict Fine Arts Magnet School for the A specialized curriculum in music, is part of the magnet program. visual program has attracted for the 1988-89 school 1 students short of capacity. Although approximately 815 students y3r, the school plant is still over 150 In anticipation of the facility , -----i--.-J . wii pa u xuil UX remaining undercapacity in the future and to provid ror students graduating from the Mann Math/Scien< e continuity and science a Sve^ a Ptoposed. The program will be phased In foir^in^ f 100-150 tenth grade students dents Wil 1 class. similar number of tenth grade stu- ? added during year two and year three of the school with a final enrollment of 300-400 students. school is proposed, three year period with rorming the initial class. A The Parkview Science Magnet School has the following goals: 1. To provide a science curriculum that exceeds the regul science program in depth and breadth. ar 2. To increase student understanding in the science content that IS prereoTjisite to a __ r_ . that IS prerequisite to a pre-professional course of study in medicine or health. or technical 3. To increase student acquisition of laboratory techniques in science. skills and 4 . To develop skills in information acquisition cessing, statistical analysis?- rtecto?r:S?ingr" 5. To increase the Russian to the curriculum. foreign language offerings by adding ri mi 1 nm 6. To provide opportunities for health-science professionals health-science site, site. students to interact with through field trips to the .4. ,, presentations at the school fessional^ student shadowing of the health-science pro- i co o lUildlS I Program Design specialProgram will combine the District's high tech paS siSen?iT^ curriculum tLt wli? premajor in th
technical wodld potentially maS exrpiirrS- students who of undergraduate providers washout" blocks. After consulting with the University microbiology and organic chemistry Little Rock, -------------care providers "wash out" programs because of a major stumbling of Arkansas at were identified few -lluas courses with traditionally high failure rates in undergraduate health-science Students fail these courses because of programs. a lack of mastery of the prerequisite content and skills. The magnet program will serve to strengthen the students' knowledge and skills in these and other critical areas. A. Organizational Structure/Operations Parkview Science Magnet School will be phased in over a three year period of time. In 1989-90 one hundred to one hundred and fifty (100-150) student seats will be available for tenth grade. in 1990-91 one hundred to one In hundred and fifty student seats will be added to eleventh grade to accommodate the rising tenth grade students. A similar number of seats will be added for twelfth grade in 1991-1992, bringing the total capacity to 300-450. The exact total (100-150) 300-450. capacity will complement the enrollment figures/projections for the Fine Arts Magnet program. The seven period day currently in place at Parkview will need to continue to allow students the rime to take the specialty courses in the curriculum. The Science Magnet School will utilize the administrative team and teaching staff that already Magnet School. * ' ' ' serve the Fine Arts - A part time Russian teacher will be the only additional staff member needed for the In 1989-90 an additional science teacher and Technical Writing teacher will be needed. 1988-89 school term. a part time , - ------------- Additional staff requests beyond 1989-90 will be based upon enrollment. The Parkview Science Magnet School will with the University of Arkansas cl L__:__ Sciences and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences to provide unique experiences for students. Both Universities have expressed work cooperatively at Little Rock College of B. for a willingness to host student groups for special laboratory investigations and guest lec- riiroe a 4- 4- U r i ~ J -. j j____ .__________ _ tures at the University Campuses, and to send university personnel to the school site for special lectures and/or demonstrations. The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences will provide some individual "shadowing" experiences where a student follows and works fessional for a period of time. The University of Arkansas with a health-care proParkview Science Magnet . , - will meet annually with personnel representing the College of Sciences at UALR and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences to plan specific activities and strategies for the upcoming school year. School staff the Curriculum Design/Course Offerings The Little Rock School District non-science senior high curriculum will be combined with the District's high tech science courses and a science component to form the program or studies for Parkview Science Magnet School. District - _ 117The following program of study is required for high school graduation: Required Graduation Requirements (Grades 9-12) English (4 units) Social Studies (3 units) Mathematics and Science (5 units) Physical Education (1/2 unit) Health Education (1/2 unit) Vocational Education (1 unit) Fine Arts (1/2 unit) Computer Education The science magnet special course offerings are as follows: Biological Science 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. Biolab (1 year) (existing District high tech course) Microbiology (1 semester) (new course) Human Anatomy and Physiology (1 semester) (new course) Environmental Health (1 semester) (new course) AP Biology (existing course) Physical Science 1. 2. 3. 4 . Chemtech (1 year) (existing District high tech course) Qualitative Analysis (1 semester) (new course) Organic Chemistry (1 semester) (new course) Physics (1 year) (existing course with slight modifications to emphasize medicine and health applications) Mathematics/Science Skill Courses 1. 2. Applied Statistics (1 semester) (new course) Technical Writing (1 semester) (new course) Mathematics (all are existing or proposed District courses) 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. Geometry (1 year) Algebra II (1 year) Advanced Algebra and Trigonometry (1 year) Calculus AB (1 year) Calculus BC (1 year) - . 118Foreian Lancruaae 1. 2. 3 . Russian I, II (1 year) (new course) German I, II, III, IV (1 year) (existing course) Latin I, II, III (1 year) (existing course) Recfuired and Elective Non-specialtv Courses Non-specialty courses required for graduation and free elective courses will be selected from the District's full Program Parkview High School of Studies offered at Program ReoTJirements Biolab (1 year) required in the tenth grad Chemtech (1 year) required eleventh grade e in the tenth or Physics (1 year) required in the eleventh or twelfth grade Applied Statistics (1 semester) required in the eleventh or twelfth grade Technical Writing (1 semester) required in the eleventh or twelfth grade Two (2) semester electives must be chosen from Microbiology, Human Anatomy and Physiology, and Environmental Health in grades 10-12. One U) semester elective must be chosen from Qualitative Analysis and Organic Chemistry in grades 11-12. AP Biology may be elected grade. in the twelfth Two (2) years of foreign language must be chosen from either Russian, German, or Latin in grades 10-12. Mathematics must be taken each 10-12. year, grades All students will complete a science research project each year. All students will complete a 3 hour "of a health-science professional during the twelfth grade. shadowing" a 3 The following sample schedules are for illustrative only: purposes 119Sample Schedule A Sample Schedule B Grade 10 (PE, Health, Vocational Education, and Algebra II were taken in the ninth grade) 1. 2 . 3 , 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . English Social Studies Geometry Foreign Language Biolab Chemtech General Elective (PE, Health, Vocational Education were not taken in the ninth grade) 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6 . 7 . English Social Studies Geometry PE/Health Vocational Biolab Foreign Lang^uage Grade 11 1. 2. 3. 4. 5 . 6 . 7 . English Social Studies Trigonometry and Advanced Algebra Qualitative Analysis/Fine Arts Survey Foreign Language Physics General Elective 1. 2. 3 . 4 . 5. 6 . 7. English Social Studies Algebra II Fine Arts Survey/ Anatomy & Physiology Chemtech Applied Statistics/ Technical Writing General Elective Grade 12 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . English Calculus Advanced Biology Anatomy and Physiology/ Environmental Health Applied Statistics/ Technical Writing General Elective General Elective 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7. English Advanced Algebra/ Trigonometry Foreign Language Physics Qualitative Analysis/Organic Chemistry Microbiology/ Environmental Health General Elective Staff Development The instructional staff will ment and sSJ? a participate in curriculum develop- TSouchout development activities during the summer of 1989. to provide thJ ' inservice programs will be conducted to provide the staff with subject specific content and ski] 1c
and litate^the^deVstrategies and skills that will faci- narc delivery of the science curriculum. UALR and GAMS J X . .--------------------- Consultants from will be used to assist with staff development. Parent Involvement Parents and participating students will understanding of the rules of the program'. sign a contract assuring X ., school and participation in the Hoc' X will be expected to attend designated Pta '' ----------- a limited number of meetings and other special events. 120Physical Facilities Space will be needed in the second , , ----------- year of the prooram for research laboratory/technical writing lab. use as writing lab. The room will house hou^^h! fragile instrumentation in science and will house the computers needed for the technical writing also course. Evaluation Evaluation for the ovaxudtion ror the science magnet school will be tied directlv tn ahH mom coring team from the District' and Testing Department
- dent questionnaire
(:
teview or such records^ and reco?S of trips, speakers, science fairs, J Information will be gathered. and assessed throughout guest experiences. luation report will Directors. ------- s Evaluation (2) a teacher questionnaire
, - . (3) a stu- a parent questionnaire
(5) an admi- (6) a review of pertinent documents behavioral records, (4) (5) science and "shadowing" , - ------ reviewed, analyzed, the school year and a summative eva- be presented annually to the Board of a summative to the Board 121April 18, 1990 To: From: Subject: OFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 E. MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent, Little Rock School District Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor LRSD Requests for Determination on Allowable Desegregation Costs We have received your correspondance of March 21 and April 3, 1990, requesting a determination of allowable desegregation costs in reference to items discussed under the headings of "Curriculum Audit," "Two-Run Bus System," II High School Facilities," "Office of Safety and Security, II Dunbar Junior and "Parkview Science Magnet School." on Monday, April 16, 1990. We discussed your requests with the Finance Advisory Committee The Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor, with the advisement of the Finance Commi ttee. expects to thoroughly assess all requests for desegregation expenditures to determine whether they are appropriate and consistent with the spirit and the letter of the desegregation plan. However, at this time, with the work of the Deloitte and Touche firm still underway, we do not have information sufficient to enable us to determine whether any potential expenditure is reasonable and allowable. We will use the results of the Deloitte and Touche analysis and recommendations as a basis for identifying procedural and decisionmaking guidelines with which we will operate in the future in regard to desegregation expenditures.OFFICE OF THE METROPOLITAM SUPERVISOR 201 E. MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK. AR 72201 April 19, 1990 To: From: Subject: Members of the Finance Advisory Committee Ann S. Brown, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor Memo to LRSD Regarding Requests for Determination on Allowable Desegregation Costs Attached for your information is a copy of the memo that was sent from this office to Dr. Ruth Steele, pursuant to our Finance Committee meeting on April 16, 1990. The three Associate Metropolitan Supervisors trust that this correspondence conveys the concensus of opinion from our meeting. serving not only as acknowledgment of the LRSD requests, but also making a reasonable statement regarding our inability to act on any desegregation funding requests until we have had an opportunity to review the findings and recommendations of Deloitte & Touch. Enc.To: From: Subject: Little Rock School District April 19, 1990 Office of Metropolitan Supervisor - Finance Committee^^ Ruth S. Steele, Superintendent Request for Determination of Allowable Desegregation Costs (No. 3) The Tri-District Desegregation Plan provides for the hiring of at least one additional parent recruiter and one data entry operator for the Student Assignment Office of the Little Rock School District. Exhibit 1 describes duties that will be performed by these individuals. Estimated annual costs of salaries, benefits, and other expenses for the two positions will be in the range of $51,000 to $55,000. These personnel are needed immediately to accommodate implementation of the long-term student assignment plan. Your favorable consideration and approval of these costs as allowable desegregation expenses at the earliest practical date will be appreciated. RSS:nr Attachment: Exhibit I - Tri-District Desegregation Plan dated January 2, 1990 QJ.f.l.ce Student Assignment * -r 810 West Markham Street * * v> Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 Exhibit I - Tri-District Desegregation Plan - January 2, 1990 Student Assignment Office
The Student Assignment Office will monitor new assignments, process all data entry work for elementary schools, process interdistrict majority-to-minority transfers and magnet assignments, reassign students because of over-crowdedness or desegregation requirements, consider appeals, verify addresses. conduct recruitment efforts, maintain waiting lists, and process desegregation transfers. The Student Assignment Office will also be responsible for incentive school and kindergarten assignments. The Student Assignment Office will be reorganized and extra personnel will be added to provide temporary and/or permanent support. At least one parent recruiter and one data entry operator will be added on a permanent basis. These individuals will be needed to accommodate the additional magnet, incentive school, and pre-kindergarten options that will be created by the long-term student assignment plan. Address Changes: All students will be required to report address changes immediately to the school's main office. Students who change addresses will have the option (if space is available and the assignment complies with desegregation requirements) to attend their new attendance zone schools or to remain at their current schools. The district will not be responsible for transportation if students elect to remain at their current schools. 16Downtown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page two In order for the District to open the Center for the 1990-91 school year, i.t_ must commit withing five working days (by May 18) to a lease agreement. The current occupant needs time to locate new space, remodel and move by August 6, 1990 to allow the district time to open the Center by the beginning of school. The building is well-suited for an early childhood program. Most of its walls are movable so that renovation requirements are minor
a separate lot will provide an outdoor play area
off-street parking is generous
and access to downtown and to the freeways is strategic. The total square footage of the building itself (not including play areas and parking) is 5,500 or $9.82 per foot, which is very competitive for downtown office space. The committee also considered: --Bushman Court Reporting Building (6th and Pulaski, $3,169 per month. 6,500 sq. feet). This was the committee's second choice
however, in order to use the building for an early childhood program would require extensive and expensive remodeling, this expense would be prudent. The committee did not feel that --Olympia Publishing Building (900 West Fourth, $2,000 per month, 3,400 sq. feet). The committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center and that it would be difficult to occupy in time for the 1990-91 school year. --SE Corner (3rd and Ringo, $3,000 per month, 3,600 sq. feet). committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center. Again the Seat Allocation According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, "the districts will work together to establish a pre-kindergarten program in the downtown Little Rock business area." As a result, seats will be allocated for downtown employees from each of the three districts in Pulaski County -- Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District. The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have three four-year old classes dur- ing the 1990-91 school year. Each class will have a maximum of 20 students. The seat allocation formula for the interdistrict magnet schools will be used to allocate the 60 four-year old seats among the three districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% 27 seats 10 seats 23 seats OLittle Rock School District May 11, 1990 TO: FROM: Ann Brown, Prentice Dupins, and Arma Hart - Associate Metropolitan Supervisors Chip Jones, Manager of Support Services _ James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation ^(5 Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH:^l)r. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools 0)^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Downtown Early Childhood Center Site Selection The planning committee for the downtown early childhood center (the Center) has located a site that will be a showcase of the four-year old program in the Little Rock School District. The selected site is currently owned by Cashion and Company. The district has negotiated a price of $4,500 per month for the location contingent upon approval by the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Current cost estimates for the total program are as follows: Rent Utilities 3 teachers 3 aides 1 custodian 1 coordinator 1 secretary Benefits Food Service Material & Supplies Postage Furniture & Equipment Renovations Contingency $54,000 10,000 75,000 30,000 9,000 20,000 12,000 21,900 15,000 3,000 500 20,000 (Start-up) 20,000 (Start-up) 30,000 $320,400 The committee recommends that funding for the Center be similar to the Magnet Schools. Each participating district will be responsible for the costs of the Center based on seat allocation. It is further recommended that the participating districts be allowed to use the Settlement proceeds to pay for the Center. O 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361 Downtown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page three Assignment Process All assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. As stated in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center is specifically aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. in Pulaski County, Arkansas. However, the parent must reside in one of the three districts Act 609, Act 624, or legal transfers cannot be used for admission to the Downtown Early Childhood Center. Special publicity efforts will be used to inform downtown employees about the early childhood program. Special meetings will be held prior to the application period to inform downtown employees about the downtown early childhood program. The three districts will work together to promote and support publi- city efforts. As stated earlier, the downtown early childhood program is aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. The downtown area i s defined as the Central Business District of Little Rock. The boundaries of this area are Interstate 30 on the east side, 15th Street on the south side, the State Capitol Mall on the west side, and Markham Street on the north side, parent's worksite must be located in this area in order for the parent to be classified as a downtown employee. The The Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will be responsible for processing all applications. In order to be eligible for admission, the child must be four years old on or before October 1, 1990. Parents must present a birth certificate and proof of address during the application process. A lottery will be conducted if demand exceeds the supply of seats for a parti- cular district. Students who are not selected will be placed on a waiting list for the remainder of the school year, each year. A new waiting list will be developed Hours of Operation The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have the same opening and closing time as a regular elementary school. In addition to the normal hours of operation, parents will have the option to participate in the before and after school care program. Office. The costs will be determined by the Little Rock School District CARE CARE services also will be provided during holidays. Transportation The three districts will not provide transportation. ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page four Curriculum The goals and objectives of the educational program wi 1T be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and styles of learning which will guide daily activities. The program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of young children. the joy of learning. It win appeal to young children an help them experience The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritages of children. to learn about themselves and other cultures. Young children need the opportunity An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in which the children are active learners. They will be given freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. Children will be offered choices and will select many of their own activities in learning areas: keeping, and music. children to explore and manipulate. blocks, science, math, games, puzzles, books, art, house- There will be many concrete materials in each area for Teachers are expected to facilitate the development of self-control in children by using positive guidance techniques. havior are a part of the classroom management program. Modeling and encouraging expected be- Children will have many opportunities to develop social skills such as cooperating, helping, and talking with other children, the staff, and resource persons. Children will be provided many experiences which lead to literacy: listening, drawing, and copying. Such activities facilitate language talking. and fine motor development. Listening to stories, telling about pictures. poetry, fingerplays, field trips, dictating stories, and participating in dramatic play all provide a foundation for beginning literacy. Formal reading and writing instruction is reserved for a more developmentally appropriate time. Implementation Plan Since the Center is required by the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District plans to implement the recommendations of the committee as described herein. Please advise us before May 18, 1990 if the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor is not in agreement with this decision so that other plans might be developed. The North Little Rock and the Pulaski County Special School Districts have been provided a copy of this memorandum. cc: Billy Bowles, PCSSD Bobby Acklin, NLRSD OTO: FROM: Little Rock School District May 11, 1990 V Ann Brown, Prentice Dupins, and Arma Hart - Associate Metropolitan Supervi sors Chip Jones, Manager of Support Services James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Program Development THROUGH:l?^br. Herb Cleek, Deputy Superintendent of Schools ^Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent of Schools SUBJECT: Downtown Early Childhood Center Site Selection The planning committee for the downtown early childhood center (the Center) has located a site that will be a showcase of the four-year old program in the Little Rock School District. The selected site is currently owned by Cashion and Company. The district has negotiated a price of $4,500 per month for the location contingent upon approval by the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor. Current cost estimates for the total program are as follows: Rent Utilities 3 teachers 3 aides 1 custodian 1 coordinator 1 secretary Benefits Food Service Material & Supplies Postage Furniture & Equipment Renovations Contingency $54,000 10,000 75,000 30,000 9,000 20,000 12,000 21,900 15,000 3,000 500 20,000 (Start-up) 20,000 (Start-up) 30,000 $320,400 The committee recommends that funding for the Center be similar to the Magnet Schools. Each participating district will be responsible for the costs of the Center based on seat allocation. It is further recommended that the parti ci- pating districts be allowed to use the Settlement proceeds to pay for the Center. 810 West Narkham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361Downtown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page two In order for the District to open the Center for the 1990-91 school year, it must commit withing five working days (by May 18) to a lease agreement. The current occupant needs time to locate new space, remodel and move by August 6, 1990 to allow the district time to open the Center by the beginning of school. The building is well-suited for an early childhood program. Most of its walls are movable so that renovation requirements are minor
a separate lot will provide an outdoor play area
off-street parking is generous
and access to downtown and to the freeways is strategic. The total square footage of the building itself (not including play areas and parking) is 5,500 or $9.82 per foot, which is very competitive for downtown office space. The committee also considered: --Bushman Court Reporting Building (6th and Pulaski, $3,169 per month, 6,500 sq. feet). This was the committee's second choice
however, in order to use the building for an early childhood program would require extensive and expensive remodeling, this expense would be prudent. The committee did not feel that --Olympia Publishing Building (900 West Fourth, $2,000 per month, 3,400 sq. feet). The committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center and that it would be difficult to occupy in time for the 1990-91 school year. --SE Corner (3rd and Ringo, $3,000 per month, 3,600 sq. feet). committee believes the space would not be adequate for the Center. Again the Seat Allocation According to the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, "the districts will work together to establish a pre-kindergarten program in the downtown Little Rock business area." As a result, seats will be allocated for downtown employees from each of the three districts in Pulaski County Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District. The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have three four-year old classes during the 1990-91 school year. Each class will have a maximum of 20 students. The seat allocation formula for the interdistrict magnet schools will be used to allocate the 60 four-year old seats among the three districts. LRSD NLRSD PCSSD 45.6% 15.7% 38.7% 27 seats 10 seats 23 seats ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page three Assignment Process All assignments are subject to desegregation requirements and capacity. As stated in the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Downtown Early Childhood Center is specifically aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. in Pulaski County, Arkansas. However, the parent must reside in one of the three districts Act 609, Act 624, or legal transfers cannot be used for admission to the Downtown Early Childhood Center. Special publicity efforts will be used to inform downtown employees about the early childhood program. Special meetings will be held prior to the application period to inform downtown employees about the downtown early childhood program. city efforts. The three districts will work together to promote and support publi- As stated earlier, the downtown early childhood program is aimed at serving the children of parents who work in the downtown area. fined as the Central Business District of Little Rock. The downtown area i s deThe boundaries of this area are Interstate 30 on the east side, 15th Street on the south side, the State Capitol Mall on the west side, and Markham Street on the north side, parent's worksite must be located in this area in order for the parent to be classified as a downtown employee. The The Little Rock School District Student Assignment Office will be responsible for processing all applications. In order to be eligible for admission, the child must be four years old on or before October 1, 1990. Parents must present a birth certificate and proof of address during the application process. A lottery will be conducted if demand exceeds the supply of seats for a particular district. Students who are not selected will be placed on a waiting list for the remainder of the school year, each year. A new waiting list will be developed Hours of Operation The Downtown Early Childhood Center will have the same opening and closing time as a regular elementary school. In addition to the normal hours of operation, parents will have the option to participate in the before and after school care program. Office. The costs will be determined by the Little Rock School District CARE CARE services also will be provided during holidays. Transportation The three districts will not provide transportation. ODowntown Early Childhood Center May 11, 1990 Page four Curriculum The goals and objectives of the educational program will be sensitive to the developmental characteristics of the children. The curriculum will be based on young children's interests and styles of learning which will guide daily activities. The program itself will be compatible with the developmental needs of young children, the joy of learning. It will appeal to young children an help them experience The early childhood program will be multicultural in focus and sensitive to the cultural and ethnic heritages of children. to learn about themselves and other cultures. Young children need the opportunity An appropriate curriculum for young children will be one in which the children are active learners. They will be given freedom to act on materials, to use them in their own ways, to move about and to interact verbally and physically with other children and with their teachers. There will be a full spectrum of activities to stimulate children with many levels of development. Children will be offered choices and will select many of their own activities in learning areas: keeping, and music. children to explore and manipulate. blocks, science, math, games, puzzles, books, art, house- There will be many concrete materials in each area for Teachers are expected to facilitate the development of self-control in children by using positive guidance techniques. havior are a part of the classroom management program. Modeling and encouraging expected beChildren will have many opportunities to develop social skills such as cooperating, helping, and talking with other children, the staff, and resource persons. Children will be provided many experiences which lead to literacy: listening, drawing, and copying. and fine motor development. Such activities facilitate language talking. Listening to stories, telling about pictures. poetry, fingerplays, field trips, dictating stories, and participating in dramatic play all provide a foundation for beginning literacy. Formal reading and writing instruction is reserved for a more developmentally appropriate time. Implementation Plan Since the Center is required by the Tri-District Desegregation Plan, the Little Rock School District plans to implement the recommendations of the committee as described herein. Please advise us before May 18, 1990 if the Office of the Metropolitan Supervisor is not in agreement with this decision so that other plans might be developed. The North Little Rock and the Pulaski County Special School Districts have been provided a copy of this memorandum. cc: Billy Bowles, PCSSD Bobby Acklin, NLRSD Osg| OFFICE OF METROPOLITAN SUPERVISOR 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 STAFF/LRSD MEETING May 25, 1990 AGENDA 1. Area Schools 2. Deseg Requirement for Kindergarten 3. Extracurricular Activities Cheerleader/Drill Team Try-Outs 4. Magnet Schools 5. Incentive Schools 6. Hiring of Principals 7. Downtown Early Childhood 8. Early Childhood Education Report 9. Committee Procedure 10. Timeline for Monitoring Instrument 11. Other Deloitte & Touche 111 Center Street, Suite 1800 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-4420 Telephone: (501) 374-0206 Facsimile: (501) 374-4809 May 11, 1990 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Metropolitan Supervisor Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: Deloitte & Touche is pleased to respond to your request for a brief summarization of the areas we suggest for policy establishment resulting from the procedures that we were engaged to perform for the late Mr. Eugene Reville, Metropolitan Supervisor. Our procedures were performed in accordance with the proposal letter submitted to Mr. Reville on March 7, 1990. Deloitte & Touche School District (the visited the administrative offices M May 11, 1990. District") during the period of April 9, of the Little Rock 1990, Our primary contacts at the District were Chip Jones, to Milhollen, James Jennings and Estelle Mathis, of the following desegregation plans: Mark The District provided copies February 16, 1988, Master". Interim Report and Recommendations of the Special Volume 1 of the "Little Rock School Plan", dated January 31, 1989. District Proposed Desegregation "Tri-District Desegregation Plan". The District also provided an analysis of the Desegregation Account (Fund 13 on their accounting records). This analysis presented the desegregation costs of the District for the 1988-89 school year that were claimed as costs to be reimbursed by the U.S. District Court (the "i desegregation settlement agreement. Court") as part of the The total cost presented is $5,471,069. The costs were summarized by school and by major desegregation program
PAL, Homework Centers, Extended Day Care, Early Childhood Education, Enhancement Schools and an Other cost category.After reading the information above and other related information provided and after analyzing various supporting documentation for desegregation program related expenditures, we held discussions with various individuals including District administrative and school personnel, staff of the office of the Metropolitan Supervisor and Court personnel. The target beneficiaries and the nature of costs were generally found to be as represented by the District. In our analysis of costs we noted no situations which were not supported by adequate documentation. Based on these procedures, we believe that the following areas for policy establishment should be addressed. Future Desegregation Plans Require guidelines desegregation programs. for budget information to supplement the Require guidelines for the format of financial information. Require guidelines for the preparation of the program implementation timetables. Determination of an Amendment Process Develop a formal process to document changes in the desegregation plan and the related budgeted amounts. Financial Reporting Process Require required. guidelines to describe the types of financial reports Require the presentation of the District's total desegregation expenditures, not only those related to the Court desegregation fund. Require comparison of budgeted expenditures to actual expenditures. Require explanations of budget variances. Determine the frequency of financial reporting. Establish an Evaluation Process Determine the criteria that are needed to measure the effectiveness of the desegregation plan and each program within the plan. Determine the reports that the District should prepare to provide those criteria. Determine the frequency of the reporting. 2We understand that you wish to avoid the additional incurred in our preparing a detailed report. cost that would be As you requested, we have only prepared a brief listing of the areas where certain policy decisions to be necessary. appear We understand that you believe our previous meetings with you in which we presented the specific details of our findings provided sufficient detailed information to you and that, in light of the previous detailed discussions, an in-depth written report is not necessary. As we communicated previously, we will be pleased to provide such details to you again, verbally or in writing. We appreciate this opportunity to serve you and believe that the accounting rules and procedures that are developed as a result of these various policy decisions will provide the necessary framework to monitor and control the desegregation expenditures in the future, further assistance in establishing policy. Our firm would be pleased to be of Sincerely, 3OFFICE 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 CZy.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 corranensurate 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 and our Administrative Assistant) whose home district is the LRSD. 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 di stricts. 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 November 6, 1990 TO: Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District FROM: oily Ramer, Administrative Assistant THROUGH: .rma Hart, Associate Metropolitan Supervisor SUBJECT: 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. 2. LRSD send to this office a print-out determining the exact amount due LRSD for the 1989-90 retroactive pay for Ann Brown, Airma Hart, and Polly Ramer. 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 infoznnation. 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, Airma 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. 09/17'90 15:26 301 374 7609 L R School Dlst 001 n ECCtCEBBL aw Little Rock School District September 17, 1990 TO:. Arma Hart, Ann Brown, Polly Ramer FROM: ^Ruth S. Steele SUBJECT: Salary Adjustments I have asked Chris Heller to review the issue of salary adjustments for the metropolitan supervisor's staff, and he is now doing so. As I indicated to you, Arma, in our telephone conversation on Friday, I do not believe I have the authority to give you a salary increase without being directed to do so by the Court, since you and other members of the staff are not employees of the Little Rock School District, and- since I have no authority to make budget decisions regarding the operation-of your office. A second point is' that even if I- did have such.authority,'you and Ann would not be able to receive a raise because senior level administrative employees' salaries were frozen at a level established on August 30, 1989. In effect, you have been treated in the same way as all other top level administrators in the District have been treated.- Following salary adjustments made last summer, which reflected a higher percentage for.some than for others, salaries were frozen and remain frozen as of this date.' We I hope-this helps to clarify my position regarding this matter. .... look forward to the opportunity to see a proposed budget for 1990-91 and to comment upon i-t, as I believe the Court Order which established the office requires. /bjf cc: -Chris Keller- Herb Cleek PAX - transmit l TO: jJxPyd-7 DEPT: fT WlfjLlTi Memo FROM: C0:_ PHONE: NO-OF PAGES I FAX?: Post.lt'Brand fax transmiftai memo 7S71LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET TO: FROM: LITTLE ROCK, AR May 28, 1991 Ruth Steele, Superintendent SUBJECT: In order 72201 Jones, Manager of Support Services Phase II of Capital Improvement Plan to clearly define the modification section of the plan. parameters of the facility I recommend that we send the revised capital improvement plan to Ann Brown with notations next to those approval. time lines. proj ects for which we will solicit specific court All other projects will proceed under Board approved For projects that require specific court approval. I further recommend that we be allowed to contract with an architect so that budgets can be finalized and drawings prepared for the Court's review. The amount of money from Phase I for which specific court approval has been or will be sought is $12,954,480 or 77% of the total $16,900,000 issue. Of the $15,100,000 proposed issue, $10,507,691 would require court approval or 70% of the total issue. Obviously, this approach allows the Court to have sufficient resources to monitor and control the District's general direction. Without seeking a working solution to the plan language, the Court might have to approve every capital improvement project. If the District had to take this approach, stop. facility improvements would If you approve this recommendation, I will contact Chris so that we can try to reach an agreement with Ann Brown. cc: James Jennings Doug Kendall c
\n)emos\phasel I .wpdSchool Henderson Henderson Henderson J.A. Fair J.A. Fair J.A. Fair J.A. Fair J.A. Fair King Mabelvale Mabelvale Mabelvale Mabelvale Jr. Mabelvale Jr. Little Rock School District Bond Issue Application May 10, 1991 Improvements Plumbing Replacement Energy Management Site Improvements Replace Phone System Energy Management Renovate Shop Area Waterproofing Repair Emergency Lighting New School Replace fire alarm Site Improvements Emergency Lighting Roofing Site Improvements McClellan (Field House) Roofing McDermott Metropolitan Mitchell Old Carver Old Carver Otter Creek Otter Creek Parkview Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Jr. Rightsell Rightsell Rightsell Rightsell Stephens Southwest Jr. Terry Terry Wakefield Wakefield Site Improvements Roofing Classroom Addition -4 ' Roofing Heating Replacements Emergency Lighting Site Improvements Site Improvements Carpet and Floor Tile Fire Bells Site Improvements Intercom Repair Site Improvements Plumbing Repairs Site Improvements Classroom Addition Roofing School Replacement Classroom Addition Roofing Site Improvements Emergency Lighting Paint /Vrf- Page 2 Cost 10,000 25,000 70,000 3,000 ' 25,000 33,000 (U 5,000 4,000 1,500,000^ 12,000 20,000 21,933 30,000 3,545 30,000 97,555 65,000^ 47,032 67,000. 2,500 25,000 25,000 25,000 2,000 5,000 15,000 20,000 10,000 50,000 65,000 16,866 3,400,000* 626,000^ 89,250 15,000 6,000 30,000 Isf |5>^w!) (Mu(, Little Rock School District Bond Issue Application May 10, 1991 School Improvements Cost Asbestos Abatement Badgett Badgett Badgett Badgett Baseline Baseline Booker Booker Booker Brady Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central (Gym) Cloverdale Jr. Dodd Dodd Dunbar Eastside Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Fair Park Food Service Forest Park Forest Park Fulbright Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Henderson Henderson Henderson District-Wide - Phase 1 Carpet and Floor Tile Energy Lighting
Renovation Site Improvements Plumbing repairs Intercom & Bell Repair Emergency Lighting Seal and Waterproof windows All-Weather bus waiting area Site Improvements Site Improvements Paint Waterproof East Exterior Installation of Lang. Labs Roofing Repair Deck Carpet and Floor Tile Replace Panic Devices Electrical Repair/Improvements Major Renovation Handicapped ramps Emergency Lighting Major Renovation Roofing Site Improvements HVAC Replacement At, Paint Carpet and Floor Tile Renovation Site Improvements Underpinning kitchen area Site Improvements Additional Outside Lighting Major Renovation Replace Sewer Line Replace Rooftop HVAC Units Wall Repair Enclose Six Hall Entrances 1,000,000 10,000 11,000 2,000 10,000 3,000 15,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 30,000 15,000 127,000 30,000 126,631 5,000 25,000 8,000 5,000 3,161,160*" 5,000 4,000 100,000 71,400 20,000 8,000 30,000 30,000 200,000 2,000 5,000 15,000 5,000 2,006,800^ 6,000 30,000 40,000 35,000 Page 1Little Rock School District Bond Issue Application May 10,1991 School Improvements Cost Wakefield Wakefield Wakefield Waston Western Hills Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Wilson Woodruff Site Improvements Minor Renovation-' Carpet and Floor Tile Site Improvements Major Renovation Replace Ceiling Tile Fence Repair Replace Plumbing Fixtures Replace A/C Units Roofing Carpet and Floor Tile Major Renovation Contingency 30,000 75,000 25,000 20,000 1,235,832 Z 50,000 30,000 30,000 6,000 83,475 30,000 1,024,688 491,333 Total Previous Issue 16,900,000 6^ Page 3 Sux (Ac, Little Rock School District Bond Issue Application May 10, 1991 School Improvements Cost Proposed Issue Bale Bale Bale Bale Bale Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Booker Booker Booker Brady Brady Brady Brady Brady Brady Brady Brady Chicot Dodd Dodd Dodd Dodd Forest Heights Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Forest Park Fulbright Garland Gillam Hall Hall Lighting & Plumbing Replace Hot Water Pipes Site Work Electrical Service Carpeting Roofing Site Improvements Electrical Service Minor Remodeling Provide vent fans Carpet and Floor Tile A/C replacements Repair Walls Ceiling repair under skylights Site Work Repair/Replace Heating System Intercom Equipment/Furnishings Carpet and Floor Tile Gutters installed New Cafetorium Sewer system Replacement Replace Wooden Building Paint Ceiling Replacement PbaserZ^ Renovation Cabinet repair Door glass replacement Carpet and Floor Tile HVAC Improvements Paint Additional Receptacles Doors for restrooms Carpet Roofing Acoustic Tile Replacement Painting 63,000 45,000 20,000 22,000 50,000 151,365 3,000 50,000 10,000 2,500 15,000 37,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 53,000 2,000 45,000 55,000 2,000 250,000> 15,000 80,000 e 25,000 125,000 3,867,691*' 1,000 1,500 3,000 20,000 32,000 3,000 10,000 10,000- 3TWo 25,000 Page 1School Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall Hall IRC Ish Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson Jefferson King J.A. Fair Mabelvale Mabelvale Mabelvale Mabelvale Mabelvale Jr. Mann Mann Mann McClellan McClellan McClellan McDermott McDermott Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Meadowcliff Metropolitan Metropolitan Metropolitan Otter Creek Little Rock School District Bond Issue Application May 10,1991 Improvements Floor Replacement Replace Lighting Replace Plumbing Fixtures Parking/Site Work Steam Piping Heating Control Improvement New Facility Roofing Carpeting/Floor Tile Window Repair/Replacement Electrical Replacement Plumbing Replacement HVAC Replacement Cost 60,000 40,000 30,000 200,000 107,500 _ 6.5QQ ^""'^,740,000^1^ 88,200 Site Work Painting New School Track Repair Roofing Paint Receptacles in Cafeteria Carpet and Floor Tile 8-10 Classroom Addition (Approx.) Plumbing Repairs School Sign Improve drainage Renovate Art/Kindergarten Areas Cafeteria Expansion Site Work Paint Carpet and Floor Tile Re-roofing Site Improvements HVAC Improvements Improved Electrical Service a* Paint Electrical Service Fence Repair Paint 60,000 60,000 150,000 140,000 250,000 50,000 40,000 2,350,000-h /.S 50,000 167,779 25,000 1,500 5,000 950,000slf 10,000 5,000 10,000 120,00^* 200,000 t Page 2 I 80,000) i 30,000 35,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 100,000 30,000 25,000 10,000 24,000 School Parkview Parkview Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Pulaski Heights Jr. Pulaski Heights Jr. Pulaski Heights Jr. Pulaski Heights Jr. Pulaski Heights Jr. Purchasing Romine Romine Romine Romine Terry Terry Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Watson Williams Total Proposed Issue Little Rock School District Bond Issue Application May 10,1991 Improvements Paint Energy Management ' Replace A/C Units Roofing Paint Steam Piping Minor Renovation Roofing Additional Restroom Floor Repairs Upgrade Electrical Renovation '-CUSA. Site Improvements Carpeting and Floor Tile HVAC Replacement Roofing Repair HVAC control Replace Electrical Service Repair HVAC controls Replace Gas A/C System Carpet and Floor Tile Paint Reroofing Emergency Lighting Cafeteria Expansion Cost 35,000 20,000 12,000 5,995 40,000 150,000 50,000 19,530 5,000 2,000 15,000 50,000 45,000 15,000 215,000 I 28,98qJ 10,000 30,000 12,000 45,000 10,000 30,000 100,000 6,000 350,000 15,100,000 7ol Page 3CJJ. _ - L- 08-'13 91 16:26 I 0301 374 7609 L R School DIst 0D5I @002/002 * i*: 3.-'
Little Rock School District August 13, 1991 Mr. Don Smith Thomas and Thomas Certified Public Accountants 201 . Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Don: Thomas and Thomas is authorized to release to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring current and prior year workpapers for the Little Rock School District. audi' and I If further information is needed, please let me know. Sincerely, Ruth S. Steele Superintendent of Schools RSS/ch 810 West MarRham Street Little Roch. Arkansas 72201 {501)374-3^61 fcj - r. 08 '19 91 13:34 501 374 7609 L R School Dlst @001 I 5 '3 a TO: FROM
RE: Little Rock School District August 19, 1991 Bob Morgan - O.D.M. Mark D. Miihollen, Controlle 4 INFORMATION REQUEST Per your telephone request of August 16, 1991, I am providing you the following information. 1. 2. Desegregation Legal Fees through 6/30/91 $2,670,897.67 1991'-92 Total Operating/Desegregation Budge' $110,109,825.00 Post-It brand fax Irani To ismtttal memo 7671 L DpL Phone? (Fax-* ~ 1 I <1 1 k' k 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3561 i ? xra tLITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM UTTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS AUGUST 22, 1991 TO
BOARD OF DIRECTORS cons*- L5N CONTROLLER ENI TONY WOOD, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT THROUGH
DR. RUTH . STEELE
SUPERINTENDENT SUBJECT
FINANCIAL REPORTS WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FOLLOWING FINANCIAL REPORTS BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT RECEIPTS-OPERATING. DEBT SERVICE AND DESEGREGATION FUNDS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31. 1991 APPROVED BUDGET YTD RECEIPTS REVENUE-LOCAL SOURCES CURRENT TAXES DELINQUENT TAXES 40% PULLBACK EXCESS TREASURERS FEE DEPOSITORY INTEREST REVENUE IN LIEU OF TAXES MISCELLANEOUS AND RENTS IMTCDCCT AM IM\ZCOT^^ CMTC ATHLETIC RECEIPTS TOTAL 37,919,150 4,000,000 21,222,860 122,568 400,000 206.000 300,000 ooe
nnn 85,000 64,480,578 4,317,766 137,590 3,157 39,653 4,498,181 REVENUE - COUNTY SOURCES COU^iTY GENERAL SEVERANCE TAX 117.332 _____q. 117.332 u REVENUE - STATE SOURCES MFPA SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN APPORTIONMENT VOCATIONAL HANDICAPPED CHILDREN ORPHAN CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSPORTATION INCENTIVE FUNDS - M TO M ADULT EDUCATION CO.MPENSATORY EDUCATION TOTAL 23,349,349 7,637,482 4,500,000 76,190 1,612,456 577,435 9,085 450,000 3,400,000 1,300,000 660.000 602,491 44,174,488 2,000,000 50,000 4,200 2,054,200 REVENUE OTHER SOURCES PUBLIC LAW 874 TRANSFER FROM FED. GRANTS TRANSFER FROM BOND ACCT TOrAL 44,625 90,900 1,000,000 1,135,525 0 rOTAl P.EVENUE 109,907,^923 6,552,381:\uii PAiGGSCNG .'SSCSS 129ES7CS PLANT SERVICES SUBTOTAL 690.000 ECNC ISSUE PURCHASING CONTINGENCY subtotal LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND .ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 1991 ScG oALANCc 07-01-91 7,714.24 53 651 32 61,365.56 95.425.30 26,959 12 122.254 92 5 -^lO 000 SONO ISSUE ENERGY GRANT 74.942.65 AiR CONCri NIN3 15,352.43 SUBTOTAL 9C.295 13 5 154 '0'3 DUNBAR CC'NTINGENC':' 139.833.50 1.629.018 67 ii'iCCyic 1991 -93 0 co 0 CO 0 CO I rv^,'! c^\, SALANCc 1991-93 1991-93 07-31-91 7,714 24 53,651.32 0.00 0 CO 0.30 c.oo 0 00 . 495.00 495.00 61,365.56 95.425.80 26.959 12 -122 384 92 74,942 65 14,857.43 89.300.13 subtotal 1.767 852 37 0.00 0.00 0.00 139,833.50 1.623,018 87 1,767,852.37 c.SOJ.OOO 3OND ISSUE CENTRAL 21.981.59 11.622.00 TROPOLITAN 16.725.03 PARKVIEW 21.087.73 BOOKER 23.014 60 DUNBAR 12,520.25 10,359.59 16,725 03 21,087.78 23.014.60 12.520 25 FAIR 54,944.13 MDCHELL PULASKI HGTS 65.000.00 20,000.00 24,342.00 2.500.00 54,944.13 40,658.00 17,500.00 southwest MCCLELLAN 566.307.95 4,740.66 561.627.29 783 50 783.50 HENDERSON ALT LEARNING CENTER 150,241 47 63.143.0.3 CLOVERDALE JR CLOVERDALE ELEM 1,537,377.50 33,562 01 40,C00.00 45,692 82 MABELVALE 32 218 77 10,044.01 5,074.00 150,241.47 68,148.03 - _ 1.532,184.68 28,518.00 27,144.77 BRADY 27,595 47 16.246.43 BADGETT 31.027 67 MCDERMOTT E.AS ELI NE 19,973 98 11 gga 73 T A.R PARK 71.752 08 FOREST PARK 2,729 00 GARLAND 2.247 19 11,349 04 31,027.67 19,973.98 11,694.73 71.752.08 2.729.00 2,247.18I r UND EQUITY-BEGINNING RE'yENUE CURRENT TAXES DELINQUENT TAX 4m> PULuBACK OT^GR TOTAL LOCAL MFPA VOCATIONAL TPANorCR IAI l</N OTHER SETTLEMENT PRCjCEEDS SETTLEMENT LOAN I Ml. FEDERAL OTHER STATc TOTAL RE'v'ENUE & EOUir/ r>?ENDlTURES CERTIFIED NON-CERTJFiED BENEFITS DESEGREGATION PURCHASED SERVICES S'lJPLIES Si MATERiAlS CAPITAL OUTLAY dedT service OT.HER OBJECTS CO N TI T'JGE NOi' total expenditures r*jnL/Ckuui I I ciNuii'i'j LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FINANCIAL REPORV FOR THE ONE MONTH PERIOD ENDING JULY 31. 1991 OPEMAl INGzliESEG BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET MAGNET ACTU/U. FOOD eri iviec RUDOfT actual SF FCIAL REVENUE BUOCiET ACTUAL CONSTHUCTION BUDGET ACTUAL 300,000 50,931 ?. IdG|9'j3 13,512,853 37,919,150 4,000,000 21.222,860 64.480.E78 23.349.349 1.612.456 3,400,000 3,792,533 7,637,482 _ 4^500,000 44,291,820 . 44 625 ___1^090^900 110,207,923 47.636,190 13,762,313 7.232,586 13,185,342 8,260,270 4,533.533 1,728,426 8,385,834 4,678,725 ____7PO,OGO 110209,825 S8,C%8 4 317 766 137.590 55.32.5 4,436,181 2,cxx
,ooo 50,000 4.200 6,503,961 547,478 u, ',47a Gj612 3G2 190,589 553,700 120,769 370.184 649 523 253 0CO 450,183 1.475,462 234 176 24 6/3 33,745 7,115 48 935 207,84/ 5,566 560 a Cx>
a- 46,141 1526 2G2 421.500 3 29-1 219 312 2L? 43! W IRb.OX 1 502,31'* 73 3.545 33,171 5,024 23,280 13.225 7,049 ^/)57____ _:.2ej4:T6_. 894 .-,.2*357.4.3Q5-._ . 6,063 6.060 .3:518 7 15,044 14.847 1,385 S.74S 830,670 70.431___ 44^^9__ _ 040,416 . .469uO4Z_ i4W9L- ^35.9781306 ) )EXPEND^'TCRES WSSTcFN HILLS DCDD GEYSR SPRINGS PULASKI HGTS ELEM RIGHTSELL WILSON WOOUHU^r M'ABEL'-AuE ELEM TERRY FULBRIGHT OTTER CREEK WAKEFIELD WATS EAST SICE FOOD SERVICE ASBESTOS KING STEPHENS CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL UTTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 31, 1391 EEG SALANCE 07-01-91 836.713 94 3 831 45 1,052.713.31 24.454.65 129,547.53 1.26.461.58 516,638.56 64.077 83 102.865 00 1 3 890 80 26.279 53 142.963.30 17,422 63.390.96 15 792.11 644,827 57 1.500,000,00 3 400.000.00 245.612.86 11.733.172.80 INCOME 1991-92 O.CO 15 ICO.Of0 PROPOSED ISSUE BALE o 199,472,61 ^4 4 O C C A A BOOKER BRADY CHICOT 54.500.00 222.000.00 250.000.00 TRANSESRS 1991-9C 30 009.00 EXPSNOtrURSS (70.000 00) 0.00 1991 135 318 54 358.496 87 25.679 13 115.310.03 S.437.00 22.071.76 736.565 25 644.49 END SAuiNCE C7-31-91 4,2G0.CC 701,401 40 3,831 45 694,226.44 24,454 65 103.868 40 126.461.58 431,328.53 64,077 83 102.865 00 13.890.80 26.279 53 133,526.80 17.422 54 68 .390 96 15,792.11 622,755.81 1,500.000.00 3,400,000.00 175.612.86 10.946,607.55 198,828 12 214,365.00 54,500.00 222,000.00 250,000.00 DODD FOREST HEIGHTS 245.000 00 FOREST PARK FULBRIGHT 3.725.788.63 60.500 00 10.000.00 32,089.70 QARbANO GILLUM 10.000.00 57 960 00 245,000.00 3,693,698.93 60,500.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 57,980.00 HALL 500.000.00 500,000.00 IRC JEFFERSON 2.634,568.55 838 200 00 KING 2.350.000 00 FAIR MABELVALE ELEM MABELVALE JR 50.000 00 199.279 00 950.000.00 MANN 25.000 00 MCCLELLAN 400 000 00 C 876 42 2,634,588 55 838,200.00 2.350,000 00 50,000.00 199,279.00 950,000.00 25.000 00 393,123 58EXPENDITURES MCDERMOTT MEADCV.'CLIFF OTTER CREEK PABKViEW FLiLASW HGT3 ELEM PULASKI HGT3 JR PURCH.-SING rC'W
ne : ti Y A'ATSON WILLIAMS SUBTOTAL RETENUES sale of property PROCEEDS-FIRE LOSS INTEREST SUBTOTAL TOTAL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY ST. 1991 BEG BALANCE 070191 65.000.00 400,000.00 CC AAA AA 24.00000 55,000.00 207 995.00 91.530.00 50.000.00 303.980.00 40.000.00 203,000 00 350,000.00 14,852.138.79 147,614.26 115.677.75 0.00 263 492.01 28.890.701.58 INCOME 1991-92 0.00 6.069.08 6 069 05 6.069 08 TRANSEERS 1391-9S 0.00 C 00 0.00 EXPENDITUReS END BALANCE 19S1-92 39.S10.61 13,745 00 13.745 00 840 415 36 0T-31~91 e5.000.C0 400,000.00 CC Ann nn 24.000.00 55,000 00 207,995.00 91,530.00 50.000.00 303.530.00 40,000.00 203.000.00 350.000.00 14.612,528.18 147.814.26 101.932.75 6.069 08 255 815.09 28.056.354 80OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING 201 EAST MARKHAM, SUITE 510 HERITAGE WEST BUILDING LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 October 28, 1991 Dr. Ruth Steele, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ruth
As you are aware, the District Court is obligated to monitor the use of settlement monies and does so through the Office of Desegregation Monitorin! ig- ODM must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the districts legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. For the past several weeks, my associate. Bob Morgan, has been working closely with your Manager of Support Services, Jim Ivey, and also with our financial consultants, the Arkansas Financial Group, to develop a system for adequately and fairly monitoring desegregation finances. During the course of this process it has become apparent that the settlement monies are being spent at a rate which will exhaust them long before the plan commitments and their scheduled fulfillment have been realized. Budgeting and fiscal management to ensure fuU implementation of the desegregation plan needs to be such that the district can answer the following questions: 1. 2. 3. What are the district guidelines for identifying expenditures as desegregation costs? What process is used to project the desegregation budget? 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?Page Two October 28, 1991 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? 5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted in Code 13? 6. Who makes the decisions about which costs are actually debited to Code 13? 7. What criteria determine how budgeting and debiting decisions are made? 8. What checks are built into the accounting/bookkeeping system to prevent arbitrary debiting of cost items to one budget category or another? 9. What are the districts spending priorities and how have they been determined? 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? 11. What steps is the district taking to prevent a funding shortfall that will inhibit carrying out the desegregation plan to its fall extent? Within the next ten days. Bob and I want to meet with you to discuss the answers to these questions. We are aware of the enormity of the ddstricfs planning, budgeting, and accounting tasks
if we can be of any assistance as the above information is gathered, please dont hesitate to let me know. Very truly yours, V-Ann S. Brown Federal Monitor cc: Judge Susan Weber Wright 71 ^KKBB0S =*j5r Little Rock School District December 12, 1991 7' in DEC 1 5 1991 Mr. Bob Morgan Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building, Suite 510 Citics ot I'ior'ng 201 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 j I J 'kjt ^5^5? J S w 5 J 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, T: Tony Wood Deputy Superintendent TW/ch 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)374-3361LRSD ANSWERS TO ODM QUESTIONS (Reference 10/28/91 Ann Brown letter to Dr. Steele) Question 1. Question 2. 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 impo: teic: What students are learning in our schools is the most tant issue School Board members, administrators, and ors must consider as decisions are made about education in cur ccsEiunity. 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 poin requirements for graduation. number and quality of reading assignments, multi-cultural the 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 subm consideration by December.
a rep The ad: to the School inistration oa: te. ,5 fcr ts 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. o Cl Tn January, 1991, the Little Rock School District received culum Audit conducted in September 199 0 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 o: IS ent, promotion criteria are unclear. assessment is not to the curriculum, and curriculum guides lack internal ency. In short, even though the Little Rock School ri t 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 The results showed support for the 2.0 but mos requirement. . a. 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 th our present education performance is low and not improving." 2. "Research shows that student academic perforaance 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... H 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. tt 6. II 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. II c . It 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. II 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 tc e gaining basic skills, yet fewer are demonstrating a erase of higher-level aoolication of these skills. II 13 . "Despite progress in narrowing the gaps, the differences in performance between white students and their minority counterparts remain unacceptably larce." 14 . It Large proportions of students....are not en led in challenging mathematics and scie-ca coursework." 315. II 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 alJ^ textbooks in both homework and school. 52 percent of the 12th graders in 1988 said they never or rarelv 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 thev 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 - o less than 15 minrtes per cav. At grade 12, half the students assessed in 1983 reported that they had written two or fewer papers as part of any school assignment in the six weeks before the assessment. Only 14 percent of the Sth 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 q-.iarter of the c sessed were no enrclle eleventh graders in a math course and another one quarter were taking lower j.ev5 Ma t'1 mat.h courses such as General ematics, ?re-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 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. for several reasons: This appears to be the case (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 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 1938 and 1989 negotiating a settlement with the State to bring an end to the desegregation litigation. District has experienced significant changes in its geographi The boundaries. Board governance. and administration. As wa ed 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. provided in the educational programs of the L. and intervention are ict. It (p.l4) e Rock School In fulfill opinion, two hings are necessary before we can he responsibilities we have as a school district toward 5our patrons and students. reviewed. First, Board policies must be 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) 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-
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.