"Education Policy Analysis: A Catch-22 and More, Little Rock's Incentive School"

Co \ --- IIP ARKANSAS POLICY FOUNDATION Greater Oftportunitv Throng Innovative Change RECEWSD 4. 0' '''"O JUN 2 1997 OrriCEOF DEScGREGA'nQH E D U CATI 0 N POLICY ANALYSIS A Catch-22 and More Little Rock^s Incentive Schools (After Catch 22, A novel by Joseph Heller) by Bob Morgan Summer 1997 For those that never knew or have forgotten, a Catch-22 is: 1. a. A situation in which a desire outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions
b. The rules or conditions that create such a situation. 2. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness. 3. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action. 4. A tricky or disadvantageous condition. Ill Center Street, Suite 1610, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501-376-9967 Fax: 501-376-6556 email: Aggiemw2@AOL.comin ARKANSAS POLICY FOUNDATION Greater Opportunity Through Innovative Change I I I I - I I I ' I 4 'JUN 2 W97 EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS A Catch-22 and More Little Rocks Incentive Schools (After Catch 22, A novel by Joseph Heller) by Bob Morgan Summer 1997 For those that never knew or have forgotten, a Catch-22 is: 1. 2. 3. 4. a. A situation in which a desire outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions
b. The rules or conditions that create such a situation. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action. A tricky or disadvantageous condition. 111 Center Street, Suite 1610, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501-376-9967 Fax: 501-376-6556 email: Aggiemw2@AOL.comIMP ARKANSAS POLICY FOUNDATION Greater Oplmrhmity Tfirou^ Innovative Change Foreword With special acknowledgment and appreciation to the University of Arkansas Little Rock (UALR) and an unequivocal endorsement for its timely and candid study... Plain Talk: The Future of Little Rock's Public Schools II In introducing, last February, their milestone analysis of Little Rock's deeply disturbing school crisis and the serious challenges represented by our city's long-running desegregation case, UALR authors quoted Thomas Jefferson. II II n II fl H II II II II II II I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves
and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion. Thomas Jefferson Jefferson was right to trust in the power of citizenship and the innate will of people to do what is right and best. And UALR was right to sound a call for the broadest possible citizen involvement in solving our education woes. The key to ending the school crisis in Little Rock hinges on bringing the full community back into the process of changefully armed with facts, knowledge and information, and empowered to get the job done. Responsibility for repairing and restoring high quality education in Little Rock cannotmust not be solely left to those with narrowly defined agendas. They are destined to fail
and as evidence of their failure, nothing has happened after all these years that resolves our crisis in spite of their continuing actions. Those who would, at all costs, preserve and protect their own interests in this tragedy perpetrate a great wrong on our community and its children. Resolution can never come from the war of competing interests. Nor will courts and government get the job done. They can, however, play a pivotal role in facilitating a return of local control and autonomy. Give responsibility back to the people who own the system and who pay for it. When this happens we will fix our schools and rescue future generations from the continued failure that has characterized public education in Little Rock. The UALR study, in a stunning rebirth of community frankness and intellectual honesty, offered up more "plain talk" on our schools than we have heard in years. It is refreshing beyond measure. The Arkansas Policy Foundation pledges to continue the trend by offering more "plain talk" from time to time. We begin with an insightful analysis of the "Catch 22" aspects of our incentive schools. The commentary that follows was developed by Bob Morgan, a former Associate Monitor with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. We commend it to your review and believe it to be a timely and eye-opening analysis. Michael Watson President, APF Jack T. "Steve Stephens, Jr. Chairman, APFSchools are established those seats attributable to LRSD will be available for those students who otherwise would or could have been assigned to an incentive school
any recruitment and/or any II assignment shall be in accordance with each districts student assignment plan. (Point 2) ll As to Point I - This provision is a Catch-22 because as the white enrollment decreased in size there were no applicants for these seats yet the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) has insisted that the seats be held long after black parents who could have used the seats had made other choices) Point 2 - For at least six years the LRSD must keep incentive schools but could not phase them out as intended, yet another Catch-22 situation. As inter-district schools were built only a small number of seats were taken out of service at Ish and Stephens compared to the seats added at M. L. King, Washington, Crystal Hill and Clinton The double funding obligation is also ordered by the plan: "Funding for the incentive schools shall be set at two times the level for the elementary area schools to ensure that the children who are in racially-isolated settings are provided meaningful opportunities for desegregated >1 n I I I I experiences/activities. (Point 1) The purpose of the incentive school program is to promote and ensure academic excellence in schools that have been difficult to desegregate. (Point 2) It is believed that the incentive school program will not only compensate the victims of segregation, but the program will also serve as a tool for promoting meaningful and long-lasting desegregation in these schools and in the entire school district."(Point 3) As to Point 1 - Certainly with the high percentage of black students in area schools and the low percentage of white students there is not much meaningful opportunity for desegregated experiences/activities". Catch-22 once again! Point 2 - The purpose of the incentive school program should not be confused with the purpose of the schools which was to put enough black students into them to create a situation where a 60 40 black white ratio would have been possible. Point 3 - The incentive school program is too broad and nebulous to accomplish this goal. How would meaningful and long-lasting desegregation promoted by this tool be measured? At the time the desegregation plan was sanctioned by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in December of 1990 there were 9,344 children in the LRSD area schools. There were 5,980 black children and 3,364 of other races. To attain the 60/40 ratio 934 black children would have to be assigned to incentive schools. To the credit of the LRSD the enrollment numbers confirm that about 400 black students were transferred to incentive schools and there was an increase in other race enrollment, improving the area school ratio in the 91-92 school year. In the 92-93 school year incentive school enrollment decreased by 298. Analysis of enrollment numbers is difficult because of the variables to consider: demographic changes out of the inner city, the closing of Ish and Stephens, the construction of inter-district schools, etc. The almost explosive growth of four- year-old classes also distorts the analysis. However, the strict adherence to incentive schools limited the ability of the district to adapt, and to devise and execute policies that would have retained and attracted more white and other race children. The Little Rock incentive schools fit the description of a Catch - 22! 2I A CATCH 22 AND MORE - LITTLE ROCK INCENTIVE SCHOOLS [AFTER CATCH-22, A NOVEL BY JOSEPH HELLER] For those that never knew or have forgotten a Catch-22 is 1. a. A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules or conditions: b. The rules or conditions that create such a situation. 2. A situation or predicament characterized by absurdity or senselessness. 3. A contradictory or self-defeating course of action. 4. A tricky or disadvantageous condition.' p I For those new to the Little Rock school desegregation case, you might not be aware of what an incentive school is or why we happen to have them in the Little Rock School District. Some of the explanation will become evident as we continue, but the incentive school remedy to the wrongs of discrimination is traceable back to a law case involving the Detroit School District commonly referred to, as "Milliken 11". In this case the United States Supreme Court ordered additional funds to improve Detroit's segregated minority schools. The decision stated that the education components were a means to "restore the victims of discriminatory conduct to the position they would have enjoyed in the absence of such conduct". p p The parties in the Little Rock school desegregation case in January 1989 incorporated the Milliken case approach into their agreement thereby creating the "incentive schools" as the vehicle to desegregate the district. They were to motivate black children to higher achievement despite a segregated setting and the program quality was to be an "incentive" for white parents to choose them. Why are the Incentive Schools a Catch-22? p The desired Incentive Schools solution is plainly spelled out in the Inter-district Plan page 4: 11' There shall be a limited number of incentive schools, for a period of at least six years, sufficient to accommodate that number of black students who, by attending these schools, make it possible to achieve a student population in the remaining Little Rock schools (elementary area schools) of 55 percent black and 45 percent white with a variance of 5 percent. The recruitment of white students to these elementary area schools may increase the percentage of white students in these schools to a maximum percentage of 60 percent. The incentive schools shall be: Franklin, Garland, Ish^, Mitchell, Rightsell, Rockefeller, and Stephens. The incentive schools will be desegregated in phases through a combination of white recruitment into the incentive schools, and by reserving a designated number of seats in each incoming kindergarten class for the enrollment of white students. (Point 1) As new Interdistrict 1 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved. Ish closed at the end of the school year 1992-93. ^Stephens closed at the end of the school year 1993-94How did Little Rock get into this Catch- 22? I Federal Judge Henry Woods rejected the Little Rock School District plan that had been submitted to him for approval and prophetically said "The plan adequately explains why the Incentive Schools, but fails to explain how...The availability of "double funding" is meaningless if the programs on which the money is spent are not designed and implemented to achieve educational excellence. M He knew the plan would fail by saying "Approval of the LRSD long range plan would have resulted in progressive segregation of elementary schools over a six year period." In fact that has happened. I I The Little Rock School District appealed Judge Woods' rejection of the plan to the Eighth Circuit Court. Judge Woods recused himself from the case and it was assigned to Judge Susan Weber Wright, who still has the responsibility for it. In its argument for the acceptance of its desegregation plan the district promised everything, with an attitude that getting out of court was the primary objective. The district naively thought that the court would release them on their own recognizance to do whatever they wanted once the desegregation plan was approved. The district must have been surprised when the Eighth Circuit Court Order of December 1990 continued court supervision and created the Office of Desegregation Monitoring with primary responsibility for monitoring the incentive school implementation. I Do the Incentive Schools provide a workable, equitable solution? I I The Eighth Circuit order* states A court has a strong interest in not involving itself, along with the prestige of the law in an ongoing equitable decree which is manifestly unworkable or plainly unconstitutional on its face. In addition, this is a class action, and courts are not obliged, indeed they are not permitted to approve settlements that are unfair to class members, or negotiated by inadequate class representatives. II I I Reference also the years of Incentive School Monitoring Reports from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. Basically these reports are quality control reports on the efforts of the LRSD to follow the plan. They find that the district either by design, ineptitude or poor execution is unable to make the schools work. The District Court has expressed reservations about the Incentive Schools and the plan in general but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals imposed the terms and conditions of this desegregation plan and in effect gave the District Court its "marching orders". The District Court judge has made suggestions to the parties as to remedies that they might seek, even asking that the law be researched to determine if another case involving a consent decree could be used to seek relief on the basis of "changed circumstances", but no motions were ever filed using "changed circumstances". Circumstances have changed in the LRSD. In regard to the Incentive Schools the parties have failed to acknowledge the shift in population out of the so called inner city to southern Little Rock. That shift was recognized by the Joshua Intervenors when they brought suit to reapportion the school board zones, but they have failed in their representation of those children that moved from Incentive Schools to the 09 zip code or to address the westward growth of the city. The District Court also took the unusual step of holding hearings on its own to determine if the Incentive Schools were a viable tool in this desegregation case. Nationally recognized 4 Page 35 Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals order of December 1990 3professionals were invited to appear in open court to help provide the District Court and community with some indication if the incentive schools were effective, and if ineffective what new strategies might hold promise for Little Rock. Dr. Herbert Wahlberg, an educational psychologist, testified that the extra funding and enhancements of incentive schools had failed to raise the achievement scores of black children. He stated that he did not believe that incentive schools were effective in raising achievement levels anywhere: he stated that he did not know whether the failure was caused by poor implementation or whether the theory simply does not work. Wahlberg testified that the schools failed in three aspects: They failed to attract white children, achievement scores of black children were not raised, and the "exotic" curriculum was inefficiently implemented so that it harmed learning. Wahlberg was asked what he would do to help disadvantaged students in the Little Rock School District. He stated that there is a crisis of achievement in the United States, not just in Little Rock. He said that he would concentrate on learning, would assign more homework, extend the school year and would also change methods of teaching to incorporate mastery learning and cooperative learning. Dr. David Armor stated that most efforts to desegregate schools are counterproductive and do not improve achievement. He said "my opinion here is that one of the reasons why racial balance by itself doesn't have an impact is that, in fact, it has to overcome really major kinds of family background differences in economics and education. And there's not really a single desegregation plan to my knowledge that has ever overcome those economic conditions, because they are not aimed at the family. They are aimed at school buildings and students and faculty." In his expert opinion then, the LRSD desegregation plan was not a workable solution toward reducing the disparity or improving the achievement of black children. Dr. Gary Orfield, of the Harvard Project on School Desegregation, led the writing of a report Giving Separate But Equal Another Chance", which goes into some detail as to how unworkable the LRSD incentive schools are, also testified. One telling comment on how unworkable the plan was is "The implementation of Little Rock's Milliken II plan illustrates how unchecked planning and design procedures common in such remedies can produce fundamentally incoherent, ill- conceived and unaffordable programs which so far have demonstrated little promise for reducing educational inequity." In his testimony here, he stated that the incentive school plan had lots of conceptual problems magnified with poor implementation. The incentive school plan, he said, was burdensome and complex, required big energy for a low payoff, and contributed to administrative overload. In response to a direct question Orfield said the benefits expected couldn't be obtained. The District Court, having heard this testimony, has not issued an order or opinion, perhaps waiting for a "white knight" or "silver bullet" solution to this "Catch-22" that would free it from issuing a controversial opinion. To the LRSD this testimony could be a "silver bullet", but so armed the LRSD has not asked for relief from the District Court. p p p p p p p p p p p Are the Incentive Schools unfair to class members? k This desegregation case is a class action suit and all black children in the LRSD are members of the class
those black children for whom relief was sought from the courts. The double funding (LRSD has expended far above the actual double funding obligation) has proven ineffective in improving achievement in the incentive schools and promoting k 4desegregation. Those 64% of class members attending area schools are consequently deprived of scarce resources. In year after year of budget cuts, when computer aides, instructional aides, music teachers, new computers etc. were stricken from the budget, area schools bore the brunt of cuts while incentive school budgets were sacrosanct. The attached chart shows clearly the extent of the inequity to class members in other than incentive schools (area schools, magnet schools and inter-district schools). The LRSD unfortunately has a large percentage (58.52%) of its elementary students that are considered "disadvantaged". Of 7,824 disadvantaged children most of whom are black, only 1,167(15%) are enrolled in incentive schools while 6,658 (85%) are in other schools. Of the ten schools (41% of the total) with the highest numbers of disadvantaged children, only Franklin is an incentive school. The 6,658 children needing help require our attention. If one black child was being physically abused in these schools the public outcry would be loud and clear to correct that inequity. Yet this is a different form of abuse inflicted on thousands of children that is ignored. These abused children need early and concentrated help to ever achieve at an acceptable level. I The editorial page of the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on April 15, 1997 (tax day) addressed the same question, albeit in a different context: "The greatest social injustice of American society is no, not the back-breaking tax burden foisted on poor working families (including a tax on their groceries in Arkansas) but a system of public education that deprives the children of the poor and ghettoized of anything like an equal chance at acquiring knowledge, self-discipline, and the self- respect that comes with real accomplishment. These kids are being set up for one heckuva fall." I I I I I I I I 5School WASHINGTON WAKEFIELD CHICOT FRAhKUN MABELVALE WATSON CLOYffIDALE WEADOWCUFF BOOKS? WLSON Totd StiKlerts 602 426 430 377 429 423 402 402 601 366 Hack 391 365 333 352 306 350 348 304 319 297 Other 211 61 97 25 123 73 54 98 282 69 Black% 64.95% 85.68% 77.44% 93.37% 71.33% 82.74% 86.57% 75.62% 53.08% 81.15% Frcc/Rcduccd Meals Percent 6298% 81.07% 77.31% 86.52% 73.88% 74.83% 77.97% 73.33% 46.94% 73.70% Totd Disadvantaged 379 345 332 326 317 317 313 295 282 270 ML KING DODD MITCFELL BASELINE BALE GARLAhD GEYB? SPRINGS CARXiER "ROCKEFELLB? MCOB?MOTT 488 284 243 284 307 237 278 627 314 484 252 188 237 223 224 223 223 323 211 262 236 96 6 61 83 14 55 304 103 222 51.64% 66.20% 97.53% 78.52% 7296% 94.09% 80.22% 51.52% 67.20% 54.13% 51.71% 86.90% 98.45% 81.73% 74.93% 94.55% 76.56% 33.02% 65.92% 41.32% 252 247 239 232 230 224 213 207 207 200 p B P WESTERN HILLS JEFFB^SON BRADY FULBRIGHT PULASKI HTS FAIR PARK ** RIGHTSELL FOREST PARK TERRY ROMINE 320 506 374 509 422 242 205 434 537 277 209 220 238 247 201 198 197 204 241 192 111 286 136 262 221 44 8 230 296 85 65.31% 43.48% 63.64% 48.53% 47.63% 81.82% 96.10% 47.00% 44.88% 69.31% 61.32% 38.34% 49.61% 36.15% 43.55% 75.46% 8296% 36.95% 28.65% 54.59% 196 194 186 184 184 183 170 160 154 151 P P BADGETT WOODRUFF GIBBS OTTER CREEK WLLIAMS 185 202 309 332 513 13371 151 136 164 135 264 8728 65% 34 66 145 197 249 4643 35% 81.62% 67.33% 53.07% 40.66% 51.46% 77.73% 68.46% 39.35% 34.83% 2242% Total Disadvantaged in Incentive Schools Total Disadvantaged in Other Schools 144 138 122 116 115 7824 58.52% 1167 6658 15% 85% Mt Incenthe Schools The enrollment figures are based on the 1995-96 school year. The chart is based on information obtained from the LRSD. II P I 6Is money being wasted? On page 40 of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals order of December 1990, the Court wrote "If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. tl Some people have argued that none of the money spent on children is wasted money. But a prudent person would suggest that there is waste if spending on "exotic" programs is done carelessly or if there is a vacant seat in a classroom or on a school bus, if facilities are neglected, if necessary supplies are not purchased, or expensive items are purchased then are not used or are misused. The extra staff at the incentive schools including underutilized teachers, and class size limitations is waste. The old buildings that are in constant need of repair and are energy inefficient constitute a waste of resources. A particularly embanassing waste was the Program for Accelerated Learning (PAL) on which almost twenty million dollars was expended with poor results. I I I The excess number of seats with the resultant overstaffing in the school district and the failure of the school board to reduce the excess by closing schools is waste of the highest magnitude. In other school districts (Cleveland Ohio, Hartford Connecticut and the District of Columbia) the Court recognized the waste of excess capacity and ordered schools closed. Cleveland closed 14 at one time
D.C. is under order to close 16. Most of the old incentive schools already have replacement schools in the area (M. L. King, Carver, and Washington) or seats available in the new PCSSD Interdistrict Schools (Clinton and Crystal Hill). For year after year the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM) has calculated the double funding obligation of the LRSD for the incentive schools and in almost every year expenses in the incentive schools have exceeded that obligation. In the December 18, 1996 ODM report on incentive school double funding Recommendation 1 stated "In each annual budget, allot an amount of money adequate to meet the double funding obligation in the incentive schools, and then control expenditures to prevent overspending that budget category." This is a classic "Catch- 22" for the only way to control expenditures is to cut the wasteful programs and extra staff, but cuts have not been looked on favorably by the District Court. Would a prudent person say there is waste in the LRSD Incentive Schools? I Why are the Incentive Schools so important? The Incentive Schools are the crux of the LRSD desegregation plan. The Interdistrict Plan still would exist and the Financial Settlement still would exist, but if the Incentive School provisions in the LRSD Desegregation Plan were removed there would not be much left. Most of that remainder is obsolete timelines or has lost its significance i.e. the pages devoted to curriculum at Parkview High School. In its December 1990 order, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said on page 38 "In order for some schools to be well integrated it may be necessary to tolerate a small number of all-black 7schools." (Emphasis added) and on page 39 "The commitment to provide double funding for the incentive schools is crucial to our holding that the settlement plans are not unconstitutional per se." This would imply that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals felt too, that the Incentive Schools were the crux of the desegregation plan for the LRSD. Our schools have not become well integrated and we have created a class within a class. The continued existence of the incentive schools serves the purpose of various special interest groups. These groups could be called the "desegregation establishment". Their interests might be power, influence or continued existence. It has little to do with children, black or white. n What Next? v The importance of doing something now to help our disadvantaged black children to be successful is obviously important to the black community but it is important to the white community as well. As a society we cannot tolerate a perpetuation, under a new guise, of the two tiered education system of segregation. We cannot allow a black child to fail to learn to read in the first grade and then whine when lack of accomplishment by that child leads to discipline problems in the fourth and tragically later on, a prison sentence. II II The Incentive Schools are not the answer to this problem! II Time has run out on the Little Rock School District. The Incentive Schools have been around since 1990 and certainly have not achieved their objective. The district is about to start the tenth stanza of the same old song. To put it another way we have a 1966 Buick and if we paint it, put new tires on it and get the best radio money can buy we still have a 1966 Buick not a 1997 Cadillac. We need a new transportation system not a fixed up old car! II I A noted management book "High Velocity Culture Change" warns "Culture change moves at a slow crawl if the existing culture gets to call the shots on methodology. Or to put it another way, you'll have trouble creating a new culture if you insist on ways that are consistent with the old one." They also point out that we are in an era where organizations must adopt a "do what works" mentality instead of trying to live out a "do what feels good" philosophy. V R The LRSD is too tied to the old culture and lacks the board leadership and management capability to even ask for change. The chilling effect of being involved in court for so many years has created a paranoid mentality that stifles innovation. The current efforts of the district using various "work groups" while commendable are simply those new tires on an old car. We need the money that is being spent on this tired old, out of gas car to provide equity to our children and the seed capital for innovative change. R R By any basic category for evaluation such as educational, managerial, financial, and discipline the school system has failed our children placing itself in a state of educational and operational crisis. Fundamental justice for the school children, their parents, and all the taxpayers and citizens who support and depend upon the LRSD, requires a complete overhaul in governance structure and management systems. 8I Because action by the parties is lacking the District Court appears to be the only authority with the capability to force the necessary systemic change that is needed. It should act unilaterally to change the status quo and provide the guidance towards new solutions and reform. There should be a new approach to the issue of governance. The present system is not working but we pretend that it is as evidenced by the "business as usual" search effort for a new superintendent and the failure of the board of directors to address the financial situation. Other districts have faced the same types of problems and different authorities have imposed new governance for failed school systems as precedent. In the District of Columbia, Chicago, Hartford and Newark, the existing leadership systems were replaced by structures more accountable for education performance, less bureaucratic, and less sensitive to politics. I Most recently, the Connecticut legislature on April 16, 1997 took control from the Hartford School Board and created a trusteeship. In New Jersey three school districts, Jersey City, Patterson and Newark have had new governance imposed on them. On a larger scale the Kentucky Supreme Court in 1990 ordered complete school reform from finance to curriculum for the entire State of Kentucky and the latest reports are very favorable. Is it a transferable system? H There are some who feel the Kentucky story is too unique to be transferable, because it was n5 launched by a court case and swept out the old system. "But that may be its very strength: I Improving America's schools may demand radical surgery rather than piece-meal experimentation. By dumping an inadequate system and starting from scratch, by investing more and tying funding to performance, Kentucky has boosted its children's academic prospects. Arguably, that has lifted I .,6 its economic prospects as well. Those are important lessons from an unlikely place. The goal of sweeping change is to not only improve the efficiency of management, but also, and more importantly, educational effectiveness. The mission of any school system is to educate students and its failure in this mission provides a compelling basis for intervention. For Little Rock a governance structure would have to be established to insure accountability to the District Court and community. Accountability not based on numbers of tasks performed, bodies counted, maps on the wall, color of the paint etc. but on the financial stability of the district and the achievement of our children. Plain Talk, the UALR report identifies several "backlog" items as priorities and there are others but the issues and problems are overwhelming for this district to address. A court appointed Chief Operating Officer with court and community support, working with a new superintendent might provide a radical format for success. We know where the current path leads - to failure. The problem of achievement in the early grades is another issue requiring immediate court intervention. The District Court should order that attention be directed to improving achievement. Currently there is no Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum, no direction and the usual dysfunctional result. There needs to be professional leadership by staff with proven track records of curriculum development, staff development and innovation. Plain Talk, the UALR report called for bold experimentation to identify "things that work". We have some people in the district that 5 Susan Traiman, Director of the Education Initiative for the Business Roundtable from Business Week April 7,1997 Peter Galuszka in Harlan County Ky. -Business Week April 7, 1997 9are successful in implementing programs and the new leadership should use them as examples that the LRSD can do things successfully. Instead of a new desegregation plan the court should order that an education plan with the goal of increased achievement for all LRSD students be implemented. Again from "High Velocity Culture Change": II It's time for tough love. Caring Harder. Caring enough to take the company (district) through the tough, unpopular struggle of culture change so that it can survive. Trying not to disturb people, seeking to appease everybody by taking it slow and easy, can be the crudest move of all." p Parting Words p As the Little Rock School District searches for a new superintendent and the work groups continue their tasks. Plain Talk, the UALR report on the LRSD, has appropriate comments in Chapter 7 that bolster the previous section and are worth repeating. II p It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the problem is systemic. Changing the p players, specifically the superintendents, has not changed the outcome of the game. Figure 7-1 indicates that they are simply burning out sooner. It is also hard to avoid the conclusion that some important changes a modem urban school district should undertake simply will not occur, given the current complexity of the decision-making environment. For example, a strong case can be made for offering a calendar and schedule deliberately constructed to fit the needs and schedules of parents and families today. But it is obvious that LRSD officials do not have the time and energy to develop and put into place a revised or p p p expanded calendar and schedule. II Continued: p What Does It Add Up To? Several observations seem unavoidable after this review of the sources and consequences of complexity as faced by LRSD officials. p The environment within which LRSD officials operate is so complex that it is crippling. The superintendent and the central administration frequently suffer "system overload"like an electrical power system sometimes does in extremely hot weather, or like a tractor does when too many heavy wagons have been hitched at one time. p k The LRSD cannot unilaterally simplify the decision-making environment within which it operates. The keys to a manageable future lie outside the LRSD itselfin the hands of the community and the court. k k The LRSD needs stable leadership to give it direction and consistency and to assure soundness in all its operations. Since 1982, however, the LRSD has had six "permanent" and four interim superintendents
a total of 10 leadership changes in k 10 k riI I 15 years. Frequent changes in leadership have meant that instability and uncertainty have become almost permanent features, with negative effects on the morale and performance of school personnel. Frequent changes in leadership also undermine public confidence in an organization. In a fundamental sense, it does not appear to matter who the superintendent is. We conclude with an assessment of the status quo as reflected in comments by former superintendents: Little Rock would be one of the top five most troublesome desegregation cases in the country. The district has the reputation of just not being workable at all. The Little Rock desegregation plan is so complex and so difficult to administer, it is preordained that people cannot carry out the plan in the schools. The desegregation plan in Little Rock is unworkable. It is so prescriptive that it ties the hands of the superintendent and the board. The system is like a dysfunctional family. You have a system that is set up to fail. The way things are now, a superintendent cannot succeed. I Observations and Options The status quo is an option that could be chosen deliberately or by default. But the plans that were intended to be a pathway out of an undesirable situation in 1989 have become an impediment to progress." I Post Script I Only fundamental change will reverse the situation as described in "Plain Talk" and this paper. The community of Little Rock must have the civic will to institute a structure for the public schools that puts students first, links performance and accountability for education results, and provides a disciplined environment in which learning can occur. Achieving this objective requires that the District's parents and children, its teachers, and other school system employees recognize that the status quo is harmful to the goals of a quality public education and therefore is unacceptable. At this time the civic will is lacking and the responsible officials don't have the collective strength to make necessary changes. Action by the court would be loudly decried as "more federal intervention" but it could force change and prepare the district for a return to complete local control. Since 1957 the federal court has been involved with this district
let 1997 be the year that the court defines the terms of disengagement. 11I Afterthoughts on Bob Morgan's Suggestions I Where there is a will, there is a way. The people have the will. Even the Judge may have it. The school board doesn't. I I I Bob Morgan's timely suggestions are born out of a sincere desire to avert the serious consequences of an almost certain economic collapse of the Little Rock School District. He is among a handful of area business and political leaders who have astutely discerned that the district simply cannot operate, or move forward, with any real success under the status quo of the current desegregation plan. Something must changeand quickly. The Catch-22 of the incentive schools in Little Rock is, indeed, a convoluted and complex barrier to freeing our schools from federal oversight and the clutches of a "consent decree" that, in many respects, seems unbreakable. I Dire situations often call for unprecedented solutions and Little Rock is surely a case where bold actionas opposed to no actionis warranted. The judge has reason to intervene even in a consent decree if there is a defect in the plan (this plan is demonstrably unworkable) or if there is a change of circumstances (as LRSD has had) or to further the original purpose of the plan. What better purpose could be served than restoring a measure of equity to disadvantaged black children. I I Still, while there may be some precedent for a judge's unilaterally intervening in a desegregation case ( Hillsborough County in Florida), several APF legal experts on desegregation issues feel it is unlikely that Judge Susan Weber Wright would take such action. The responsibilities she would take upon herself would be enormous-with no real guarantees of success. It would be risky for one person to assume such a burden-especially a judge. Moreover, in a time when "judicial activism" is an issue dominating the national policy debate, judges are taking care to stick to their role of upholding law rather than making it. Never-the-less, Bob Morgan has made the all-important first part of a critical argument that provides compelling reasons to dissolve the plan. The Catch-22 of incentive schools and the structure of the plan itself make it "impossible" to break or to administer. I What would further compel a judge to "break a contract" between parties? APF believes it hinges on a demonstration of political and civic will by the people. The current obstacle is, of course, the local school boardthe seven member elected body representing the people. Some school board members are captive to special interests who clearly have a stake in the case. Others fear the personal or business consequences of being too bold or aggressive. The people of Little Rock have been content to tolerate a board unwilling to unify on this issue and seek its resolution. So have many local politicians and business leaders. The political and civic will is simply not there yet, or a school board reflective of that will would be in place. And until the Judge sees an expression of such will, it is likely she will not act regardless of who may file a motion or seek to intervene. I I In the meantime, a growing number of business leaders are suggesting that it may, in fact, take the district's financial collapse to disrupt the status quo and set the stage for a whole new paradigm of education...one open to ideas such as charter schools and parental choice. They may be right. The war of competing interests will rage on in Little Rock's desegregation case
the peoplefrustrated by the dominance of those interestswill continue exhibiting a sense of futility in affecting change, and the Judge will sit and wait...and wait...and wait. I And in her waiting there is a disturbing irony. Why? Because Judge Wright likely wants relief for Little Rock's schools as much the people in this city want it. But she needs visible evidence in her courtof a community and its leaders united in their common will to take responsibility for such a dramatic change. Little Rock is more than ready
weary of the disabling and divisive effects of the nation's longest running desegregation case (forty years). But the school board itself, representing the people, cannot seem to muster the wisdom or courage to lead a desperately needed initiative for the sake of our schools and our children. They cannot find their own collective political will to band together, putting children above all else, and move for our release. Until they do. Little Rock will remain a community torn by competing education interests and hostage to its past. Will we ever move on? The answer, at least for now, appears to be no. Michael Watson, President, APF
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.

<dcterms_creator>Morgan, Bob</dcterms_creator>
<dcterms_creator>Arkansas Policy Foundation</dcterms_creator>