APR 1 8 1995 Little Rock School District Office of Desegregation monitoring OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 14, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Suggestion - Creation of an Oversight Committee for Monitoring Operation of Incentive Schools Dear Mrs. Brown: !( An idea was presented by John Walker during the court session that seemed to "intrigue' the Judge. He suggested the formation of an oversight committee as a means of overseeing the management of the Incentive School operations. It would appear that the Judges interest is based on her perception that the LRSD is "unwilling or unable" to manage the incentive schools in such a manner that they meet all of the obligations of the incentive schools as required by the desegregation plan. There is also strong intimation that even when the obligations are met, that the district is not managing the schools in such a way as to make them effective for all students by the administrators who are assigned as principals. The impression was left by Mr. Walker that Incentive School principals are incompetent is unfair and does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the Incentive Schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. I take issue with the notion of creating another oversight, review, or management committee that may possibly interfere with the responsibilities of the board and superintendent in organizing and discharging the obligations of school operations. If a committee of this nature is formed there is the possibility that it will take on an unplanned dimension and become more of a management body, much like that of the Magnet Review Committee. By establishing another committee which essentially has some veto power, it becomes clear that the effectiveness of district administration and the board in the decision-making responsibilities of the district are greatly reduced. While the board and the superintendent are held responsible for the effective operation of the schools, oversight management groups which can, and do, restrict the decision making authority of the district are not accountable for their management decisions. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 324-2000Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 Even if we set aside the notion of the ability to manage versus the responsibility for management, the creation of another committee would add another layer of administration to the current organization. Time delays and levels of bureaucracy cause frustration for patrons as well as the people ultimately responsible for the decisions which are reached. It has always been my understanding that a school board, irrespective of court monitoring, should be charged with overseeing the district operations. The superintendent is the boards agent assigned to and responsible for carrying out the day to day operations of the school district. In this case, however, it appears that the boards authority and the superintendents authority are being diluted and fragmented with the establishment of the oversight committees. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Walkers suggestion that another committee be formed to oversee the operations of the Incentive Schools. I would rather suggest that if there are concerns that need to be addressed by this administration, that we have more dialogue between the parties where concerns can be expressed. Unfortunately, when we have attempted to have dialogue with the Joshua Intervenors, they have not been amenable to dialogue. Nonetheless, it seems to me that face to face dialogue is a much more desirable manner of dealing with concerns regarding the management of the incentive schools than the establishment of another committee. Considering this, I would hope that Judge Wright is not so intrigued by this idea that she would order the formation of such a committee. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg cc: Chris Heller John WalkerAPR 1 19% t^^-^i^SSSSSSSfe^ ^^WWiWxSiJ*^ Office Of Dectigregaior .vioinvynriy EY.l. LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 14, 1995 To
Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 received CHAMQERS OF SUSAN WRIGHT APR 19 1995 U. S. DfSTRICT JUDGE From
Return Keep or Recycle 0 Post-It" F.Y.I. pad 7668 L Re
Suggestion - Creation of an Oversight Committee for Monitoring Operation of Incentive Schools Dear Mrs. Brown: An idea was presented by John Walker during the court session that seemed to "intrigue" the Judge. He suggested the formation of an oversight committee as a means of overseeing the management of the Incentive School operations. It would appear that the Judges interest is based on her perception that the LRSD is "unwilling or unable" to manage the incentive schools in such a manner that they meet all of the obligations of the incentive schools as required by the desegregation plan. There is also strong intimation that even when the obligations are met, that the district is not managing the schools in such a way as to make them effective for all students by the administrators who are assigned as principals. The impression was left by Mr. Walker that Incentive School principals are incompetent is unfair and does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the Incentive Schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. I take issue with the notion of creating another oversight, review, or management committee that may possibly interfere with the responsibilities of the board and superintendent in organizing and discharging the obligations of school operations. If a committee of this nature is formed there is the possibility that it will take on an unplanned dimension and become more of a management body, much like that of the Magnet Review Committee. By establishing another committee which essentially has some veto power, it becomes clear that the effectiveness of district administration and the board in the decision-making responsibilities of the district are greatly reduced. While the board and the superintendent are held responsible for the effective operation of the schools, oversight management groups which can, and do, restrict the decision making authority of the district are not accountable for their management decisions. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 824-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 Even if we set aside the notion of the ability to manage versus the responsibility for management, the creation of another committee would add another layer of administration to the current organization. Time delays and levels of bureaucracy cause frustration for patrons as well as the people ultimately responsible for the decisions which are reached. It has always been my understanding that a school board, irrespective of court monitoring, should be charged with overseeing the district operations. The superintendent is the boards agent assigned to and responsible for carrying out the day to day operations of the school district. In this case, however, it appears that the boards authority and the superintendents authority are being diluted and fragmented with the establishment of the oversight committees. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Walkers suggestion that another committee be formed to oversee the operations of the Incentive Schools. I would rather suggest that if there are concerns that need to be addressed by this administration, that we have more dialogue between the parties where concerns can be expressed. Unfortunately, when we have attempted to have dialogue with the Joshua Intervenors, they have not been amenable to dialogue. Nonetheless, it seems to me that face to face dialogue is a much more desirable manner of dealing with concerns regarding the management of the incentive schools than the establishment of another committee. Considering this, I would hope that Judge Wright is not so intrigued by this idea that she would order the formation of such a committee. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg cc
Chris Heller John WalkerJOHN W. WALKER, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW 1723 BROADWAY UTTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72206 TELE.l-iONE (501) 374<3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 JOHN W. WALKSa RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. FACSIMILE COVER TO: MS. ANN BROWN FAX #: 371-0100 I FROM: JOHN W. WALKER, ESQ. DATE
April 20, 1995 SUBJECT: I PAGES: NOTES
The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the Intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please Immediately notify us by teisphone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you.JOHN w. Walker, P.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Bro.wway Ltitle Rock. askans.as 72206 Telephone (SOI) 374-3758 PAX (501) 3744187 JOHN W. WALKER R.ALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTS AUSTIN PORTER. JR. April 20, 1995 Ms, Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown
I am in receipt of Dr, Williams letter to you dated April 14, 1995, I received it on yesterday. Apparently, he has written to you rather than make his thoughts known to the Court through a pleading by Mr, Heller, I, therefore, am uncertain whether to reply to his letter which is to the Court, but addressed to you. I am compelled, however, to reply to him and to make my views known to the Court through you in that there is no pleading to which I may respond. I now do so. First, the Court has made it unmistakably clear that Little Rock has failed to meet its desegregation plan obligations regarding the Incentive Schools. This has been established through our monitoring, your monitoring. Court testimony, parent complaints, and virtually every resource which has reviewed the operation of the Incentive Schools. Before Dr. Williams, however, neither previous Superintendent sought to dismantle the overall Incentive School program and concept. Dr. Bernds closing of Ish which is now on appeal does not begin to compare to the dismantling efforts proposed and undertaken by Dr. Williams. The conclusion that he sets forth regarding a deliberate effort to weaken these schools by making them ineffective for students is consistent with the evidence in this case. The Court has been rather charitable to the District thus far, much to our chagrin, by allowing the erosion and disenhancement of these schools. The District's attitude and noncompiiance demonstrate bad faith and contempt of court for which we have already moved.Page Two Ms. Ann Brown April 20, 1995 Second, Dr. Williams movement of principals left much to be desired. He moved new, novice principals into the Incentive Schools along 'z/ith one principal who was a dismal failure in a regular school according to our monitoring. Dr. Williams had no competency to make those judgments after having been here less a year at the time they were made. Responding to public clamor is no way to staff schools nor to teach staff or students. By assigning one principal from a regular school to an Incentive School, the obvious intent was to encourage her to resign. His assignment practices raise the issue of his judgment and intent to implement a plan which he, I believe, still feels that he can change simply because he is THE SUPERINTENDENP. Third, his greatest objection to an oversight committee is for the reason that it shifts responsibility from him and the Board. He indicates that the Magnet Review Committee has failed. Where has he been since he came here? The magnet schools are regarded by District staff as being models of desegregation and achievement Parents see them the same way. The Magnet Review Committee is successful, in part, because neither the Littte Rock Superintendent nor the Little Rock Soard of Education has final autiicrity over their budget and operation. The Magnet Review Committee is also in a position to assess the quality of the school administration. No one on the School Board has ever put forth a resolution to chastise the administration for its malfeasance and misfeasance, as repeatedly found by Judge Wright, in the administration of the Incentive Schools. Moreover, the Magnet Review Committee represents a balance between the Districts and the needs of the students which is lacking in the budget cutting frenay - except-for-the-friends-of-the-Superintendent era that we are in. Dr. Williams' opposition is too self serving and inconsiderate of history, especially taking his present school closing intentions into account, to be given any serious consideration. Finally, with respect to Joshua participation in plan refinement and/or modifications, I invite Dr. Williams to set forth the times and dates where we have had realistic time to explore areas of his concern regarding desegregation plan modifications. I submit that we have only been approached after either he or the Board has/have made a decision and when they want us to rubber stamp it. If t am in error, I invite him to provide documentation where we have been afforded opportunity as an equal party to consider thoughts or ideas that district officials were exploring regarding plan changes or implementation. He has only wanted us to be involved in changes after the fact, and resents our insistence upon participaltion in<3 lOiUi Page Three Ms. Ann Brown April 20. 1995 initial dialogue regarding revision and/or implementation. We continue to resist token inclusion on large committees where our representative voice is unegual and usually minuscule. Under these circumstances, I submit that the Incentive School Committee idea is only an interim palliative because the District needs to be placed in receivership now if the constitutional and educational needs of the majority of black children are to be effectively addressed. Please share these views with Judge Wright. I am sure that Mr. Heiler and Dr. Williams wilt share them with the members of the Board. Very truly yours, hn W. Walker JWW:js cc: Dr. Henry WHliaras Mr. Chris Hefleri Arkansas Democraf^^C^azgttg ( SATURDAY, APRIL 22,1995 . iMi* D/tf>b NMMoaoers. Inc.. C0OW14M O UW' Newspapws. Williams against incentive school panel BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer Little Rock Superintendent Henry Williams vehemently opposes creating an independent committee to oversee the districts five incentive elementary schools In a sharply worded April 14 letter to the federal Office of De- segregation Monitoring, Williams said such an oversight committee would dilute and fragment the school boards and superintendents authority. But John Walker, an attorney for black families in the districts 12-year-old desegregation lawsuit, responded Thursday in his own stinging letter that having an independent committee is critical because the superintendent is deliberately trying to weaken and dismantle the schools. The five incentive elementary schools, located in east and central Little Rock, get extra money for programs to improve the achievement levels of black children and to attract white children to the hard-to-desegre- gate buildings. Test results from the schools have been mixed and only one of the five schools has achieved a good mix of black and white children in the past four to six years. The oversight committee issue arose at an April 10 federal court hearing on the Little Rock districts 1995-96 budget. The district budget includes a staff reduction at the incentive schools, which Walker questioned. Walker suggested to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright that an independent committee, similar to the existing Magnet Review Committee oversees the magnet that schools, might benefit the incentive schools. Wright, intrigued by the idea, asked the parties to consider'it. The two letters sent to the Monitoring Office indicate the friction that exists between the two most influential men in the Little Rock School District. Walker said in his letter that an oversight committee should be considered only a temporary measure, because the district needs to be placed in receivership now if the constitutional and educational needs of the majority of black children are to be effectively addressed. He accused Williams of placing novice principals at incentive schools. He added that the superintendent assigned one principal to an incentive school with what Walker called an obvious intent to encourage the principal to resign. His greatest objection to an oversight committee is for the reason that it shifts responsibility from the superintendent and the board, Walker said about the superintendent. He indicates that the Magnet Review Committee has failed. Where has he been since he came here? The magnet schools are regarded by district staff as being , models of desegregation and | achievement, Walker said. Parents see them the same ' way. The Magnet Review Committee is successful, in part, because neither the Little Rock superintendent nor the Little Rock board of education has final authority over their budget and operation. In his letter, Williams said that Walker has created the impression that the incentive school principals are incompetent. which does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. He said oversight groups restrict the districts decisionmaking authority but are unaccountable to voters.Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 Date: April 23. 1995 To: LRSD Board of Education Members Bobby Lester James Smith Gene Wilhoit Elizabeth Boyter Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Rochelle From: n Brown Subject: Correspondence regarding incentive school oversight committee Last week 1 received a letter from Hank Williams in which he expressed his concerns about a suggestion, recently made during a hearing in Judge Wrights court, that the parties consider establishing a committee to oversee the incentive schools. Dr. Williams copied that letter to Chris Heller and John Walker. Mr. Walker then sent me a letter responding to Dr. Williams comments. Those letters became the subject of a news article in Saturdays Arkansas Democrat Gazette when Mr. Walker publicly released the correspondence. Enclosed are copies of both letters. If the parties should choose to contemplate the idea of an incentive school oversight group, you will want to consider the opinions expressed in the correspondence, and, of course, to include both Dr. Williams and Mr. Walker in any subsequent discussion. Enc. CC: Chris Heller John Walker Hank Williams ksn * APR 8 1995 Sia, .)SS!SiSS3S5&^ .x^SW^ Otfice oi Dessgregaiicn ,Vg LnTLE Rock School District OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 14, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Suggestion - Creation of an Oversight Committee for Monitoring Operation of Incentive Schools Dear Mrs. Brown: An idea was presented by John Walker during the court session that seemed to "intrigue" the Judge. He suggested the formation of an oversight committee as a means of overseeing the management of the Incentive School operations. It would appear that the Judges interest is based on her perception that the LRSD is "unwilling or unable" to manage the incentive schools in such a manner that they meet all of the obligations of the incentive schools as required by the desegregation plan. There is also strong intimation that even when the obligations are met, that the district is not managing the schools in such a way as to make them effective for all students by the administrators who are assigned as principals. The impression was left by Mr. Walker that Incentive School principals are incompetent is unfair and does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the Incentive Schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. I take issue with the notion of creating another oversight, review, or management committee that may possibly interfere with the responsibilities of the board and superintendent in organizing and discharging the obligations of school operations. If a committee of this nature is formed there is the possibility that it will take on an unplanned dimension and become more of a management body, much like that of the Magnet Review Committee. By establishing another committee which essentially has some veto power, it becomes clear that the effectiveness of district administration and the board in the decision-making responsibilities of the district are greatly reduced. While the board and the superintendent are held responsible for the effective operation of the schools, oversight management groups which can, and do, restrict the decision making authority of the district are not accountable for their management decisions. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)324-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 Even if we set aside the notion of the ability to manage versus the responsibility for management, the creation of another committee would add another layer of administration to the current organization. Time delays and levels of bureaucracy cause frustration for patrons as well as the people ultimately responsible for the decisions which are reached. It has always been my understanding that a school board, irrespective of court monitoring, should be charged with overseeing the district operations. The superintendent is the boards agent assigned to and responsible for carrying out the day to day operations of the school district. In this case, however, it appears that the boards authority and the superintendents authority are being diluted and fragmented with the establishment of the oversight committees. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Walkers suggestion that another committee be formed to oversee the operations of the Incentive Schools. I would rather suggest that if there are concerns that need to be addressed by this administration, that we have more dialogue between the parties where concerns can be expressed. Unfortunately, when we have attempted to have dialogue with the Joshua Intervenors, they have not been amenable to dialogue. Nonetheless, it seems to me that face to face dialogue is a much more desirable manner of dealing with concerns regarding the management of the incentive schools than the establishment of another committee. Considering this, I would hope that Judge Wright is not so intrigued by this idea that she would order the formation of such a committee. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg cc: Chris Heller John WalkerJOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER. JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 ISV APR 2 0 1995 Office of Desegregation Monitoring. April 20, 1995 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: I am in receipt of Dr. Williams letter to you dated April 14, 1995. I received it on yesterday. Apparently, he has written to you rather than make his thoughts known to the Court through a pleading by Mr. Heller. I, therefore, am uncertain whether to reply to his letter which is to the Court, but addressed to you. I am compelled, however, to reply to him and to make my views known to the Court through you in that there is no pleading to which 1 may respond. I now do so. First, the Court has made it unmistakably clear that Little Rock has failed to meet its desegregation plan obligations regarding the Incentive Schools. This has been established through our monitoring, your monitoring. Court testimony, parent complaints, and virtually every resource which has reviewed the operation of the Incentive Schools. Before Dr. Williams, however, neither previous Superintendent sought to dismantle the overall Incentive School program and concept. Dr. Bernds closing of Ish which is now on appeal does not begin to compare to the dismantling efforts proposed and undertaken by Dr. Williams. The conclusion that he sets forth regarding a deliberate effort to weaken these schools by making them ineffective for students is consistent with the evidence in this case. The Court has been rather charitable to the District thus far, much to our chagrin, by allowing the erosion and disenhancement of these schools. The District's attitude and noncompliance demonstrate bad faith and contempt of court for which we have already moved.Page Two Ms. Ann Brown April 20, 1995 Second. Dr. Williams movement of principals left much to be desired. He moved new, novice principals into the Incentive Schools along with one principal who was a dismal failure in a regular school according to our monitoring. Dr. Williams had no competency to make those judgments after having been here less a year at the time they were made. Responding to public clamor is no way to staff schools nor to teach staff or students. By assigning one principal from a regular school to an Incentive School, the obvious intent was to encourage her to resign. His assignment practices raise the issue of his judgment and intent to implement a plan which he, I believe, still feels that he can change simply because he is "THE SUPERINTENDENT". Third, his greatest objection to an oversight committee is for the reason that it shifts responsibility from him and the Board. He indicates that the Magnet Review Committee has failed. Where has he been since he came here? The magnet schools are regarded by District staff as being models of desegregation and achievement. Parents see them the same way. The Magnet Review Committee is successful, in part, because neither the Little Rock Superintendent nor the Little Rock Board of Education has final authority over their budget and operation. The Magnet Review Committee is also in a position to assess the quality of the school administration. No one on the School Board has ever put forth a resolution to chastise the administration for its malfeasance and misfeasance, as repeatedly found by Judge Wright, in the administration of the Incentive Schools. Moreover, the Magnet Review Committee represents a balance between the Districts and the needs of the students which is lacking in the budget cutting frenzy - except-for-the-friends-of-the-Superintendent era that we are in. Dr. Williams opposition is too self serving and inconsiderate of history, especially taking his present school closing intentions into account, to be given any serious consideration. Finally, with respect to Joshua participation in plan refinement and/or modifications, I invite Dr. Williams to set forth the times and dates where we have had realistic time to explore areas of his concern regarding desegregation plan modifications. I submit that we have only been approached after either he or the Board has/have made a decision and when they want us to rubber stamp it. If I am in error, I invite him to provide documentation where we have been afforded opportunity as an equal party to consider thoughts or ideas that district officials were exploring regarding plan changes or implementation. He has only wanted us to be involved in changes after the fact, and resents our insistence upon participaltion inPage Three Ms. Ann Brown April 20. 1995 initial dialogue regarding revision and/or implementation. We continue to resist token inclusion on large committees where our representative voice is unequal and usually minuscule. Under these circumstances. I submit that the Incentive School Committee idea is only an interim palliative because the District needs to be placed in receivership now if the constitutional and educational needs of the majority of black children are to be effectively addressed. Please share these views with Judge Wright. I am sure that Mr. Heller and Dr. Williams will share them with the members of the Board Very truly yours. Id ^hn W. Walker JWW:js
c
Dr-Hnnrv Williams Mr. :h
HollerDate: Eu F.Y.I. "st 0^ Arm i?s Ef Barry Bill Bob 0^ Horace Margie Melissa Polly Linda Return to:Office of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (SOI) 376-6200 Fax (501) 371 -0100 Date: April 23, 1995 To: LRSD Board of Education Members Bobby Lester James Smith Gene Wilhoit Elizabeth Boyter Sam Jones Steve Jones Richard Rochelle From: in Brown Subject: Correspondence regarding incentive school oversight committee Last week 1 received a letter from Hank-Williams in which he expressed his concerns about a suggestion, recently made during a hearing in Judge Wright?'court, that the parties consider establishing a committee to oversee the incentive schools. Dr. Williams copied that letter to Chris Heller and John Walker. Mr. Walker then sent me a letter responding to Dr. Williams comments. Those letters became the subject of a news article in Saturdays Arkansas Democrat Gazette when Mr. Walker publicly released the correspondence. Enclosed are copies of both letters. If the parties should choose to contemplate the idea of an incentive school oversight group, you will want to consider the opinions expressed in the correspondence, and, of course, to include both Dr. Williams and Mr. Walker in any subsequent discussion. Enc. CC: Chris Heller John Walker Hank WilliamsAPR 1 8 19% r LnTLE Rock School District Office of OesegreydiiGr: .v.uiiii-jiiriy OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT April 14, 1995 Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Building 201 East Markham, #510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Suggestion - Creation of an Oversight Committee for Monitoring Operation of Incentive Schools Dear Mrs. Brown: An idea was presented by John Walker during the court session that seemed to "intrigue' the Judge. He suggested the formation of an oversight committee as a means of overseeing the management of the Incentive School operations. It would appear that the Judges interest is based on her perception that the LRSD is "unwilling or unable" to manage the incentive schools in such a manner that they meet all of the obligations of the incentive schools as required by the desegregation plan. There is also strong intimation that even when the obligations are met, that the district is not managing the schools in such a way as to make them effective for all students by the administrators who are assigned as principals. The impression was left by Mr. Walker that Incentive School principals are incompetent is unfair and does little to promote stability and belief on the part of parents in the Incentive Schools. I believe in the competence of the principals that I have assigned to these schools and their ability to manage them effectively, despite the long history of problems these schools have experienced. I take issue with the notion of creating another oversight, review, or management committee that may possibly interfere with the responsibilities of the board and superintendent in organizing and discharging the obligations of school operations. If a committee of this nature is formed there is the possibility that it will take on an unplanned dimension and become more of a management body, much like that of the Magnet Review Committee. By establishing another committee which essentially has some veto power, it becomes clear that the effectiveness of district administration and the board in the decision-making responsibilities of the district are greatly reduced. While the board and the superintendent are held responsible for the effective operation of the schools, oversight management groups which can, and do, restrict the decision making authority of the district are not accountable for their management decisions. 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Aritansas 72201 (501)324-2000 Ann Brown April 14, 1995 Page 2 Even if we set aside the notion of the ability to manage versus the responsibility for management, the creation of another committee would add another layer of administration to the current organization. Time delays and levels of bureaucracy cause frustration for patrons as well as the people ultimately responsible for the decisions which are reached. It has always been my understanding that a school board, irrespective of court monitoring, should be charged with overseeing the district operations. The superintendent is the boards agent assigned to and responsible for carrying out the day to day operations of the school district. In this case, however, it appears that the boards authority and the superintendents authority are being diluted and fragmented with the establishment of the oversight committees. Therefore, I want to make it clear that I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Walkers suggestion that another committee be formed to oversee the operations of the Incentive Schools. I would rather suggest that if there are concerns that need to be addressed by this administration, that we have more dialogue between the parties where concerns can be expressed. Unfortunately, when we have attempted to have dialogue with the Joshua Intervenors, they have not been amenable to dialogue. Nonetheless, it seems to me that face to face dialogue is a much more desirable manner of dealing with concerns regarding the management of the incentive schools than the establishment of another committee. Considering this, I would hope that Judge Wright is not so intrigued by this idea that she would order the formation of such a committee. Sincerely, Henry P. Williams Superintendent of Schools bjg cc
Chris Heller John WalkerR Awaa *55/ -ji -A JOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE AUSTIN PORTER, JR. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 APR 2 0 1995 Otfice of Desegregation Monitoring April 20, 1995 Ms. Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ms. Brown: 1 am in receipt of Dr. Williams letter to you dated April 14, 1995. I received it on yesterday. Apparently, he has written to you rather than make his thoughts known to the Court through a pleading by Mr. Heller. I, therefore, am uncertain whether to reply to his letter which is to the Court, but addressed to you. 1 am compelled, however, to reply to him and to make my views known to the Court through you in that there is no pleading to which I may respond. I now do so. First, the Court has made it unmistakably clear that Little Rock has failed to meet its desegregation plan obligations regarding the Incentive Schools. This has been established through our monitoring, your monitoring. Court testimony, parent complaints, and virtually every resource which has reviewed the operation of the Incentive Schools. Before Dr. Williams, however, neither previous Superintendent sought to dismantle the overall Incentive School program and concept. Dr. Bernds closing of Ish which is now on appeal does not begin to compare to the dismantling efforts proposed and undertaken by Dr. Williams. The conclusion that he sets forth regarding a deliberate effort to weaken these schools by making them ineffective for students is consistent with the evidence in this case. The Court has been rather charitable to the District thus far, much to our chagrin, by allowing the erosion and disenhancement of these schools. The Districts attitude and noncompliance demonstrate bad faith and contempt of court for which we have already moved.Page Two Ms. Ann Brown April 20, 1995 Second, Dr. Williams movement of principals left much to be desired. He moved new, novice principals into the Incentive Schools along with one principal who was a dismal failure in a regular school according to our monitoring. Dr. Williams had no competency to make those judgments after having been here less a year at the time they were made. Responding to public clamor is no way to staff schools nor to teach staff or students. By assigning one principal from a regular school to an Incentive School, the obvious intent was to encourage her to resign. His assignment practices raise the issue of his judgment and intent to implement a plan which he, I believe, still feels that he can change simply because he is "THE SUPERINTENDENT". Third, his greatest objection to an oversight committee is for the reason that it shifts responsibility from him and the Board. He indicates that the Magnet Review Committee has failed. Where has he been since he came here? The magnet schools are regarded by District staff as being models of desegregation and achievement. Parents see them the same way. The Magnet Review Committee is successful, in part, because neither the Little Rock Superintendent nor the Little Rock Board of Education has final authority over their budget and operation. The Magnet Review Committee is also in a position to assess the quality of the school administration. No one on the School Board has ever put forth a resolution to chastise the administration for its malfeasance and misfeasance, as repeatedly found by Judge Wright, in the administration of the Incentive Schools. Moreover, the Magnet Review Committee represents a balance between the Districts and the needs of the students which is lacking in the budget cutting frenzy - except-for-the-friends-of-the-Superintendent era that we are in. Dr. Williams opposition is too self serving and inconsiderate of history, especially taking his present school closing intentions into account, to be given any serious consideration. Finally, with respect to Joshua participation in plan refinement and/or modifications. I invite Dr. Williams to set forth the times and dates where we have had realistic time to explore areas of hrs concern regarding desegregation plan modifications. I submit that we have only been approached after either he or the Board has/have made a decision and when they want us to rubber stamp it. If I am in error, I invite him to provide documentation where we have been afforded opportunity as an equal party to consider thoughts or ideas that district officials were exploring regarding plan changes or implementation. He has only wanted us to be involved in changes after the fact, and resents our insistence upon participaltion inPage Three Ms. Ann Brown April 20, 1995 initial dialogue regarding revision and/or implementation. We continue to resist token inclusion on large committees where our representative voice is unequal and usually minuscule. Under these circumstances, I submit that the incentive School Committee idea is only an interim palliative because the District needs to be placed in receivership now if the constitutional and educational needs of the majority of black children are to be effectively addressed. Please share these views with Judge Wright. I am. sure that Mr. Heller and Dr. Williams will share them with the members of the Board Very truly yours. /ohn W. Walker u < JWW:js co: Dr Henry WiiliarriS Mr. hris Holler
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.