Principal selection process, Magnet Review Committee's role

sr
MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE'S ROLE IN PRINCIPAL SELECTION PROCESSMagnet Review Committee 1900 North Main Street Suite 101 North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 Donna Grady Greer Executive Director (501) 758-0156 received July 21, 1994 JUL 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Monitoring Ms. Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 E. Markham Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Ann: Thank you for requesting information needed to address questions that have arisen regarding the Magnet Review Committee's role in the process Little Rock School District used to fill interdistrict magnet school principal positions We have responded to each for the 1994-95 school year. The necessary point to the best of our ability, documentation is attached and enumerated for easy reference. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Dr. Bobby Altom, Chairperson Magnet Review Committee BA/DGC:sl Attachments1. The date{s) the MRC reviewed the procedures the LRSD used in recommending staffing assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The Magnet Review Committee held a special-called meeting on Thursday, May 12, 1994, for the purpose of discussing Little Rock School District's procedures used to recommend staff assignments for magnet school principal vacancies. 2. A list of the MRC members who participated in each review session. All MRC members were present at the May 12, 1994 meeting: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Dana Chadwick, NLRSD, was absent from the June 27, 1994 meeting
Marcia Harding, ADE, and Oliver Dillingham, ADE, were unavailable for the July 18, 1994 meeting. 3. The minutes of all review sessions. The minutes of the meetings which addressed items mentioned in number 1. above are attached as a part of this information packet. These meetings took place on May 12, 1994, June 27, 1994 and July 18, 1994. 4. A copy of the procedures which were "previously presented to the MRC with reference to original magnet school principal positions
" indicate the date the MRC received these procedures
indicate the date they were disseminated to each Committee member. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The procedures were discussed as a part of the May 12, 1994 and June 27, 1994 meetings. The written copy of these procedures was disseminated at MRC's July 18, 1994 meeting and are attached as a part of this information packet.5. The date(s) and names of MRC members who participated in identifying the "appropriate action" the MRC has determined it will take to ensure that the LRSD administration fulfills its obligation to follow the Court's Order for future staffing changes in the original magnet schools. Provide minutes of that meeting. (Ref: June 27, 1994 letter to the Court) The MRC held a special-called meeting on July 18, 1994 to discuss and formulate language which will guide the Little Rock School District and the Magnet Review Committee discussions regarding consultations on original magnet school vacancies. Members present at the July 18, 1 994 meeting were: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD 6. The minutes from all other MRC meetings in which the principal selection process was considered in any way. Indicate those who were present at those meetings. The minutes are included as a part of this packet. The list of members present is a part of the minutes. 7. The datefs) and copies of correspondence through which the MRC learned of each impending principal vacancy in a magnet school for the 1994-95 school year. The Little Rock School District customarily informs the Magnet Review Committee of magnet vacancies via job announcements placed in the MRC school mailbox at LRSD's Central Office. Copies of the job descriptions are attached. 8. For each of the following, a copy of the written information, the date that information was committed to writing, and the date it was disseminated to all Committee members: a. The written procedures that guide the MRC in relation to selection of principals of the magnet schools. copy attached - Interim Order Enforcing Mandate of Court of Appeals Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: March 4, 1987 March 4, 1987b. The written MRC policy or guidelines about using interview committees in selecting magnet school principals. copy attached - Interview Protocol and Selection of Applicants, School Principals Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: June, 1 994 July 18, 1994 c. The written annual timeline the MRC follows in relation to principal selections. No specific written timeline is followed
however, notification of staff vacancies is noted at the annual review sessions for the interdistrict magnet schools budgets, which begin in March before each school year. d. Any written guidelines, suggestions, or criteria the MRC may have established regarding principal qualifications, characteristics, experience, or other criteria, especially as it relates to the individual theme, programmatic emphasis, or other unique aspects of the individual magnet school community at each of the magnet schools. copy attached - Court Order "Stipulation for Proposed Order Concerning Magnet Review Committee" Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: September 3, 1986 September, 1986 copy attached - Court Order Regarding the Role of the Magnet Review Committee Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: July 2, 1987 July, 1987 copy attached - Court Order Regarding MRC's Request to Court on Staffing Date Committed to Writing: Date Disseminated: November 5, 1992 November, 1992 9. Copies of any patron or staff letters the MRC has received regarding the most recent principal selection process. Patron/staff letters received by the MRC are attached and separated by school.MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES May 12, 1994 3 f the Magnet Review Committee was 1920 North Main special-called meeting o . held in the Magnet Review Committee Office, Street, North little Rock, Arkansas on Thursday, May 12, 1994 . A Arkansas on Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD Chairperson Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Joshua Intervenors Evelyn Jackson, Estelle Matthis, LRSD m. by thanking all opened the meeting at 8:40 a. to this special-called meeting. Dr. Altom MRC members for coming then provided a basis for requesting this meeting. He Dr. Altom reminded the Committee that when it became public that LRSD was principalship, he began to -- makina a change in principaisnip, nc making a the Court would Court Order because he was afraid the the staffing changes. 1992, Dr. Altom's In looking review the -- admonish the MRC regarding 5, ^^992, Dr. Altom s through the Court O^der expanded role from understanding was that th Altom polled each of the years past. Because of that. DrAltom p MRC members to see if they thought tn , expanded and the consensus was yes, they ai then contacted Dr. Dr. Altom --- , . this information with him. Williams They had a very unofficially to share cordial meeting. Dr. Altom noted that about two years ago , with regard to of became concerned about the themes budget cuts, ^,3 admonished the MRC for not the magnets. taking a more It now the MRC would come about the items in active role. together to make an the Court Order, page seemed appropriate that official statement 12. It s hould be pointed out that the following terms should be reviewed: 1) 2) 3) consult staff (who staffing changes it includes) (what does this mean)to the Court saying that The MRC will need to write a letter hnHv. this is what we believe and if this is not so. as a body, this is please tell us if you see it differently. H STAFFING Does it mean to give language says the Court decides, appropriate action The the MRC the authority to overturn? MRC merely states what the should be. STAFF When staffing changes administrators, or 3 are inade, does it mean teachers, support staff as well? This needs to be to determine who the critical MRC needs clarified because with regard to the theme. another magnet consist or a people are principal being assigned to staffing change? Does a magnet Estelle Matthis then asked for^an address the personnel issue. M" executive session to Ms. Matthis said the Superintendent has Order and the MRC. every intention of working by the Court Dr. Williams wants to assure you that the district will advertise positions. etc. and will follow the procedure interview, make as in the past - to the MRC, the Board approves. recommendation __ abide by the Court Order. etc. He does plan to Ms to . Harding noted that in defining terms. should be clarified. surprise to this body. the term II prior Things should not come as a of some time f the Court filings ns. naiuxuy 13X1?'c Since then, this has ago f with regar have a come into play, and ^p^is was not tied to tiedomy to th. Ms. Harding said that some o budgeting process. related to that issues are Matthis said LRSD understands budgS Their Program Budget Guide governs daily Ms. Their Program activities. Dr Altom said he called Dr. - - -- strongly about it. Williams' attention to RIF He told him the 5Sc SraTt^rCourt^for'a speUy resolution. Ms . understands the Matthis said that Judge Wright Mattnus __that unless the the assignment agreement. re-assignment The Sth Circuit says has an impact on desegregation. will go on. -2-reminded the Committee that Donna Grady Creer, Dr. Altom reminded the committee tnai uuuua v, , a Harding and Oliver Dillingham will be meeting with Wilhoit on May 23, 1994 with regard to the State s role Marcia Gene in monitoring. CONSULT said the critical item will be the timing in SL.rSnS.rS co:sJiC"S
=
TSso-==e to the MBC first, and when? We have to get the timing down on this. Does LRSD come We have to Dr. Altom noted the definition of "consult" is "to ask the This does not say you have are considered. advice or opinion of. II IS decision-making authority, but your thoughts _flofinition would be, "consider by asking the combined definition would be, II c advice or opinion of." STAFF Ms. Harding noted that, in Judge Woods' court personnel. from earlier on, when staff came up it encompassed all certificated , . ---, these sked to make recommendations The MRC reviewed information that LRSD used MRC made personnel. -- , . that time for hiring purposes. prior to recommendations and changes with regard to thematic parts. Ms. Matthis s aid LRSD is basically of the same feeling. She also noted that LRSD says staffing is certificated positions. STAFFING CHANGE 1) The hiring of a person either a teacher, administrator, to come into a building and be support individual. or 2) The other has to do with the poss ibility of transfers. would mean that the II This ----- defined for both of these. prior to II II needs to be prior to II regard to posting a position, what does "prior to mean. with regard to a mean with transfer, Ms 7 condition, the MRC should be thinking of . Harding said that under^any^^ individual. notified as soon as poss reassigning or making a representation the regularly-s transfer of an staffing changes. should report any cheduled meeting of the MRC. The LRSD etc. at -3-PROCEDURE Ms. Matthis said that she does problem to report at the MRC meeting every LRSD representation could give a not believe it would be a two weeks. The a status report when something is happening. Ms . a Creer noted that, just as a copy could be given vacancy is posted, immediately. normal procedure, when a to the MRC needed about looking at . Harding said clarification is non-certificated people also with regard to the budget. Ms would screen job postings T +- LJArr adeed that the MRC Office - ---- - - . the agenda for every MRC meeting and place these postings on with regard to staffing in magnet schools. hiring ys. TRANSFER ither hiring or transferring. Anv staffing change means either niring or QuLtion: MRC has always been comfortable with the Section process of hiring. That is acceptable. LRSD will consult with MRC before making change. What does It consult with II mean? Ms. Matthis said the procedure is: Post the position publicly
Applicants apply to Human Resources
hrmlications are checked by Assistant The applications are Superintendents
Selection Committee reviews
SrSrZ: clnStoSs'^o to superintendent for * consideration/possible interview
cnncrintendent makes recommendation to the Board o P refl?s it back to the Selection Committee and the job is re-advertised. With regard to a same etc. ? situation. the MRC will be looking at the meet the qualifications, will be'held in Session. The transfer, Does this person MRC should Discussions then report to the Court. Executive Ms. Harding has a concern - for change s to transfers. Williams says change as this relates ake would not be made. Dr. concerned, when they are Where transfers are - .,uopr>ed to that information needs to be presented to if it has disruptive effects). -4- us involuntary, (particularlyThe Conunittee took a five-minute break. After the break, Estelle Matthis made a motion for the MRC to go into Executive Session to discuss peronnel changes at the original magnet schools, motion, and the motion carried unanimously. Marcia Harding seconded the After Executive Session, Estelle Matthis made a motion to return to Open Session, and Marcia Harding seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Dr. Altom reported that no action was affirmed in Open Session. taken that needs to be letter will go to the Office of Desegregation
reached consensus on In summary, a letter win go tu uie vxx Monitoring, indicating that the MRC has order the sentence on Page 12, of the Court uraer the language in dated November 5, 1992. A copy will be sent to all MRC members. The MRC does approve for the selection of principals. the LRSD selection process In order to be more pro-active in MRC will have on its regular agendaan item on the future, the staffing of magnet schools to address these issues in a more timely manner. brought to the table, Evelyn Estelle When no more business was , Jackson made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Matthis seconded the motion, and the The meeting was adjourned at 10. JU a.m. unanimously. MRC meeting will be on Tuesday, May 17, The next will encompass discussion 1994 and f the interdistrict magnet schools budget. o -5-MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES June 27, 1994 Qf the Magnet Review Committee was 1920 North Main A special-called meeting _ the Magnet Review Committee Office, held in Street, North Little Rock, 1994 . Arkansas on Monday, June 27, Members Present: Dr. Bobby Altom, PCSSD - Chairperson Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Dana Chadwick, NLRSD Guests: Margaret Gremillion, Horace Smith, Associate Monitor Assistant Superintendent - LRSD ODM The meeting .s called to order at 1:05 p by Chairperson called to He explained the meeting was a.he nrncess used in the recent selection of magnet examine th p , , ------- agreed in its letter to the Court telling Dr. Bobby Altom. school principals and because May 12, 1994 meeting to send a _ rnnrt of MRC's opinion regarding its rol chool principals the Court of MRC's opinion selection in magnet schools. staff Dr. Altom noted that two items will be discussed: Dr 1) 2) The unapproved minutes MRC meeting
of the May 12, 1994 the Court outlining 1994 The May 18 , 1994 letter to ... _ had delineated in its May 12, what the MRC had delineateo in xuo what the iterpretation the meeting in used in Judge Wright s Order describing MRC's input in November 5, 1992 Court original magnet staffings. of the May 12, T T A reading of the minutes . Altom called f ^nd a few corrections, MX L.CX _____________ TmniTbPA 1994 meeting. Oliver Dillingham made a motion to approve the minutes andEstelle Matthis seconded the motion, unanimously. The motion carried . Matthis opened the discussion by outlining the process - . She noted that LKbU Ms. -------- , . T.RSD uses in selection of principals. LKbu uses in three parents to serve asks PTA presidents for the names on the principal' s
------ 1. j with regard to race and gender. selected for the committee, one black and one white, and Central Office administrators are These people submissions are one interview team, and LRSD looks at these Two teachers curriculum person. ... Assistant Superintendents, for elementary schools. represented by two the selection committee make up Secondary schools follow the same procedure as but incentive schools have staffing committees. noted above, including a representative of the Joshua Intervenors. Once all the people for the selection committee are to them notifying them to serve Ms. question as wanted five parents to be included. Ms. Matthis and five teachers. -----worked, and she also jioted that explained how the .^.ted when' they get to parents could asK quesuj-uho j___rorrpqbprt to the interview process. However, parents were requested to ask the same questions of all applicants. If an applicant Most applicants had no school itctiealiy given ere an - principal, they^ applied for the Gibbs job. an audience. , . and one specialist one principal Once the applicants.had been were given for the interviews. identified, dates and times Letters were sent to the participants telling them of the dates and times. The procedure for the interviews went as follows: A listing of all brought in and a included in this A list of questions was told that n want to however, you ask applicants a question, that's fine
_______4- t-bAt- same question to all if you candidates. II must ask that same ques-- -- A rating sheet was included in the folder also, participants. and it was explained to committee The rating sheet is one committee members were
by their first choice. process. ' applicants part of the whole asked to rank evaluation etc., and the -2-After that, committee tries to come to a consensus. there will be questions from the interview team. Ms. Harding asked what happens if there is a the committee cannot reach a consensus. Ms. situation where Matthis said the committee reports back to the Superintendent and notifies him that no consensus has been reached. At that point, the job will be re advertised. Ms. Matthis noted that State law gives the Superintendent transfer personnel. responsibility to re-assign or Matthis and Ms. Ms. Harding asked Ms. are such large numbers in movement. Gremillion why there They noted that options are such large numoers ru j for staff to take the early retirement incentives have created a lot of the open positions. At this point, Ms Committee go into interdistrict magnet schools. Matthis requested that the Magnet Review Executive Session to discuss personnel for the Ms. Harding made a motion to go Ms. Matthis seconded the motion, unanimously. into Executive Session, The motion carried and When Executive Session was completed, Ms. Harding made a the MRC meeting and Estelle Matthis The motion carried unanimously. was motion to re-convene seconded the motion. Dr. Altom reported the He suits of the Executive Session, record in a letter to the Court that LRSD has followed re said the MRC will go on , . . stating that the MRC does not believeL-v the Court Order of Judge Wright when it says that nic vuuiu ______ MDr anri Tnn.Qt se in the consult the MRC and must seek Court in the future, the LRSD must future, on making any staffing changes The MRC does not believe that that permission prior to magnet schools." 1 consultation was made. II record that MRC sure that the interview have integrity. in the letter, ork with the the Court Order is followed for 1----- - future original magnet staffing changes. When no further business was motion to adjourn Evelyn Jackson made a brought before the Committee, the meeting and r VeXVIl ul dw rfc oA * - The motion carried m. -3-MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES July 18, 1994 Al -railed meeting of the Magnet Review Committee was he?rs thriXt R^iew committee Office 1920 Morth Mam North Little Rock, Arkansas on Monday, July 18, A the Magnet Review Committee Office, Street 1994 . Members Present: Bobby Altom, Dana Chadwick, NLRSD PCSSD - Chairperson Evelyn Jackson, Joshua Intervenors Estelle Matthis, LRSD Absent: Oliver Dillingham, ADE Marcia Harding, ADE , , __phAimerson, called the meeting to order at He informed the Magnet meeting was l?:T^_'^^^^^gpriicipalship at Carver Dr. Altom asked for a motion to and Estelle Matthis provided the 2:05 p.m. being called to discuss District's recommendation Elementary Magnet School. go into Executive Session Dana motion. caiTiried. unanimously Chldwick seconded the motion, and the motion Matthis made a motion to When Executive Session return the motion. The motion general session. Dana Chadwick made a motion that hail, after hearing the Little entative regarding the Rock school District's . ....... ,s,.ot,on orooess of Carver selection process --- of the LRSD ^^tthis seconded the principal recommendation jea unanimously. motion, and the motion Dr. Altom said the 1 recapped the events of the Executive Session. -- will submit, by way of He Magnet Review Committee will suomtt formal letter to the n Desegregation Monitoring, the action meeting. As a part of the letter. 1 taken during this a statement will be madenot believe that the that the Magnet Review Committee does been done in as timely a fashion as But, the late date, the fact principals are already under contract and the belief that magnet school -to meet and support that individual. The process has would like. what the MRC parents are anxious ---- -. Maqnet Review Committee does support_the selection. Rock School District did provide a more in depth for selection of the Carver Little discussion of rationale principal. the By consensus, the Magnet Review Comttee MrI on letter to Dr. Williams asking him to work with the MRC on nrocedures or policies affecting staffing of the original magnet schools. The MRC will ask him to work with the MRC regarding the following items: of vacancies arising
timely notification . for recruitment of candidates
the procedures for candidates
screening procedures---- ,-4.+.^^. of the interview committee, make-up selection UlciJS.c:Ui/ ------------------------------- , the development of the interview itsel , considered for the written criteria or factors . . of the final principal selection, removal of magnet school selection reassignment and/or principals. The MRC will ask him to help might be appropriate for pr
magnet schools. p look into any changes that incipal job descriptions in the When no further business was brought before the Committee, motion to adjourn the meeting and The motion carried was Estelle Matthis made a Dana Chadwick seconded the motion, unanimously, and the meeting was a adjourned at 3:05 p.m. -2-5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams INTERVIEW PROTOCOL V Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 1994-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 1994, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or policy, there has been a well-known long-standing past practice of interview protocol. The above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policy and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent
Mr. Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations
and Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources.! ij LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 1. Persons desiring employment as a School Principal shall file an application in writing (Resume, letter of intent, or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. District application forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) 2 . 3 . District administration officials will screen the applicants for acceptability. Taken into consideration are certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. The Deputy Superintendent and/or the Assistant Superintendent(s) will prepare a list of interview questions to be used in the interview process. 4 . The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie: E.E.O., Affirmative Action, Americans with Disability Act, etc.) 5. An interview committee will be selected/appointed, as follows: Three Two Three (3) (2) (3) Parents/Patrons Teachers Administration Representatives Note:1 Note:2 Note:3 1. The Parent/Patrons representatives will be selected by a process: designated by the PTA president of the 2. of the affected school. The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by the Administration. 3 . The Deputy Superintendent appropriate staff - Assistant (in consultation with Supervisors, and Principals) Superintendents, Administration representatives. may designate the *NOTE: The committee's composition shall be balanced, as nearly as possible, by race and gender.1 r.' t, t < LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 . 7. 8 . 9 . 10. a J 3 EPS CODE: GCAB The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will he provided folders containing the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) An interview schedule The approved interview questions An approved candidate rating form The applicant's application materials The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. '* (Note: Although the applicants are rated, the ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. Once the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. When approved, the candidate shall receive a contract which details his information. salary. pay grade. and other pertinent PLEASE POST LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET little rock, ARKANSAS 72201 PLEASE POST May 10, 1994 now accepting applications for Rock School District is the 1994-95 school year. The Little the following positions for POSITIONS: Principals - Six (6) Positions __
- (1) williams Magnet Magnet (1) Carver Magnet (1) Franklin (1) Gibbs (1) Mitchell Incentive (1) Rightsell Incentive Incentive qualifications: 1. At least five (5) years experience administrator. as a teacher and/or 7 2 . A master's degree or higher certification as an e with eligibility for Arkansa lementary principal.... s 3 . Evidence of strong organizational skills. 4 . Knowledge of ing methods. curriculum development and successful teach 5. Demonstrates and will learn in the conviction the Little 6. 7 . 8. students can learn that all -.
Rock School District. Evidence of strong experience in dealing with student problems. Evidence of involvement. Evidence successful experience with parent and staff of a strong commitment to quality desegregated education. evidence of THESE BASIC performance RES PONS IB. IES: 1. Assumes re
of his/her sponsibility for the management -- chief advisor and monitoring to the 2 . school, and serves as a^cni^t superintendent v-t-a i ni na ^KadmKiSli?2n^ budget, and S'S?ts%
Rainin, to . implementation in matters program his/her school. and Works with _ . priorities program staff and patrons and goals to determine for his/her educational school.^^^^^?|rFORMANCE RESPONSIBILITIES: (Continued) BASIC 3 . Implements the proces s whereby school-level educational 4 . 5 . 6. 7 . 8 . Informs the appropriate oroorams needs are identified. Lsociate/Assistant Superintendent regarding needs are needed logistical and consultative accomplish this task. support in order to Serves on and task forces as assigned by the appropriate such Ovisory^groups^^..^-^--^^ -superintendent. the development of educational programs Oversees - plan for implementing them on the school level. and the Works with supervisory and building staff to make the necessary program changes. Assumes responsibility for evaluation of all personnel Assumes responsibility Assumes administrative tasks. EVALUATION: Performance Evaluation conducting the performance assigned to his/her building. for all record keeping and other luated annually in i-hiq -iob will be evaluated annuaixi , -Visions Of the Board s pel i=y of Administrative Personnel. on ORGANIZATIONAL PETATIONSHIP. Reports to the Deputy Superintendent. SAIARY and TERMS: Schedule - An Month Contract 'MuSSarsLpd, car Allouance Eleven (11) - ! and Benefits plus application DEADLINE: 1994, or any time Mav 19, 1994 , or any recommended and approve later until satisfactory applicants are SEND WRITTEN LETT_ERS OF INOUITVJTQ: Hurley Dr. Richard Resources School District Director o T ittle Rock--- 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201Principals NOTE: IN THE ABOVE POSITION MUST INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE INTERESTED COMPT ETE A VERY RIGOROUS SELECTION PROCESS . ,,m BeSuS an individual applies FOR A POSITION DOES NOT ---- INTERVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTED. THEREFORE necessarily mean that an for Desegregation. It is criminate the policy of the Little Rock on the basis of age, sex. sex, School District not to discolor, religion, national activities disability in its educational programs, origin, employment practices. or orLITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. , PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 363 cite BS 6S9 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Afk. 1987) Faulkner
Bob Moore: Don Hindman
Shirley Lowery: Sheryl Dunn
David I i of .P. f MSP Sain: Bob Slender
Grainger Williams
Richard A. George A. Giddings
McCrary: Buddy Raines
Ward, Defendants, and Dale Katherine Knight, Individually and as President of The Little Rock Classroom Teachers Association (LRCTA)
LRCA
Ed Bullington, Individually and as President of The Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)
PACT
John Harrison, Individually and as President of The North Little Rock Classroom Association (NLRCTA): NLRCTA: and Milton Jackson, Individually and as Certified Educational Support Employee of the Little Rock-5chool District, Lorene Joshua, as next friend of minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua and Teachers NLRCTA
a Non- ! i j 1 I. nors Lesue josnua. ouuvj Wayne Joshua
Rev. Robert Willing- ham
Sara Matthews, as next friend of nmiit kjo*** * 1 Khayyam Davis, Alexa Armstrong and Karlos Armstrong
Mrs. Alvin Hudson, friend of Tatia Hudson
Mrs. as next next friend of Parsha Hilton Taylor, as . Taylor, Hilton Taylor, Jr. and Brian Taylor, Rev. John M. Miles as next friend of Janice Miles and Dereck ineuu -. Miles
Rev. Robert Willingham on be- half of and as President of the Little Branch of the NAACP: Lorene Joshua on behalf of and as President of Rock Branch of Rock the North Little NAACP, Intervenors. No. LR-C-82-866. 1 s: Q} d o =r little rock school district. Plaintiff, United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, W.D. vD CO COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL Tffl So"b'SUU.e ROCK of Education
Wayne Hartsfield
Wal- A. Haines: Jim ter Turnbow
Harry Dupree
Dr. Harry P. McDonald
Rob- e^rt L. Newton: Alice L. Preston
JeH Starling
Earle Love
Bob Lyon
John Ward
Judy Wear
Leon Barnes
Ma- Gosser
Steve Morley, Mac Jeff rianna Feb. 27, 1987. Order March 4, 1987. School % ! desegregation plans were submitted. The for the Eastern District United SUtes District Court of Arkansas, 59/ RSupp 1220, held that countywide inter- [1059] il ii .1 I 1ll- il. r<' 364 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT ji district remedy had to be utilized to correct countywide interdistrict violations. Ap- peals were taken. The Court of Appeals, Heaney, Circuit Jude, 778 F.2d 404, held that violations could be remedied by less intrusive measures and remanded. On remand, the District Court, Henry Woods, J., held that: (1) stipulations between State Board of Education and defendant school I Education and defendant school districts, ______ ________ whereby districts proposed to desegregate segregate schools, inter alia, by allowing schools, inter alia, by allowing black and white students who were in ratio majority at their respective schools to transfer to districts, whereby districts proposed to deI J J i I black and white students who were in racial majority to transfer to other schools within any participating district, would be approved in its entirety
(2) plan for desegregation of school district, whereby district agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood program to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickle-down effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, would be approved in all respects
and (3) that portion of school districts plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation and extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would also be approved. So ordered. See also, 805 F.2d 815. r 1. Schools =13(14) Magnet review committee report and related stipulations, whereby defendant in school desegregation case agreed to use 50-50 black to white ratio for magnet program enrollment while allowing students presently enrolled at existing magnet schools to continue in those schools as appropriate, would be approved in their entirety. 2. Schools <5=13(14) In school desegregation case, students who were presently enrolled at magnet Rock, Ark., for plaintiff. [1060] schools would be allowed to finish their education at such schools, where evidence was presented that involved parents had contributed greatly to schools' success. J i 3. Schools <5=13(14) Stipulations between Suite Board of other schools within any participating district, would be approved in their entirety. 4. Schools <s=13(6) Plan for desegregation of school district, whereby district agreed to develop numerical goals and timetables for recruitment and promotion of blacks to administrative positions within school system, to provide early childhood programs to identify and provide special assistance to black children who continued to suffer trickle- down effects of past segregation, and to improve participation of blacks in gifted and talented programs by using racially neutral screening tests, reflected solid and workable approach to end segregation in district and would be approved in all respects. I t i I i Order 5. Schools <5=13(6) That portion of school districts plan for desegregation, which proposed to correct overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes through use of culturally unbiased screening and subsequent monitoring, and to assure black student participation in extracurricular activities by affirmative recruitment plan, would be approved. I t i I P.A. Hollingsworth, Philip . Kaplan, Janet L. Pulliam, John M. Bilheimer, Little II I C 1 LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. die 0 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, Little Rock, Ark., Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg, Chicago, Ill., for Pulaski County Special School Dist., No. 1, Mac Faulkner, Bob Moore, Don Hindman, Shirley Lowery, Sheryl Dunn, David Sain and Bob Stender. C.R. McNair, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sharon Streett, Dept, of Educ., Little Rock, Ark., for Arkansas State Bd. of Educ., Wayne Hartsfield, Walter Turnbow, Harry A. Haines, Jim Dupree, Dr. Harry P. McDonald, Robert L. Newton, Alice L. Preston, Jeff Starling and Earle Love. Jack, Lyon & Jones, Little Rock, Ark., for North Little Rock School Dist., Bob Lyon, John Ward, Judy Wear, Leon Barnes, Marianna Gosser and Steve Morley. Stephen L. Curry, Little Rock, Ark., for Grainger Williams, Richard A. Giddings, George A. McCrary, Buddy Raines and Dale Ward. Theodore Shaw, New York City, John W. ill 365 tion of the magnet school plans of the other parties and a critique of the plan of the Magnet Review Committee. At the 1 close of the testimony on January 30, I suggested that the parties again confer and attempt to reach an agreement on the magnet school portion of the Eighth Circuit mandate. (R. 568-69). El] On February 17, 1987, the hearing was resumed to take up not only the mag- net school issues but also the student as- signment plans submitted by the Pulaski County Special School District (hereafter PCSD), the North Little Rock School District (hereafter NLRSD), and the Little Rock School District (hereafter LRSD). The three districts and the State Department of Education then advised the court that they had agreed by stipulation to a magnet school plan for the County which had been submitted to the Magnet Review Committee and approved by the latter. (R. 577). In open court the Joshua intervenors advised that they had no objections to the I Walker, Little Rock, Ark., for intervenors stipulation and were in general agreement Joshua, et al. Richard Roachell, Cearley, Mitchell & Roachell, Little Rock, Ark., for intervenors Knight, et al. INTERIM ORDER ENFORCING MANDATE OF COURT OF APPEALS HENRY WOODS, District Judge. In conformity with the opinion of the Court of Appeals dated November 7, 1985, 778 F.2d 404 (Sth Cir.), and the ensuing with its terms. Since the Knight intervenors had not been party to the negotiations leading to the stipulation, they declined to approve the plan but interposed no objection thereto. I have examined the stipulation in detail. In my opinion it is an excellent compromise of the many complex issues involved in magnet schools. The stipulated settlement is in all respects approved. A copy of the stipulation is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference in this order. All of the parties except the Joshua and Knight intervenors have also stated in open I I 'Im I
II I' I I mandate, a hearing was held on January court that the provisions of the Magnet Review Committee Report dated January 29-30, 1987, to consider the recommendation of the Magnet Review Committee concerning the locations, themes, dates, operation, transportation, seat allocations, tar- 22, 1987 (MRC) not superseded by Exhibit A were stipulated as binding on the three districts and the State Board of Education. (R. 582-21). The Magnet Review Commit- I geted ratios, and administration of the magnet schools in this county. January We Report is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 1 i 29th and 30th were devoted to testimony adduced by the Magnet Review Committee on behalf of its plan. The hearing was adjourned to continue the week of February 17, 1987 a presenta- The stipulation and agreement as aforesaid are approved in all respects. On behalf of all the parties, the attorney for the Little Rock District dictated into the record some minor supplemental under- [1061] I 1'I t / >1 1 366 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT standings in connection with Exhibit A. (R. 577). These understandings have been reduced to letter form and have been marked as Exhibit C to this order and are implementation of the magnets including: renovations, teacher recruitment, staff incorporated herein by reference. These understandings are approved as supplemental to Exhibit A. [2] One issue remains with reference to the magnet schools presently in existence. That is the question of whether the students presently at the three magnet schools should remain and finish at the schools which they have been attending. Based on the evidence presented, I am convinced that the past success of these schools is the best argument for continuing the present student body as much as possible. Involved parents, black and white, of children attending these schools have contributed greatly to their success and have invested a huge amount of time and energy in making these schools outstanding. It would be a mistake in my opinion to dump these students and sUrt anew. There will of course be attrition and new seats available through graduation, but the students presently enrolled in Booker, Mann and Williams shall have a right to continue in these schools. The responsibilities of the Magnet Review Committee, as agreed by the three districts and the State Board of Education, training and development, community input i and involvement, and student recruitment. / The Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors have both asked for representation on the Magnet Review Committee by a voting membership. 1 am unable to comply with this request. The Court of Appeals set forth in clear and unequivocal terms the makeup of the Magnet Review Committee. At the request of all the parties, I did give the Joshua intervenors a non-voting member of the Committee. This was a modification agreed upon by all the parties that did not affect the basic structure of the Magnet Review Committee. The request of the Joshua intervenors and the Knight intervenors for a voting representation on the Magnet Review Committee is hereby denied. The financing of the magnet school plan has been stipulated
it is approved as cov- appear at pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit B here- The Committee shall be financed as to. agreed by the parties with a budget of One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000) with Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,- 000) or half to be paid by the State and Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) by each of the three districts. The MRC will necessarily work closely with the three districts and the State in order to have the six magnet schools ready for the 1987-88 school year. The MRC should report to the court on May 1, 1987, on July 1, 1987 and again on September 1, 1987 to inform the court of progress made in implementing the magnet schools. While the reports need not be lengthy, so as to be burdensome to the MRC, certainly the MRC reports should keep the court abreast of the status of critical aspects of ered in the stipulation (Exhibit A) and in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. In addition to the financing relating to magnet schools and to majority-to-minority transfers, there is only one other reference to state financing in the Court of Appeals decision. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 435 (Sth Cir.1985): If the four all- or nearly all-black elementary schools as conditionally allowed by this Court in Clark v. Board of Education of Little Rock, 705 F.2d 265 (Sth Cir.1983), are retained in LRSD, compensatory and remedial programs of the type that we required for the nonintegrated schools in St. Louis shall be put into effect for the four schools. See Liddell v. State of Missouri, 731 F.2d [1294] at 1312-18 [Sth Cir.1984]. The additional cost of these programs shall be paid for by the Sute of Arkansas. Since there are no all-black schools in the LRSD student assignment plan, the conditions are not present which would trigger state financing of compensatory education, as is obvious from the above language. The Little Rock District has requested other funding from the State. None of the 1- ) I (10621 1LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. 367 die u 659 F.Supp. 365 (E.D.Ark. 1987) funding is required by the Court of Appeals ruling. The States share of the magnet school funding will be considerable. It will Strain the already meager resources of assigned students to special education das- the State at a time when the State has committed itself to new standards for all Arkansas public schools. Although the blacks in Little Rock have suffered from the ravages of segregation, so have the blacks in every section and every county of the State. Significantly the new state standards provide for compensatory education for all students where performance is substandard. (State Exhibit MX 25). [3] The parties have agreed upon a sys- majority-to-minority tern for handling transfers. The stipulation setting forth this agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, is approved and is incorporated herein by reference. The three districts and the Joshua intervenors have also agreed upon a Pulaski County Education Cooperative < for staff development, distribution of audio visual resources, "teacher center activities, purchasing and other cooperative efforts of mutual benefit. The stipulation establishing the cooperative venture, attached hereto as Exhibit E, is approved. After carefully considering the student assignment plan submitted by the PCSD, I have decided that it must be rejected for the reasons set forth in the record at pages ------------- was 61517. The district was given two weeks I I "i 1 to submit an alternative plan. At the time the Countys student assignment plan is considered, the court will deal with the other criticisms set forth by the Court of Appeals. The broad outline of the student assignare currently underrepresented. Supple- mentally the NLRSD has agreed to develop uj ______-____ numerical goals and timetables for increas- been*awaiting the resolution of the magnet jpg the number of blacks to these positions, school issues. The Little Rock District is (Supplement plan 2.1). ment plan submitted by the LRSD is hereby approved. DeUiled assignments have I hereby authorized to proceed with its stu- as submitted to the dent assignment plan court in March, 1986. [4] The North Little Rock School District was found to have purposefully comii mitted a number of segregative acts, including the following which had an interdis- trict effect
(a) failed to assign blacks to its crict eiiecu w ----------------- , , xit non central administration or to high school ehminated^^RbD principalships and coaching positions
(b) concentrated whites in schools north of and blacks in schools south of Interstate 40
(c) sifications on a discriminatory basis and (d) failed to apportion the burdens of transportation equally on black and white students. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (E.D.Ark. 1984). These findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (Sth Cir.1985). In March, 1986, the NLRSD submitted an implementation plan designed to remedy the interdistrict effects of its constitutional violations. (March plan). Subsequently, in October of 1986, the NLRSD submitted a supplement to its implementation plan (supplement plan) which addressed remediation of intradistrict impact of its prior segregative acts. The NLRSD student assignment plan, the Storm Plan, has been in effect for a number of years. When properly implemented, the Storm Plan provides for a constitutional student assignment system and for equitable busing burdens between blacks and whites. According to its March plan, all NLRSD schools are currently desegregated and deficiencies found by this court have been corrected. This evidence 1 I I I I'ii iill II uncontradicted at the June, 1986 hear- The NLRSD plan includes a detailed staff recruitment component which, if implemented, should result in substantial gains in the area of recruitment and promotion of blacks to positions where they Remediation of the unconstitutional overrepresentation of blacks in special education classes consumes most of the NLRSDs March implemenUtion plan. As with the rest of its plan, if put into effect as proposed, the imbalance caused by the categorization of inordinate numbers of black students as retarded would be has suggested several [1063]VMXfc-u---- 368 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT { / J important monitoring procedures to insure compliance. (Supplement plan, 3.1). The NLRSD supplement plan also addresses remedies for intradistrict segregative acts. In the area of compensatory education for black children who continue to suffer the trickle-down effects of past segregation, the NLRSD plan proposes an early childhood program. The program includes a testing process so that educationally disadvantaged children, both black and while, can be identified and targeted for help at an early age. For the early grades, that help will be provided through teacher aides who will provide one-to-one tutoring, through supplementary reading instruction, and through implementation of the State Minimum Performance Tests. Reading remediation will also be provided at the junior high school level, as will computer assisted instruction in basic skills with indi- black children who are gifted/talented but culturally disadvantaged. In addition to the screening tests which recognize cultural differences (i.e. System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment), the NLRSD now uses an identification process which involves nominations and recommendations based on multiple criteria from a number of people. The ultimate placement of a child in the program is a group decision. (Supplement plan 8.1-8.4). In sum, the NLRSD has made great progress in each area where it was found to have been deficient. The NLRSDs March 1986 plan, as supplemented in October 1986, reflects a solid and workable approach, if implemented, to end segregation in that school district. The NLRSP plan is hereby approved in all respects. I I vidualized programs. ORDER [5] The Pulaski County Special School __________ District (PCSSD) was found purposefully to nuX^oTprograms aimed at the problem have committed a number of segreg jive of students who leave school prematurely acts with an interdistrict effect, (a) fade The excessively high drop- to comply with a 1968 desegregation court The NLRSD supplement plan includes a out raU o7blackVinThV NLRSD is one of order (Zinnamon v. Board of Education the most pressing problems for the blacks in that district. Proposed programs such as the WIN (We Intervene Now) and SAC constructed schools in of the Pulaski County Arkansas Special School District, No. LR-CR-C-154)
(b) locations which en- sured that they would become racially identifiable
(c) failed to allocate the burden of (Student Assignment Classwhich serves students who are suspended from their --------- _ sound and should busing equitably between black and white I regular classes) prove beneficial. are The violation relating to the disproportionate numbers of black students who are suspended or expelled for disciplinary rea sons has largely been eliminated. For example, in the 1985-86 school year. 48% of students
(d) failed to hire and promote black teachers and staff
(e) refused to allow deannexation to or consolidation with the North Little Rock School District (NLRSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD)
(f) failed to assign students to schools in such a way as to maximize cnlndAd Students were black. While to schools in such a way as co ,he suspended desegregation
(g) assigned students tu this percentage the actual percentage of black students S pecial education classifications and gifted * .. Urt to* iHl enlolUdVlOW, the deviaUon is not so great programs on a <'1'' JJJ t ndieate a continuing problem at th . assigned black principals -lb ^-S'Sa^i^n a,. rhiriS 1 1 I The NLRSD has made strides in improv- ing the participation of black students in its Talented orocram. The Gifted and program. NLRSD supplement plan includes a num- ber of safeguards to insure identification of [1064] schools there. Little Rock to build new -------- r-
School District v. Pulaski Co. Special School District, 584 F.Supp. 328, 353 (^.D^ Ark.1984). These findings were affirmed Little Rock by the Court of Appeals. II nnve en- UdeiV iSiof lEfSP JW
V? llifect maximiie Wto fgifted I iSF(h) I LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. v. PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST. die 0 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 1987) 369 School District v. Pulaski County Special into sites for proposed new construction. School District, IIS F.2d 404, 418 (Sth While no schools have been constructed during the pendency of this case, two i w Cir.1985). Many of the violations have already been curedeither by court order or by affirmative actions of the PCSSD. The deannexa- tion/consolidation violation has been cured elementary schools are now proposed. Ihe sites chosen conform to the board's new policy and are approved. In that same vein, progress has been made recentv in Jiff^ost I'gngraded Md'failed by the redrawing of boundary lines which separate the districts. The failure to comply with Zinnamon includes the failure to appoint black members to the PCSSD board. By order of this court dated December 1, 1986, the PCSSD will now elect board members from zones. According to the plan submitted and approved, one of the zones will be majority black and another will be 407. black, 587. white and 27. other. This remedy supercedes that portion of Zinnamon dealing with black school board members. The ceding of the improving the physical plants in sc .on s such as Harris and Scott which were racial- ly identifiably black. The PCSSD has made continuous progress in hiring and promoting black fac- An affirmative action plan was 1984, ulty. adopted by the PCSSD board in which has apparently been successful. As of November, 1985, 22.67. of the PC-b>D from LRSD to Granite Mountain area PCSSD includes the transfer of public to PCSSD. Moreover, there housing areas are apparently other public housing developments in the PCSSD. PCSSD Exhibits teachers were black as compared with a 23.67. black student population. PCSSD Plan Appendix I. Further, the district has a goal to have black teachers make up 20-307. of the faculty in each school
, tl.e district. PCSSD Plan, Appendix 1. Similarly, the affirmative action plan for administrative staff appears to have been successful, although there remains under18 and 20 in June, 1986 hearing. PCSSD representation in two specific categories. has created a new position in the superincoordinators and directors. In spite of these specific areas which should be carefully monitored, the percentage of I ck administrators (24.77o) is good and indicates among other Quties, reiav^ -- aeficien- velopers and planning agencies. PCSSD v The PCSSD student , u soon be submitted and The overrepresentation of blacks i cial education classes can perhaps b' use of culturally un- tendents office, the Coordinator of Housing and Integration. This staff person will. Other duties, relate to realtors, de- PCSSD Exhibit R-2, p. 4. assignment plan will be submitted and at that time the issues of desegregation in student assignments and equiUble allocation of busing burdens will be addressed. School site selection involves two sepa- rate violations. First, the construction of new schools where they are likely to be racially identifiable and second, the closing or downgrading of schools closest to centers of black population. Since this lawsuit was filed, the PCSSD board has adopted a policy making desegregation and equal to school primary goals in cess decisions to build? renovate, or discontinue use of a school. Plan, March 1986 (hereafter PCSSD Plan) Appen- PCSSD Implementation remedied through the 1 S'C- rjst be biased screening and subsequent monitor- PCSSD plan includes both of ing The incluoes ooui vx these elements. The result of the plan has been a marked drop in the percentage of blacks classified as requiring special^ education. While the percentage designate., for PCSSD Plan, Appendix G. of blacks designate!, special education is 4.27 higher than the percentage that deviation is range. of white children so designated. within an acceptable .nt in ex- The PCSSD plan includes a comm, to assure black student participation Notably, in the lOU i ja**/ _ _ Hnusine and tracurricular activities. UM. M. ----------- Housing students com- Integration obviously should have input 1985-86 school ye dix B. The Coordinator nr i' 370 659 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT 1 J prised 287- of the membership in extracurricular activities. PCSSD plan. Appendix G. An affirmative recruitment plan will be implemented to remedy underrepresenU- tion in activities where it occurs. PCSSD Plan, Appendix H. The foregoing proposals of the PCSSD desegregation plan represent not only a turn in the right direction, but also significant progress toward achieving a unitary school district. While much remains to be done, much has been accomplished. Accordingly, this portion of the PCSSD desegregation plan is hereby approved. School & Program CarverBasic Skills Math-Science WilliamsBasic Skills BookerArts GibbsForeign Language/ International Studies MannMath-Sciences/Arts ParkviewArts-Performing Arts Total EXHIBIT A STIPULATION FOR RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING MAGNET SCHOOLS The undersigned parties have agreed to make the following described recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee for its consideration in formulating its recommendation regarding magnet schools. LOCATIONS AND THEMES The parties have agreed to recommend the following magnet school locations and programs
Grade Target Enrollment * K-6 K-6 K-6 K-6 7-9 10-12 ! 475 530 720 348 975 1150 4198 The curriculum at magnet schools will emphasize the magnet theme and all magits implementation timetable at the time a magnet proposal is submitted to the Court. I I I co? alt students must fully participate in magnet courses. As well as the magnet theme, net all magnet schools will have strong academically-oriented curricula. financing New magnets or expansion of magnets already existing may be provided for subsequent school years beginning 1988-89 under the provisions of the Order of September 3, 1986. Any party may present for a magnet school or program not later than the beginning of each school year preceeding the proposed year of implementation. The Committee s deci- applications sion and in recommendation shall be sub- OlUU OHU .....................- mitted to the parties no later than Novem- ber 15 The MRC shall make its recom- the Court not later than Demendation to cember 15. IMPLEMENTATION The parties propose that the District The parties agree to the financing formulas proposed by the Magnet Review Committee at the hearing held on January 29 and 30, 1987. These formulas require the State to pay one-half (Va) of the actual costs of the construction or renovation of magnet schools as well as the customary state aid and one-half W the cost of educating the magnet students attending those schools. It is understood that any district which does not provide a student to fill an allocated seat, and said seat is not occupied by other student, will be required to pay to'the host district as its full liability for any child cost of the said unfilled seat the per host districts debt service payment, both principal and interest, for the construction or renovation of the schools in the magnet lUC pa* Court order the implementation of the six (6) aforementioned magnet schools for the P The host district 1987-1988 school year. shall provide to the MRC and to the parties [1086] program, I. The host district will provide 1 accounting and budgeting infor- to mation regarding the magnet program the Magnet Review Committee for review. of.^S cuSS that for^ less becaw plaii^ cha^ tc-O traaaaa net/S ervffi mam cosS dentu men^ Tra^ scli(w| ister^ seni^ thal'S U.S.M for thea POP!^ bla^ The^ scliOM be mubm capa^LITTLE ROCK SCH. DIST. - PULASKI CO. SP. SCH. DIST Cite u 659 F.Supp. 363 (E.D.Ark. 19S7) INTERDISTRICT 371 TRANSPORTATION PLAN The State Board of Education remains committed to underwriting the entire actual cost of transporting magnet and M-to-M transfer students, which includes the cost extra- of transporting these students for curricular activities. The districts agree that transportation of magnet/M-to-M stu- dents should be performed utilizing mea- sures which are most cost efficient. The interdistrict transportation plan shall not be used as a means to seek compensation for additional transportation vehicles unless such vehicles are directly necessary because of the interdistrict transportation plan. New full-sized school buses I pur- chased in order to transport magnet/M- to-M students will be added to the total transportation fleet costs and applied on a pro rata basis to the transportation of magnet/M-to-M students. The cost of any other vehicles purchased to transport isolated magnet/M-to-M students will be prorated according to their actual use in transporting magnet/M-to-M students. 'V Each dis- trict agrees to separately account for the costs of transporting magnet/M-to-M students and to make those records fully available to representatives of the State Department of Education at any reasonable time. The parties agree that the Interdistrict t'on of seats. The three districts agree Transportation Plan for both magnet that each district will establish an open schools and M-to-M transfers will be admin- B' istered by an Interdistrict Transportation will be permitted to determine how children Authority (ITA). The ITA shall be composed of the Transportation Director or other designee of each district and a representative of the State. The parties agree that any conflict may be determined by a U.S. Magistrate acting as a Special Master for the District Court. iIKa SEAT ALLOCATION All magnet schools shall have a student i population which is fifty percent (50%) school will be considered as an M-to-M black and fifty percent (50%) non-black. The parties agree that for the 1987-88 school year the magnet school seats shall be allocated according to the following for- mula
Twenty-five per centum (257o) of the capacity of a magnet school shall be re- served for the shadow area in the host per district. The remaining seventy-five per centum (75%) of the seats shall be allocated to each of the three districts in proportion to that districts percentage of county-wide students at each school level (elementary, junior high, or senior high). At the elemen- tary level each district shall allocate its seats in proportion to the racial ratio present in such district at the elementary level. At the secondary level, each district shall allocate all its seats on the basis of 50% black, 50% non-.black. However, the total number of seats assigned to the North Little Rock- School District shall not exceed 475 seats with no more than 100 seats being allocated to the North Little Rock School District from Parkview. It is understood that seat allocations will not be made by district to a particulai school, but only by elementary, junior high and senior high level. Therefore, a particular district will be permitted to use its allocated seats in accordance with the desires of its students subject to space limitations in particular magnet schools and the maintenance of a 50-50 racial balance. If there is oversubscription among the districts by race, grade or school each district may make a recommendation to the MRC for its approval regarding actual distribu- I i !l I enrollment policy for magnet schools and will be selected for the magnet seats allocated to each district pursuant to that policy. This provision shall not prohibit the establishment of geographic preference areas where appropriate. In the event there are unused seats by any district then persons on waiting lists to attend from the other districts shall be permitted to attend before any seat is left vacant. No student attending a magnet I I transfer student for incentive payment purposes. TARGETED RATIOS The parties have previously submitted to the Court a proposed stipulation for M-to-M (1067)cNh 372 659 FEDERzVL SUPPLEMENT I ( 1I 1 transfers which in part recognizes that if M-lo-M transfers occur, ratios targeted by anv of the districts for particular schools might be affected depending upon the locations from which M-to-M transfers occur. The parties in that stipulation agreed that the first priority should be a successful M-to-M transfer program and that if it did affect targeted ratios, such departures would not be regarded or urged as constitutional violations or departures from desegregation plans. The parties further recognize that a successful operation of the magnet school program could potentially have the same or similar effects upon targeted ratios. The parties therefore recommend that any magnet transfers not be counted as a departure from a desegregation plan or urged as a constitutional violation. be composed of the person from each school district and the State responsible for desegregation planning, and two additional persons selected by each of the following parties: Joshua Intervenors Little Rock School District North Little Rock School District Pulaski County Special School District State of Arkansas These additional representatives of the MET shall not be employees or officials of any of the districts or the State. February 16, 1987 PCSSD Administrative Offices The Magnet Review Committee (MRC) dorses the foregoing stipulations. Pulaski County Special School District en- 1 re^ as| 4 na ih^ iJ 1.1 iH I LITTLE ROCK MAGNET GRANT The parties agree and recommend that, should the Little Rock District now or in the future prove successful in obtaining grants for the operation of magnet schools, any such monies shall be applied off the top to the obligations of all parties. The parties further agree and recommend to the Court that they cooperate in the development of an application for any future magnet grants. /s/ Gene Jones North Lillie Rock School District /s/ James R. Smith Little Rock School District /s/ Jesse L. Rancifer Arkansas Department of Education /s/ Marcia A. Harding Arkansas Department of Education administration /s/ Morris F. Holmes I- INI Thd schooU respou der iid The daily administration and operation of the magnet schools shall be the responsibility of the host district. The host district shall designate a person who shall have principal responsibility for overseeing the development and implementation of its magnet program. STUDENT RECRUITMENT The parties agree that the Magnet Review Committee shall establish a Mag-net/ M-to-M Educational Team (MET). The major responsibilities of the MET shall in-elude community education and information dissemination of educational opportunities in the magnet programs and recruitment for both magnets and M to M transfers. It shall report to the MRC. The MET shall [1068] EXHIBIT B MAGNET REVIEW COMMITTEE report to the COURT January 22, 1987 The Honorable Henry Woods U.S. Federal District Court Eastern District of Arkansas P.O. Box 3683 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Dear Judge Woods: The Magnet Review Committee submits for your consideration the attached report including nine separate recommendations concerning magnet schools in Pulaski County. e ratio ova live mi to th^ lion, SI magnel IK necea adminij mo.i) ing clia magnel 5. Verbal Communication/Instruction to Interview Teams INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Prior to the consideration and selection of Interview Committees for the 1994-95 principalships at various schools in the district, a meeting was held on May 31, 1994, to discuss the interview protocol to be used. It was agreed between the participants that although there was no written procedure or policy, there has been a well-known long-standing past practice of inteiwiew protocol. The above-mentioned interview protocol was to be used for selection of the 1994-95 principalships. It was further agreed that this protocol would be documented and incorporated into the Personnel section of the Policy and Procedures Manual. Attending the meeting were Mrs. Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent, Mr. Brady Gadberry, Director of Labor Relations
and Dr. Richard Hurley, Director of Human Resources.f: 11 I- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT EPS CODE: GCAB 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . SELECTION OF APPLICANTS SCHOOL PRINCIPALS School Principal shall file Persons desiring employment as a an application in writing (Resume, letter of intent, are acceotable for the initial contact. District application or vitae are acceptable for the initial contact. forms will then be provided for applicants not currently employed with Little Rock School District.) District administration officials will screen , the applicants for acceptability. Taken into consideration certification, experience, education, performance reviews, and references. acceptability. experience, The Deputy into are education, Superintendent Superintendent(s) will prepare to be used in the interview process. a and/or the Assistant list of interview questions The Human Resources Director will review the questions for appropriateness regarding legal issues (ie. Affirmative Action, E.E.O., Americans with Disability Act, etc.) An interview committee will be selected/appointed, follows: as Three Two Three (3) (2) (3) Parents/Patrons Teachers Administration Representatives Note:1 Note:2 Note:3 1. will be selected by The Parent/Patrons representatives designated by the PTA president of the a process: of the affected school. 2 . The teacher(s) representatives shall be from the affected school and appointed by.the Administration. 3 . The Deputy Superintendent Assistant (in consultation with Superintendents, appropriate staff - Supervisors, and Principals) Administration representatives. *NOTE: The committee's composition.shall he balanced, as nearly as possible, by may designate the race and gender.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10. t J 'J ..'.J I: j J EPS CODE: GCAB 1 The interview committee shall meet to interview and recommend candidates. The interview committee will be provided folders containing the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) An interview schedule The approved interview questions An approved candidate rating form The applicant's application materials The interview committee shall interview the applicants and complete the ratings sheet. The committee, through consensus, will agree upon and submit a recommendation of the top three (3) candidates to the Superintendent. (Note: Although the applicants are rated, the ratings are only for use in reaching consensus and need not be the sole basis for selecting the recommended candidates.) The Superintendent shall review the recommendations of the Interview Committee and select the applicant to be submitted for Board approval. The Superintendent may at his/her option, reject each of the three (3) applicants and require that the committee reconvene to determine new recommendations. the Superintendent has selected an acceptable applicant, he/she will submit that individual's name to the Board of_ Directors for approval. If the applicant is currently serving as a Principal, the Superintendent may reassign the Principal and advise the Board of the lateral transfer. Once When approved, the candidate shall receive a details his salary, pay grade, other his pay and contract which pertinent information.A' D f IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT CASTEQN district ARKANSAS SEP 3 1986 CARL R. EREN 13, CLERK ey:________:______________ ,'.CP. CLE.'dC LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECbAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, Ct al DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ns Next Friend of Minors LESLIE JOSHUA, et al INTERVENORS ORDER Pursuant to the agreement entitled "Stipulation For Proposed Order Concerning Magnet Review Committee" filed by the three party school districts and the Arkansas the following Order is hereby entered: o tate Board of Education,: The subject of this stipulation was addressed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in its opinion of November 7, 1985 , styled as above and reported at 778 F.2d 404, 436 (Sth Cir. 1985 ) . 1. Plaintiff and each of the defendant school districts will appoint a member of the Magnet Review Committee (MRC) and report th name of that person to the Court within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order. The defendants State Department of Education will appoint two members of the MRC and report the names of those persons to the Court within ten (10) days. The Joshua intervenors will appoint a person to the MRC to- serve, SEP-8 1986 ATTORNEY general OF ARKANSASc ex-officio, and report within ten (10) days. the names of that person to the Court Plaintiff and defendants will confer wi tlii n the ten -day period conccrninc those to be named in an attempt to insure til at the MIvC tins at least two black members, A excluding 2 . Order, the ex-officio member. 'Within twenty-one the MRC shall meet magnet school program. planning (21)- days from the entry of this to begin planning an interdistrict _ The MRC shall develop a and implement in planning process A. t ime table for the magnet school program. the MRC shall: Consider plans and proposals the parties
B. C. Dur i n o the for magnet schools by Hear evidence Submit, for proposals to the D. ef.f ects E. presented by the parties
comment and evaluation, parties for their Evaluate interim corrment and/oi er i t i c i sm
both the segregative and desegregative of any proposals a-d vanced for magnet schools. Make findings concerning the number, location. stalting, racial ratios, and themes et In determining the number and location the MRC shall have as the magnet schools, .of magnet schools. its primary objective of effective desegregation. magnets ordinarily shall be located in may 0 r proximate make exceptions Williams School may the furtherance Consistent with this objective. established in school facilities to black residential areas. The MRC to this general rule
for example. be retained as a magnet. 23 . c ( The MRC shall report its findings to the Court, together with such recommendations as may be necessary to the efficient operat ion and administration of the magnet schools. Any member of the MRC may file con surring or dissenting reports. The MRC report and recommendations, and any concurring or dissenting repor t s, mus t be submitted to the Court on or before December 15, 1986, which deadline may be extended by the Court for good cause shown. The pa r t i es will seek a prompt hearing and determination by the Court on the MRC recomnendQtions. 4 . Upon implementation of the magnet school program. the MRC will continue to monitor, evaluate, and reconmend changes 1 n the actual operation of the magnet schools. I The MRC will file an annual report with this Court. In performing its functions under this paragraph the MRC shall follow the guidelines and procedures OU 11i nec in the preceding paragraphs. The 'IRC may retain a consultant to assist in the magnet 5 . planning process, and the parties may retain other experts and I consultants 6 . to make presentations or assist in the process. The representative shall be nonvoting, but participate fully in- 7 . on any of the Joshua intervenors on shall otherwise be entitled to all aspects of the deliberations Any party, at any time, may move re commend a_t_i_pn or Th i s the MRC of the MRC. the Court for a hearing report of the MRC. day of September, 1986 . I S. DistricTJudge 3 de -en t entered on docket sheet Ath Rulo 580 JUL 061987 OR 'ARKAt'SAS U.S cr.-JiT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT eastern DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUL CW!L R. CREM'S, CLEH. cf p. Ct' LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al NO. LR-C-82-866 DEFENDANTS ORDER After hearing from a number of witnesses, including magnet school principals and curricula specialists, and upon reviewing the Magnet Review Comm i 11 e e (MRC) reports. I remain steadfastly optimistic that six quality interdistrict magnet schools can and will be ready by fall. Th is will. of course, require the full cooperation of everyone involved. The pr incipals are most impressive and will provide excellent leadership, in spite of the manner in w..ich they were selected. Proper procedures have now been instituted for staff --_ selection. The attorneys have he 1987-88 school year reached a comp romi s e of $3100 uer i s hereby approved. All parties agree that so on the budget for ma gnet student. the role of the MRC mus that the interdistrict magnet schools can success fully implemented and operated. committee such as i n Th i s f i gu r t be c 1 ar i f/i ed be efficiently and Divergent opinions the MRC are not only inevitable thoroughly examining options. The i n a but are helpful current problem with the MRC is not that members differ in perspectives and opinions. butthat any vote wh i ch i s less than unanimous 1 s V i ev/ed by the parties as a s talemate to be resolved by the attorneys. At first blush it is tempting to a How the parties to compromise and reach agreement however through the MRC they choose, whether through their attorneys o r it runs That IS not a realistic long-term solution and counter to the clear intent of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in order ing the MRC to "administer tl the magnets. . Generally educational decisions should be made by educators, no t by lawyers. For the mo st part, the MRC i s composed of members with exce1 lent ct edent ials and abilities i n the field 0 e educat ion. The recent opinion in the St. light on what the Court of Appeals Louis desegregation intended the role case sheds of the MRC in our corrmun i ty to be. i d d e 11 , et al V- Board of Edu_cati!h e t al , No. 86-1511, slip 01 . (8th Cir. June 8 , 1987 ) . ("Liddell X") . Initially it is clear that the MRC i s a decision-ma king, rather than merely an adv i sory, body. Both the MRC m Li tt . c Rock/Nor th Little Rock and Metropolitan Coordinat ing Commi 11 ee (MCC) in St. Lou i s were charged with the task o f admi n i s t er i ng specialty s choo1s. In St. Louis, the MCC was formed and given author i ty to admin i s ter the interdistrict vocational schools jus: as the MRC was formed i n this case to admi n i s t er the magnet schoo 1 s . I n the St. Lou i s case, by agre eme n t, the day -1 o -< a. operation of the schools rested not with the MCC but with boards o f educat ion of the host districts. The r e spons ib i 1 i t ies reserved to the boards included tl the operation o f the respective 2.. -A programs, emo 1oyment o f staff, developmen t of personnel and - appropr i at i on of funds to meet each district's needs. 11 Subsequen t to the agreemen t, the district court ordered two voca t i onal schools closed and further ordered the MCC to develop a staffing plan to accommodate the reduced and reassigned staff members in those closi ng schools. The City Boa rd of Education. argued on appeal that empowering the MCC to develop a restaffing plan infringed on the powe r s reserved to the boards o f educat i on. The_c^uit of appeals held: We find little merit in It is clear th i s content ion. add itional authority 'independence .. schools and and MCC must be objectivity than Even''i^th 'its po' t Vh. MCC musV have the close eooperat.on the MU.^ is to succeed. the that . must be permitted to than 1t has in are be Even i ts the J Li dde 11 X at 2 7. have the 0 f dTstn'cs It Ithel plan Similarly the parties to this case have distr ict of a magnet school should make the agreed that the host day-to-day decisions regarding the operation D will not be of the school. This agreement cannot and construed to relegate the MRC t o the status o f an unused appendage. The court in unequivocal language directed the MCC in St. Lou i s to make independent investigatio_ns, evsluations i and decisions
There is no evidence the matter, or made respect pract ice to or it. thoroughly revi'ewed that [the MCC1 independent cour t indicated. an decision w i I h the district cannot be permi this The MCC must itted to continue. responsibility given to it the ,ted to exercise^.^^,^ be permi district court by the Li dde11 X at 22. Accordingly, the role o f the MRC 1 s to make r ecorrmended 3poll cy decisions. regarding the opera t i on ...o f -the magnet . schools. _ Those decisions should then be conmunicated, in a written report, to the court for approval. The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and shou Id reflect independent fact-finding. Ob jections to MRC reports should be filed wi th the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve, mod i fy or reject the MRC's r ecornrienda t ions. The court has neither the t ime nor the inclination to provide a laundry list of "policy" decis ions as d i s t i ngu i shed from "day-to-day II decisions. By way of example. 1 n select! ng staff, the MRC should set the criteria to be used 'or process by which teachers are selected for magnet schools
the host district would implement that policy by appropr lately selecting the teachers. With respect .to seat allocation, the MRC should establish a polJ_cy_Lo.r__seat. al locat i on...wi_t_h.iA_te bounds of the s t i pu 1 at i^on wh i ch s h o u 1 d__s e t__it s schools from all three districts. Each district criteria for select ion o f i ts students for magne t schools to enhance 11 desegregat ion efforts. For the 1987 -88 __s_chopiJ/ea the parties have agreed, and i t i s hereby approved. that all North Little Rock Schoo 1 District (NLRSD) and Pulaski County Special Schpol District (PCSSD) students who applied for magnel schools as o
May 22, 1987 may attend the magnet schools they have chosen. As agreed by the parties. the Ji.umber_,o f jea t s__a_l 1 oc_a^e d
NLRSD and PCSSD are_to be broken down_ o_n _an _org anizational level 4Zach Polett sr 501-376-2423 DU 6/17/94 0:02 AM Liab GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/4/94 TO
Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent Ms. Estelle Matthis, LRSD Deputy Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Meeting Preparation for Gibbs Principal Selection Committee By this memorandum, we are again requesting the list of names of applicants currently scheduled for interview by our committee. Please deliver a copy to Gibbs Elementary, attention Easter Tucker and fax a copy to 376-2423. Attached are the following materials: . 1) A list of questions we intend to ask all applicants at Tuesday's interviews. 2) A brief list of procedures we propose to help facilitate the interview process. 3) A list of applicants that we request the LRSD administration 1 G'ibb$\ schedule for interview by the Gibbs Committee on Tuesday, June 7, in case any of these are not already scheduled. Thank you for your assistance with these matters. AttachmentsZach Poletl XT 501-376-2423 026/17/94 WO.UJAM 03/& Partial I ist of Questions for Gibbs Principal Selectioa Committee 1) Briefly describe a lesson you have taught or observed recently that you believe was very successful. Explain why this lesson worked well. 2) Do the same for a lesson or activity that you taught or obsserved which did not succeed. Why did this lesson fail, in your opinion? 3) When you informally observe classroom instruction what are the 3 most important things you look for, or hope to see? 4) How would you encourage appreciation of and proficiency in reading and writing among staff and students (and parents)? 5) As principal, what can you offer Gibbs? 6) What are your goals for Gibbs? 7) In what ways do you see yourself supporting the staff in disciplinary matters? 8) In regards to non-academic programs, what ideas or philosophies would you initiate? 9) What do you see the balance to be between the basic instructional needs of reading, science, math, etc. with the international studies theme of the school? 10) What do you think about using the school as a resource for the community as a whole, including after 5 p.m.? 11) What would be your strategies for removing the achievement disparity between at-risk minority and/or lower income children and majority and/or higher income children?Zach Polett 501-3/&-2X23 J 6/17/94 Partial List of Applicants We Would Like to Interview on Tuesday. June 7 Diane Barksdale Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Cassandra Norman-Mason Stan StraussZach Polett W 501-376-2423 0116/17/94 8:05 AM L35/5 Proposed Procedures for Interview Process 1) We believe that we will not be prepared to make recommendations at the completion of the Tuesday morning interviews, so would like it understood from the beginning that there will be a follow-up committee meeting at a later date for the committee to evaluate the applicants and make its recommendations. We understand from discussion with Estelle Matthis on Friday, May 2) 27 that the application process was being kept open. If after the Tuesday morning interviews we do not believe we have seen the next principal of Gibbs, then we hope and expect that the District will continue to seek additional applicants and schedule further interviews. 3) We look forward to working closely and cooperatively with the administration and Gibbs staff members of the committee to come up with the best possible principal for Gibbs Elementary.TO
GIBBS ELEMENTARY PARENT - TEACHER ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM 6/15/94 Dr. Henry Williams, LRSD Superintendent FROM: Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Gibbs Parent Association Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee Wilhelmina Lewellen Vickie Gonterman Gibbs Staff Members on Gibbs Principal Selection Committee RE: Follow Up to Our Memorandum of June 4, 1 994 As members of the LRSD's Gibbs Principal Selection Committee, we again respectfully request to interview the following people for the principalship of Gibbs at the earliest convenience: Sharon Davis Sharon Brooks Deborah Mitchell Diane Barksdale Katherine Tweedie Please ask your staff to schedule these interviews as soon as it is feasible. Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.PARENT GIBBS ELEMENTARY ' - TEACHER ASSOCIATION June 17, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District HAND DELIVERED 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Dr. Williams: on behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank you Again, Gu ...................... - ---------------- ------------, vour time in discussing the selection process with us. . ___ ________.J_____i- _________ i- 4-,^ I for your time in discussing the selection process wiun us. think we can all agree that an important component to this successful functioning of not only an individual school such as Gibbs but of the entire school district is the meaningful and significant involvement of parents and teachers in the decision-making process. As parents and teachers, we observe, on a daily basis, how our schools operate and, therefore, can offer relevant input in the selection of a principal for our teachers. school. At the conclusion of our meeting, you indicated that you would review the process and procedures which have taken place You agreed to advise the committee whether or not you would permit us to interview additional candidates for the Recognizing that you will be involved in to date. principal's position. other activities through the end of this week, we ask that you notify us by 2:00 p.m., Monday, June 20, 1994. Although I believe we made it quite apparent during the I would like to reiterate that our course of our meeting, I would like to reiterate that our primary concern is with the validity of the procedure by which the next principal of Gibbs is to be determined. Although it stated by the administration that this particular in prior applications, it has been our is inherently and to be determined. has been procedure had "worked" that the process in this instance experience fatally flawed.Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Two When we initially learned that there would be a vacancy, the Gibbs PTA met and determined that we would like to be involved in the selection process. Subsequently, we undertook efforts to determine what the process would be and what we, the parents and faculty of Gibbs, needed to do in order to become a part of the At no time were we ever given specific or accurate process. information regarding the process and procedures to be employed in the selection of a new principal nor were we told what our Upon the recommendation of Deputy Superintendent Estelle Matthis, we met and selected a committee to represent role would be. Gibbs and drafted communications to the school district We also requested requesting involvement in the process, information regarding the names of applicants for the position but were not provided that information until third party filed a freedom of information request. Upon obtaining this information, the committee met and on June 4, 1994, submitted a list of names of candidates that we wished to interview, a list of questions to be posed to the applicants, and after learning by word of mouth some aspects of the selection procedure, a list of proposed procedures that we wished to be included. This letter was hand delivered to both your office and that of Estelle Matthis, Deputy Superintendent by a member of the Gibbs Committee. However, it is apparent that neither you nor any administration representative on the selection committee ever saw this communique prior to the June 7, 1994 interview session. Committee. On June 7, 1994, the parents and faculty of Gibbs posed several questions to the administrative representatives on the selection committee. We asked how the five interviewees were selected and were told that all five had been selected based on their expressed interest in the Gibbs position. We are now told It was not until the expressed interest in the Gibbs position, by you that that was "misinformation". It was interview session that we were informed as to what the procedure Both before the for selection of the principal would be. and at the conclusion of the interviews. interview process we in the inquired of the administrative representatives whether, event that we were not satisfied with any of the applicants interviewed, could we interview additional applicants. response to our inquiries, we were told that the answer to our inquiry was unknown but were later told that, yes, if we could consensus on the applicants to be recommended to were later told that, yes. In not come to a you, the process would remain open and we would be able toDr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Three interview additional candidates. During the course of our meeting of June 15, you indicated that your representatives were "misinformed". The parent and faculty members of the selection committee reservations about the utilization of the also expressed serious Our concerns were the lack of prior input evaluation forms. into the questions to be posed to the applicants as well as the use the forms would serve in the selection process. We were assured that it would not simply be a matter of tabulating the scores and then selecting the top three candidates based on There was substantial reluctance on the simple mathematics. part of the faculty and parent members of the committee to fill out the forms until we gained assurances from the administration that those forms would not be used as set forth above. At the conclusion of the interview process, the consensus was that we had not interviewed a candidate that we'could r ecommend to the administration for the Gibbs principal After lengthy discussions, the group agreed not to position. , submit any names to the administration and that we would request the opportunity to interview additional candidates. Administration representatives insisted that the forms be filled out and that was done only after again receiving assurances that the forms not be used and the scores tabulated to arrive at three candidates based on the highest scores obtained. We were told that the only reason to fill out those forms was to fact that the committee had interviewed the five document the applicants. Additionally, several members of the committee_ expressly stated that any recommendation to the administration would not be based solely on the evaluation forms as those forms did not accurately reflect an individual's choices. As a general matter, it is difficult to understand how a principal can be selected based solely on a thirty minute interview. Dr . Williams, based on the foregoing, we simply ask that you provide us with an opportunity to interview additional candidates and complete what we believe is an incomplete process. I am, under separate cover, sending a copy of this letter to the individual members of the Little Rock School Board I am, under separate cover. as well as to Judge Susan Webber Wright and Donna Creer of the Magnet Review Committee.Dr. Henry P. Williams June 17, 1994 Page Four look forward to your response. Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee Easter Tucker Willie Jones Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman AFAjr/jc cc: Dr. Katherine Mitchell Shorter College 604 Locust Street North Little Rock, AR BY: / ^f red . Angulo, 72114 T. Kevin O'Malley Ark. Board of Review Tower Building, Suite 700 Little Rock, AR 72201 Dorsey Jackson 1400 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 John A. Riggs, IV J. A. Riggs Tractor Co. P.O. Box 1399 Little Rock, AR 72203 Linda Pondexter Fuller Jr. High P.O. Box 8601 Little Rock, AR 72216 Patricia Gee 8409 Dowan Drive Little Rock, AR 72209 Oma Jacovelli 6622 Gold Court Little Rock, AR 72209 The Honorable Susan Webber Wright U.S. District Judge P.O. Box 3316 Little Rock, AR 72203 \^/ Donna Creer Magnet Review Committee 1920 N. Main North Little Rock, AR 72114 3860da GIBBS ELEMENTARY - TEACHER ASSOCIATION PARENT June 17, 1994 Dr. Katherine Mitchell T. Kevin O'Malley Dorsey Jackson John A. Riggs, IV Linda Pondexter Patricia Gee Oma Jacovelli RE: Principal Selection Process for Gibbs Magnet School Dear Members of the Little Rock School Board: Henry Enclosed please find a copy of a letter sent to Dr. Williams following our committee's meeting with him on June 15, This letter is being provided to each of you so that you 1994 . ---- will be aware of our concerns regarding the selection process and procedures employed by the district administrationwhich was designed to result in the superintendent's recommendation to you of a new principal for Gibbs Magnet School. We believe that it is important for each of you to know that of the committee unanimously believe the parent-teacher members inherently and fatally flawed. that the process was if for no substantially eliminated any significant Other reason than it ... . and meaningful input by the parents and faculty at Gibbs. Additionally, the selection committee did not recommend any Williams for consideration for the principal names to Dr. position at Gibbs.Members of Little Rock School Board June 17, 1994 Page Two As you can see, we have simply asked Dr. Williams to allow us the opportunity to interview additional candidates for the position of Gibbs' principal. Sincerely, Gibbs Parent-Teacher Principal Selection Committee APAjr/jc Enclosure 3861d Easter Willie Tucker Jones BY: A Zach Polett Dodie Angulo Ann Cashion Wilhelmina Lewellen Vicki Gonterman MOV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED NOV 0 51992 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On May 26, 1992, to the CARL R. BRENI8, CLERK DEP. c "PX PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS the Magnet Review Committee ("MRC") submitted Court for review and approval a budget for the 199 2 9 3 school year for the six original magnet schools. (Document #1609.) On July 31, 1992, the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") filed a Special Status Report setting forth its operating budget for 1992- 93 . (Document #1649.) At a hearing on August 3, 1992, the Court /) heard testimony on budget reduction proposals by the LRSD in its 1992-93 operating budget. Some of those cutbacks resulted in staff reductions at the magnet schools. The Court, with some exceptions. approved the LRSD's proposed reductions in an order filed on August 4, 1992. On September 28, 1992 the MRC wrote the Court, expressing its concern about certain LRSD budget cuts. It also addressed staffing changes at two of the magnet schools which resulted in a white principal and assistant principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School and a black principal and assistant ic Skills/Math-Science Magnet Elementary principal at Washington BasicSchool. (Document #1693.) The MRC complains that the LRSD failed in its obligation to work with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. The LRSD filed a response to the MRC's letter, basically arguing that the role of the MRC has changed since the establishment of the magnet schools during a period of the "controlled choice desegregation plan. tl It contends that the MRC's role now is to recommend policy decisions which must be communicated in writing to the parties and approved by the Court. In addition, the LRSD contends there are no numerical goals or quotas in the parties' desegregation plans and the MRC's position that the new assistant principal at Gibbs should be removed from her job because of her race is in conflict with the law and the parties' plans. The Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") and the North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD") responded that they support the LRSD's views.' Background of the Maqnet Review Committee. In November 1985 a opinion, the Eighth Circuit found constitutional violations on the part of the State of Arkansas, the PCSSD, and the NLRSD and included in the remedy the establishment of magnet schools. "The district court may require a limited number of magnet or specialty 'The Court also received a concern about the effect of the LRSD budget cuts on the magnet See Exhibit A. letter dated September 23, 1992, from the attorney for the Joshua Intervenon. * . -C - niin/irsal tn iiinh'a schoob and the assignment of a white vice-principal to Gibbs. -2-schools or programs to be established at locations to be determined initially by a Magnet Review Committee and approved by the district court after a hearing. If Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 436 (1985). The parties subsequently agreed upon the responsibilities of the MRC, which included oversight of staffing. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 659 F. Supp. 363, 373 (E.D.Ark. 1987) . Furthermore, on May 13, 1987, Judge Henry Woods stated that "[sjtaffing of the magnets shall be made in close consultation with the principal and the MRC. If Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 660. F. Supp. 637, 644-45 (E.D.Ark. 1987). Judge Woods further noted that the Eighth Circuit stated that the magnet schools were to be administered by the MRC and that he considered staffing an important aspect of administration. Id. at 645. In orders entered later in May 1987, Judge Woods established the procedure for MRC review of staffing decisions: 8. Tentative selections shall be promptly submitted to the MRC for its review and comment. Any reservation or question raised by the MRC shall be promptly addressed by The MRC may, if it deems appropriate, address unresolved concerns to the Court before any actual Any reservation or the LRSD. assignments are made by LRSD. Order filed May 26, 1987, Document #843. See also Document #833. That the MRC was more than an advisory body was made clear in Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987: All parties agree c larified so that the a that the role of the MRC must be LLe interdistrict magnet schools can be successfully implemented and operated._ efficiently and successfully impiemenuea anu . . . At first blush it is tempting to allow the parties -3-to compromise and reach agreement however they choose, whether through their attorneys or through the MRC. That is not a realistic long-term solution and it runs counter to the clear intent of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in ordering the MRC to 'administer' the magnets. Initially it is clear that the MRC is a decision-making rather than merely an advisory body. [T]he parties to this case have agreed that the host district of a magnet school should make the day-to-day T-arra-rHi nn thp ooeration of the school This decisions regarding the operation of the school agreement cannot and will not be construed to relegate the MRC to the status of an unused appendage. Accordingly, the role of the MRC is to_ make recommended policy decisions regarding the operation of the magnet schools. Those decisions should then be d, in a written report, to the court for The report should reflect the process used to reach decisions and should reflect independent fact- Objections to MRC reports should be filed with communicated, approval. the of IS Those written report, findino. ----- , the court within 20 days, after which the court will approve modify, or reject the MRC's recommendations. of example, in selecting staff, the 1C ... By way of example, in selecting suui, tnc should set the criteria to be used or process by ^^ich teachers are selected for magnet schools
the host district would implement that policy by appropriate y lected for magnet schools
selecting the teachers. Little Rock School District V . Pulaski District, 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1555-56 (E.D.Ark. County Special School 1987) . In Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296 (8th Cir. 1988), the Court addressed the argument that the MRC's authority with respect to the assignment of teachers was too broad. The Eighth Circuit stated
In our view. the District Court order outlining the -4-duties and responsibilities of Committee was well conceived. the Magnet It Review recognizes the interdistrict character of the magnet school program and carefully allocates responsibilities between the Magnet Review Committee and the host district. . . . We specifically agree with the court's order with respect to the procedures to be followed in recruiting and hiring faculty for the magnet schools and the part that the Magnet Review Committee is to play in staffing operation. We do, however, make it clear that the collective do, it Mtsvex", daX ----- ---- agresinGnts between host school distiricts and bargaining agreements between host school aisiriccs ana the classroom teachers associations remain applicable to the extent that such agreements are not inconsistent with heretofore given to the Magnet the responsibilities Review Committee or with respect to the with orders of the District Court staffing of magnet schools. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1314 (Sth Cir. 1988). The Reductions in Staff. The LRSD Board of Directors approved budget reductions proposed by the LRSD administration on July 23, 1992 . The LRSD proposed to reduce magnet positions by 14.9 full time equivalent (FTE) positions. The MRC says it learned of the reductions through the newspaper and called a special meeting for the LRSD to present its budget, proposed to reduce staffing in During that meeting the LRSD the magnet schools by 11.3 FTE rather than 14.9 FTE. More meetings followed during which the MRC discussed personnel cuts with magnet school principals and LRSD central office administrators. On August 28, the MRC voted on the proposed personnel cuts and approved the reduction of 7.4 FTE positions and asked for reinstatement of the other 3.9 FTE in which he slated that the role of the MRC is to ^In a footnote, the Eighth Circuit quoted from Judge Woods' July 2 order in - , which would be communicated to the court for approval. See LKSU . make recommended policy decisions PCSSD, 663 F. Supp. 1554, 1556 (E.D.Ark. 1987). -5-positions. According to the MRC, the LRSD verbally agreed to reinstate the positions but declined to reinstate the people who had occupied the positions. The MRC now asks the Court to affirm the decision to reinstate 3.9 FTE positions cut from the original magnet programs by the LRSD and to reinstate to those positions the individuals who held them prior to the cuts. In response, the LRSD contends that following the implementation of the magnet schools programs. the MRC's role changed from that of administering to evaluating and monitoring the magnet schools. It asserts that the MRC failed to act in accordance with a properly established policy, citing language from Judge Woods' Order of July 2, 1987. LRSD V. PCSSD, supra, 663 F. Supp. at 1556. In addition. the LRSD contends that it has no authority under the Professional Negotiations Agreement ("PNA") to reinstate the individuals to the 3.9 FTE positions because those individuals have been reassigned according to the PNA. It states that the 3.9 FTE positions must be filled in conformity with the PNA. (Exhibit B to Doc. #1693.) The LRSD's position concerning the role of the MRC is not well-taken. The MRC's administrative oversight responsibility was not rejected along with the LRSD's "controlled choice student assignment plan as the LRSD suggests. The MRC's responsibilities continue and include staffing decisions. The MRC continues on an H annual basis to submit to the Court for approval a proposed budget for the six original magnet schools. The budgets proposed by the MRC represent its efforts to assure that the magnet schools -6-continue to provide those special programs that attract and retain pupils, thereby assisting in the desegregation effort. The MRC is made up of representatives of the parties and the State of Arkansas, a former party to the action. and the LRSD has been a member of the MRC since its inception. Dr. Mac Bernd, the new Superintendent of the LRSD, acknowledged the role of the MRC when he presented Proposal No. 14 to the LRSD Board of Directors. That proposal is titled "A Recommendation to the Magnet Review Committee" and suggests the reduction of 14.9 FTE positions at the magnet schools. In the proposal. Dr. Bernd states: "It is our position that any reductions of personnel in the area schools should also be made in the magnet schools monitored by the Magnet Review Committee. Therefore, it is recommended that you authorize the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions to the Magnet Review Committee . . (I (Doc. #1649.) In a July 28, 1992 memorandum to the MRC, Dr. Bernd relates that the LRSD Board of Directors authorized him to propose reduction in positions at a the magnet schools. He states: "Because the reduction in positions would create a 1 that the per pupil rate be total reduction in costs. we recommend reduced from $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. 11 (Exhibit A to Doc. #1693.) The Court is dismayed actions. The LRSD did not and somewhat confused about the LRSD's consult with the MRC prior to gaining approval from its Board for the recommended staff reductions even though the district has a representative on the MRC and was aware that the MRC was in the process of preparing budget for the -7- amagnet schools. Furthermore, the LRSD, after presenting the proposal to the MRC, failed to heed the MRC's recommendation that the same individuals be returned to the positions the LRSD had cut before securing the MRC's permission to do so. The LRSD now attempts to dismiss the MRC's administrative role and chastises it for not following through on court directives to establish policies and criteria for staffing decisions. If the MRC has been remiss in failing to come up with such policies and criteria, the LRSD, as a full-fledged member of the MRC, must share the blame. It appears that the LRSD wishes to recognize the MRC's authority to administer the magnet schools only when it agrees with MRC decisions. The court also has considered the arguments concerning the effect of the PNA on the staffing reductions. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has said "that the authority of a federal court to alter or modify collective bargaining contracts in school desegregation cases must be based on a finding that the alteration or modification is necessary to further the effort to integrate the schools in question. II Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1316 (Sth Cir. 1988). The LRSD claims that the PNA does not allow it to reinstate the particular individuals who were transferred from the 3.9 FTE positions in compliance with the PNA. The Court believes, however. that by reinstating those individuals who were moved out of their jobs as a result of an action the Court finds was in violation of directives in this case. it is not setting aside the PNA. The magnet schools were designed to guarantee substantial -8-integration and important educational choices and they have proven successful in fulfilling this intended purpose. The court has stated on a number of occasions the importance of maintaining excellence in the magnet schools. "Magnet schools . . will be distinguished by the features that have made them successful in other cities: individualized teaching, low pupil-teacher ratio, specialized programs tailored to students' interests, enriched resources and active recruitment. It Little Rock School District v. a Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F.2d 1296, 1309 (Sth Cir. 1988). The magnet schools are racially balanced as a result of efforts to make sure that they are "recognized throughout the county as truly high quality schools. with excellent teaching staffs and unique programs of interest to suburban and city students alike . . It Id. at 1312. The success of these magnet schools is critical to desegregation, and tampering with a proven success could undermine public confidence in the magnets and the school district as whole. The Court recognizes that some authorities oppose magnet schools as tools for desegregation but it cannot question the concept because the parties agreed to the magnet schools and they are working. When it approved the parties' settlement plans, the Eighth Circuit stressed the need for a period of stability. While the Court does not wish to become involved in individual hiring decisions, the Court must see that court directives are being followed. The LRSD must cooperate with the MRC as it fulfills its responsibility to administer the magnet schools. As has been -9- astated, administration includes decisions concerning staffing levels adequate to effectively deliver the magnet programs. While it does appear that the MRC has failed to develop criteria for staff selection and the Court believes that actual selection of personnel is the responsibility of the host district, the MRC's role in determining staffing requirements is not to be undermined. The Court, therefore, affirms the MRC's decision to reinstate the FTE positions cut from the original magnet schools' programs and orders the LRSD to reinstate the individuals who previously held the following positions: 1) the 1.0 FTE music teacher at Gibbs International Studies Magnet Elementary School
2) the 1.0 FTE counselor at Parkview Arts/Science Magnet High School, 3) the .4 FTE counselor position at Williams Basic Skills Magnet Elementary School
and 4) three (3) .5 FTE Gifted and Talented positions, one each at Booker, Gibbs, and Williams Magnet Schools. Assistant Principal at Gibbs International Studies Magnet_School. The MRC also asks the Court to vacate the assistant principal position at Gibbs and allow the LRSD to advertise and the principal to select black assistant principal from among qualified candidates. The LRSD disputes that there is a requirement that magnet school staff positions be racially balanced and contends that the MRC'S position violates the parties' desegregation plans and the law. The MRC does not contend that there is a requirement that LRSD label certain magnet school staff positions as "black" or "white. It 3.9 a 1 -10-It does state that there is a goal of equal representation for blacks and whites both for administrators and teachers. The goal of equitable staffing appears throughout the LRSD settlement plan, and the Court notes that the Eighth Circuit has admonished the NLRSD and the PCSSD for not hiring blacks. See Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District, 778 F.2d 404, 422 (1985)
778 F.2d. at 440 (Arnold, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Court finds that this goal of equal representation is an admirable one and should be attempted at every opportunity. Additionally, there does not seem to be a problem here with the availability of a pool of qualified applicants because the LRSD recently hired a black as the assistant principal at Washington to serve with that school's black principal. The LRSD appears to have made an unwise personnel placement decision in its selection of magnet schools. The Court, the assistant principals for the two however, will not require the LRSD to remove the assistant principal at Gibbs. It does expect the LRSD to select staff not only at the magnet schools but at all its schools consistent with the staffing goals of the desegregation plans and the law of this case. Conclusion. Although a superintendent and his board ought to have the right to run their schools in ordinary day-to-day matters. this is no ordinary matter. The LRSD must function under court order and court oversight in lawsuit the district itself a -liinitiated ten years ago this month. The districts have agreed to abide by both the spirit and letter of their own desegregation plans and they would do well to act in good faith in fulfilling the commitments made in their plans. In Freeman v. Pitts, ___U.S. ____, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992) , the Supreme Court held that in the course of supervising desegregation plans, federal courts have the authority to relinquish supervision and control in incremental stages, before full compliance is achieved in every area of school operations. Among the factors to be considered in ordering incremental withdrawal is whether the school district has demonstrated, to the parents and students of the once public and to the parents and students or one once disfavored race, its good faith commitment to the whole of the court's decree and to those provisions of the law and the constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. A school system is better positioned to demonstrate its good-faith commitment to a action when its policies f--- constitutional course of form a consistent pattern of lawful conduct directed to eliminating earlier violations. U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 1446, 118 L.Ed.2d at 135. In summary, the LRSD is directed to reinstate to their former positions those individuals listed on page 10 of this order. It is further directed to consider racial balance in selecting staff for the magnet schools. In the future, the LRSD must consult the MRC and must seek Court permission prior to making any staffing changes in the magnet schools. Any changes in the magnet schools contemplated for the 1993-94 school year shall be presented prior -12-to preschool registration in the early spring of 1993. SO ORDERED this day of November, 1992. /-y*-v^f____1 r-'-r^ /---------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE lliK -vi- -13-JOHN w. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURNETTE WILEY A. BRANTON. JR. AUSTIN PORTER. JR. .Also admitled to Praclin
in i uno District of I nlumoia JOHN w. Walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 September 23, 1992 Honorable Susan Webber Wright United States District Judge United States District Court U.S. Post Office & Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD Dear Judge Wright: I have several requests outstanding before the Court regarding I wish to add to that list concerns proposed by the Little to cut approximately 15 teaching See copy of letter to Magnet Bernd dated July 28, 1992. I am the District has regarding the budget cuts District. The District proposes positions in the Magnet school. Review Committee from Dr. E concerned because in the budget cut proposals taken at least one action that makes absolutely Mac 1992 . sense. It has removed the assistant principal at salary of approximately $34,000.00 a Gibbs Elementary School who had and replaced her with an fn the District who has a salary of $60,,000 or more administrator in ------------_ _ ____ I just don't understand this, principal at Gibbs wcc Afri'" Caucasian. The further irony of this African American prrncrpal, was pled^at Wasjtxngton^^^ The the removed assistant rstand this. Moreover, the removeo o... was African American
the replacement for her irnnv of this whole matter is that the was with another African American principal whil Gibbs now Caucasian principals. RfeCSiVED SIJSA HAi-'IStT-: !3 OF T. WFIGhT -O Exhibit A U. S. DISTRICT JUDGEPage Two Honorable Susan Webber Wright September 23, 1992 We are, therefore, The entire matter is suspect, we believe. Ann Brown's office inquire into these matters (hopefully) hearing or meeting before requesting that Ms. prior to any scheduled with the Court. or Sincerely, Jo'lin W. Walker JWW:Ip cc: Ms. Ann Brown All Counsel Ms. Donna Creer Ms. Evelyn JacksonTO: FROM: SUBJECT: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 July 28 , 199 2 Magnet Review Committee Dr. Mac Bernd, Superintendent of Schools C- Budget Reduction Recommendation As a result of the Little Rock School Distri 1992-93 Operating Budget, it is our position Rock School District Board approving the 1 that any reductions of the area schools should also be made in the magnet Therefore, the personnel^in^^^^^^ Magnet Review Committee. schools Board has authorized the administration to propose a reduction of magnet positions as follows: Gifted & Talented - Elementary 1.5 Counseling Elementary 1.4 Counseling Secondary 2.0 Music Teachers - Elementary (Except Booker) 3.0 Teaching Vacancies - Secondary 7.0 14.9 Because tne une reduction in positions create reduction in costs, we recomnend that the per pup $3,682.00 to $3,585.17. the the in would a total we re be reduced frommay-04-1994 15 = 38 FROM J.B. UflN HOOK REALTY, INC TO 7712420 P.01 May 4, 1994 Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Wifliams
We, the faculty and support staff of WiUiaxna Magnet School, wish to express our deep concern over the possible reassignmeni of our principal, Dr. Edwin S. Jackson. Dr. Jackson, through his effective administrative style and leadership, has guided Williams Magnet School to a level of superior achievement. Our school's high-performance record speaks for itself. Wc highly recommend that Dr. Jackson's transfer be recraisidcrcd. Also, attached you will find a list of factors that wc hope you will considet before you make your final decision. These are just a few of the numerous accompUshmeots that Dr. Jackson has helped achieve during his tenure at Williams Magnet School. He has truly helped to make our school *a choice for excellence " As we close this 1993-94 academic year, we want to thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns about the future of our school. Respectfully yours, Williams Mag^ School Faciilfy^Ste^ cc Board of Directors cc Magnet Review Committee cc Dr. Edwin S, JackaoQ . - Cslf- A I f - . i^4^TlKxtSu I h//i,s., t^Y-.04-1994 15:39 FPOT1 .J.B. OAN HTOK PEAI.TY. INC TO 2420 p.03 ... Strong leadership ... Staff coimrnttment ... Parental support and trust ... Extensive leadership experience ... Low staff turn-over ... Pupa comonttmenf to K-6 ... 100%P.T.A, membership ... C.O.E, leads- ... Staff support ... Continuity in sa|^xt of Magnet philosophy and goals ... Hi^ expectations ... Fima, fair and consigtent with students, staff and parents ... Knowledgeable of M^net Review Commiaco Federal sxandards ... Good reialionsh^ with the corporatc/business world ... Chosen to .serve on the Joint lotetHn Committee on Education ... Standardized test semes are cmtsistenlly high ... Conceived idea of new buildmg design and construction ... Professional in aD aspect* of his position ... National Association of Elementary Principals member ... Oversight and Directions Conunittce representative ... Attends annual Intematimial Magnet School Convention ... Federal Legislative Chairman for Arkansas Elementary PrirwqMiIs TOTAL P.0245 Huntington Road Little Rock, AR May 3, 1994 72207 6oP/ Dr. Henry P. Williams Superintendent Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Dr. Williams: Thank you so much for visiting with me this morning by telephone to discuss my strong support for Dr. Ed Jackson, Principal at Williams Magnet Elementary School. As an active member of our PTA, seen how dedicated and concerned Dr. in promoting the goals of our magnet He is uniquely qualified in temperment and background to help us achieve our goals. Jackson is school. My daughter is in the fifth grade and my student at Williams Magnet. son is a kindergarten My main concern is that our school continue to have the stablility that I feel Dr. Jackson affords us. He has worked hard and under his leadership all the children at our school have benefited as evidenced by consistently high test scores each year. Dr. Jackson has high expectations for the classroom teachers and ensures that the philosophy of academic achievemen , and discipline are consistently followed throughout the school at every level. I' ve Our PTA is looking forward to a much needed expansion in our school building scheduled to get underway this summer. Dr. Jackson has been involved in the planning and development of this project and, because of his familiarity, construction to its end. would be a great asset in seeing the My husband and I support the public school system and are eager to see it strengthened. Please hear our concerns in this matter and know that our need for stability and consistency in our school system is essential. Again, thank you for carefully considering this situation and for allowing me to share my feelings that Dr. Jackson should remain as the Principal of Williams Magnet Elementary School. Sincerely, Dorothy DeYoung (Mrs. Paul B. Young, Jr.) bcc Magnet Review Committee 16 Huntington Road Little Rock, AR May 3, 19
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.