- IRC TEL : 501-324-0504 Oct 0193 15:11 No .004 P.Ol LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION Date: September 30, 1993 To: All principals From: Sterling Ingram, Director Subject: Instructions for completing Program Budget Document In order to standardize procedures for reporting achievements (evidence) of the strategies on the Program Budget Document, the following instructions are provided. 1. Responsibilities of Principals Principals are expected to document the achievement of strategies only where "Principal" or "District is stipulated in the "Responsibility" Principals are Staff 11 column of the Program Budget Document. responsible for inputting information in only three
strategies. Beginning Date and Completion The diagram below shows the relative columns (3) columns: Date. for inputting information by principals. strategies Beginning Date Completion Date 2. Submission to Assistant superintendents Your diskette should be forwarded to the assigned 1993 assistant superintendents on or before the second Thursday following the end of the quarter (i.e. Thursday, October 14, 1993, for this quarter). The assistant superintendents will compile the information to form a district-wide report that will be keyed into a master School Operations diskette. 3. Return to Schools Your diskette will be returned to you after a paper copy has been extracted for office use.ik'c' TEL :501-324-0504 Oct 0193 15:11 No .004 P.02 Memo to Principals September 30, 1993 Page 2 4. Placement of Achievements (Evidence) on the Program Budget Documents Evidence of the achievements should be placed underneath the II Strategies" column. Use alpha order to list achievements underneath strategies (A._______ B., etc.) where the principal or district staff has been specified as the responsible person. REMEMBER
The achievements will continue to grow underneath each strategy until the information for that particular strategy is completed. See the Sample of Achievements Documentation below for selected objectives and selected corresponding strategies for further clarification. sample of Achievements Documentation OBJECTIVE STRATEGIES 1. To ensure an organizational structure which provides equal opportunity and access for parents,students and staff. 1. To review organizational structure in schools and central office to ensure sufficient support for students and staff success and for the implementation of the desegregation plan. 3.1 Mini-seminars at PTA meetings and in the community. A. PTA Mini-Seminars Agenda, October 10 5. Beginning Date Each achievement should have a corresponding beginning date (MM/DD/YY) , example: 09/28/93." IRC' TEL:501-324-0504 Oct 0193 15:12 No .004 P.03 Memo to Principals September 30, 1993 Page 3 6. 8. 7 . Completion Date An actual date (MM/DD/YY) , example: 11/14/93, will document when an achievement was completed. If an achievement has been started but not completed, give an approximate guess for the percent of completion, example: 75%. Limited Achievements for This Reporting Quarter Identify only achievements which have been completed during this quarter (July 1 - September 30). Every strategy is not expected to show achievements at this early date. Laser Printers Are Required for Hard Copies Only laser printers are capable of producing hard copies (photocopies) of the information entered onto However, some laser printers in the the diskettes. schools are not capable of printing the WordPerfect Program Budget Document. For those schools not having printing capabilities for this document. Planning Research and Evaluation will provide a hard copy upon request. REMINDER: _________ If you are confused, do not forget to refer to the three (3) sets of definitions for the Program Budget Document given you at the inservice. As a final note, schools are expected to present only achievements which are succinct and meaningful. Blank forms of the Program Budget Document are enclosed. If you have content questions concerning this memorandum, contact Marjorie Bassa at 324-2120. If you have technical questions concerning the Program Budget Document, contact Dennis Glasgow at 324-0518. drg Enclosures cc: Assistant SuperintendentsTRAIN06 REVISED 07 OCT 93 PROJECT OBJECTIVE Assist the LRSD in developing and implementing a long range planning and budgeting process that links programs/ obligations and fund allocations and expenditures beginning with FY 94-95. 1. Assist the LRSD in developing and implementing a needs assessment process that incorporates both legal obligations and other programs. 2. Assist the LRSD in developing and implementing a process that results in a planning document, based on the needs assessment, which qualifies existing programs/ obligations and identifies new programs to meet defined goals and objectives
and which defines programs/ obligations in terms of purpose, evaluation criteria and methods, ownership, priorities, and timelines. 3. Assist the LRSD in developing and implementing a budget process that links plan programs/obligations and funding allocations for budgeting and expense reporting analysis
that identifies and allocates all financial resources
that provides regular review of progress and expenditures
that provides a method of initiating modifications to program/ obligations and budgets. 4. Assist the LRSD in developing and implementing a process for program and expenditure evaluation for decision-making.X J mo PUNNING AND BUOGHING PSOCESS A B Program Coordination Bro ad-leased Iniput and Participation a C E T Organization and StaPfinsr Needs Assessnent PrograR Inventory < 0 PrograM DevelopMent Budgeting Goals and 01>JectivesG Prograw Budget BocuMent H Honitoriny and Reporting I Progran Evaluation L Itestart cycleACTIVITIES July Aug. 19 9 3 Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. PLANNIMG AND BUDGETING CYCLE Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. Hay 19 9 4 June Needs Assessment Begins July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Har. 19 9 5 Apr. Hay June July Aug. Program Inventory Begins Ha Loa Is/Ob5ec11ves Development Program Development Budgeting Budget Document Monitoring and Reporting (prior quarterly reports) Program Evaluation 1 iTRAIN09 REVISED 07 OCT 93 AUTOMATED PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLS PROJECT KICKSTART MICROSOFT PROJECT FOR WINDOWS...windows...excellent SUPERPROJECr...DOS...WINDOWS...EXCELLENT INSTAPLAN...DOS PROJECT SCE TO 'ULER..DOS ON TARGET-WINDOWS PRIMAVERA..DOS PROTRACS...DOS..JLIMITED CAPABILITY TIME LINE...DOS...WINDOWS LOTUS AGENDA..DOS...LIMITED CAPABILITYTRAIN08 REVISED 07 OCT 93 PROJECT MANAGEMENT TOOLS CHECKOFF LIST STUFF TO DO TASK LISTING SEQUENTIAL LIST OF TASK/PERSON/TIME GANTT CHART TYPE BASED ON HORIZONTAL TIME PERT PROGRAM EVALUATION AND REVIEW TECHNIQUE CPM CRITICAL PATH METHOD - TIME - MATERIAL - PERSONNELTRAIN07 REVISED 07 OCT 93 BENEFITS OF PPBS PROCESSES 1. LONG RANGE PLANNING BECOMES ROUTINE 2. PLANS AND PROGRAMS REVIEWED CONTINUOUSLY 3. CLASSIFICATION OF PROGRAMS AND PURPOSES 4. INTER-DEPARTMENT COORDINATION STRENGTHENED 5. PROGRAM EVALUATION ESTABLISHED 6. PROGRAM EVALUATION BASED ON GOALSSTPROGOl REVISED 10 AUG 93 SHORT TERM PROJECT PROGRAM DEFINITION PURPOSE: Develop a template for definition, purpose, and measurements. program identification. TASKS TAR ACT 1. Review Bernd tasking memo. 4/12 4/13 2 . audit. Sterling Ingram. Determine his plans for Bernd 4/14 4/14 3. Sterling Ingram. Get copy of Barksdale material. 4/14 4/14 4 . Volunteer assistance and define role. 4/14 4/14 5. Review Barksdale material. 4/16 4/14 6. Sterling Ingram. Draft project plan for audit. 4/19 CANC 7 . Complete research on template items. 4/20 4/23 8. Design template, definitions, and examples. 4/28 4/28 9. Approval of template design. 4/30 CANC 10. plan. Work with Sterling Ingram on completing project CANC 11. project. Deadline on decision from Sterling Ingram on 5/7 5/10 12. Draft initial document for Cabinet on program definition and listing. Distribute. 5/11 5/17 13. Cabinet returns mark-up of program listing. 5/24 CANC Date due is 5/24. 14. Meeting to verify and clean-up. 6/21 6/21 15. Program identification deadline. 6/1 Pass 16. Meet with Morgan on financial coding requirements. 6/23 6/30 17. Distribute final draft for review and comment. Date due back is 7/9 7/2 7/218. Get final mark-ups back from cabinet members. 7/9 7/9 19. Complete any final changes, and finalize program listing. 7/14 7/12 20. Get sign-off from Superintendent. 7/16 7/16 21. Distribute final program listing. 5/28 7/19 22. Meet with Milhollen on re-coding programs. 6/1 6/21 23. Meet with Ingram on template/report design. 7/1 7/21 24. Finalize Program Planning and Budgeting Document and reporting format. 8/16 25. Provide Ingram with complete diskette. 8/23gut Little Rock School District Human Resources Implementation Plan 10 6 Task Desorption Development al Human Resources System Marural I 8^15 [ 6^2 I I 95 Septwnber | Octobw | Novembw | DcmbM f I 9'12 I aUS I 326 I 103 I 1010 | 1CV17 | 1024 | <0/31 | 11/7 | 11/14 | llgl | KgS | 12/5 | 12/12 | 12/19 | 12/26 January I 1g I 1/9 I 1/16 12 DevelqM Needed Forms 5 One on One Meetings with Principals and Department Heads 13 Review and Revise New Forms 9 Oevelope Implementation Plan 14 Prepare Job Descriptions and Expectations 17 Prepare user material 19 Develcpe Education Materials for Users 20 Padtc^ manual for Approval 28 Upgrade tables for CIMSIII - Application System 10 Desigrtale Project Leader 15 Review arxf Revise Job Description and Etqdectatiora 18 Devekpe Education Plan for Users 27 Print rtew coding manuals 1 Hire Hurrwi Resource Director 24 trrplement job desc. & expec. thru mtgs with HR staff 25 Transition for HR Ststfl 26 Forms Printing 29 Print users manuals 8 Corrpletion ol New Forms 16 Education Plan for HR Staff 11 Briefing of HR Director 21 Receive approval for manual and reorganization 22 Anrxxincement to HR SteA 23 Anrxxjrtcemenl toOistrid 2 Reorganization Meetings w/ HR 3 Human Resources Trainirtg 4 Announce Reorganizdion lo Customers 7 Procedures for Prirx^tpals and Budget Marwgers Project: Date
9/17/93 Critical iiiiiininirniin] Noncritical K<<y:iiiiiiii1 iiiiaiiiiiiiiii K^llllll bnnnni] Hl 111111111 lllllllll lllllllll tn mnnnmiiinin] B 1 nun mi fnrmnriii rrTrnn.TrTTi tllllllllHIII lllllllllllll B I I I I Progress Milestone e Summary V Page 1 Date: 9/17/93gust Little Rock School District Human Resources Implementation Plan D 33 Task Description Personnel Coordirutfors' problem log establshed I September I October I November I December arts I a/22 I aoa I as | ari2 | 9/19 | aes | 103 | wio | nvi7 | 1024 | 1031 | 11Z7 [ iizu | 11/21 | n/za | las | iznz | raw [ \2ix Jenuery I 1/2 i 1S I 1/16 31 Otstrfcule new coding manuals OnTfTl X Distrbule new forms 32 Set irrplementetfion hot-Gne mn HD 34 Modify training and manuals based on prcfclem logs IIIIIHI u im 35 Conduct foHow-on training if necessary I Project: Date: 9/17/93 Critical nrrniriiTunnTn Noncriticai Progress Milestone Summary V Page 2 Date: 9/17/93ID Task Description 12 Develope Needed Forms 10 Designate Project Leader 9 Develope Implementation Plan 17 Prepare user matenal 13 Review and Revise New Forms 18 Develope Education Plan tor Users 5 One on One Meetings with Princtpais and Department Heads 14 Prepare Job Descriptions and Expectations 1 Hire Human Resource Director 6 Development of Human Resources System Manual 8 Completion ol New Forms 16 Education Plan for HR Staff 20 Package manual for Approval 27 Print new coding manuals 28 Upgrade tables for CIMSIII - Applicabon System 21 Receive approval for manual and reorganization 22 Announcement to HR Staff 11 Bneling of HR Director Little Rock School District Human Resources Reorganization Tasks Listing % Complete Finish Assigned to: Notes: 100% 9/13/93 PCS team 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 80% 80% 80% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9/20/93 9/21/93 9/24/93 9/27/93 9/28/93 9/29/93 9/30/93 10/1/93 10/1/93 10/1/93 10/1/93 10/1/93 10/1/93 10/1/93 10/4/93 10/5/93 10/6/93 Pagel Dato: 9/17/93 PCS team Choate/Mooney Choate/Mooney PCS Team PCS Team Gad berry Choate/Mooney Dr. Williams Choate Choate Choate Choate Project Leader PCS Team PCS Team HR Dir/Supenntendent Project LeaderID Task Description 23 Announcement to Distnct 15 Review and Revise Job Descriptions and Expectations 2 Reorganizabon Meetings w/ HR 3 Human Resources Training 24 Implement job desc. & expec. thru mtgs with HR staff 4 Announce Reorganizabon to Customers 7 Procedures for Pnnapals and Budget Managers 25 Transihon for HR Staff 26 Forms PrinUng 29 Print users manuals 33 Personnel Coordinators' problem log established 19 Develope Educabon Materials for Users 30 Disbibute new forms 31 Disbibute new coding manuals 32 Set up implementabon hot-hne 34 Modify baining and manuals based on problem logs 35 Conduct follow-on baining if necessary Little Rock School Disbict Human Resources Reorganizabon Tasks Listing % Complete Finish Assigned to: Notes: 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10/8/93 10/8/93 10/11/93 10/12/93 10/14/93 10/15/93 10/15/93 10/15/93 10/15/93 10/15/93 10/15/93 10/25/93 10/25/93 10/25/93 11/5/93 11/15/93 11/22/93 Page 2 Date: 9/17/93 HR Dir/Superintendent PCS Team Human Resource Director Into Svcs Human Resource Director HR Dir/Supenntendent Choate Human Res. Dept. Project Leader Project Leader Human Resource Director Choate/Mooney Human Res. Human Res. Human Res. Dept. Dept. Dept. Human Resource Director Human Resource DirectorB5050101 05/10/1100 PROGRAM PLANNENG AND BUDGETING PROCESS WORKSHOPS WORKSHOPS EVALUATION SUMMARY NOTE
The following summary report is designed to assist the ODM staff, and the Court, in preparation for the June 8/9, 1995 LRSD budget hearing. 8/12/94. The final budget hearing on the LRSD FY94-95 budget was held on August 12,1994. During that hearing, the Court addressed some of the deficiencies in the LRSD planning and budgeting processes. At page 77-82 of the hearing transcript, the Judge directed the district to conduct some staff development on the budget process and to contact ODM concerning those workshops. Further, the Judge indicated that she would follow up with a written order to that effect. 8/26/94. Bill Mooney started preparing a design and material for an ODM training session on the Program Budget Document (PBD) and concepts for recommending LRSD workshops. 8/30/94. Ann Brown and Bill Mooney met to discuss initial ideas on the ODM training and what to recommend to LRSD for their workshops. 9/2/94. Bill Mooney conducted training on the PBD for the ODM staff. Lessons learned went into recommendations for LRSD workshops. 9/12/94. Russ Mayo, Robert Glowers, Ann Brown, and Bill Mooney met to discuss the LRSD plan for the workshops suggested by the Court. The meeting was a general discussion on what the district had already tentatively planned
the who, what, when, where, and why. Brown suggested the LRSD wait until the order comes out. Mayo and Glowers felt the district had to move quickly in order to meet their timelines. 9/13/94. Robert Glowers issued a memo outlining the workshop schedule. (Attachment A)9/19/94. Ann Brown sent a memo to Robert Glowers in response to his 9/13/94 memo. She informed him that his listing of workshop offerings, contrary to what he stated in his memo, was neither Court mandated nor Court approved. (Attachment A, notation) 9/19/94. Robert Glowers issued a memo reducing the time allotted for the Program Planning and Budget Process workshop and the Program Evaluation workshop in order to minimize the time principals were out of their buildings. 9/20/94. Robert Glowers asked Bill Mooney to attend the Program Planning and Budget Process workshop to help answer any questions. Bill Mooney agreed. 9/22/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Planning and Budget Process and the Program Evaluation workshops. 9/23/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Planning and Budget Process and the program Evaluation workshops (two sessions each). 10/5/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Budget Document workshop (two sessions). 10/6/94. The LRSD conducted the Program Budget Document workshop. 10/24/94. The Court issued the order relating to the staff development requirements. The Court required the LRSD to work with ODM to develop and conduct quality, continuous training on the program planning and budget process for all those who participate in that process. At a minimum, these training sessions were to address the operational responsibilities of the participants in each of the components of the process (needs assessment, program inventory, goals and objectives, program development, budgeting, monitoring and reporting, and evaluation). The LRSD was charged to work with ODM to ensure that the training was adequately defined and implemented. 11/21/94. Robert Glowers called Bill Mooney for a meeting on the Court order. 11/22/94. Russ Mayo, Robert Glowers, Ann Brown, and Bill Mooney met to discuss the training requirements of the Court order. There was a general discussion of what the LRSD had already planned. Brown and Mooney suggested using other staff members to help in the instruction, and mentioned a problem with time allotments. 11/23/94. Bill Mooney began preparing material and examples of good business cases to assist the LRSD in getting ready for the Business Case workshop. 11/28/94. Russ Mayo, Robert Glowers, Ann Brown, and Bill Mooney met on the Business Case workshop. The meeting mainly addressed the various options for the session format, the need for some policy guidelines on when to use a business case, and the time allocation problem. 11/29/94. Robert Glowers and Bill Mooney met to discuss the Business Case and Budget Process workshops. They reviewed the workshop outline, and discussed session format. Mooney reminded Clowers of the time problem. Mooney did not accept the invitation to be the instructor due to the time allotment problems. 11/29/94. Robert Clowers called Bill Mooney to inform him that Superintendent Williams had rejected the time allotment recommendations, and directed him to stay with the original allotments. 11/30/94. Bill Mooney discussed the time allotment problem with Superintendent Williams. Williams said he would stay with the schedule. 11/30/94. Robert Clowers informed Bill Mooney that Estelle Matthis would be the instructor for the Business Case workshop. There were only five work days before the first session. 12/1/94. Bill Mooney delivered a complete set of business case examples, organized into a training package, and supported by some overheads for the LRSD to use in the Business Case workshop. The cover memo discussed the enclosed material and the time allotment problem. 12/2/94. Robert Clowers sent a memo to Ann Brown with the agenda and timelines for the coming workshops. 12/5/94. Bill Mooney met with Estelle Matthis on the Business Case workshop. Matthis shared her plan for the session. Mooney discussed his ideas on subject matter and session format. Mooney shared his concerns with the time allotments. Mooney provided other assistance. 12/6/94. Bill Mooney met with Estelle Matthis prior to the Business Case workshop. Matthis shared her revisions for the session, and asked for final comments. Mooney reviewed the material and format, and provided suggestions. 12/6/94. The LRSD conducted the Business Case workshop and the Budget Process workshop (two sessions each). 12/8/94. The LRSD conducted the Business Case workshop and the Budget Process workshop. 12/19/94. Robert Clowers informed Bill Mooney that the LRSD would conduct follow-up training sessions on the Business Case and the Budget Process for those that missed the first sessions or wanted more information. Clowers said follow-up workshop would be on 12/20/94. 12/20/94. The LRSD conducted a follow-up workshop on the Business Case and the Budget Process.LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Planning, Research and Evaluation Evaluation of the Seminar on PROGRAM EVALUATION FORMAT Please help us evaluate this seminar by responding to the items below. Circle the number which best express your reaction to each of the items. Space for additional comments has been provided. 1. The objectives of the seminar were: Clearly evident 5 4 3 2 1 Vague 2. The organization of the seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 3, How effective was the presenter(s): Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor 5. Was the presentation effective: Adequate 5 4 3 2 1 Inadequate 6. The information gained should prove: Beneficial 5 4 3 2 1 Not Beneficial 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: Excellent 5 4 3 2 1 Poor What additional information would have been advantageous to you: Comments:Workshop: Dates: The Program Planning and Budgeting Process 9/22/94, 9/23/94 (two sessions) Presenter: Russ Mayo Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 19 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 4.32 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.84 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.05 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 4.11 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 4.16 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.42 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.00 Overall rating: 4.13 Evaluations with comments: 3 Comments follow: * Very concrete ! lots of specific examples - pleasant delivery! * If possible, future presentations of the planning process would take place earlier in the work year/annual cycle. * Overall redundant programs: 1. PBD, 2. Program Eval, 3. Annual Reports, 4. COE, 5. NCA, 6. State Department reports, 7. Periodic evaluation instruments.Workshop: The Program Evaluation Dates: 9/22/94, 9/23/94 (two sessions) Presenter: Robert Glowers, Selma Hobby Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 45 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were
(Clearly evident/vague) 4.02 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.98 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.00 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 3.98 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 3.96 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.07 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.00 Overall rating: Evaluations with comments: 13 4.00 Comments follow: * Fantastic! Great job! * Like the concrete * Great! Im relieved and I welcome the challenge. * Thanks for your help. * Veiy good presentation. I was lost, but now Im found.* Dr. Hobby was very clear and to the point. I understand the expectations. * very helpful. The well defined and written sample and the step-by-step explanation of the process was * Additional information requested: why we have to do this, and what is in it for me
Q&A example walk-through using overhead so all can participate. 1. Policy questions must be handled, and not avoided. How does this fit in with the other plans they are having to do? 2. Presenter attitude sometimes projects this is something you just have to do. Up The Down Staircase example. 3. Why are you not using the established evaluation criteria? This could lead to wasted effort. * Dr. Hobby was great. * More clarity is needed - each area has its own unique problems that could not be addressed in the whole group. Need a complete sample. I dont think the process has been thought through completely. * Sample and commentary should not be together. Please provide a clean sample, so that participants may see exactly what the final product is to look like. Thanks. * issues for me. I already was familiar with the process, but the presentation helped clarify a couple of * Additional information requested: Access to the overall process.Workshop: The Program Budget Document Dates: 10/5/94 (two sessions) Presenter: Robert Clowers Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 33 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 3.88 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.79 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 3.55 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 3.67 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 3.76 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 3.85 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 3.58 Overall rating: Evaluations with comments: 11 3.72 Comments follow: * Additional information requested: To be able to use our own PBD plans at seminar. Have scheduled individual sessions about our PBD. Are talk to other program managers about their PBD. This seminar really helped in clearing up so of my misconfusion. * The evaluation criteria is not as clear as I would like it to be. How can we truly tell the evaluation is what the District want it to be. * Lets work in the lab for hands on activities. When you are opening and closing please consider the PET model to make your presentation better. * Wasted time talking about Plant Services problems. * Effective, but would have been more helpful if it had been done two weeks earlier to avoid 3 or 4 reports being due OCT 14 - But the effort is very much appreciated - Wish we had in service for each report for us new folks. * It would be nice if you could bring a PC to the next seminar. Point out differences between normal schools and incentive schools and not directions are different (No PROGBUD1.DOC). Provide dates for all upcoming quarters. * Thanks. * The presentation was helpful. * This workshop was a bit elementary. It should have been voluntary. Most of the principals are done with the document of this quarter. * Not needed by principals who have been doing it right for one year.Workshop: The Business Cases Dates: 12/6/94 (two sessions), 12/8/94 Presenter: Vic Anderson, Estelle Matthis Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 38 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 4.76 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.66 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.68 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 4.74 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 4.63 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.58 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.58 Overall rating: Evaluations with comments: 30 4.66 Comments follow: * Not enough time for the activities. * Lack of time was a major factor. Did not allow for enough work...A consultant will be needed to....the business case will be accepted. * For next year - more time to study samples - with January 13 deadline, no need for more work this year. * Page numbers on the handouts.* A sample of one, comprehensive approved business case. One of the best LRSD in services in which Ive participated. Quite informative and familiarizing about the budgeting process - inclusive of the business case. Thanks! * We should practice. * How will this business case effect area schools with limited budgets? Do we write cases for current programs for possible more funding to better service students? Please have these seminars on school time. It is inhumane to expect effective participation when most of us have been up since 5:00 am. * At the time inservice is to begin, close door let late arrivers go to make-up session. * Mrs Matthis has a reputation for beginning meetings on time. I was disappointed that those of us who were on time had to wait almost 30 minutes for all participants to arrive. In the case of mandatory meetings, participants should not have been allowed to enter after a certain time - they should have to come back to another meeting. * More time to go through the actual process, but I know we were given the opportunity to get more. It was good. * Very good! * I needed more think time to reflect and digest info. * I would like to read one business case that was successful from start to finish. More time to understand presentation. * Getting out after 6 PM was not acceptable. I have 3-4 hours of LRSD work to do this evening in preparation for a workshop tomorrow. The meeting should have stated on time. * The time allotted did not allow for actually developing a business case, but analysis of the parts (examples) was helpful. Perhaps another workshop for those who desire it. * Presentation was interesting and well articulated. Wished we had more time. * Good job! More time for work sessions. * Not enough time to write business case or program evaluations. * The hands-on approach was very effective. The information given was very thorough 10and presented very well. Very helpful!! * Good presentation but needed more time to do sample cases in group. Too much noise for those of us that need quiet when reading. More time to analyze business cases would help! * An example of a business case that is considered to be perfect. Not enough time. * Good job! * You did a super job. * Need more time on subject. * Need follow-up! Also someone to contact about questions about the business plan. Someone to review and give me feed back about my plan before turning it in on January 13, 1995. * Mrs. Matthis did an excellent job. * Good handouts, helpful visuals - very nice job. Clear and articulate presenters. * How about a complete business case which exemplifies the best in each of the 10 elements? A good model is the best teacher! ITWorkshop: The Financial and Manpower Reports Dates: 12/6/94 (two sessions), 12/8/94 Presenter: Brady Gadberry, Mark Milhollen Audience: All budget managers and principals Total evaluations returned: 63 Rating scale: excellent = 5, poor = 1 1. The objectives of the seminar were: (Clearly evident/vague) 4.38 2. The organization of the seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.43 3. How effective was the presenter(s): (Excellent/poor) 4.38 4. Did the presenter(s) communicate effectively: (Excellent/poor) 4.44 5. Was the presentation effective: (Adequate/inadequate) 4.29 6. The information gained should prove: (Beneficial/not beneficial) 4.51 7. Overall, I thought this seminar was: (Excellent/poor) 4.32 Overall rating: Evaluations with comments: 34 4.39 Comments follow: * More time to understand presentation. * Work with individual principals that are new to the district or with district procedures. More time for elaboration and questions would have helped me. I would have been more alert and able to digest all the info had it been presented earlier in the day. 12* I think that more time should be given to principal to help them understand the process. Its critical that all of us know how the process works. * This was totally inadequate for the new principals (no offense intended to Brady). We need a walk-through workshop by an expert to prepare these forms properly. * Small groups which include like schools. Mark should have been here
let this part be done later. Brady did his best. * Very helpful in that I knew nothing before or about these topics. * It was no fault of the presenter that the time was too short. He was also standing in for another which led to a bit of disorganization. * Too rushed! * Need more time. Needed a little more time to ask questions. * Time allocation was too short and intended presenter was absent. * My manpower report has been corrected in the same place at least 3 times. Could some please fix it this time - a big red note will be sent. * Need more time. * Short and sweet. * Need more time on subject. * I would like one a little more in depth for first year principals. * Good, short to the point. * Excellent, clear and helpful. Too tired at end of the day. Mark, you are always thorough. Thanks! * Good job, Mark! I understand most of the information
however, I will probably need help with it. 13* Not clear at all. * More time! * Very effective presentation. * Well done. * We need a work session on the budget addition, deletion and allocation. * Very good. * Magnet schools at a disadvantage without materials to track. * Mark is always clear, to the point and very well prepared - appreciate packet again this year very much. * Thank you for the Budget Instruction booklet - Im very pleased with it! * Presenter was rushed due to time limitation. * Financial staff not present/available for presentation. Budget staff needs to be available with more time spent on this process. * Well organized and concise. 14USD PUNNINC AND BUDGETING PROCESS A Organization and Staffing X J B PrograM Coordination a Broad-l>ased Input and Participation Needs Assessnent Progran Inventorg D Goals and Olbjectives E Progran Deuelopnent t- r Budgeting >G Program Budget Bccunent H Honitoriny and Reporting I Progran Evaluation > L Restart cycleCORR44 REVISED 3/4/94 MOONEY NOTES ON THE ROBERT BROWN SITUATION THE "REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE" MEMO - I could not tell what he wants other than "equity". He did not ask for anything specific. He may have just wanted to blow. -1 could not tell what he was really getting at with the money situation, nor could I tell what the situation really was. It will take some research and a talk with Mark to figure out what the facts really are in this case. -1 dont think ODM action would be appropriate particularly since we dont have any of the facts about the situation. THE PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT - He had 25 statements not included in the PBD. I concur with not including 24, and found several more that were included which I would have rejected. - I would have included 1 of the statements. - He said 17 pages were excluded. The 25 statements just happened to be on 17 separate pages. There were not 17 pages of statements excluded. - The statements which were not included were poorly written in that they were not statements of achievement. Some were statements of future actions, some were requests for support, some were negative comments on the administration. The statements reflect a very negative view of the administration. - He had 24 achievement statements included. This does put him far behind Rightsell, Stephens, and Rockefeller. These 24 achievements covered only 9 of the possible 30 programs (30%). The result is that Garland does not look like they are doing very well. -1 dont think ODM action is warranted on this issue. The District should train the principals to write good achievements, and the principals should bring good works to the writing session. - I have prepared the attached sheet analyzing the Incentive School section of the latest PBD. Quality and appropriateness was not considered
only effort.ODM ACTION -1 recommend a letter to Robert Brown covering these points
* * ODM does not have all the information on either of these issues Both the money and the achievements are operational issues, the purview of the administration * We recommend he work within the channels of the District to get his grievances redressed. * We recommend he request a training session for the Incentive School principals on the PBD and writing achievements. * We recommend he develop his material in a positive tone to sell the ideas to the administration.QUICK ANALYSIS OF INCENTIVE SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT STATEMENTS The following analysis of achievement statements is based on the material in the second quarter 1994 Program Budget Document. Quality and appropriateness was not considered. The count is only based on a response being made. RIGHT STEPH MITCH ROCKE FRANK GARLA 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 69 70 71 72 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 2 4 0 0 1 8 0 0 7 0 3 4 0 23 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 6 0 2 4 3 0 2 0 4 5 0 4 15 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 1 3 0 1 1 8 0 2 6 4 5 1 0 33 10 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 2 1 7 2 0 0 0 3 6 0 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 (1) (1) (2) (1) (1) (1) (2) (2) (1) (3) (3) (2) (1) (4) TOT 59 66 6 92 23 24 25 PG 14 20 4 21 12 9FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK HERSCHEL H. FRIDAY, P.A. ROBERT V. LIGHT, P.A. WILLIAM H. SUTTON. P.A. JAMES W. MOORE BYRON M. EISEMAN, JR.. P.A. JOE 0. BELL, P.A. JOHN C. ECHOLS, P.A. JAMES A. BUTTRY. P.A. FREDERICK S. URSERY, P.A. H.T. LARZELERE, P.A. OSCAR E. DAVIS, JR.. P.A. JAMES C. CLARK, JR.. P.A. THOMAS P. LEGGETT. P.A. JOHN DEWEY WATSON, P.A. PAUL B. BENHAM HI, P.A. LARRY W. BURKS, P.A. A. WYCKLIFF NISBET. JR., P.A. JAMES EDWARD HARRIS. P.A. J. PHILLIP MALCOM, P.A. JAMES M. SIMPSON, P.A. MEREDITH P. CATLETT. P.A. JAMES M. SAXTON, P.A. J. SHEPHERD RUSSELL III. P.A. DONALD H. BACON. P.A. WILLIAM THOMAS BAXTER. P.A. WALTER A. PAULSON II, P.A. BARRY E. COPLIN, P.A. RICHARD D. TAYLOR. P.A. JOSEPH B. HURST. JR.. P.A. ELIZABETH J. ROBBEN, P.A. CHRISTOPHER HELLER. P.A. LAURA HENSLEY SMITH. P.A. ROBERT S. SHAFER. P.A. WII LIAM M. GRIFFIN HI. P.A THOMAS N . ROSE. P.A. MICHAEL S. MOORE. P.A. DIANE S. MACKEY. P.A. WALTER M. EBEL HI. P.A. A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201-3493 TELEPHONE 601-376-201 1 FAX NO. 601-376-2147 August 5, 1994 AUG 8 1994 KEVIN A. CRASS. P.A. WILLIAM A. WADDELL, JR., P.A. CLYDE 'TAB* TURNER. P.A. CALVIN J. HALL. P.A. SCOTT J. LANCASTER, P.A. JERRY L. MALONE, P.A. M. GAYLE CORLEY. P.A. ROBERT B. BEACH, JR., P.A. J. LEE BROWN, P.A. JAMES C. BAKER. JR.. P.A. H. CHARLES GSCHWEND. JR., P.A. HARRY A. LIGHT, P.A. SCOTT H. TUCKER. P.A. JOHN CLAYTON RANDOLPH. P.A. GUY ALTON WADE, P.A. PRICE C. GARDNER J. MICHAEL PICKENS TONIA P. JONES DAVID D. WILSON JEFFREY H. MOORE ANDREW T. TURNER JOHN RAY WHITE DAVID M. GRAF CARLA G. SPAINHOUR JOHN C. FENOLEY, JR. ALLISON GRAVES BAZZEL JONANN C. ROOSEVELT R. CHRISTOPHER LAWSON GREGORY D. TAYLOR TONY L. WILCOX FRAN C. HICKMAN BETTY J. DEMORY Fax 371-0100 Office of Desegfegauon .. COKNSEI. WILLIAM J. SMITH WILLIAM A. ELDREDGE. JR., P.A. 8.S. CLARK WILLIAM L. TERRY WILLIAM L. PATTON. JR.. P.A. WRITER'S DIRECT NO. (601} 370-1606 Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: ODM Observations on the LRSD Budgeting Documents and Process Dear Ann: 1994 Mark Milhollen has shared with me a document dated July 28, which is titled "Office of Desegregation Monitoring Observations on the LRSD Budgeting Documents and Process". paragraph eight of that document, you say that "LRSD contemptuously failed to comply with Court-ordered timelines.- am writing to express my disagreement with that statement. In has The first issue is a relatively minor one. You say that the district has known about the summer hearing schedule since May, 1994. That statement is true but incomplete. The May 9, 1994 order scheduled the June and July hearings, but said that "Orders detailing the information the Court will review at the June and July hearings will follow at a later date". The order which detailed the information LRSD would be required to submit by noon on July 18, 1994 was filed on July 6, 1994. The more important issue concerns your statement that our decision not to seek an extension of time was "a major failure of execution" and "contemptuous." Nothing about LRSD's failure to move for an extension of time was contemptuous. failure of execution. There was no We simply made a judgment that we could file a document in a timely manner which would substantially comply with the court's order. We also believed that the process of ODM'sreview and the court's review of the LRSD budget would be better served by filing a document on July 18 than by seeking an extension of time. NLRSD and PCSSD also apparently made the judgment to submit to the court the most current information available rather than to seek an extension of time. NLRSD Superintendent James Smith described the document submitted by NLRSD as follows: This is a preliminary projection of our budget for this year. It's not the final document that will be presented to our Board in August for final approval. We began on this several months ago trying to project what the state revenues would be, local revenues and come with the best guess that we could at this time to present to the Court. Transcript of June 28, 1994 hearing, p. 10. PCSSD submitted a document described by its Assistant Superintendent for Business Affairs as "an updated version of the tentative 1994-95 budget". PCSSD noted "that actual expenditures for the 1993-94 school year are still very tentative and some revenue changes may still occur". PCSSD also described several unresolved issues which could "significantly impact" the budget numbers provided to the court. Finally, PCSSD observed that "[s]ignificant changes could still be necessary in both revenue and expenses." There has been no effort in any district to contemptuously refuse to provide information to the court or to delay in providing information to the court. information available to All of the districts provided the best them at the time of the deadline established by the court. I thought it was apparent to everyone that the budget documents would continue to evolve after the July 18 deadline and that each of the districts could provide more complete and accurate information at a later date. I did not consider this to be sufficient reason to seek to delay the July 18 filing, particularly since a hearing on the budgets was to be held ten days after that deadline. In any event, there was nothing contemptuous about our decision to provide information to the court on July 18 rather than seek an extension of time. Yours v^y ul CJH/k cc: Dr. Henry P. Williams LRSD Board of Directors iristopher Heller1 Little Rock School District MEMORANDUM To: Krom: Through: Date: Subject: All PrDfrtiin Miiiuif^rs Roberl Glowers, Director of^Planning, Research, & Evaluation 'ten dent September 13, 1994 Planning Process Workshops During the 1993-94 school year, we implemented a new planning process. This year we are refining that process while ensuring that all of us are clear about its intent. Recently, Judge Wright issued an order for us to present workshops to all program managers involved in the process. Below is a listing of workshops with dates, times, places, and the intended audience. Please place the workshops on your schedules. All will be presented al the district office in the board room. The importance of these workshops cannot be overemphasized. Thanks for your cooperation. J Date Time Audience Topic 9/22/94 1:0(>pin - 4:()()pin Program Managers (not principals) The Planning & Budgeting Process Tlic Program Evaluation 9/23/94 9:()()ani - I2:0()pni Secondary- principals The Planning & Budgeting Process The Program Evaluation kot'pni - 4:0()pm Elemcnlar} principals The Planning & Budgeting Process Tlte Program Evaluation 10/5/94 l:()Opni - 2:30pni Program Managers (not principals) The Program Budget Document 10/6/94 12/6/94 3:00pm - 4
30pm 4:()0pm - 5:30pm 1:00pm - 3:00pm Elementary principals Secondary principals Program Managers (not principals) The Program Budget Document The Program Budget Document Business Cases Financial and Manpo\5 er Reports 4:00pm - 6:00pm Secondary principals Business Cases Financial and Manpow er Reports 12/8/94 3:00pm - 5:00pm Elementary principals Business Cases Financial and Manpower Reports C: ) Superintendents Council Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone, LRSD Attorney Ann Brown, MonitorPROGRAM PLANNING BUDGET PROCESS WORKSHOPS December 20, 1994 Little Rock School District Follow-Up Workshop AGENDA Welcome Dr. Robert Clowers Session Schedules I. BUSINESS CASES Objectives Timeline on Business Cases Guidelines - When a Business Case is Required "Whats In It For Me" Mrs. Estelle Matthis Purpose of A Business Case History of the Business Case and Why Development of the Business Case The 10 Elements Questions and Answers Evaluations BREAK II. BUDGET PROCESS Objectives Mark Milhollen Financial Manpower Reports Questions and Answers EvaluationsOffice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Eastern District of Arkansas Ann S. Brown, Federal Monitor 201 East Markham, Suite 510 Heritage West Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501)376-6200 Fax (501) 371-0100 September 19, 1994 Dr. Robert Glowers Little Rock School District 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, .AR 72201 Hand Delivered Dear Robert: When I returned to my office after 5:00 p.m. on Friday (after having spent another long day in Judge Wright's courtroom), I found that the day's mail had brought a copy of a September 13, 1994 memo from you to ".All Program Managers." Thank you for sending me this information. Unfortunately, the memo contains a sentence that is incorrect: "Recently, Judge Wright issued an order for us to present workshops to all program managers involved in the process." During recent conversations between you and me and Russ Mayo as well I've repeatedly stressed that Judge Wright has QQl yet issued such an order, but I've told you that she has said she will soon write one containing detailed information. Your statement in the memo is not only inaccurate, it also implies that your listing of offerings is both court-mandated and court-approved. Not so. In our conversations about this topic. I've emphasized that, while you may go ahead with your own workshops, you must do so realizing that the forthcoming court order may include specific requirements that you are not addressing with your current training. For example, as I told you when we discussed the request you've sent to principals about evaluation, I don't believe that you're going to get very meaningful or useful results from the process as it's currently set up. What I think you're going to get back is the model example (regurgitated verbatim) embellished with the PBD in narrative form. The real results? (1) Unhappy principals complaining about being overburdened with paperwork and duplicate efforts
(2) no meaningful measurement that reveals how far people have gotten toward the goal in terms of meeting objectives
(3) no solid indicators of what worked, what didn't, what needs to be changed, and how to change it. Robert. I do believe you intend to do right. I also know that you have lots of people telling you what to do, that you don't get to make all the decisions, and that you have timelines and deadlines to meet. I understand what it's like to be in that position, because I'm frequently there. But even under those circumstances. I've always found that I can control what I put in my own memos. I've also found that it's best to strive for scrupulous accuracy-and to be especially careful about any implications regarding the Court. Sincerely yours, Ann S. Browns I 09/20/94 14:56 QoOl 324 2032 I. R School Dlst 002 Little Rock School District Planning, Research, and Evaluation \ I I MEMORANDUM cX > TO
All Principals From: Dr. Robert Glowers, Director Through: Dr. Henry P. Williams, Superintendent Subject
Time Changes in Planning Process Workshops A memorandum of September 13, 1994, outlined a series of workshops that will be presented for the Districts Program Managers. The dates remain the same. However, the times for the September 23,1994, meetings have been rescheduled in order to minimize the time principals are out of their respective building due to the Parent Conference Day. Please make the following changes to your calendar: All secondary principals along with Margaret Gremillions cluster group of elementary principals will meet beginning promptly at 7:30 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. in the board room. The other cluster group of elementary principals will meet from 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon in the board room. The topics. The Planning and Budgeting Process and The Program Evaluation remain the same. As expressed in the previous memorandum, the importance of these workshops cannot be overemphasized. Thank you for your cooperation. prog_cv2.doc I J-t 09/20/94 14:57 501 324 2032 L R School Dlst 0003 I, 7 I Lillie Rock School Di.strici MEMORANDUM 'ft' .yQf To: Eroni
Through: Date
Subject: .4// Pro^nun Mttna^rs R-O^^rt Clowers, Director ofrianning. Research, & Evaluation D41)S^4Xj^illi& Itendent September 13, 1994 Planning Process Workshops iie During the 1993-94 school year, we implemented a new planning process. This year we are refining that process while ensuring that all of us are clear about its intent. Recently, Judt-e Wright issued an order for us to present workshops to all program managers involved in the process. Below is a listing or workshops with dates, times, places, and the intended audience. Please place the workshops on your schedules. All will be presented al the district office in the board room. The importance of these workshops cannot be overemphasized. Thanks for your cooperation. i 7'inie Audience Topic 9l}2m IrOOptn - 4:0()pm Program Managers (not principals) 9/23/94 9:00am - 12:00pm Secondan.' principals The Planning &. Budgeting Process The Program Eval nation The Planning & Budgeting Process Tlie Program Ei'aluation r 1 l:00pra - 4:00pm Elemcntar}' principals Tlie Planning & Budgeting Process Tlie Program Evaluailon 10/5/94 1:00pm - 2
30pm Program Managers (not principals) The Program Budget Document 10/6/94 12/6/94 12/8/94 3:00pm - 4
30pm 4:00pra - 5:30pm T.OOpm - 3:00pm 4:00pm - 6:00pm 3:00pm - 5:(Xlpm Elemcniar)- principals Secondarj' principals Program Managers (not principals) Secondan principals Elementar}' principals The Program Budget Document The Program Budget Document Business Cases Financial and Manpower Reports Business Cases Financial and Manpower Reports Business Cases Financial and Manpower Reports C: ) Superintendents Council Chris Heller, LRSD Attorney Jerry Malone. LRSD Attorney Ann Brown, .Monitoru o
.a: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION OCT 2 4 CE? C
RK LITTLE ROCX SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF vs. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS ' KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER A hearing held on August 12, 1994 culminated a series of Court dates, which had begun in February 1994, Little Rock School District (LRSD) budget. to consider the 1994-95 In an August 22, 1994 Order, the Court stopped short of affirmatively approving the 1994-95 LRSD budget, but did not block its implementation. The Court now- addresses in more detail the deficiencies in the LRSD budgeting processes. The LRSD made some improvements in its final budget document over the course of the budget hearings. The district succeeded in producing a final document that is much more readable and concise than previous versions. In the final budget, items are easier to find, understand, and correlate. Also, during 1993-94, as it planned for the coming fiscal year, the LRSD worked through the steps of the planning and budgeting process which it had developed in conjunction with the Court-appointed Budget Specialist. In generating the 1994- 95 budget, the district addressed all of the components of thatprocess to some degree. However, the LRSD did not always follow its plan and needs to improve timeliness, and overall quality of its work. accuracy, comprehensiveness, I. Projected Budget Deficits The Court continues to be particularly concerned about the increasingly large and ominous budget deficits that the LRSD projects for future years. These shortfalls are due in part to recurring expenses being funded through non-recurring revenue sources, as well as to the apparent trend of overall expenditures growing faster than revenues. As with the FY 1993-94 budget, the LRSD created a balanced 1994-95 budget by using extraordinary one-time budget-balancing strategies that do not represent lasting fiscal reductions
for example. saving $908,776 through the Early Retirement Incentive Program
borrowing $1.6 million in settlement loans
using a $4.1 million carryover balance
a spending freeze in the amount of $400,000
a cut of $300,000 in the line item for substitutes (with no explanation of how that amount was determined or the potential impact of the cut). The specter of a financial crisis looms ever larger over the LRSD, threatening to jeopardize the district's ability to carry out its obligations to provide a high-quality, desegregated education in the years to come. Yet the district continues to procrastinate in facing the tough decisions that it must make in order to align its spending patterns with the hard realities of declining revenues. For example, positions in the administrative ranks continue to be added, schools are under-enrolled, and salary increases appear automatic. -2-II. The Program Planning and Budgeting Process The district has developed, with the assistance of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM), a program planning and budgeting process that can serve the LRSD well if the district exercises the required management discipline. The program planning and budgeting procedures are tools that must work for the LRSD. The process is not static, but ongoing and cyclical
it must be constantly managed and continuously improved so that it meets the district's changing needs and resources. The Court has repeatedly stressed that the LRSD must delineate the links between budgeting, planning. and evaluation which will ensure that the district spends money wisely and meets its desegregation obligations. Yet the district made little effort during the 1993-94 fiscal year to complete meaningful program evaluations operations. for budget decisions or modifications in programs or At the end of the 1993-94 program development cycle. recommendations to modify or delete inefficient or ineffective programs were virtually non-existent. The district must improve the quality and timeliness of the products that should result from the planning and budgeting processes. Needs assessment, program evaluations, decisions to add. modify, or delete programs, and the budget itself all suffered from problems relating to timeliness and quality. Decision-making must be built on defined processes that are based on data and analysis and correlated into a management time-frame. Rather than using business cases as rationales to justify changes already made by -3-"administrative prerogative," the district should use its businesscase process as a decision-making tool to define problems, identify alternatives. anticipate consequences. and then confidently make well-reasoned choices. As examples of deficiencies that can be generally categorized as quality-related, the FTE's (Full Time Equivalence, which indicate specific numbers of employees) had been omitted from the budget (but were restored at the direction of the Court)
of 37 proposed business cases, 33 involved additions and modifications that added costs to. the budget
the district had formulated no contingency plan in the event the transportation "outsourcing" option being investigated by the LRSD did not materialize (as it subsequently did not)
proposed school closings at Baseline and Stephens did not relate to a comprehensive long-term facilities plan
several of the business cases lacked substantive information and others contained information that was disjointed and fragmentary, incongruous. or inadequately explained and supported. thus leaving many questions unanswered. especially these having to do with the relationship between evaluation and planned changes. Program decisions must be made within a time-frame which will allow orderly input into the budget process. Decisions delayed early in the cycle compress decision-making into slim time-frames. resulting in last minute decisions that leave little time for proper incorporation into the budget document. Examples of tardiness include: the needs assessment was two months overdue and published so late that its usefulness was severely limited
decisions on -4-transportation outsourcing were two months late and delayed until the very last moment
program development decisions were still being considered five months after they were scheduled for completion
the district has yet to develop a plan for paying back the settlement loans
filings due on July 18, 1994 for hearings scheduled for July 28 and 29, 1994 were lata, forcing a continuation until August 12, 1994. The district must work to institutionalize the planning and budgeting process throughout all levels of the organization. The- process must become a well-understood, standard operating procedure that is well-accepted and consistently practiced as a way of life in the LRSD. The process can be institutionalized only if participants all levels are actively involved in all aspects on a day-to-day basis. The distric must ensure that those who are responsible for managing programs and budgets have a working knowledge of the process and are completely involved in it throughout the year. To this end, the Court requires the LRSD to work with ODM to: 1. Develop and conduc quality, continuous training on the program planning and budget participate in that process. process for all those who At a minimum, these training sessions should address the operational responsibilities of the participants in each of the components of the process (needs assessment, program inventory, goals and objectives. program development. budgeting. monitoring and reporting. and evaluation). The LRSD will work with ODM to ensure that the training is adequately defined and implemented. -5-2. Institute management processes which will actively review progress, in terms of achievements and expenditures, on a regular basis, involving every level of the organization down to at least every budget manager. The LRSD will work with ODM to ensure that the management processes are adequately defined and implemented. III. Business Cases The LRSD presented a number of business cases in conjunction. with its 1994-95 budget. some of which the district subsequently withdrew or ultimately did not fund. Although the Court will not comment here on each one of the business cases. it specifically addresses below those for which the Court requires additional information or orders the district to take specific action. The parties are reminded that, until such time that the Court approves changes (whether proposed through business cases or other means) that constitute any alteration in desegregation plan 007111711 -t-mpn-t-q, the parties are obligated to abide by the desegregation plan and relevant courr orders. a) Incentive School Spanish Program The district submitted several business cases regarding the Spanish language program in the incentive schools. The desegregation plan identifies foreign language as featured subject area of a emphasis in the incentive schools. The plan strongly recommends thaf: Spanish be the studied language, and calls for a number of specific activities and supports, including language labs, a total physical response methodology, and provisions for practical experiences and -6-interactions with a native language user. In addressing earlier proposals from the LRSD to modify or eliminate certain incentive school features, such as language labs, the Court issued a May 1, 1992 Order noting that the parties had agreed to a wide array of activities, enhanced programs, and support mechanisms that would be available at the incentive schools. The Order admonished the LRSD that the "Eighth Circuit has emphasized the importance of the incentive schools and this Court will not allow the district to diminish the scope and quality of the schools' instructional programs and enrichment activities." A December 1993 report from ODM observed that the Spanish program in the incentive schools is "in a deplorable state. The district still has failed to implement the foreign language program described in the incentive school section of the desegregation plan." (pg. 50) Subsequently, in submissions dated April 15, 1994, the LRSD filed individual business cases regarding Spanish instruction in each of the incentive schools. Most of the business cases requested either a half-time or full-time Spanish teacher. One proposed to pilot a Spanish immersion program at an unnamed incentive school. Later, in a July 18, 1994 submission, the district proposed a pilot program at one school that would cost $149,000. In this scenario. the remaining incentive schools would not offer Spanish during the regular instructional day. but would instead focus on infused cultural activities through the revised curriculum and thematic units. However, the district ultimately did not fund these business cases, but instead chose to allot new resources for foreign language -7-instruction at only- one incentive school, Franklin, where the proposal was for a pilot Spanish immersion program in one first-grade class. Since the district has submitted and subsequently withdrawn or simply not funded so many proposals regarding Spanish instruction, it is unclear to the Court how the district plans to deliver a quality foreign language program as outlined in the desegregation plan. Therefore, the district must submit on or before Wednesday, November 16, 1994, a concise but complete description of the Spanish program as it is being offered at each of the incentive schools. The description is to include the extent to which the program is offered during the regular instructional day or extended day
the date the program began in each school during this academic year
the days and times Spanish is offered at each school
how instruction is beino delivered
the number of FTE's teaching the subject in each school
whether each teacher is certified in Spanish
a description of each language lab and how it is being used to reinforce instruction
the grade levels at which Spanish is offered
the number of children enrolled in Spanish classes at each school by grade level
the specific learning objectives of the program, and how those objectives correlate to the program as it is being offered in each school (for example, as related to the methodology, instructional time, language lab practice periods, interaction with native speakers, etc.) b) Incentive School Theme Implementation On April 15, 1994, the LRSD submitted five separate business cases that requested funding to implement various "phases" of themes -8-in each incentive school. However, the district ultimately funded none of these proposals in its final 1994-95 budget. The 1994-95 school year is well underway, and the Court fears that the district may not be providing students the full range of programs promised in the desegregation plan. Even though this Court's May 1, 1992 Order instructed the LRSD to fully implement themes in the incentive schools, the district has consistently dragged its feet. For example, the December 1993 ODM report on the incentive schools points out that "the earliest official starting date for a specialist was Februarv 17, 1993 at Rockefeller. Program specialists at Franklin, Mitchell, and Rightsell started as late as April 12, 1993, almost one full year after the [May 1992] court order." The report goes on to state that the specialists had been working to integrate each theme into the school's curriculum. Now, over two years after the May 1992 Order and over one year since full-time specialists began' working. it appears that the schools are requesting funding for implementation. What has happened in the interim is unclear. So that the Court may determine the extent to which the district is currently complying with previous orders to fully implement themes, the district is to submit on or before Wednesday, November 16, 1994, a description of theme implementation in each of the incentive schools that includes at least the following information: 1) a summary of the theme, how it is being integrated into the curriculum and school activities, and the implementation timeline school and 2) if theme implementation is contemplated in phases. the -9-rationale for such a method and plans for seeking Court approval for that approach activities, events, 3) a summary of the special programs, activities, events, equipment, and materials which are devoted to theme support at each school explanation for 4) the extent to which the theme is fully implemented at each school and an explanation for any delays in implementation 5) what remains to be done to implement the theme fully 6) the amount of money spent on each school's theme implementation during FY 1992-93 and FY 1993-94 and the amount budgeted for FY 1994-95, by line item category, if possible (e.g., personnel, equipment, etc.) c) Staff Attorney In a June 1994 business case, the district proposed to add a full-time staff attorney position to the LRSD administration. The proposal states that the costs of adding this position would be offset by the savings in outside legal fees. Despite this assertion. the business case includes no dollar amounts for savings
it only covers the costs of the new position and additional clerical support, a figure of some $94,000. Without a cost savings analysis, it is not possible for either the district or the Court to determine what the real savings may be. The budget figures for 1994-95 reflect no savings in the line item for legal expenses over the previous budget- The Court advises the LRSD to determine what portion of outside legal fees a staff attorney can realistically save the district before it moves to add another position to an already swollen administrative body. -10-b^bbs d) Director of Student Assignment and Desegregation The district has proposed to change the Desegregation Facilitator's title and duties to encompass direct responsibility for all aspects of the Student Assignment Office, coordination of citizen monitoring groups, and other duties. During the hearings, the attorney for Joshua expressed objections to the change, maintaining that the LRSD had afforded him neither adequate notice nor involvement. He also cited the proposal as a modification of the desegregation plan. which requires adherence to a modification process that had not been followed in this instance. The Court. concurred and also noted that, while the superintendent was free to organize his staff according to his professional judgment. any recasting of roles had to be consistent with the desegregation plans or else approved through the requisite plan modification process. The Court cautioned that any staff reorganization or changes in job descriptions could not result in neglect of plan-mandated responsibilities. Furthermore, the Court raised the issue of accountability, because the business case does not make clear exactly who would perform the jobs formerly assigned to the Desegregation Facilitator. The Court has charged the Monitor with coordinating among the parties the plan modification process for this proposed change. She will work with the LRSD to identify any deficiencies in the business case and to address them in ways that preserve the intent of the desegregation plan when it provided that a Desegregation Facilitator would serve the staff and students of LRSD schools. -11-e) Great Expectations Program On August 8, 1994, the district filed a business case proposing to implement Great Expectations, a program concept and methodology developed by an educator in Chicago and implemented in that city and elsewhere. The case does not adequately reflect that the district used the business-case method as a planning tool to enable it to make a confident, fully informed decision in adopting Great Expectations. For example, the case does not reflect the extent to which the district researched other programs, the criteria the district used to choose this one, or what the district expects the program to achieve.- The case does not state why Mitchell and Rightsell were selected as participating schools or how this program would mesh with the district's desegregation obligations. In depicting Great Expectations, the business case describes the types of learning activities that are already operationalor should bein the incentive schools according to the desegregation plan
for examnle. cooperative learning. the new LRSD integrated curriculum. the classics literature program, the Latin Enrichment Program, reading and oral expression across the cut-ti n:i im heterogeneous groups. Writing-to-Read, positive expectations, positive self-esteem, and the Effective Schools model. While the Court does not disapprove Great Expectations, it does not accept it as a replacement of the incentive school programs which are catalogued in the desegregation plan. Rather, the Court sees the program as complementary and hopes that the Great Expectations approach will be useful in coordinating and supporting delivery of -12-the many programs and activities that incentive school children should regularly be experiencing. The Court notes that the district has provided no information indicating that Great Expectations should in any way affect the funding level or double funding feature of the incentive schools. (f) Incentive School Double Funding An August 8, 1994 business case proposed to save over $312,000 in the incentive schools by reducing certain personnel and services. ODM monitoring reports on the incentive schools have documented. that the LRSD is more than double funding the incentive schools. The amount of money spent per pupil in the schools is a function of personnel and program costs in relation to the number of students enrolled in a particular building. Incentive school overhead costs remain relatively fixed from year to year, so if enrollment drops. per-pupil costs rise. Incentive school expenses have been increasing beyond the double funding point primarily due to under-enrollment and to increased personnel costs, noticeably due to the total amount of stipends paid t staff for the extended day and week programs. The district must curtail expenses wherever possible and appropriate
but at the same time, the district also must provide adequate compensatory, remedial. and enriched education to its students. The challenge which the double funding business case attempts to address is aligning incentive school costs with the programs and services promised in the desegregation plan. The only alignment method the district has contemplated in this proposal is cutting funding in various line items
the case does not consider -13-savings by increasing the number of students in each school through diligent recruitment, by releasing reserved seating, or by returning to their attendance zone those children who attend schools located outside their home zone. (Since the August hearing, the district has sought and received approval to release seats previously reserved for white children in the four-year-old and kindergarten programs.) While the Court does not block implementation of these cuts, this business case is a further example of an instance where the quality of the district's proposals need to be greatly improved. For example, a key element absent in this proposal is evaluation. The LRSD does not offer an evaluation base upon which to construct a solid case for changing elements of school programs or operations as they relate to funding. Decisions must not be solely money-driven
they must be based on monitoring, measurement. outcomes, evaluation. research, and reassessment as well as on economy. Otherwise, how can the district determine what needs to be changed and how to change it? The business case fails to draw clearly the connections between the decisions that drove specific cuts. which cuts relate to which program or activity, how the cuts will potentially affect programs. what proportion of a category (such as supplies) a specific line item cut represents, and how the LRSD will monitor and measure the effect of the changes. Furthermore, the case neglects to factor in the critical relationship between the number of students and per-pupil expenditure
nor does the proposal state the enrollment level upon which the cuts were based. (When Stephens Incentive School closed at the end of 1993-94, significant number of its students were a -14-assigned to Garland Incentive School. The business case does not state whether such enrollment shifts were considered.) The Court will be watching the effects which these cuts have on the incentive schools. g) Academic Progress Incentive Grants On July 18, 1994, the LRSD submitted a number of business cases which included one on Academic Progress Incentive Grants (APIG) . That business case is subtitled "Proposed Modification of the Court- approved Desegregation Plan." Yet the district has provided no information or evidence that indicates the degree to which the LRSD may have followed the required plan modification process. The proposal is essentially to combine the funding of APIG and focused activities, although the desegregation plan indicates that schools were to have the opportunity to carry on both focused activities and APIG from separate funding sources: "The elementary area schools (non-incentive and non-interdistrict) will receive an annual allocation for implementing the focused activities for the school year" (pg. 31). As for APIG, the plan refers to an annual process where area schools (both elementary and secondary) nay develop proposals in order to receive funding. Subsequent court orders stressed that focused activities and APIG were to remain complementary of each other, and that one was not to supplant the other: "However, the Court recognizes the [Academic Progress Incentive Grant Program] as a complementary addition to, but not a replacement of. the original focused activities feature of the plan. Focused activities will continue to be an option for area schools. -15-may center around a theme, and will operate according to the original plan which provides for community and parental involvement and an annual allocation of funds." (May 1, 1992, pp. 24-25, emphasis original). The record shows that more than 80% of LRSD students attend area schools. Focused activities and APIG were designed to ensure that the vast majority of the district's students would have access to school-based programs and services tailored to help them reach the desegregation goals for academic achievement. As a matter of fact. the business case on cutting incentive school funding states that the cuts will free up more money for the area schools, presumably to help meet the needs of those schools. The district has not persuaded the Court that the prooosal as presented in the July 1994 business case will help promote desegregation goals, nor that it is in the bes interests of the thousands of students who attend area schools. Therefore, the Court does not approve the proposal as submitted. If the district wishes to revisit this area. the Court advises it to consult with ODM and the parties to develop a proposal that will clearly supmort the desegregation plan goals and serve the needs of area school students. Any proposed modification of the desegregation plan must be done in accordance with the requisite procedures. h) Transportation The 1994-95 budget contained a $1.3 million appropriation for transportation, but that allotment was unaccompanied by a plan or business case indicating how the sum would be applied. Testimony at -16-U16 hGaring was tliat $1 million would ba used for buses and the remainder would be spent on other needs. The Court requires the file a plan or business case which explains how the district plans to spend the money on transportation. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of October 1994. UNITED STATES DTSTRyCT JUDGE ON , -17-Ual* Xdl Sdi^ Ditiria B5032701 04/06/0900 LRSD PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS PROCESS INSTITUTIONALIZATION PROJECT April 1, 1995 OfTice of Desegregation Monitoring United States District Court Little Rock, Arkansas Ann S. Brown Monitor Bill Mooney Budget SpecialistLRSD PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS PROCESS INSTITUTIONALIZATION PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose B. Background C. What is institutionalization? - Definition D. How will I know it is institutionalized? - Expectations E. Monitoring Process and Information Sources F. Report Organization IL EXPECTATIONS AND FINDINGS A. Organizational Structure for Planning and Budget Process. Reassessment of Process and Organization. (Organization and Process Structure/Reassessment). B. Needs Assessment C. D. E. F. G. H. Program Inventory Planning and Budget Goals Program Development Budgeting Monitoring and Reporting Program Evaluation I. Management Tool III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 21. INTRODUCTION A. Purpose The purpose of this status report is to informally document for the Judge the extent to which the Little Rock School District (LRSD) has institutionalized the planning, budgeting, and evaluation process as defined in the Program Planning and Budgeting Manual. A secondary purpose is to provide informal standards that might assist the LRSD in developing a quality program planning and budgeting process. - Not many people are interested in the accountability of whether something happened. Most people want to slap it in and go. Not a formal report with formal data collection. Based upon operational observations. In some cases, it was hard to get the information necessary for a determination without formal inquiry. Snapshot of the district as of March 31, 1995. Answer the question is the process institutionalized? 3B. Background History - Early budget and planning problems - 12/91 letter and response - 1-2/92 events leading to Budget Specialist - Budget Specialist - Short projects - PPBP development - LRSD development Considerations - Give LRSD credit for doing what they have done. They do far more than the other districts and the State. - In the report, we must show how the past is the foundation for change. Dont ridicule or downplay the past or old processes. Take things to the next level. - Might include the planning assumptions from the draft project concept paper, B5O1O3O1. 4 C. What is institutionalization? - Definition Objective: to operate a program planning and budgeting process which will support logical decisionmaking at all levels in the LRSD. It is one thing to develop a process, but quite another tohave-it institutionalized, dt. Court Order, 10/24/94, page 5. The district must work to institutionalize the planning and budgeting process throughout all levels of the organization. The process must become a well-understood, standard operating procedure that is well-accepted and consistently practiced as a way of life in the LRSD. The process can be institutionalized only if participants at all levels are actively involved in all aspects on a day-to-day basis. The district must ensure that those who are responsible for managing programs and budgets have a working knowledge of the process and are completely involved in it throughout the year. Before we can determine if the LRSD has institutionalized its processes, we must define institutionalization. Search yielded no useful definition. Create our own. For the purposes of this report, institutionalization is defined as the incorporation of the sub-processes outlined in the Program Planning and Budgeting Manual, into the organizational culture of the LRSD so that these practices become the normal, everyday way of doing business. Part of the problem is that bad processes are already institutionalized, and we are looking for substantive changes to better processes. We want people to really use the improved processes. To reconcile institutionalization and change, we might approach it from this perspective. Now have institutionalized bad processes...change to good processes...move on to culture of continuous change... but not ready to go there yet because of poor state of affairs. - Just because a process is institutionalized does not mean that it never changes. We want the process to be systemic, but we want that systemic process continually subjected to improvement in order to support our changing environment. - Bad word. Institutionalization may be an inappropriate word. Part of todays management philosophy is looking at Peters chaos ideas. They like stuff like draw, shoot, aim. They see this as getting away from institutionalization. - Culture of continuous change. What we are really talking about is getting a culture of positive, controlled, orderly, goal-based, logical model, continuous change within the district. - Change. Changing a culture is not a matter of teaching people a bunch of new techniques, or replacing their behavior patterns with new ones. It is a matter of exchanging values and providing role models. This is done by changing attitudes. Crosby, p98. 5D. How will I know it is institutionalized? - Expectations 1. Define standards..expectations fiom requirements (specific to this process) and good management practices (general for all processes). 2. Measure performance. Expectations in this report are like legal requirements in an ODM monitoring guide
a standard against which to measure. These expectations define the characteristics of an institutionalized process. TTie extent to which those expectations are met, measure the degree of institutionalization. Requires a measure. Process will be as defined in the PPBP Manual. Cite both. What they said they were going to do, not what the other districts are doing or not doing. Measurements against expected performance requirements. Where can I find them? Sources. Question for expectation identification: What would we expect to see in a successful process? subAnswer for expectation identification: We would expect to see positive evidence of Answers: - NOTE...this is not a complete list, different folks might add different ideas. - What do we really want to measure? Something else? Such as the extent to which processes and the associated tools are used? The quality of that use or the entire process? The areas of strength and weakness, or what has worked well and what needs work? Lessons learned? - Quality is not an issue in institutionalization per se - Quality has to be defined as conformance to requirements, not as goodness. Crosby, p64 and p60. - Quality measurement. The measurement of quality is the price of non-conformance, not indexes. Prices of non-conformance are all the expenses involved in doing things wrong (to correct, to do it over, to pay claims). Maybe 35% in LRSD. Price of conformance is what is necessary to spend to make things come out right the first time. Not a simple yes or no, but rather it is usually a matter of degree. 3 6E. Monitoring Process and Information Sources - Look in Court Orders and transcripts for citations of failures to follow the process and institutionalization statements. Look for citations of success to do the same. - Take the requirements/expectations list and go interview the people that should be involved. Retrospective review based on operational observations. No formal data collection. 1. 2. 3. 4. Establish the standards..expectations Retrospective analysis Reviewed documents and monitored performance. No formal data collection since informal project. 7F. Report Organization We want narrative describing each of the sections per table of contents. 8II. EXPECTATIONS AND FINDINGS A. Organizational Structure for Planning and Budget Process. Reassessment of Process and Organization. (Organization and Process Structure/Reassessment) Reference
Program Planning and Budgeting Manual, dated 8/24/94, page 1 and page 10. Expectations 1. In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the structured planning process is successfully implemented as designed. (PPBM 2, 10) ** Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - The strategic planning initiative was started without considering how it fits or works with the processes they already have in place. 2. In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a long-range strategic planning process
a process which includes mission, critical analysis, assumptions, action goals, components, objectives, evaluation, action plans, and monitoring. (G2, 121) ** Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - The strategic planning initiative was started without considering how it fits or works with the processes they already have in place. 3. In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a planning and budgeting cycle calendar prepared under Board guidance. (PPBM 2, 1) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 4. In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of an effort by the Board and Superintendent to sell other staff on the Program Planning and Budgeting Process. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 5. In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process,, we would expect to see evidence of a commitment by the Board and Superintendent to embrace and further develop the Program Planning and Budgeting Process. (WMM) 9 * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 6. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process,, we would expect to see evidence of the Board continuously monitoring the progress of the Program Planning and Budgeting Process. (PPBM2, 1) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process,, we would expect to see evidence that the long-range planning and budget process instills in the minds of the patrons and others interested in the affairs of the district a sense of fiscal responsibility, accountability, and internal program evaluation by the district. (PPBM 2, 11) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process,, we would expect to see evidence that the Program Planning and Budget Process is coordinated with and successfully interfaces with other district processes. (NCQA, 21) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process,, we would expect to see evidence that the Program Planning and Budget Process has contributed to improvement in the overall management and operations of the district. (NCQA, 51) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that there is a designated senior executive responsible for program implementation. (NCQA, 5) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the lead planning person is positioned to coordinate the Program Planning and Budget Process across the district. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Glowers is the lead planning person for the PPBP and Modesta/Young are leading the strategic planning effort. You would think that the designated district planner would lead both efforts so that they could more easily be brought together. 10- Court 3/24/95. Williams and staff unsure of who the lead planner really is. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of key people being involved in the sub-process. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of district users at all levels generating continual process improvement so that the process is modified to meet the changing needs of the district. (NCQA, 29) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the administration reviews and evaluates the overall process at least aimually. (PPBM2,10) (NCQA, 7) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the Board has approved the annual plan. * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a mechanism for communicating the Program Planning and Budget Process to the associates, taxpayers, and district patrons. (NCQA, 29) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the sub-process serving as a guide for day-to-day operations within the district. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the sub-process being discussed and used in regular meetings within the district. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence 11of staff understanding of the sub-process. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 21. In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of associates several levels down recognizing the terminology and being able to describe the elements of the Program Planning and Budgeting Process. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 22. In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of critical events in the sub-process being properly timed and interfaced with other tasks. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Strategic Planning effort not planned or coordinated with the PPBP. Some Board and administration dont understand that the PPBP has a strategic component. Two processes running separately and apart. - The strategic planning initiative was started without considering how it fits or works with the processes they already have in place. 23. In the Organization and Reassessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of sub-process tasks being completed on time or early. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 12B. Needs Assessment Reference: Program Planning and Budgeting Manual, dated 8/24/94, page 2. Expectations 1. In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the subprocess meeting or exceeding the purposes for which it was designed. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 2. In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of determining the needs of the district, particularly legal obligations. (PPBM 2, 1) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 3. In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a document which identifies a need as the variance between the goal/objective and the current 2+4^ position. (SPE) (PPBM 2, 2) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization j^e district is poorly executing many elements of the planning, evaluation, and budgeting process, thus failing to forge the links between planning, evaluation, and budgeting that will ensure that money is spent wisely and that desegregation promises are ke^>For example, we have seen in the Needs Assessment that needs did not drive recommendations. Indeed, the Needs Assessment listed no needs at all. 1994-95 cycle. (Fl6) - The products of the subprocesses are frequently slow, of low quality, or missing altogether, and need to be improved substantially. For example, I see uneven and frequently poor quality in such subprocesses as needs assessment and facilities study. 94-95 was poor, but 95-96 better. Still not measuring gap. (Fl6) 4. In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of both perceptual and empirical data collected and analyzed to determine the needs of the students, parents, teachers, and administrators. (PPBM 2, 2) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Decision-making is not based on defined decision-making processes nor the results of the process. Decisions are frequently made without data
rather they appear to be arbitrary or based on personal opinions and 13feelings, customary procedures, or administrative prerogative. For example, you admit that you have repeatedly failed to involve the Intervenors in appropriate ways and at appropriate times. Yesterday, we heard that you didnt reach out to Joshua enough. (Fl6) 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a document listing needs in the curriculum, desegregation, and support areas that are rank ordered based on supporting data. (PPBM 2, 3) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a district-wide facilities section. (G2, 109) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - The last version of the facilities study was not planned, and there was no change in the project management report to reflect the changing work picture and timeline. - The products of the subprocesses are frequently slow, of low quality, or missing altogether, and need to be improved substantially. For example, I see uneven and frequently poor quality in such subprocesses as needs assessment and facilities study. 94-95 was poor, but 95-96 better. Still not measuring gap. (Fl6) - The processes are not being used to manage and improve the district, nor are they yet institutionalized, and I see little evidence of efforts to make them so. For example, as the district considered closing schools, it had no current long-range facilities study to guide those decisions and prepare the community for them. (Fl6) - Facilities Study not tasked out, included in the PM tool, and managed to. In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the needs assessment document reflects objectives from the desegregation plan and various desegregation plan audits. (A7) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the superintendent is directing the administration team to conduct a desegregation plan audit and related budget proposals. (A5) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of key people 14being involved in the sub-process. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Decision-making is not based on defined decision-making processes nor the results of the process. Decisions are frequently made without data
rather they appear to be arbitrary or based on personal opinions and feelings, customary procedures, or administrative prerogative. For example, you admit that you have repeatedly failed to involve the Intervenors in appropriate ways and at appropriate times. Yesterday, we heard that you didnt reach out to Joshua enough. (Fl6) 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of input from each of the organizational and functional units in the district for inclusion in the plan. (G2) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the subprocess serving as a guide for day-to-day operations within the district. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of staff understanding of the sub-process. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of sub-process tasks being completed on time or early. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - The desegregation audit update was completed in 11/94, but was not filed until 2/95, and only after Mooney asked about it. A well-functioning process would have had this step planned into the project management report. - The district lacks discipline on timelines and does not manage them, therefore, it is almost always late on everything. Intermediate and final deadlines of all types are repeatedly pushed back, missed, or ignored altogether. For example, you missed the needs assessment deadline by several months, the junior high capacity study was months late, and an audit of student assignment is still incomplete. (Fl6) In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a plan for 15c disseminating the Broad-Based Feedback. (PPBM 2, 3) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 5. In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of Broad-Based Feedback to the Town Hall and District Dialogue participants. (PPBM 2, 3) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 16. In the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of positive community support in recognition of the thoroughly planned budgeting process. (PPBM 2, 3) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 1 17. In the Broad-Based Feedback section of the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the LRSD works with the MRC prior to implementing reorganization or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. (Fl3) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 18. In the Broad-Based Feedback section of the Needs Assessment Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the district works with the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council as a means for promoting community involvement and input so that whatever changes are proposed for the school will reflect the community's needs and wishes
that the council is meaningfully involved in all changes at McClellan, including budget, planning and adjustment
and that the committee helps the district monitor the effect of the budget cuts on the community school program, recommends any appropriate changes that will enable the program to achieve its goals economically but effectively, and works with the district in planning the community school program budget. (Fl4) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Problems with McClellan business case. 167 L 17C. Program Inventory Reference: Program Planning and Budgeting Manual, dated 8/24/94, page 4. Expectations 1. In the Program Inventory Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the process meeting or exceeding the purposes for which it was designed. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 2. In the Program Inventory Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the program inventory identifies cunent desegregation and non-desegregation programs. (PPBM 2, 4) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 3. In the Program Inventory Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a standard district format for clearly identifying programs, defining programs, documenting program purpose, and developing program measurements. The format should include a written program description that outlines program structure and design. (WMMSP) (NCQA, 1) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 4. In the Program Inventory Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a standard expense coding scheme which will link those identified programs to expenditures. (WMMSP) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 5. In the Program Inventory Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of key people being involved in the sub-process. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 6. In the Program Inventory Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the program description is reviewed aimually and updated as necessary. (NCQA, 4) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 187. In the Program Inventory Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the subprocess serving as a guide for day-to-day operations within the district. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 8. In the Program Inventory Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of sub-process tasks being completed on time or early. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 9. In the Program Inventory Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of staff understanding of the sub-process. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 19D. Planning and Budget Goals Reference: Program Planning and Budgeting Manual, dated 8/24/94, page 4. Expectations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the subprocess meeting or exceeding the purposes for which it was designed. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Task 196 Board Retreat Work Session was designed to review material prior to going into the program development sub-process. The Board session was subsequently used for the bonding session, and written off as completed. This would indicate that the district did not have a firm idea of what the process was doing. Had this awareness been present, they would have simply added a task for the bonding session and continued on about business. In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a defined, written district-wide mission statement, and goals and objectives published by the Board and the Superintendent. (G2, 32) (PPBM 2,1) (PPBM 2, 4) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of long range planning directed at goals and objectives. (G2, 32) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of defined expected outcomes. (PPBM 2, 4) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that program goals and evaluation criteria are linked to the district-wide goals. (PPBM 2, 5) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of clear delineation oft, the district's desegregation mission to the staff and the community. (Fl 5, 7) 20* * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 7. 8. 9. In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the district utilizing the desegregation mission as a guide for developing policies and setting expectations for the superintendent to implement those policies. (Fl5, 7) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization In the Goal and Objectives Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that goals and objectives are established for the same 3/5 year span covered by the revenue and expense projections. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of key people being involved in the sub-process. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 10. 11. 12. 13. In the Goal and Objectives Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the superintendent is directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process. (A5) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the subprocess serving as a guide for day-to-day operations within the district. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of resources (people, time, material) directed toward and effort focused on accomplishment of established goals and objectives. (G2, 32) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of published program objectives by the Council and Cabinet which would satisfy the established district goals. (PPBM 2, 4) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 2114. In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of published, written priorities by the Board to guide staflF in program modification, program development, and funding and resource allocation. (PPBM 2, 5) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 15. In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of developed strategies for funding shortfalls. (PPBM 2, 5) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 16. In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the subprocess incorporated into the policies and procedures of the district. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 17. In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of sub-process tasks being completed on time or early. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 18. 19. In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of st^ understanding of the sub-process. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that ^taff know the goals and objectives, particularly the ones to which their unit must contribute. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 20. In the Goal and Objective Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the goals and objectives are known and supported by district employees. (OA, 217) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 22E. Program Development Reference: Program Planning and Budgeting Manual, dated 8/24/94, page 5. Expectations 1. 2. 3. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the subprocess meeting or exceeding the purposes for which it was designed. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Memo from Williams on 1/26/95 says the business cases are in draft form and cannot be given out. The business cases were to have been submitted to the Superintendent on 1/13/95. The case should be final at that point, if no further information is required. Yet the Superintendent seems to think they are only final after he has approved them. This does not show much confidence in your staff, and is an attempt to keep them secret as long as possible. - The operations of the district are not driven by nor do they flow from the level of mission and goals. I see little focus toward that level and little progress in the direction of fulfilling the districts mission. For example, although I heard testimony yesterday that everything the district does is focused on the desegregation plan, the evidence indicates that there is an acute lack of comprehensive, coordinated, and consistent focus on implementing the plan. (Fl6) In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of programs developed to achieve objectives, particularly those required by the desegregation plan and settlement agreement. (PPBM 2, 1) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Middle School initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. Not on the business case listing. Task 218 (12/22/94). If you are not following the process, it is not institutionalized. - Beacon School initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. Not on the business case listing. Letter from Williams to Brown, dated 11/11/94 confirms this, institutionalized. If you are not following the process, it is not In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of established and measured performance standards and expenditures. (PPBM 2, 1) 23* Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 4. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a district plan and corresponding timeline for reaching the 90% achievement goal for black students, thereby attaining forgiveness of state loans the district otherwise must repay. (F8) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 5. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a logical decision-making process, consistent throughout all levels of the organization, and based on research, information, cost/benefit analysis, analysis of alternatives and on program goals and performance. (G2,119) (CMA,217) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Middle School initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. Not on the business case listing. Task 218 (12/22/94). If you are not following the process, it is not institutionalized. - Beacon School initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. Not on the business case listing. Letter from Williams to Brown, dated 11/11/94 confirms this, institutionalized. If you are not following the process, it is not - Decision-making is not based on defined decision-making processes nor the results of the process. Decisions are frequently made without data
rather they appear to be arbitrary or based on personal opinions and feelings, customary procedures, or administrative prerogative. For example, business cases are not used to guide decision-making but rather to justify decisions after the fact. (F16) - Decision-making is not based on defined decision-making processes nor the results of the process. Decisions are frequently made without data
rather they appear to be arbitrary or based on personal opinions and feelings, customary procedures, or administrative prerogative. For example, the issue of the proposed savings of $2 million in incentive school double funding, yet there is no business case or even an explanation of how the district arrived at this number. (Fl 6) 6. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the district is exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel. (FIO) * Positive examples of institutionalization 24* Negative examples of institutionalization 7. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the goals and objectives, the needs assessment, the program inventory, and the program evaluations being used in the decision-making process. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 8. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of information prepared for corrective decision-making. (PPBM 2, 1) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 9. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of a comparison between the identified needs and the program inventory to determine gaps in program coverage. (PPBM 2, 3) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization 10. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the Position Control System being used to provide accurate and timely decision-making information. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 11. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of regular use of the business case decision procedure at all levels in the district. (WMMSP) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Middle School initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. Not on the business case listing. Task 218 (12/22/94). If you are not following the process, it is not institutionalized. - Beacon School initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. Not on the business case listing. Letter from Williams to Brown, dated 11/11/94 confirms this, institutionalized. If you are not following the process, it is not - The district is poorly executing many elements of the planning, evaluation, and budgeting process, thus failing to forge the links between planning, evaluation, and budgeting that will ensure that money is spent wisely and that desegregation promises are kept. For example, the business cases that are increasingly weak in resource and cost 25analysis. (Fl6) - The products of the subprocesses are frequently slow, of low quality, or missing altogether, and need to be improved substantially. For example, I see uneven and frequently poor quality in such subprocesses as business cases. (Fl6) - Business cases show that LRSD has not learned the planning process. Poor quality, used for justification rather than decision-making. Limited alternatives appears to be manipulative. (WMM) - Magnet School grant initiative y^re started without the benefit of a business case. Had a business case been prepared properly, we could have prevented all of the district effort, setting a hearing, grant preparation, canceling a hearing, calling the whole thing off. We should have done it right the first time. ( 12. 13. 14. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of identification and analysis of alternatives before decisions are finalized. (OA, 220) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Middle School initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. Not on the business case listing. Task 218 (12/22/94). If you are not following the process, it is not institutionalized. - Beacon School initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. Not on the business case listing. Letter from Williams to Brown, dated 11/11/94 confirms this. If you are not following the process, it is not institutionalized. - Magnet School grant initiative were started without the benefit of a business case. Had a business case been prepared properly, we could have prevented all of the district effort, setting a hearing, grant preparation, canceling a hearing, calling the whole thing off. We should have done it right the first time. - Incentive School business case on new alternative. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the district is making budgetary decisions consistent with district desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials, and equipment. (F15(^ 7 * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the subprocess serving as a guide for day-to-day operations and decision-making within the district. (WMM) 26* * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - If the PPBP were part of everyday operations, we would expect some effort to modify job descriptions to cover the support of the process. This has not been done. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of developing or modifying programs to support identified needs. (PPBM 2, 5) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that program additions, modifications, or deletions are supported by business cases. (PPBM 2, 5 and 6) * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Middle School initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. Not on the business case listing. Task 218 (12/22/94). If you are not following the process, it is not institutionalized. - Beacon School initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. Not on the business case listing. Letter from Williams to Brown, dated 11/11/94 confirms this, institutionalized. If you are not following the process, it is not - Strategic Planning initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. If you are not following the process, it is not institutionalized. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the elimination of programs not supporting the identified needs. (PPBM 2, 5) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of changes to the Program Budget Document as a result of program additions, modifications, or deletions. (PPBM 2, 6) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of key people being involved in the process. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization 27* Negative examples of institutionalization - The operations of the district are not driven by nor do they flow from the level of mission and goals. I see little focus toward that level and little progress in the direction of fulfilling the districts mission. For example, you have not adequately helped the community anticipate change, nor understand the reasons behind certain changes, nor allowed then to participate in some important decisions (such as closing schools), causing feelings of fear, frustration, and even betrayal among parents and other citizens. (Fl6) - Williams not responding to the ODM request for business cases and extended evaluations demonstrates the level of cooperation of the district. 20. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of staff understanding of the sub-process. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Strategic Planning initiative generated outside of the PPBP. Moved on it without a business case, or business case after the fact. If you are not following the process, it is not institutionalized. 21. In the Program Development Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of subprocess tasks being completed on time or early. (WMM) * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - Scheduling flaws indicate a lack of understanding of what is happening in the process. Desegregation Plan modifications, per Mayos report, will not be submitted to the Board until 3/95. This is after the proposed budget, and at least a month late in the process. For such controversial items, the Board should get any plan modification proposals at least a month and a half before the proposed budget is put together. - The products of the subprocesses are frequently slow, of low quality, or missing altogether, and need to be improved substantially. For example, I see that the district is very slow to produce data that should be driving important decisions, such as a student assignment audit. (Fl6) - The district lacks discipline on timelines and does not manage them, therefore, it is almost always late on everything. Intermediate and final deadlines of all types are repeatedly pushed back, missed, or ignored altogether. For example, you are still contemplating incentive school modifications and should have been done during the program development and evaluation subprocesses. (Fl6) 28n - Open houses and pre-registration occur before decisions on school closings. Consequently, parents will not have the opportunity to visit possible alternatives and will have to go through the registration process again after the decision. Should have been timed better. See Mayo memo of 1/6/95. - The districts poor execution and timing is shown in their handling of registration. The pre-registration brochures are sent out the week of 2/6. They announced the open houses which were the week of 1/28. 29F. Budgeting Reference: Program Planning and Budgeting Manual, dated 8/24/94, page 6. Expectations 1. In the Budgeting Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence of the sub-process meeting or exceeding the purposes for which it was designed. (WMM) * * Positive examples of institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - The LRSDs July 18, 1994 budget submission reflects no significant advances in decision-making nor meaningful progress toward a 1994- 95 budget that is accurate, complete, and final. (ODM hearing preparation, 7/28-29/94) - The LRSDs July 18, 1994 budget submission is inaccurate and incomplete, thereby failing to meet the Order requirements. (ODM hearing preparation, 7/28-29/94 - Some of the budget document information is better. Improving with each budget cycle. 2. In the Budgeting Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that budgets are the direct result of genuine planning. (OA, 219) Positive examplesof institutionalization Negative examples of institutionalization - The LRSD budgeting is top-down rather than bottom-up, forcing the figures to fit the bottom line instead of deriving the bottom line from the financial facts. (ODM hearing preparation, 7/28-29/94 - The district is poorly executing many elements of the planning, evaluation, and budgeting process, thus failing to forge the links between planning, evaluation, and budgeting that will ensure that money is spent wisely and that desegregation promises are kept. For example, you are using non-recurring revenue sources to fund recurring expenses. (Fl6) 3. In the Budgeting Sub-process, we would expect to see evidence that the budget is viewed as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. (FIO) * Positive examples of institutionalization * Negative examples of institutionalization 4. In the Budgeting Sub-process, we
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.