Little Rock School District Program Planning & Budgeting Process The purpose of this session is to: Help you understand how you can get what you need to do your job
Clarify why the answer is NO to some of your requests at certain times of the year
Explain why program evaluations, a Program Budget Document, etc. are necessary
and. Justify why we have a planning process and how we are all involved. We will need from you: Any questions you have as the presentation is made
A careful understanding of the process when the presentation is complete
Accurate and complete Program Budget Document information
Accurate program evaluations
and, Properly formatted business cases. In its simplest form, the purpose of the Planning & Budgeting Process is to link what we should be doing as a school district with how we spend our money.filed oijTPiQj rniiDT JAN 211992 1: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT'^^*- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION by
S^NTS, clerk OEP. CLi IK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On November 14, 1991, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit remanded the cause to the Court to review the parties' proposed modifications [May submissions] to the 1989 plans. Little Rock School District, et al., Nos. 91-2640EA, 91- 2648EA, 91-2655EA, 91-2683EA, slip op. (8 th Cir. November 14, 1 1991). I: ' 5: I I K teifi < In response to the order of the Eighth Circuit, the Court scheduled a hearing to begin on December 18, 1991. It informed the parties involved that. prior to reviewing their proposed modifications, it would ask the Pulaski County Special School District rpcsSD] to report on its financial situation and hear a ^The three school districts involved. Little Rock School District [LRSD], Pulaski County Special School District [PCSSD], and North Little Rock School District [NLRSD], and the Joshua Intervenors submitted proposed modifications to the settlement plan approved by the Eighth Circuit in Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990).report from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring on the budgetary processes for desegregation expenditures which are employed by the three school districts involved in the matter. The Court determined that before it could consider proposed modifications to the settlement plans, it needed to learn whether there are district budgetary processes in place which will enable the Court to monitor the implementation of the plans. At the conclusion of the second day of the hearing, the Court expressed concern about its ability to effectively monitor the settlement plan without budgets that reflect the three school districts' intentions, goals. and priorities regarding their desegregation efforts. The Court specifically mentioned the state of the Little Rock School District's [LRSD] budgetary process. In its opinion approving the settlement plans of the three districts, the Eighth Circuit noted the parties have committed to "solemn undertakings" and stated: We accept these undertakings, again with the reminder that compliance with them will be closely monitored. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1390 (Sth Cir. 1990). The Eighth Circuit further directed the Court to "monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the plans and agreement. -2-and otherwise to proceed as the law and the facts require. Id. at 1394. The Court monitors the use of settlement monies through the Office of Desegregation Monitoring [ODM]. In October 1991, the ODM informed the LRSD that it must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. a [Document # 1517] Pursuant to the directives from and the considerable latitude and discretion given the Court by the Eighth Circuit, the Court finds that the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites and that it is necessary for the LRSD to submit 2 revised cost figures to the Court. Therefore, (1) The LRSD must submit a revised 1991-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan and which are reflected on updated implementation timelines contained in the plan. 2 In a note to its May submissions, the LRSD indicated that the cost figures originally submitted with its desegregation plan were outdated and it would provide revised cost figures in a separate desegregation budget. To date, the Court is unaware of any such revised figures having been submitted or filed. -3-a (2) The LRSD must submit a long-range budget projection on per annum basis which covers all anticipated desegregation expenditures over the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (3) The LRSD must submit.a long-range revenue projection covering the same period of time, which includes revenues anticipated not only from the settlement monies and settlement loan, but also from state and millage revenues and any other money sources. This long-term projection will provide a clear picture of the district's financial future and, thereby, enable the LRSD to predict with accuracy if and when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any anticipated millage increase is to be indicated along with the date when the district will present a millage increase to the voters. (4) The LRSD has maintained that a significant portion of desegregation expenditures are II start up. II The district must specifically identify which desegregation costs are "start up" and when these start up costs will terminate. (5) The revised budget shall be prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring and shall be submitted to the Court within thirty (30) days after the Court rules either from the bench or in a written order on the proposed modifications. - By this Order, the Court confirms its oral approval of the construction of the interdistrict school at the Crystal Hill site. Further, the Court confirms oral instructions made to the parties to explore alternative sites for the construction of King -4-Interdistrict School along the 1-630 corridor. DATED this of January, 1992. I .2?^ STATES DIST'RR2I CCTT JJUDGE SHEET IN ^PLL i) FRCP -5- Synopsis of Circuit and District Court orders and ODM communication regarding the LRSD budget: Circuit Court Order of December 12, 1990: 1. If the District Court becomes convinced in the future that money is being wasted, and that desegregation obligations contained in the settlement plans are being flouted, it will be fully authorized to take appropriate remedial action. 2. The Court is to monitor closely the compliance of the parties with the settlement plans and the settlement agreement, to take whatever action is appropriate, in its discretion, to ensure compliance with the settlement plans and agreement Letter from the Monitor to LRSD, October 28, 1991: The LRSD must be able to provide the Court with information that: 1. Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
2. Demonstrates the link between the districts legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
3. Describes a desegregation budget process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
4. Enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. District Court Order of January 21, 1992: 1. The Court expressed concern about its ability to effectively monitor the settlement plan without budgets that reflect district intentions, goals, and priorities regarding desegregation efforts. 2. The Court determined that the LRSD budgetary process does not meet the requisites stated in the Monitors letter and directed the district to submit a revised budget. 3. The budget must be directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan which are reflected on updated implementation timelines contained in the plan. 4. The LRSD must submit a long-range budget projection on a per annum basis that covers all anticipated desegregation expenditures over the entire term of the desegregation agreement. 5. The LRSD must submit a long-range revenue projection, covering the same period of time, that includes revenues anticipated not only from the settlement monies and the settlement loan, but also from state and millage revenues and any other money sources.6. 7. The long-range revenue projection will provide a clear picture of the districts financial future and, thereby, enable the LRSD to predict with accuracy if and when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any anticipated millage increase is to be indicated along with the date when the district will present a millage increase to the voters. The district must specifically identify which desegregation costs are "start up" and when these start up costs will terminate. District Court Order of February 23, 1993: 1. 2. The Court expressed concern about its ability to monitor the parties compliance with the settlement plans absent budget documents that clearly reflect the districts allocation of resources in relation to both short-range and long-range planning to meet desegregation plan goals, programs, and priorities. The superintendent submitted a budget document wherein he stated he would: a. b. c. d. e. Immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process
Direct the new administration team to conduct a desegregation plan audit
Restructure the budgeting process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement
Strive to place the entire district in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement
Link programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement to expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, the superintendent will recommend nonrenewal of personnel contracts in these areas. 3. The Court stated that findings in the LRSDs 1990 Curriculum Audit continue to exist in the district a. b. c. d. School management practices show inadequate control of district resources. The district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel. The budget is not viewed as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities are not apparent. 4. 5. The superintendent stated in a February 1,1993 hearing that it would be one-and-one-half years before the LRSD would have a budget that would meet the requirements of the Courts previous orders. The LRSD must achieve a budget process, develop a budget document, and demonstrate budget management that fully reflect the districts careful planning for meeting itsdesegregation obligations over the full span of the settlement plans. 6. 7. 8. The Court is concerned with not only the expenditure of desegregation settlement money but also all the state, local, and federal fonds the district uses to finance its entire operation. The Court finds it necessary to assist the LRSD by appointing a person or persons to work with the LRSD to prepare a budget document that will make it possible for the Court to monitor the districts many desegregation commitments. The Court will not consider the task complete until the LRSD demonstrates it understands that budgeting procedures, and the resulting budget documents, are not static, but an integral part of the districts on-going planning and evaluation processes.Numerous Court orders and records address the characteristics of the budgetary process and budget document that will enable the Court to effectively monitor how the LRSD is planning and applying use of its resources toward fulfilling its desegregation commitments. Based on ODMs monitoring needs and on Court records that include the Monitors letter of Oct. 28, 1991, Circuit Court orders of December 12, 1990, District Court Orders of January 21, 1992 and February 23, 1993, and LRSD submissions of July 31, 1992 to the District Court, the LRSDs budget processes and resulting documents must reflect the following elements, clearly and closely linked together
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The districts legal obligations (plan provisions and court orders,) based upon a current desegregation plan audit that will enable the district to clearly identify its desegregation goals and subordinate objectives. 0uly 31, 1992 LRSD submission) Needs assessment and planning, both short-term and long-term, to meet court order and desegregation plan goals, programs, and priorities, that also reflects a process which includes Board involvement in long-range planning and budgeting. 0uly 31, 1992 LRSD Budget submission and Feb. 23, 1993 Order) Prioritization based on (1) importance or "weight" factors in relation to desegregation goals, plan provisions, and Court orders, (2) sequence of events (what must be done first so other things can be done second, and so on,) and (3) programs or activities that will require larger portions of resources, or a longer commitment of resources, in order to be fulfilled. 0an. 21, 1992 and Feb. 23, 1993 Orders) Identification of all financial resources (including settlement funds and federal, state, local, and any other revenues) and anticipation of when millage increases will be sought. 0an. 21, 1992 and Feb. 23, 1993 Orders) An accurate and comprehensive accounting for the allocation and expenditure of all financial resources (including settlement funds and federal, state, local, and any other revenues.) (Feb. 23, 1993 Order) A monitoring system that includes a regular review of whether expenditures are being made at the rate and amount proportionate to allocations, goals, objectives, priorities, timelines, and formative and summative evaluation feedback. (Circuit Court Order, Dec. 12, 1990
District Court Orders of Jan. 21, 1992 and Feb. 23, 1993) Evaluation criteria and methods, both formative and summative, upon which to determine whats working, where changes may be needed, where any money is being wasted, where economies can be effected, and the rate of progress toward desegregation goals. (Circuit Court, Dec. 12, 1990) Timelines, with specific starting and completion dates for all work, that include a designation of who is responsible for each step described above. Qan. 21, 1992)Project goal: To develop and implement budgeting processes, budget documents, and budget management procedures and practices that are institutionalized as an integral part of the district's ongoing planning, monitoring, and evaluation processes to ensure the district fulfills its desegregation goals, programs, and priorities over the full span of the settlement agreement (Feb 23, 1993)' { FE3 2 4 r 53 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 0!:ic3 ci Ci
!
ti s!J LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER On February 1, 1993, the Court held a hearing to determine. among other things, what progress the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") was making with respect to conforming its budgetary process to that outlined in earlier orders of the Coxirt. Having considered the testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing, the Court detennines that the LRSD needs assistance in developing a budget that complies with the Court's requirements for a budgeting process and document that can be effectively monitored. The Court first notified the LRSD of its concern about the LRSD's budgetary process over a year ago. During hearings on the parties' proposed modifications to their settlement plans, the Court expressed concern about its ability to monitor the parties' compliance with the settlement plans absent budget documents that clearly reflect the districts' allocation of resources in relation to both short-range and long-range planning to meet desegregation plan goals, programs, and priorities. The Court specifically addressed its remarks to the LRSD, and followed up its comments I 5 Q with an order filed on January 21, 1992, directing the LRSD to submit a revised 1991-92 budget, prepared in consultation with the Office of Desegregation Monitoring ("ODM"). The Court ordered the LRSD to make certain submissions so the Court could determine that the LRSD's budgetary process would meet the following requisites: 1) accurately reflect and comprehensively account for the expenditure of settlement funds
2) demonstrate the requirements requirements
and link the between fiscal the district's underwriting of legal those 3) describe a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and 4) enable the district to detennine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. The LRSD filed its response to the Court's order on June 1, 1992, "LRSD Projected Revenue and Expense - 1992/93-1996/97." A revised version of this document was filed on July 31, 1992. Among the changes and additions in the revision's section entitled "Desegregation Budgeting: Description Future Year Procedures" were new statements that II [t]he Superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process" and "[t]he Superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct a Desegregation Plan audit and related budget proposals." Additionally, in the budget document presented to the Court on July 31, 1992, which was the subject of an August 3, 1992 hearing. LRSD Superintendent Bernd, who had come on board July 1, 1992, stated: Once this budget is adopted, the budgeting process will not end. We must begin to restructure the budgeting -2-process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing so many different programs which ultimately distract the District's focus to other issues. It is my goal to place the entire District in the position of being accountable for improving student achievement. This will be done by concentrating our attention first on the core curricular areas. Next, programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program dees not have this linkage, I will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year. Finally, for the District to operate efficiently and effectively, it will be necessary to streamline the administration, Because contracts have been renewed for 1992-93, this cannot be fully accomplished this year. On the other hand, the District has several cost centers where investment in personnel might produce savings generate revenues for the District. or will be considered in the coming months. All of these items Document # 1649. In December 1990, the LRSD Board of Directors received a Curriculum Audit it had commissioned the National Curriculum Audit Center to conduct. This report is a part of the case record. In Finding 5.3, the report found that "school management practices show inadequate control of district resources." In Finding 5.1, the auditors stated: 11 [T]he district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel." The auditors found that "the budget was not viewed as a comprehensive planning document driven by curriculum needs. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities were not apparent . . It Finding 5.4. The Court finds that this continues to be the case. -3-Despite the persistent urging of the Court, there is no indication that a budget process of the type sought by the Court is or will be forthcoming from the LRSD. During the February 1, 1993 hearing at which budget matters were discussed, the Court asked Superintendent Bernd when the district would have a budget that would meet the requirements of the Court's previous Orders. Dr. Bernd replied that he believed the district was "at least a year and a half away. tl The Court has been patient. It encouraged the LRSD to work with the ODM on the district budget, but, despite ODM's diligent efforts to assist, the LRSD has not produced a budget process that enables the Court to meet its obligation to monitor desegregation plan compliance. The Court, thus, finds it is necessary to assist the LRSD by appointing a person or persons to work with the LRSD at LRSD expense to prepare a budget document that will make it possible for the Court to monitor the myriad of programs the LRSD agreed to conduct in its desegregation settlement plan. The Court is concerned not only with the LRSD's expenditure of desegregation money but also with all the state, local, and federal funds the district uses to finance its entire operation. The LRSD must achieve a budgeting process, develop a budget document, and demonstrate budget management that fully reflect the district's careful planning for meeting its desegregation obligations over the full span of the settlement plans. The person or persons employed will be paid by the LRSD but will report to the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The LRSD is -4-expected to treat the employee or employees like its other full- time employees for purposes of benefits and will provide adequate work space, equipment, and materials along with full access to information and. support. The Court, after consultation with the person or persons and the LRSD, will determine appropriate salaries. The employment will not be permanent but will continue for as long as it takes to get the job done, as determined by the Court. The Court will not consider the task complete until the LRSD demonstrates that it understands that budgeting procedures, and the resulting budget documents, are not static, but an integral part of the district's on-going planning and evaluation processes. DATED this day of February, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON COMPLIANCEV/ITH RULE53 AND/OR Ta^RCP )N BY______d-------------- -5-0 iSC a UK! rc3 C
i:C9 0 IN (Ht UNITEU STATES OISIHtCT CUURT L 2 b 1993 s * EASIEHN DISIRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Lfc 2-^ as. OtSTHICT COURT EASTSRN OtSTRiCT ARKANSAS X
2 i995 LU I IE KOCk SCHOOL UlSf HICI p I ai nt i r r, w s . PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT , 0>i l endan t. CARL R- BRENTS, CLBRf^ Dy
NO. a2-CV-866 Monday , February 1 , Little Roc k , 9:35 A.H. VOLUME XLil HE.AHING ON HUOGET PROCESS C?.CUnK 1993 .A r k a n 3 ( J 5 I i BEhORE THE HONORABLE SUSAN MEBBE.R WHiGHT, UNilEU SI.aIES OiSTRiCl JUDGE, APPEARANCES: as rol lows-. I i I On Behair oT the Plaintifr: CHRISTOPHER J. HELLER Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 7 2201 On Behalf of the Joshua Intervenors: JOHN W. WALKER WILEY BRANTON, JR. John w. Walker, p.a. 1723 South Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas TZZQb On Behalf of the Knight Intervenors: RICHARD W. ROACHELL Attorney at Law 1014 West Third Street Little Hock, Arkansas Proceed i ng s I 7220 I reported by niachine stenography
Transcript prepared by notereading. ( Page I 209 ) i 02 It was coded In terms or Functions, not programs. in other 2 words, textbooks, utilities. the t sort or thing. And 11 does 3 give the Court Inrornallon about the functions the district 4 0 o / Span t its inone^ on, but it's not grouped according to programs. tor example, magnet program at Central, magnet program at Henderson, the accelerated learning program, or any theme at id i2 any 1 nee nt1ue terms or conce rn schooI. rune L i ons. Nutii I ng IS In And It was my concern that that i c Q u I d ri t do much wI th terms or programs. it s I ri i could not and still my that in terms or planning. or determining 1mpI emen ta 11 on what the district was planning and monitoring its or that plan. a a i i Ihe new superintendent, Ur. Uernd, did Indicate at a i4 hearing last summer or last spring when he rirst came on board. i5 and this hearing on was budget cuts, that he would make every id errort to implement a budget process that was designed to i / evaluate programs and meet student needs. id i9 And, in fact, he wrote and this Is in the LKSO iyy2-i994 operating budget document dated July 23, iy92. He 40 wrote, unce this budget is adopted, the budgeting proce ss will 2i 22 23 not end. we must begin to restructure the budgeting process so that rulI attention and resources are directed at 1mprow1 ng student achievement rather than providing so many di rferent 24 programs which ultimately distract the districts focus to other- 2b issues.'' i bJ Now, X have some question about all or these things. about the curriculum audit, about my own budgeting order and J about what Ur. Bernd pledged. 4 b b / B r I rs t or all. I want to ask what process 1s the district using i I don t know. Hr. Heller, who should answer these questions. What process is the district using to identity programs that do improve student achievement as opposed to those that d i 5 t rac t i ng i MH. HtLLtHi I would suggest, your Honor, that to lU talk about the whole budget process. it might be best to start i.s with Bernd who can give IHk cUUHIs AII right. i 1 U r . i J MR. HtULtH: a lot of the background and where 1 4 ib we've come since the operating budget was submitted, and then Mr. oary Jones can answer the more particular questions ib about our accounting methods and budgeting process. 1 / td IHt CUUKI! All right. I hat will be tine. Ur. Bernd, and Id like tor the clerk to swear Ur. Bernd it he s 19 going to take the stand. MB. BilrUNt 1 r you 11 raise your right hand, please. ai MAC BERNU, SWORN 2Z . VHt WITNESSt 1 do . MS. Sir I ON: Please be seated. 24 f Ht COUR I I All ri ght. Ur. Bernd, again, 1 recall 2 J 2b your budget document or 1992-93 dated last summer, July 23, d. right? 04 And i feineititie r you came on board. when, July 1, is that IHt WilNtSS: fes , your Honor. 1 J 4 IHt CUUKt: And i remember your First day on the Job b was spent in this courtroom which must not ha-ye bean a pleasant o experience. z You indicate that full attention and re sou rces a le directed at improving student achievement rather than y providing so many ditrerent programs which ultimately distract the district' b Focus to other issues. i I What i want to know 15 what process are you using to iii identlFy programs that help student achievement as opposed to X J those tha t don' t. X4 ib ib IHt WilNtbS: somewhat long answer'! I Ht GOUR I . is your Honor prepared to indulge in im going to need to give you background. Yes. i tell you what my concern is. i i guess i should ask this: Uo you have a budget document that ib would indicate to me how you plan to spend your money on a i iy programs, and then, can you explain to me through that document 20 how you would evaluate and seIF-ava Iuate the Implementation or 2i 22 those programs, that is, the success oF them or lack or it? IHt WirNtbSi Your Honor, we're working toward that. 2 3 but id like to give you some background and, also, talk a 24 2b little bit about what we have done to change our budgeting process so so you could have an understandI ng oF that. 1 a J 4 b o ! a a io i i i^ i J i4 ib lb i / ib ig 20 21 22 23 24 2b b b fHt GUUHI I You may answer. A I I right. You may answer. I h a t 3 Fine. I would prefer to have brief answers, but if has to be lengthy, you may make a lengthy answer. iHt WilNtbS: Your Honor, at the time i was before this Court to talk about the budget cuts. concerned about i n the district still that 1 was I was a primary And , the linkage between and 1 t between what were doing student achievement. and that certainly I s consideration. at this point. that shows we don t have a budget document that linkage, and id have to. your Honor that i think frankly, tell Its going to be a while before it would be possible to come up with that. And what i want to do is give you some background on the problem so you 11 understand why. The other point that 1 was making in that hearing. i think this is an area that we have made some progress to do with community input and just the Input of people budget itself because i accompanying need. saw that as as as a on , and had into the an We made some some drastic budget cuts In a very short amount of time last sumraer with very little input. and so, we began an input process early this carrying that through. And 1 can talk about think that is IHt G0UR1 All right. fell me (Ht HllNtSS. I Ht GOUR I I fall that important to mention. All right. and we've been because X Now, keep in mind that when1 you say bo community input,' does the comiiiun 1 ty input come from a J 4 b b / b body or who are people who has before them ths Ueaegregition Plan and coinmitted to Implementing that Plan/ I Hb I Ht IHh IHt IHt Mi I NtSli! dUUHi: Mi INbSS
GUUHI I Mi I NtSb! i A. I I i believe right. be I i eve so. Or are they so . coinmitted to other things? well. they may well be committed to y other things as well. iu I Ht GOURI : right. AS long as they have berore A I I 1 i them as a working document the UesegregatI on Plan which sets id forth the goals. Its r i ne with me to have community input. i 1 J til ink thats very healthy. but If they have other agendas that 1 4 work at cross-purposes with the court s obligation to desegregate these schools pursuant to the Plan, i don't think ib its fruitful to have it. i / IHt MIlNtbSi {Nodding head up and down.) ib la I Ht CUUKI I IHh WiTNESSi But you may proceed. Well, i want to first start with the 20 the matters that are of most concern to you, and that is the 2i I inkage between the things we re doing in the district and s tuden t achi evemen t. 22 2 J in order to get a good start on establishing that 24 2b I Inkage I Inkage and, your Honor, i m nut admitting that a perfect can ever be made, but we can certainly do better. i n1 2 J 4 b o snn Other words, we're talking about a very complex system, and 1 X have had a lot of experience with school districts in the county , i know or none that can demonstrate a causal relationship between budgetary expenditures and student achievement. but we can do a lot better. IHt CUURI! but can t you with programs and student achl e vemen L tan you make a causa i relationship between b i tt programs and achievement/ iu IHh WilNtbS: Not causal, your Honor. You can make COITS I all one I re I at I onsii i p , you can make some pretty informed i 1 Ld i J dec 1s i ons . and i think they can be much more informed than the ones we are niak i ng now . 1Ht tOUKl: All right. 14 th IHt WXfNtSS: things we're Xn order to do that, one of the first we re going to need is a better accounting 10 system, and X have to talk a little bit about what we were 1 / confronted with when we began in July. lb Ihe district had converted over to a a budget that. 1!# basically, gave each of the program managers a sum of money CO which. i n a sense. is a good thing because you have site-based :i 2 4 24 2b management, but we had gone completely away from the line item budget that the district theyd had before, and X think X heard your Honor one of the frustrations you expressed is we Just had these categories like salaries that go across tiie district and they're not linked to programs.I IHt CUUHI I H 1 ghL. QU J 4 Q / u y id 1 i 14 id 14 lb IQ 1 / lU ly ZO 41 44 4J IHt WilNtSU: oppoiite extreme. W* I I , we -- we have gone to the We had d kind oi a location budget control budget where there was or a a pot ot money ror each program managers, but we had gone away r rom sped tying item within those programs what the dirtsrent the managers. So, spent on salary, on, and i t ot the by line accoun t s we re tor they were unable to tel I how much was being how much was being spent on textbooks and so s created so, a what were converting back to a it s created quite a problem. in the middle or doing is now line item budget within those control accounts so, hoperully, or best worlds. well have the best or best the both but that is taking And the other thing that or time is the computer changeover. L i me. s taken a considerable amount Ihat was a system that was purchased betore this administration came on board. been a tremendous number or runctional problems with ability to get basic rinanclal to the district. Ihere have 1t and i t s Inrormation and other info rma tI on And, again, we feel like we're making some progress in addressing those problems, but they re not f i xed yes. i think the yet. the In the middle frustration for me at this point is is that were or building a basic in format ion system so we can 4 4 4b Just begin to envision. move to the kind of a system that that you 1 think we could have some some dialogue about the i level or speciricity we' I I eventually get to. i oy the Is sue o r a J 4 b o ! a y io i i tc X4 Xb Xb i J XH X9 <:u Zi di causa I relationship Is, 1 think. an important.one. We 1 I probably never get tu that point, but we can do a lot better job. 1 i i m going to make a cominent, your Honor. We re kI nd o r driving it. 1 n the and Its situation or Fixing the car while we ' I'e i t so , we have to go on with the Functions oF the district, and at changeoV e r s, and that's what I Ht CdUKI : IHt wiiNtaa
that there are aud i t, re the same time, make the se in the middle or doing. Have you read the tyetl curriculum audit.' Yes, ma am, i have. I could X COM I d some areas that we have addressed in that but there are many more to address. And X m also quite taken with the Judge's remark about distractions. There are many . IHt UObrtli Uh, X know. IHt WXINtSSi addressed, your Honor. IHt GUUH1: and I n r i X i ng to Fix a district a And some or them, regretrully, must be Well, the re wilt like yours, it will vehicle that is moving. always be distractions, always be tantamount to in other words, you can t stop it
you have to keep on going. Xt keeps on. My concern is that two years ago, the district did get ^4 ab notice from the curriculum audit and the Court made that audit a part of the record and, 1n essence, adopted its recommendations, Bl /O 1 and nothing was done for a year. or at least i don't think much J 4 b tl ! b iu Xi i^ I j i4 ib io i z ib i9 au 2i 22 2b was done For a year. And then the court had another budget hearing ago and ordered And you came on what you go I ng to d I strict said. things be remedied. board and you've J. L sounded good. be a while more. a year and It hasn t been done. indicated that and i I i ke bu t. now , you're saying it's And a I I the while. not only is you r continuing to operate, settlement monies but you continue to yet the From the state. FHt MilNtbb: VHh CUURI: monies rroiii the Yes, your Honor. And you continue to spend the settlement state, and by the time we get this car rixed, going to be out of gas. that s what i m worried about. And it s going to be running, but it's going to be out or gas. i am going to take a more active role through the monitor s i t Ano orrice and, probably, through a court order in your budgetary process, and you can expect that. o you have any more comments to make with my question about linkage curriculum programs to the you have any more comments/ IHE WLINkSSt in a in a general sense. respect to budge t ? Uo your Honor, It'S - we're going to have to get our basic Inrormatlon systems repaired and 1n place, i think, before we can do an ertective 24 2 b job that meets the court s requirements, and i i have to be honest in that regard and and its not something that that 1 i J 4 b 6 / a a iu i i i J I j 14 ib ib I i lb I a au ai 22 2 3 24 2b i 1 can be done In a short amount or time. I Ht COUK I I IHt WilNtSb: First Issue was was When did you start working on It? we began work OU r OU r ou r the computer system, and we. began work on it in July. the with the coming understanding or lend some o r some very to accompI i sh. i 1 will basical Iy, Ihe whole process accelerated with or Mr. Jones, who does have a the who I e system, and i think valuable eApertise to what we good is going t re t r yI ng Freely aonn t to your Honor that virtually did nothing on it until until we got the we budget For this school year adopted and got school open. what we In the meant 1 me, ve basically been doing is trying to make work For the people who rely, on It For the reports that ara required in order kinds or decisions that youre talking une OF the issues is is that the coinpu ter i n F o rmat i on to begin to abou t. the reports and to get make the we got From the new system were quite difterent and much less detailed than the reports that people in the district were used to. and in some cases. as well. And in they had very inaccurate i n to rina t i on on them. And SO, we've had to go through and - great number oF reports, redo and correct a redo them, and work with the venders and the people who sold us this system in order to make it work more adequately For us.az 1 J 4 5 6 MH. WALktH
In view or the tact that you will Inquire Into this area this arternoon, may I have access to a copy or any writings that they have documentation of a needs assessment that 1 can study it before? rHt COURi. Su re. Yes . which reflect that there is having already been made so Lets just let Mr. Hoacheil I and any other parties who are interested and who are present be a rurn1 shed that. and the monitors office, too , too. a Who is the person here who is responsible ror that. 10 Ur. He rnd i 11 12 13 IHt WllNtSS: responsibility for It. IHt CUUHI: Mrs. Bernard has over overa I I She is assisted by Mrs. Hart. Ms. Hart and Ms. Bernard. We can talk to 14 them In a rew minutes when we break ror lunch. 15 is that a I I right ? 16 17 18 19 ao HR. WALktH1 IHt COURII I'm talking You stated. position or All right. Also, In your document, you stated about the budget document you submitted 1n July. and "It 1s my goal to place the entire district 1n the being accountable for Improving student achievement. I , This will be done by concentrating our attention rirst on the core curricular areas. "Next, programs which are designed to Improve ! instruction and achievement in these areas wl I I be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not ^5U' J S* 6 10 jhava thl s 11 nkage . I Mill be 83 recommending in the spring of igyj ithat personnel contracts In these areas are not to be renewed ror the next rtscal year." Now, what links between goals, programs and outcomes have you established for these core curriculum areas/ IHt MllNhSbi right now, your Honor. estab Ii shed. Me are In the process of doing that 1 can't tell you that they've been AS a part or -- of a budget process, we Intend to make statements i n that regard. 1 do want to be careful and tell your Honor were 7 a 11 I ! I I i not talking about quantitative measures here. 12 13 14 THE couwr. IHt WllNhSS. fHt GOOHf: Well, ot course not, I understand that. we we cant do that. But we Do you have any programs that you've lb determined don't have the link to student achievements'? lb IHt MilNtSSi At this point, 1 could not 1 couId LI not report on that, but 1 w1I I be able to. IB IHt CUUHI J But you will be recommending this spring ig that personnel contracts In areas won't be renewed 40 41 42 IHt MllNtShi IHt COUKTi IHt WITNESSj Yes, your Honor. if the link isn't made? The 4 J THE COURT I Mell, When do you think you can have 44 this? Because the Court asked you in November, November bth or 4 b 1994, to let me know of changes before registration, beforeNEEDSOl REVISED 08 APR 93 NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUBPROCESS REQUIREMENTS The survey instrument should have an optional question to ask the person if they know of additional people we should talk to. 2. During the survey, be sure to get the mailing address of the person so that we can send them a draft of the findings, help build buy-in and team attitude. This will 3. The needs assessment should have section dealing with enrollment and school avallabi1ity...kind of a school plan. It should be linked with the long range facility plan to give Plant Services some idea of the future. 4. The needs assessment should include appropriate items from the Curriculum Audit report, items with which we agree. What needs to be done to complete those 5. As part of the needs assessment, I should look at the other budget and planning systems within the county, models. and some other 6. The needs assessment should include items from the deseg plan and various deseg plan audits. 1. a 7. CA. The needs assessment should take input from each of the organizational and functional units for inclusion in the plan. 8. CA-109. The needs assessment should have a facilities section. This recommendation has some outline factors at CA-109. 9. CA-115. testing...recommendation. Establish a functional assessment program and expand The planning needs assessment should draw on this functional assessment and testing outcomes. 10.GOAL01 REVISED 14 MAY 93 GOAL AND OBJECTIVE SUBPROCESS REQUIREMENTS 1. Review all board policies and try to start with some existing goals and objectives. Should include any policy statements. 2. CA-32. Outlines the need for district-wide goals and objectives. Framework for the plan. 3. BC-10. Has a good objective item. ..setting up the Little Rock Public Education Fund which would provide community support for education programs. 4. BC-10. Good goal item stop the out migration of students. 5. BC-10. schools. Good goal item attract students from the private 6. G4-1. the major starting point. Good list of goals for the district. This should be 7. F15-7. of the 1992 plan, Additionally, under the title "leadership" on pages 2-3 the board and superintendent have failed to assert strong leadership in the following areas: (1) Clearly delineating the district's desegregation mission to the staff and the community. (2) Utilizing the desegregation mission as a guide for developing policies and setting expectations for the superintendent to implement those policies. BUDOl REVISED 18 MAY 93 BUDGET SUBPROCESS REQUIREMENTS 1. We will need to write a budget manual. It will have to give instructions and definitions to all budget managers on budget use and process preparation. 2. Might expand "School/Dept Budget Requests" to include a program review and to solicit input from budget managers. 3. There needs to be a provision for monthly expense reporting and financial review. this. Check out the principles meeting. The principles meeting might be used for 4. There needs to be a expenditure items, and budget sections. supporting Doug Eaton handles this. subprocess for capital Should link planning 5. There needs to be a expenditure items. supporting subprocess for property Charlie Neal will have to play a big part. Should link the planning and budget sections. 6. CA-13. personnel. Budget process needs to involve key administrative 7. CA-91. Need better expense allocations in the budget process. management and control of 8. CA-92. educational staff. Budget process needs the involvement of key 9. CA-94. and trained to. Budget process steps need to be clearly articulated 10. CA-94. Budget needs allocations...program budget. programmatic identification of 11. CA-119. Good outline of the program budgeting process. Could be used for the budget manual, process. Talks about linking to the planning 12. F8. The LRSD must be able information that: 1. to provide the Court with expenditure of settlement funds
Accurately and comprehensively accounts for the 2. Demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements
requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those 3. Describes a desegregation budget process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
4. Enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with d e s eg r a t i o o^ ig^ tjjjn s^ Budgeting and^ TrSca management to ensure full implementation of the desegregation plan needs to be such that the district can answer the following questions: 1. What are the district guidelines for identifying expenditures as desegregation costs? 2. What process is used to project the desegregation budget? 3. How do these costs correspond to the specific provisions of the desegregation plan, i.e., what is the correlation between the settlement monies and specific desegregation objectives? 4. If a cost item IS determined to be both a desegregation and nondesegregation item (staff development might be a fair example), what criteria determines the apportionment of cost to the desegregation budget (code 13) and the "regular" budget? 5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted in code 13? 6. Who makes the decisions about which costs actually debited to code 13? are 7. What criteria determine debiting decisions are made? how budgeting and 8. What checks are built into the accounting/bookkeeping system to prevent arbitrary debiting of cost items to one budget category or another? 9. What are the district's spending priorities and how have they been determined? 10, What is the district's plan and corresponding timeline for reaching the 90% achievement goal for black students, thereby attaining forgiveness of state loans the district otherwise must repay? 11. What steps is the district taking to prevent a funding shortfall that will inhibit carrying out the desegregation plan to its full extent? 13. F9. The Court effectively monitor the expressed concern about its reflect district intentions, settlement plan without budgets ability to that goals. and priorities regarding desegregation efforts. The Court determined that the LRSD budgetary process does not meet the requisites stated in the Monitor's letter and directed the district to submit a revised budget. The Budget must be directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan which are reflected on updated implementation timelines contained in the plan. The LRSD must submit a long-range budget projection on a per annum basis that covers all anticipated desegregation expenditures over the entire term of the desegregation agreement. The LRSD must submit a long-range revenue projection. covering the same period of time. that includes revenues anticipated not only from the settlement monies and the settlementloan, but also from state and millage revenues and any other money sources. The long-range revenue projection will provide a clear picture of the district's financial future and, thereby, enable the LRSD to predict with accuracy if and when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any anticipated millage increase is to be indicated along with the date when the district will present a millage increase to the voters. The district must specifically identify which desegregation costs are "start-up" and when these start-up costs will terminate. 14. FIO. The Court expressed concern about its ability to monitor the parties' compliance with the settlement plans absent budget documents that clearly reflect the districts' allocation of resources in relation to both short-range and long-range planning to meet desegregation plan goals, programs, and priorities. The Court ordered (Jan 21, 1992) the LRSD to make certain submissions so the Court could determine that the LRSD's budgetary process would meet the following requisites: 1) accurately reflect and comprehensively account for the expenditure of settlement funds
2) demonstrate the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
3) describe a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and 4) enable the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary 3 obligations. in order to align finances with desegregation The Superintendent submitted a budget document wherein he stated he would restructure the budgeting process so that full attention and resources are directed at achievement. The improving student Court stated that findings in the LRSD's 1990 Curriculum Audit continue to exist in the district: a. control of district resources. School management practices show inadequate b. The budget is not viewed as planning document driven by curriculum needs. a comprehensive c. Visible and tangible linkages between budget priorities and curriculum priorities are not apparent. The superintendent stated in a February 1, 1993 hearing that it would be one and one half years before the LRSD would have a budget that would meet the requirements of the Court's previous orders. The LRSD must achieve a budget process, develop a budget document, and demonstrate budget management that fully reflect the district's careful planning for meeting its desegregation obligations over the full span of the settlement plans. The court is concerned with not only the expenditure of desegregation settlement money but also all the state, local, and federal funds the district uses to finance its entire operation. The Court will not consider the task complete until the LRSD demonstrates it understands that budgeting procedures, and theresulting budget documents, are not static, but an integral part of the district's on-going planning and evaluation processes. 15. A4. Reference 10/28/91 letter from ODM....F8. QI. What are the district guidelines for Identifying expenditures as desegregation cost? Our approach has been to identify personnel and materials that are required for the specific programs mandated by the desegregation plan, to set up budget accounts for those expenses, and charge to them as the programs are implemented. This approach may result in our charging less than possible to desegregation, but it should allow us to account for the settlement funds. It has never been the view of the LRSD that the settlement funds would cover the total cost of desegregation. Q2. What process is used to project the desegregation budget? Building principals, department directors. and others responsible for various functions in the LRSD are designated as budget managers. Each spring the budget managers submit requests for each of the budget account codes assigned to them. Q5. Who makes the decisions about which cost items are budgeted to code 13? The budget managers make the decision with review by the Deputy Superintendent, Associate Superintendents, the Manager of Support Services, and the Controller. Q6. Who makes the decisions about which costs are actually debited to code 13? The budget managers either make this decision or properly done. review monthly expense listings to make sure it is 16. Fil. In October 1991, the ODM informed the LRSD that it must be able to provide the Court with information which (1) accurately and comprehensively accounts for the expenditure of settlement funds
(2) demonstrates the link between the district's legal requirements and the fiscal underwriting of those requirements
(3) describes a desegregation budgeting process that can be demonstrated, justified, and verified
and (4) enables the district to determine what adjustments might be necessary in order to align finances with desegregation obligations. The Court finds that the LRSD's current budgetary process does not meet the above requisites and that it is necessary for the LRSD to submit revised cost figures to the Court. Therefore, (1) The LRSD must submit a revised 91-92 budget which is directly correlated to the specific provisions of the settlement plan and which are reflected on updated implementation timelines contained in the plan. on a (2) The LRSD must submit a long-range budget projection per annum basis which covers all anticipated desegregation expenditures over the entire term of the desegregation agreement. (3) The LRSD must submit a long-range revenue projection covering the same period of time. which includes revenue anticipated not only from the settlement monies and settlement loan, but also from state and millage revenues and any other money sources. This long-term projection will provide a clear picture of the district's financial future and, thereby, enable the LRSD topredict with accuracy if and when a millage increase will be needed. The amount and time of any anticipated millage increase is to be indicated along with the date when the district will present a millage increase to the voters. (4) The LRSD has maintained that a significant portion of desegregation expenditures are "start-up" . The district must specifically identify which desegregation costs are "start-up" and when these start up costs will terminate. 17. A5. Description of future year procedures: A. a list of desegregation programs with 2-digit program numbers and a description of costs to be charged to each program will be prepared. The program number will be coded in the fifth and sixth positions of the account number that costs may be charged to a desegregation program from various operating units and B. functions for various objects and using money from various fund sources. C. Each budget manager will submit a spending allotted funds. proposal for conjunction with the desegregation plan audit. These proposals will be reviewed in Once specific plans for spending have been proposed, the superintendent will prepare a proposal for Board approval. In addition the superintendent will prepare a process for requiring Board approval for changes in planned expenditures above a to-be determined spending authority. Once the types of expenditures have been programmed, the Purchasing Department will not be authorized to issue a purchase order except for those items programmed and approved. D. The superintendent will immediately begin directing a process for Board involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process. E. The superintendent will direct the new administration team to conduct a desegregation plan audit and related budget proposals. 18 . F14-15. The court will not tolerate budget cuts inhibiting the full, on-schedule implementation of the desegregation plan. It has ordered the LRSD to restore for the 1992-1993 academic year the seventh period at McClellan High School. The court has ordered that 22.8 FTE music teacher positions and the seventh period at Henderson Junior High School be restored for the 1993-1994 academic year. talented The effect of the other budget reductions: gifted and specialists reduced to 16 FTE positions cut by 10 FTE
positions: custodial the Pupil Personnel Department
FTE counselors cut by 19
elimination of reassignment of 4 instructional aides form the IRC
reductions in the budgets for material, supply. equipment, and substitutes
and the strategy to reduce utility costs, will all be monitored closely and may have to be restored if the court determines the cuts are having a negative impact on the district's desegregation efforts. 19. F15-7. Additionally, under the title "Leadership" on pages 2- 3 of the 1992 plan, the Board and superintendent have failed to assert strong leadership in the following areas:(1) Adopting a budget that will provide the resources necessary for an effective, desegregated school system. (2) Making budgetary decisions consistent with district desegregation policies in terms of buildings, staff, materials, and equipment. 20. A6-1. Superintendent....We must begin to restructure the budgeting process so that full attention and resources are directed at improving student achievement rather than providing so many different programs which ultimately distract the District's focus to other issues. As part of the desegregation monitoring process, the Distrcit must improve its reporting capabilities. This will require rebuilding the desegregation budget by conducting a "Desegregation Plan Audit". The individual desegregation programs have been given separate accounting codes to track programs across school and department lines. The dollars listed in this budget represent the dollars charged against Settlement and operating revenue. In addition, special revenue sources. support desegregation programs. such as Chapter 1, are also used toPLANOl REVISED 18 MAY 93 LONG RANGE PLAN SUBPROCESS REQUIREMENTS 1. Should audit the desegregation plan and link expenditures to the plan elements. of the requirements. strategic plan. All desegregation plan items should become part This would incorporate all legal 2. as part Be sure to include Doug Eaton's long range planning committee of the planning process. point...kind of their idea. Could be a useful starting 3. The plan must start with some long range planning factors which will be monitored on a foundation of the planning process. regular basis. and will be the These would be enrollment trends, enrollment by school, teacher assignment, etc. figures at the district and school level to track progress. Aggregate 4. CA-13. planning process. Key administrative staff should be involved in the 5. CA-17. Strategic vision and long range planning a must. Good overall justification and big-picture approach. 6. CA-19. The purpose of strategic plans is outlined here. 7. CA-19. Board policy AD-1 requires curriculum plan. 8. CA-44. Outlines the need for a curriculum development plan. Also cites a 5/24/90 memo to sample plan. the Superintendent outlining a 9. CA-106. Audit recommends a team board/administrative planning and collaboration, idea. through Really a good 10. CA-119. linkages. Need Material for in programmatic budgeting this section could be and planning used for the description of the planning and budgeting process. 11. CA-121. Cites the need for strategic planning. Also outlines the planning process and some of the factors which should be cons idered. 12. BC-1. Outlines some very specific things for planning factors to be considered in planning staffing and population trends, about minimum class size. Talks 13. BC-3. analysis. Outlines more specific planning factors for staffing Good reference point.14, BC-10. a strategic planning effort. Outlines the need for and general requirements for 15. BC-10. Outlines the need for the Little Rock Public Education Fund,,,community support for education programs. Would probably be a good item to include in the goals and objectives. 16. FIO. the parties' The Court expressed concern about its ability to monitor documents that compliance with the settlement plans absent budget clearly reflect the districts' allocation of resources in relation to both short-range and long-range planning to meet desegregation plan goals, programs, and priorities. The superintendent submitted a budget document wherein he stated he would: a. Immediately begin directing a process for Board Involvement in the long-range planning and budgeting process
b. Direct the new administration team to conduct a desegregation plan audit
c. Link programs which are designed to Improve instruction and achievement to expected outcomes and goals. program does not have this linkage, the superintendent If a will recommend nonrenewal of personnel contracts in these areas. The Court stated that findings in the LRSD's 1990 Curriculum Audit continue to exist in the district: a. The district may be not exercising appropriate stewardship such as in management of programs and personnel. The Court will not consider the task complete until the LRSD demonstrates it understands that budgeting procedures, and the resulting budget documents, are not static, but and integral part of the district's on-going planning and evaluation processes. 17. F12-2. Further, The parties are not authorized to modify it at will. we agree. for the most part, that any changes approved should be concerned only with the details of the plan, affecting it onl and at the margin, so to speak. We wish to dispel, in particular. the three notion that an asserted lack of funds on the part of any of school districts would justify a reduction in their commitment to desegregation represented in the 1989 plan...The desegregation obligations undertaken in the 1989 plan are solemn and binding commitments, not be disturbed. The essence and core of that plan should If a question is truly one only of detail, not affecting the major substantive commitments to desegregation. the district court has the authority to consider It. example. as the district court noted. Some such changes. may have merit. because they advance desegregation, or for other reasons. changes that go beyond the level of detail, moreover. for either Even could be approved, but only if the parties affirmatively establish good reasons (not including lack of funds) for them. It may be helpful for us to state those elements of the 1989 plan that we consider crucial, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. They are as follows: (1) double funding for students attending the incentive (virtually all -black)schools
(2) operation of the agreed number of magnet schools according to the agreed timetable
(3) operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable
(4) intradistrict desegregation of PCSSD according to the agreed timetable
(5) the agreed effort to eliminate achievement disparity between the races
(6) the agreed elements of early- childhood education. appropriate involvement of parents. at least in the incentive schools
and (7)MONITOI REVISED 08 APR 93 MONITORING SUBPROCESS REQUIREMENTS 1. Need to think about a monthly budget/plan review with all department heads. 2. Need to think about at report for the board and the money managers. least a monthly financial summary 3. CA-54. Outlines some of the monitoring practices rhe ihi) need to be set up and controlled.EVAL01 REVISED 18 MAY 93 EVALUATION SUBPROCESS REQUIREMENTS 1. Need a component system to capture achievements tracking and monitoring. for plan 2. CA-22. evaluation. Points out that board policy IM requires program This should also be linked to the planning subprocess. 3. a CA-68. Outlines some of the items which should be included in program evaluation program.... some looking for. of the standards they are 4. CA-86. Points out that evaluation and assessment data and information should be used as feedback into the decision-making process. This must be worked into the process plan. 5. BC-1. evaluation. Points out the need for a concerted effort at program Major statement. 6. F15-7. Additionally, under the title "leadership" on pages 2- 3 of the 1992 plan, the board and superintendent have failed to assert strong leadership in the following areas: (1) Conducting an annual self-evaluation of their commitment to a quality desegregated education. 7. A6-2. Superintendent...programs which are designed to improve instruction and achievement in these areas will be linked to particular expected outcomes and goals. If a program does not have this linkage, I will be recommending in the Spring of 1993 that personnel contracts in these areas not be renewed for the next fiscal year.PUBLICOl REVISED 18 MAY 93 PUBLIC INFORMATION SUBPROCESS REQUIREMENTS 1. Presentation of project plan to Brown and Bernd. 2. Presentation of project plan to School board. 3. Presentation of project plan to Court. 4. There will have to be a training component in each module or subprocess. 5. F13-2. obligation to The MRC complains work with the that MRC the LRSD failed in its reorganization prior to implementing or budget reduction plans that would affect the programming or staff at the magnet schools. 6. F13-4. Initially it is clear that the MRC is a decision-making rather than merely an advisory body. 7. F14-12. The district must be mindful of the language in its desegregation plan which states that a McClellan Community School planning committee (now called the McClellan Community High School Advisory Council) is 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. This council must be meaningfully involved in all changes at McClellan, including budget planning and adjustment. It is within the scope of the committee's responsibilities to help the district monitor the effect of the budget cuts on the community school program, recommend any appropriate changes that will enable the program to achieve its goals economically but effectively, and to work with the district in planning the 1993-1994 community school program budget.FILED U-S-OISTBiCTCOUBT niSTPICTABKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 1 51993 csp.cLs
, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS, LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Court hereby notifies the parties that hearings will be held on Wednesday, July 7, 1993 and Thursday, July 8, 1993 to review budget matters involving the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The following week is open for continuation of the hearings. The Court will begin the hearings with a discussion of the PCSSD's approval of a 1992-93 contract agreement with its employee union, PACT. The Court wants to know how the PCSSD will be able to fund that retroactive salary agreement and continue to meet its desegregation obligations under the settlement plan. The Court will also address the LRSD's 1993-94 budget, including the planning process the district used to develop that budget. Prior to the hearing, both the PCSSD and LRSD must submit the information specified below to the Court, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, and the other parties by the dates listed. The Court is requiring this detailed information because the school districts' ability to fund and carry out theirdesegregation plan commitments is requisite to fulfilling the legal obligations they agreed to in their settlement plans. In particular, the Court has expressed longstanding concern that it cannot meet its obligation to monitor desegregation plan compliance until the LRSD implements a budgeting process that will yield a budget reflecting the district's careful planning for meeting its desegregation plan provisions over the full span of the settlement agreement. Therefore, the PCSSD and LRSD will submit: By June 28, 1993: 1. Documentation of the following budgetrelated changes that includes a complete rationale for these changes (a "business case") and the dollar amount represented by each change: A. All changes in the nature of additions, deletions, reinstatements
or B. Deficit reduction actions, such as changes in insurance funding, food service contracting, loans, etc. C. All certified teacher salary increases. These increases must be charted in the following manner (which is illustrated and explained in the accompanying chart): (1) Starting with the base salary for an employee category, create a table in increments of $5,000. Within each incremental group, show (2) the number of employee positions
(3) the average salary, based on that group's total number of employees and their salaries
(4) the average step increase
(5) the average of any additional salary increase (percentage raise) -2- above the step increase
(6) the new average salary for the increment that results from the step increase eind percentage raise
(7) the revised total increase for the increment group
(8) the impact of these salary increases on the budget
(9) total cost to the district of teacher salaries
(10) the average teacher salary in 1993-94. D. (LRSD only) A summary spreadsheet reflecting the E. following: April 26, addition, the initial 1993-94 tentative budget dated 1993
separate line items reflecting each deletion. reinstatement. reduction. or any other action impacting the base budget
and a total to be consistent with the updated 199394 tentative budget. (LRSD only) A written action plan for how the district will deliver all requirements of item 4 detailed below. By Jxme 30, 1993: 2. An updated 1993-94 tentative budget document from both and LRSD. PCSSD The LRSD budget must include: A. By school or department, budget detail showing function code, object code, and FTE that includes any changes from the 199293 budget as to additions, deletions, and reinstatements
B. Also by school or department, 1991-92 actual expenses, the 1992-93 budget, 1992-93 unaudited actual expenses, and the 1993-94 budget
-3-c. Any other summaries and budgets shown in the table of contents of the tentative budget document. 3. A budget sximmary from both PCSSD and LRSD projecting revenues and expenses for each of the next five fiscal years. The summary must reflect annual incoming settlement monies (and for the LRSD, drawing). any settlement loan funds the district anticipates The summary must also include anticipated yearly M- to-M revenues. By July 30, 1993
4. (LRSD only) A written plan for the long-range planning and budget process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget that includes at least the following: A. Details of the planning and budgeting organization, including identification of the lead planning person and his/her responsibilities and authority, and how implementation of this process will be coordinated and controlled. These details should clearly describe the roles in the planning and budgeting process of the school board, the superintendent, the superintendent's cabinet, and any other key participants. B. A description of the needs assessment strategy that C. addresses sources of input and techniques used to identify needs. along with the roles of the key participants, anticipated outcomes, and timeframes. A description of the process for determining district planning and budgeting goals, including how those goals -4-will influence programs and budgets, the major planning standards and criteria used by the district, and the strategy for integrating the requirements of the desegregation plan into the goals. The description should include the roles of key participants, anticipated outcomes, and timeframes. D. A description of how programs will be identified and matched to priority needs. how programming will be developed to meet unaddressed needs. and how the requirements of the desegregation plan will be addressed. This description should include the roles of key participants, anticipated outcomes, and timeframes. E. A description of the process for linking programs and budgets, for determining program budget priorities, for ensuring that desegregation plan responsibilities are funded, and for the actual decision-making in allocating funds. This description should include the roles of the key participants, anticipated outcomes, and timeframes. F. A description of: how the planning and budgeting document will be structured and monitored
what the document will look like (format)
the type and frequency of monitoring
the type and frequency of reporting
and how program performance will be matched with budget expenditures. This entire description should include the roles of the key participants, anticipated outcomes, and timeframes. -5-G. A description of the program evaluation strategy, including how evaluation criteria will be established, how corrective action will be initiated, and how pyngT-am evaluation will impact the next program and budget cycle. This description should include the roles of the H. key participants, anticipated outcomes, and timAf-ramag. A description of what strategy the district will use to specifically address the continuing shortfall of funding, and how this strategy will be incorporated into the ongoing long-range planning and budgeting process. This description should include the roles of the key participants, anticipated outcomes, and timeframes. SO ORDERED this day of June, 1993. UUITED STAlES DISTRICT JI iTRlCT JUDGE THJS ON__L- - / O '*ND/O^9(a) MD/OR 79(a) FRCP SY 1. -6-LRSD 1993-94 CERTIFIED SALARY INCREASES (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) Base Salary Number of Cartlfled Positions Actual Aiveraoa Salary Actual Aweraga Step Increase Actual Aiveraoa Salary Raisa Aiveraoa Total Increasa (D-i-E) Haviaad AMeraoa SalaiY (C-i-F) Impact on Sudgat (BxF) Total Coat to Oiitilct (BxG) 16,000-21,000 21,001-26,000 26,001-31,000 31,001-36,000 36,001-41,000 41,001-56,000 56,001-61,000 61,001-76,000 76,001-61,000 81,001-86,000 TOTAL (J) 1993-94 Average Salary (A) The base salary will be used only for identifying employees within a certain salary range. (B) The number of positions column identifies the number of positions within that base salary range. (C) The actual average salary is an average salary for all the positions identified in column (B). (D) Actual average step increase is the averaged dollar amount received per position identified in column (B). (E) Actual average salary raise is the averaged dollar amount received for the across the board" percentage raise per position identified in column (B). (F) Average total increase is the step increase plus the salary raise. This is the amount the district will pay "over and above" last year. (G) Revised (or adjusted) average salary is the average salary identified in column (C) plus the step increase, plus the salary raise. (H) The impact on the budget is the number of positions identified in column (B) times the average total increase, column (F). This is the additional amount the district will be paying during 1993-94 over what they paid in 1992-93 for the positions identified in column (B). (I) Total cost to district is the amount the district will pay for salaries of those positions identified in column (B) during 1993-94. (J) 1993-94 average salary is determined by dividing the total cost to district, column (I), by the number of positions, column (B).CONCPTOl REVISED 29 JUN 93 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS CONCEPT PAPER GENERAL CONCEPT A. Purpose. Given the complexity of present and future problems facing the district, it is absolutely essential that the best decision-making processes be in negotiate these troubled times. operation if we are to A comprehensive program planning and budgeting process would improve the chances that our limited revenue would be allocated rationally and would have maximum impact on achieving the goals of the district. By linking program objectives and program expenditures we can see more clearly if our money is being well-spent. B. Description. In this process, we will do the following: 1. Determine the needs of the district, including legal obligations under the desegregation and settlement plans. 2. Define our goals and objectives. 3. Define our programs to achieve those objectives, including those reguired by the desegregation plans. 4. Measure our performance and expenditures. 5. Prepare information for corrective decision-making.A. ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING 1. Purpose. This sub-process deals with the designation of an organizational structure and the assignment of staff responsibilities for carrying out the planning and budgeting activities. This designation and assignment should be in writing, and should be disseminated to all district employees. 2. Players. Cabinet is in a direct support role. The Superintendent has the lead, and the 3. Input. Look at the job reguirements and at the personnel resources available, and make best choice. 4. Description. Organization is the process of establishing lines of authority and assigning responsibility for work tasks to accomplish the objectives of the district. Staffing refers to the skills and background reguired of the assigned personnel to carry out the various planning activities described by the process. The Superintendent must designate a chief planner who will be responsible for developing and coordinating the planning and budgeting process. This designated planner and staff should be familiar with professional planning concepts and technigues. The designated planner would ensure that the process is followed, provide technical assistance, coordinate the process, prepare the document, collect reports, and advise the Superintendent and Board. The designated planner should also be responsible for ensuring all reguirements from the desegregation plans and court orders are integrated into the planning process. 5. Output. The output is an organization chart, lines of authority, tasking assignment, and general timeframes for the process to be operational. 6. Timeframe. must be designated on front end. The first step in the process. The planner Once done, this sub-process will be revisited annually (preferably in early May) to make sure we are in the best configuration.B. NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1. Purpose. In the needs assessment sub-process, the problems of the student/parent are identified. Teacher/administrator problems which are barriers to service delivery are also identified. "need tl from II want II or II desire", We must be able to distinguish 2. Players. needs assessment process. The designated planner will coordinate the leadership and direction for the process. The Superintendent will provide the The Cabinet will be responsible for directing the staff in the collection of assessment information. The Superintendent and the Cabinet will be the decision-makers for identifying the needs. 3. Input. The data on the accepted planning factors and proportional allocation formula (enrollment projections, staffing criteria, capacity study, material allocations formula, other data) must be collected first. must be selected and implemented. Other needs assessment techniques It is critical that the desegregation plans and court orders be reduced to legal requirements which can be II hard coded II into the needs assessment until justification can be made to change them. 4. Description. Utilizing a combination of perceptual and empirical instruments, a range of input information and collected data would be analyzed to determine the needs of the students. parents, teachers, and administrators. The perceptual instruments might include various surveys, samplings, and hearings. The currently used Community Forums and District Dialogues would be used as the foundation of the perceptual instruments, and would be built on with possibly a selected mail survey. All perceptual issues identified must be crystallized into hard issues and cranked into the planning and budgeting process. The empirical instruments might include data on the accepted planning factors, the proportional allocation factors, various needs indicators (economic patterns, employment patterns, education patterns, family patterns, etc.), and review of other data. The desegregation plans and court orders will be dissected, and requirements will be extracted for incorporation into the needs assessment, converted into a listing on data. The data will be massaged and II needs", keyed back to supporting 5. Output. The output of the needs assessment is a list of needs/problems, the description of the needs/problem, and supporting information on the needs/problem. These will be inputs to our goals and objectives determination, and will subsequently be the basis of programs. 6. Timeframe. in May with data collection. The needs assessment sub-process should begin September. Surveys should be completed by An initial needs listing should be drafted byOctober
the final listing must incorporate the results from the Community Forums and District Dialogues, should be published in December. The final listingC. PROGRAM INVENTORY 1. Purpose. This sub-process will identify all of the current programs and services being delivered and will consider their effectiveness. modification or elimination. Ineffective programs can be targeted for will be pointed out. Gaps and duplications in programs Resources, both inside and outside of the district, which can be utilized will be identified. 2. Players. The Superintendent would provide overall direction, and the Board would review the findings. The Cabinet and staff would collect all the basic data and prepare the data into documents for use in goal setting and program development. The designated planner would play a coordinating role. 3. Input. Current program documents, program evaluations. and various surveys would provide the baseline input data. The desegregation plans and court orders would be reviewed to ensure coverage. 4. Description. This sub-process is mainly a data collection and data manipulation activity in support of other sub-processes. The first phase of this sub-process is to inventory all existing programs to make sure all we are doing is included. This inventory would include a program definition. Program evaluations would be used to flag those programs which are failing to meet current goals and objectives. Staff would begin to compare the current programs with the preliminary needs to identify and flag gaps and duplications. It is most important that programs required under the desegregation plans and court orders be verified and status checked during this sub-process. Surveys would be used to identify all resources which can be used to address identified needs
this would become a bank". II resources 5. Output. This sub-process would identify the programs and resources available to address the needs identified. The Program Inventory report would be generated, and this status of current programs would be utilized in the Goals and Objectives subprocess, the Program Development sub-process, and the Budgeting sub-process. 6. Timeframe. This sub-process would run concurrently with the Needs Assessment sub-process and the Goals and Objective sub- process. It must be completed before the Goals and Objective sub-process can be completed, completed in August. It would be started in May, and beD. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1. Purpose. The subprocess of setting goals and objectives is designed to establish a vision/mission for the district which would guide all actions by the administration. Supporting goals and objectives further define what the district wants to accomplish for the year, and any activity or expenditure which does not further satisfaction of these goals and objectives should be discarded. 2. Players. Setting the vision/mission and goals would be the purview of the Board and the Superintendent. They would receive assistance and support from the Cabinet members, and the Cabinet members would subsequently define objectives for programs which will satisfy the accepted goals, would coordinate the sub-process. The designated planner 3. Input. The Board and Superintendent should utilize the needs listing generated by the needs assessment sub-process and the program resources generated by the program inventory. 4. Description. vision/mission of the district. The first step is to define the The vision/mission will establish the general value beliefs and educational purposes of the school organization. Given the direction, the needs, and the available services, the Board and Superintendent can determine what goals are consistent with the vision and are realistic with respect to accomplishment. Planning assumptions must be defined which will provide staff with more specific directions and considerations on how to proceed with programming and budgeting. Guidelines for the planning factors (staffing) and the proportional allocation formulas should be established/reviewed. Priorities must be established which will guide staff in program development, and which will be used to help allocate funding and resources during the budgeting sub-process. The latter phase of this sub-process is characterized by the Cabinet working with staff to establish program objectives and evaluation criteria for each program in the district. items. 5. Output. The output of this sub-process consists of two First is the Goals Statement by the Board. This includes the written vision statement, the written goals, the written planning assumptions, and the written priorities. The initial calendar for the FY 93-94 planning and budgeting cycle should be published. This should all be in one document signed by the Board and the Superintendent. Second is the development of the specific program objectives and evaluation criteria for each program, and these will be incorporated into the planning and budgeting document. 6. Timeframe. This sub-process is dependent on the Needs Assessment sub-process and the Program Inventory sub-process, but will run concurrently with them. A preliminary goals statementshould be set by the Board during a planning session in June/July which will also establish the process and calendar for planning and budgeting for the coming year. The final Goals Statement should be issued in October. Program objectives and evaluation criteria should be established by November.E. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT 1. Purpose. This sub-process is the decision-making stage where the results of all previous sub-processes are considered in an effort to develop new programs or modify current programs to meet the needs addressed by the defined goals. This is where we decide what we want to do and how we want to do it. 2. Players. Cabinet, and the staff. The key players are the Superintendent, the The role of the Superintendent is to provide leadership and guidance to ensure the goals are satisfied with the best possible programs. The Cabinet's role is to educate the administrative and school staff, and provide direction to those staff in developing and implementing creative. effective, and efficient programs. The designated planner is in a coordinating and monitoring role, and serve as the process advisor to the Superintendent. Input. 3. The sub-process will use the output of the Needs Assessment sub-process, the Program Inventory sub-process, and the Goals and Objectives sub-process. 4. Description. This sub-process is the point at which the district defines what programs will be provided. New programs may have to be developed to address newly identified needs or fill gaps. Current programs may have to be modified to successfully meet objectives. eliminated. Some programs may have to be direction to the staff. The Cabinet should outline the tasking and provide The best results will be obtained by allowing the staff to develop or modify the programs, and roll them up to the Cabinet. Decisions will have to be made on what programs will be provided, what the definition of the program will be, and what activities will be necessary to deliver the program. Since programs are selected to meet assessed needs. this is also a crucial time for designing the framework for program evaluation. The last step in this sub-process should be a final check to ensure all requirements from the desegregation plans and the court orders have been provided for by the program lineup. 5. Output. At this point, all of the elements of a good program planning document have been completed
vision, goals, programs, program definition, program objectives, activities, and evaluation criteria. This material will be used for budget development, and will be directly input into the program planning and budgeting document. 6. Timeframe. This sub-process may run somewhat concurrent with the Goals and Objectives sub-process, but cannot be finished until the Goals and Objectives sub-process has been completed. This sub-process should start in September, and be completed in early February.F. BUDGETING 1. Purpose. The Budgeting sub-process is the resource allocation function. Money and other resources are allocated to the programs identified in the Program Development sub-process to address the needs identified in the Needs Assessment subprocess . 2. Players. authority on the budget. The Board is the ultimate decision-making The Superintendent is the leader of the sub-process by ensuring a balanced budget meeting the needs and goals of the students and parents is presented to the Board. The Cabinet is deeply involved in programmatic decisions and matching the budget dollars to the programs. The Business Manager will coordinate the budget preparation, and the designated planner will ensure the planning and budgeting pieces come together. The budget managers will provide input into the sub-process, rolling the budget up to the next level, budget information. The Controller will produce the 3. Input. Many sources of information will be used in this sub-process: needs assessment information, planning factors, proportional allocation factors, previous expenditures, program requirements, public input, desegregation plan and court order requirements. 4. Description. Budgeting involves allocating money and assigning personnel and facilities to effect the programs and goals set in the previous steps. As a result of the allocations made, some changes in developed programs may be necessary, programs define both current year operations and planning The assumptions for the future. The budget should continue with this by projecting a multi-year revenue and expense picture based on these assumptions. formulas should be reviewed each year, fiscal allocations should be consistent. Planning factors and proportional allocation Planning priorities and Maximum input should be solicited from staff and parents regarding allocations. budget issue and major addition/change/deletion should be Each supported with a written business case outlining the decision- making process. Each identified program must be separately coded for expenditure collection so that programs may be monitored by performance and cost throughout the fiscal year. 5. Output. In one sense, the allocation of resources in the Budgeting sub-process ends the planning phase and begins the implementation phase. The output is a multi-dimensional budget document which will be used to satisfy the traditional budgeting and accounting requirements, with a program planning and budgeting component which will link the programs and budget allocations. 6. Timeframe. Nov...financial forecasts for next and out-yearsNov...review planning factors and proportional allocation formula results Dec... submission of budget requests by budget managers Feb...complete budget development Mar. revise financial forecast Mar... finalize add/change/deletes and business cases Apr...tentative budget to board Jul...Adopt budget Aug... submit to stateG. PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMENT 1. Purpose. The primary purpose of preparing the program budget document (Program Operations Plan) is to develop rational planning and effective resource allocation. The document should provide a road map for getting from needed and required programs, through funding, to the destination of the related goal. 2. Players. The Board will review the plan in relationship to the stated goals, and give final approval of the plan. The Superintendent provides overall guidance for the development of the plan. The Cabinet members provide all the program information for their respective areas. The Business Manager provides the financial numbers that match the programs. The designated planner puts together the work plan and coordinates the documentation into the final product. 3. Input. on the results of the The initial program budgeting document is built tt work. deseg audit It and the program definition The program budget document resulting from this cycle will incorporate this initial document but will be the synthesis of all previous key outputs
the needs assessment, the program inventory, the goals and objectives, new program definitions, and budget allocations. 4. Description. Although the preparation of the program budget document is not usually considered part of the planning process, it is included here as the culmination and documentation of the other planning sub-processes, aspects must be mutually supportive. The planning and budgeting We want the plan to be a useful and living document which can satisfy several purposes and be readily changed as the environment changes. While the planning module should remain fixed for the year, the format should be used to facilitate regular monitoring and reporting. An example of some things which might be included in the plan would be: an introduction about the plan
planning process description
identification of the needs of the district and a description of how those needs were identified
description and objectives of the programs
activities/strategies on how the programs will operate
evaluation criteria of the programs
analysis of the needs in relation to the available funding
budget allocations for the programs
description of how the plan will be impacted
description of how the goals will be impacted
and major issues for the future. A Cabinet member will be assigned as the responsible primary leader for every identified program. would also be assigned. A secondary leader The primary leader is tasked with ensuring the program meets its objectives, coordinating the required activities or strategies, and the preparation and submission of regular reporting. 5. Output. The program budget document will be the output.This document will become the basis for follow-on monitoring and reporting, and will become the guide for any interim decisionmaking activity. 6. Timeframe. Development of the document should begin around December, and should be completed in conjunction with the completion of the tentative budget in April.H. MONITORING AND REPORTING 1. Purpose. This sub-process should be designed to provide decision-makers with a regular flow of information on the district's progress toward accomplishing its stated goals and objectives. The reporting should be designed to satisfy both internal requirements as well as the reporting requirements under the desegregation plans. 2. Players. The Board and the Superintendent would be the recipients of the reporting for oversight and decision-making. The designated planner would coordinate the sub-process and prepare the composite report. the matching financial information by program. The Business Manager would supply The Cabinet and staff would prepare all reporting documents falling within their area of responsibility. 3. Input. The program budget document (Program Operations Plan) would be the basis for the monitoring and reporting, and would establish the format and design. Cabinet members will provide performance reports from which the designated planner can prepare the composite report, from the Business Manager. Financial information would come 4. Description. Extending the format and content of the program budget document (Program Operations Plan), a sub-process of regular monitoring and reporting would be established immediately. By using the same format, we can reduce the production overhead of the reporting as well as satisfying all parties. ease of function. The reporting mechanism would be set up on diskette for The sub-process would merge both program performance and expenditure reporting on a guarterly basis. The Board could choose to review in depth a certain program at each Board meeting, but still have performance reporting information on all programs. Programs with poor performance or expenditure problems could be addressed with corrective action during the year rather than after the year is complete. Such a process would also facilitate modification of both the program plan and the desegregation plans. Additionally, performance history will be built as a matter of regular business rather than a situational special effort. We would have a comprehensive listing of all the good things we have done, in addition to the bad, and take some credit along with the blame. 5. Output. A quarterly composite progress report on all identified programs within the district, supported with expenditure information. Would be an extension of the program budget document (Program Operations Plan). 6. Timeframe. Work on the sub-process would begin immediately, with the first set of actual reports generated in early October covering the period July/August/September. quarter reports would be due in January, April, and July. PriorI. PROGRAM EVALUATION 1. Purpose. we are doing. This sub-process is where we find out how well Program evaluation will provide us an assessment of the program's performance for decision-making purposes. It will tell us if our program is meeting the stated objectives and having the impact intended. We can go one step further with a program analysis which would tell us whether the program should be cut or improved, and the best options for achieving the latter. 2. Players. The Board and the Superintendent are the recipients of the evaluations, and will use them in determining direction and resource allocation. The designated planner would coordinate the sub-process and be the keeper of the documentation. financial information. The Business Manager would supply the supporting The Cabinet and staff would prepare all reporting documents falling within their area of responsibility. 3. Input. General directions and targets from the Board
specific targets from Superintendent. Program planning information, including evaluation criteria and program objectives will be used in developing the evaluations. 4. Description. At least during the first year of the planning and budgeting process, there should be two, concurrent and parallel program evaluation components working
a regular evaluation component and a It fast-track If evaluation component. into each program. The regular program evaluation component would be built As programs are put in place, they would contain program objectives and evaluation criteria. Evaluation would continue to get better as we improve our ability to develop and monitor evaluation criteria. Special or more detailed evaluations might be directed by the Superintendent with the intent of looking deeply into a programs workings. Since little or no program evaluation of the regular type is in operation at this time, information is needed upon which to base critical near-term decisions. To address this information need. II fast-track II designated programs which might be suspect. evaluations should be performed on identified for II fast-track II Programs should be and direction of the district. if they have high impact on the goals II fast-track II Some possible candidates for evaluations might be as follows: incentive school operations, school closing, student assignment process, construction of Stephen, outsourcing support services, special evaluations from this year. Utilizing the program evaluation information, business cases would be prepared for decision-making in the areas of program modification, program development, and program elimination. 5. Output. Specific program evaluations. These would be used as input into the next planning cycle as well as input intobusiness cases for making modifications in resource allocation or totally eliminating the program. 6. Timeframe. This sub-process should begin after the Board defines district goals in July, and should continue until input time into the Program Inventory sub-process. n Fast-track" evaluations might continue until the initial decision point in the Budgeting sub-process, in January.J. BROAD-BASED INPUT AND PARTICIPATION 1. Purpose. Broad-based education, participation, review and comment provide an opportunity for persons outside the immediate planning process organization to assist in preparing the plan
and to review and comment on the plan, the planning process and decisions such as those that affect the allocation of resources. 2. Players. The Board and the Superintendent should provide direction on the type and extent to which broad-based input and participation should be utilized in the various sub-processes. This should be done at the initial summer planning session. Communications Director, working closely with the designated planner, should develop an input and participation plan and The implement it in conjunction with the efforts of the designated planner. 3. Input. Direction from the Board and Superintendent. 4. Description. This sub-process is one in which we seek to get maximum input and participation from as many informed sources as possible, both inside and outside of the district organization. There should be a plan, developed and coordinated by the Communications Director with assistance from the designated planner, for obtaining input and participation from other sources for each of the sub-processes. The more front-end participation, the better the buy-in on the back side. We should take every opportunity to use information to educate the general public and removed staff on the planning and budgeting process and the contents of the Program Budget Document. There are a number of possible input sources which might be called upon to participate in one or more of the sub- processes. A partial list follows: the Community Forums and District Dialogues for needs assessment, the building coordinating committees, the budget committee, the Magnet Review Committee, the bi-racial committee, the PTA, the ODM, and Joshua. The Communications Director should identify those sources which would be most appropriate for each sub-process, and work with the designated planner on building the best input mechanism. 5. Output. Each source would have a different method of providing participation and input into each of the sub-processes. Thus, the output would vary depending on the situation. 6. Timeframe. Since some form of broad-based input and participation might be solicited in each sub-process, process would be ongoing. this sub-K. PROGRAM COORDINATION 1. Purpose. The planning and budgeting effort must be closely coordinated so as to maximize the use of available resources in meeting the needs of the students and parents, minimize of duplication and gaps in programs, and ensure all district efforts are aimed at the district goals. 2. Players. The designated planner is the leader in this sub-process, and must be a close advisor to the Board and Superintendent. The designated planner must keep the Board and the Superintendent informed as to what is being done and where we stand relative to achieving our goals. The Board and the Superintendent must exercise oversight authority on the process and allocate resources accordingly. Additionally, the Superintendent must support the designated planner and ensure all district staff are aggressively working on the completion of the plan. 3. Input. Superintendent. District goals, direction from the Board and 4. Description. which relates to all other activities. Program Coordination is a key activity Each of the planning activities such as needs assessment, program development and budgeting would be coordinated with similar activities in the other sub-processes. Since there would be many participants in the entire process, it is most critical that all of the pieces fit together and support each other. This coordination is achieved by having a designated planner who will develop project plans for the overall process and each sub-process, monitor the progress against those project plans, and provide progress reporting back to the Board and Superintendent. The designated planner is there to make sure everything happens on time, not necessarily to do it. 5. Output. Project plans and status reports. Should be a part of the regular monitoring and reporting sub-process. 6. Timeframe. A start to finish sub-process. Ongoing.L. RESTART CYCLE 1. Purpose. The program planning and budgeting cycle is a continuous process, and would be the heart of the way we manage the business of the district. Once the cycle for one fiscal year is complete, the next cycle begins
in fact, there is actually some overlap.CONCPT02 REVISED 29 JUN 93 PROPOSED PLANNING AND BUDGET CALENDAR JULY 1993 - Designate planner and job responsibilities - Board/Cabinet workshop on planning and budgeting
tentative district goals defined, identify "fast-track It evaluation targets, define guidelines on broad-based input, design planning and budgeting calendar - Proposed planning factors and proportional allocation formulas identified, published, and data collection begins - Planning and budget calendar published - Begin development of the monitoring and reporting procedures - Begin Program Inventory using tl - Begin "fast-track II evaluations deseg audit tt as baseline AUGUST 1993 - Complete Program Inventory - Complete monitoring and reporting procedures, and issue instructions - Board reviews planning factors and proportional allocation formulas Continue "fast-track evaluations SEPTEMBER 1993 - Complete needs assessment surveys Continue fast-track tl evaluations - Begin Program Development OCTOBER 1993 - Needs listing finalized - Board approves planning factors and proportional allocation formulas - Enrollment statistics and projections published - First quarter FY93-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report published - Board issues final Goals Statement - Continue Program Development Continue tl fast-track It evaluations - Begin Community Forum input on programs and budgets - Begin District Dialogues input on programs and budgets NOVEMBER 1993 - Board issues directions and assumptions for budgetpreparation - Initial financial forecasts prepared - Base budgets and budget instructions generated and distributed - Program objectives and evaluation criteria finalized for each program - Review planning factors and proportional allocation formula results Continue fast-track II evaluations - Continue Program Development - Continue Community Forum input on programs and budgets - Continue District Dialogues input on programs and budgets - Continue Community Forum input on programs and budgets DECEMBER 1993 - Complete District Dialogues input on programs and budgets - Complete Community Forum input on programs and budgets - Complete needs assessment listing - Budget managers submit budget requests Continue II fast-track" evaluations - Continue Program Development - Begin developing program budget document (Program Operations Plan) JANUARY 1994 - Complete "fast-track II evaluations - Second quarter FY93-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report published - Continue developing the Program Budget Document - Continue budget request review and budget development - Continue Program Development - Begin identification of major budget issues and development of business cases FEBRUARY 1994 - Complete program development - Complete budget development and business case development - Continue developing the program budget document (Program Operations Plan) MARCH 1994 - Revise financial forecasts - Revise the program budget document (Program Operations Plan) - Finalize budget issue recommendations and business case on each issue - Feedback to all input participantsAPRIL 1994 - Complete the program budget document (Program Operations Plan) - Revise budget - Board workshop on budget - Submit tentative budget to Board - Certified personnel reduction deadline - Third quarter FY93-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report published MAY 1994 - Revise budget - Non-certified personnel reduction deadline - Board workshop on budget - Board approves tentative budget - Reassess planning organization for FY94-95 cycle - Begin FY94-95 cycle needs assessment - Begin program inventory for FY94-95 cycle JUNE 1994 - Revise to final budget - Court hearing on budget - Continue FY94-95 cycle needs assessment - Continue FY94-95 cycle program inventory JULY 1994 - Board adopts final budget - Fourth quarter FY93-94 cycle monitoring and evaluation report published - FY94-95 cycle Board workshop on planning and budgeting - Continue FY94-95 cycle needs assessment - Continue FY94-95 cycle program inventory AUGUST 1994 - Complete FY94-95 cycle program inventory - Submit final budget to State - Board reviews planning factors and proportional allocation formulas for FY94-95 cycle - Continue FY94-95 cycle needs assessmentRECEP- ,11)1 2i 0ic9 Qi Desegregaiion Moniicrina IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 ' PLAINTIFF V. 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 NOTICE OF FILING The Plaintiff, Little Rock School District ("LRSD") for its Notice of Filing, states: On June 15, 1993, an Order was entered directing the LRSD to prepare and submit detailed documents, records and information by certain designated dates. The LRSD timely submitted the information required by June 28, 1993 and the information required by June 30, 1993. The Order further required the LRSD to submit, by July 30, 1993, a written plan for the long-range planning and budget process to be used in developing the 1994-95 budget. The Order contained specific items to be included in that document. Filed herewith as Exhibit 1 are copies of the program planning and budgeting document prepared by the LRSD in response to the Order of the Court. The submission is dated July 30, 1993. The document was presented, discussed and approved by the LRSD Board ofDirectors in a special meeting of the board on Wednesday, July 28, 1993 . Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building 400 West Capitol Little Rock, Arkansas (501) 376-2011 72201-3493 Attorneys for Plaintiff LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BY: ^Hferry L. Malone Bar ID No. 85096 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 29th day of July, 1993. Jerry L. Malone Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 -2-Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Jerry L. Malone -3- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 810 WEST MARKHAM STREET LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 July 30, 1993 To: Board of Directors From: Estelle Matthr lis, II nterim Superintendent Subject: Planning Program and Budgeting Document Please find attached a copy of the long-range planning program and budgeting document being submitted to the Court pursuant to its June 15, Order. 1993. This document was filed with the Court on July 29, If you have questions, please contact Jerry Malone. EM: nr Enclosures c: Jerry L. MaloneAUG G - 1993 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLANNING, RESEARCH AND EVALUATION DEPARTMENT Date: August 5, 1993 To: From: Jeanette Wagner, Director of Communications Sterling Ingram,^irector Planning, Research and Evaluation Re: Program Planning and Budgeting Tasks Attached is a copy of the Planning and Budgeting document which was submitted to the court on July 29, 1993. Although the document has not been approved, I expect the basic framework will not be changed. On page 3 of Attachment 4, you will find that Community Forums and District Dialogue sessions will be conducted as part of the needs assessment process. You have been identified as one of the persons responsible for this task. Please plan for three area school forums instead of one for a total of five community forums, an addition that the Board wanted. This was As the lead planning person for the planning and budgeting process, I am requesting that as you make plans for the 1993-94 school year, please include the necessary strategies, timelines, etc. in your management plan which will be included in the budget document. bjg cc: Estelle Matthis Jerry Malone I PROJECT PLAN PROJECT: PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS 8/23/93 1PROJECT
PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS People involved Bill Mooney Board Estelle Matthis Sterling Ingram Program leaders Jeanette Wagner Hank Williams Mark Milhollen Brady Gadberry Budget Managers Project goals Develop and implement a long range planning and budgeting process that links programs/obligations and fund allocations and expenditures beginning with FY 94-95. Project notes Major job components
a. Assist the LRSD in developing and implementing a needs assessment process that incorporates both legal obligations and other programs. b. Assist the LRSD in developing and implementing a process that results in a planning document, based on the needs assessment, whcih 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 time lines. c. 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. d. Assist the LRSD in developing and Implementing a process for program and expenditure evaluation for decision-making. 2TASK LIST PROGRAM PLANNING AND BUDGETING PROCESS 11 phases 66 tasks ORG AND STAFFING C Designate district planner Hire PRE Specialist Train PRE Specialist NEEDS ASSESSMENT Set schedule for Community Forums Develop Community Forum sample agenda Develop data collection tool for Forums Set schedule for District Dialogues Develop District Dialogue sample agenda Develop data collection tool for Dialogues Merge input data PROGRAM INVENTORY Complete Desegregation Audit Copy of Desegregation Audit to Court C Prep non-deseg program listing Merge Deseg audit into PPBD Submit status report on prog obj & eval cri Publish initial prog inventory report Submit proposal for grouping non-deseg programs Develop non-deseg program groups Merge deseg and non-deseg program listings Publish final prog inventory report GOALS AND OBJECTIVES C Obtain copies of current mission statement C Obtain copies of current goals Hold Cabinet work session Hold Board work session PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT BUDGETING PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMEN C Revise form, instructions, and definitions Approval on form, instructions, and definitions Diskette of form, inst, and def to Ingram Initial data load to diskettes Prepare training material Conduct training sessions Distribute diskettes to program leaders Diskettes due back to Ingram Data check on diskettes Clean up period 3Obtain feedback on training Modify training as necessary Send draft to ODM for plan verification Report publication MONITORING/REPORTING Run financial pull test on August data Modify process as necessary Prepare M/R instructions Prepare M/R training material Conduct M/R training Set up financial pull for October report Distribute M/R reports M/R reports returned M/R reports reviewed and corrected Prepare front section of 1st Qtr Rpt 1st Qtr report prepared Distribute 1st qtr report Obtain feedback on training sessions PROGRAM EVALUATION Review Deseg Plans for possible targets Develop evaluation format Approval on evaluation format Publish evaluation format Identify tl Fast-Track tl Tasking on tl Fast-Track eval targets It evaluation targets INPUT/PARTICIPATION Define input requirements at Board session PROGRAM COORDINATION C Complete Requirements Definition Questionnaire Revise Req Def listing Approval for interviews Requirements Definition interviewing Merge requirements into process design Update Mooney proposal Set up Cabinet work session Set up Board work session 4ASSIGNMENTS PHASE 1: ORG AND STAFFING Task People assigned C Designate district planner Estelle Matthis Hire PRE Specialist Sterling Ingram Train PRE Specialist Sterling Ingram PHASE 2: NEEDS ASSESSMENT Task People assigned Set schedule for Community Forums Sterling Ingram Develop Community Forum sample agenda Sterling Ingram Develop data collection tool for Forums Sterling Ingram Set schedule for District Dialogues Sterling Ingram Develop District Dialogue sample agenda Sterling Ingram Develop data collection tool for Dialogues Sterling Ingram Merge input data Sterling Ingram 5PHASE 3: PROGRAM INVENTORY Task People assigned Complete Desegregation Audit Sterling Ingram Copy of Desegregation Audit to Court Sterling Ingram C Prep non-deseg program listing Bill Mooney Merge Deseg audit into PPBD Sterling Ingram Submit status report on prog obj & eval cri Sterling Ingram Publish initial prog inventory report Sterling Ingram Submit proposal for grouping non-deseg programs Bill Mooney Develop non-deseg program groups Sterling Ingram Merge deseg and non-deseg program listings Sterling Ingram Publish final prog inventory report Sterling Ingram PHASE 4: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Task People assigned C Obtain copies of current mission statement Bill Mooney C Obtain copies of current goals Bill Mooney Hold Cabinet work session Estelle Matthis Hold Board work session Estelle Matthis 6PHASE 5: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Task People assigned PHASE 6: BUDGETING Task People assigned 7PHASE 7: PROGRAM BUDGET DOCUMEN Task People assigned C Revise form, instructions, and definitions Bill Mooney Approval on form, instructions, and definitions Sterling Ingram Diskette of form, inst, and def to Ingram Bill Mooney Initial data load to diskettes Sterling Ingram Prepare training material Sterling Ingram Conduct training sessions Sterling Ingram Distribute diskettes to program leaders Sterling Ingram Diskettes due back to Ingram Program leaders Data check on diskettes Sterling Ingram Clean up period Program leaders Obtain feedback on training Sterling Ingram Modify training as necessary Sterling Ingram Send draft to ODM for plan verification Sterling Ingram Report publication Sterling Ingram 8PHASE 8
MONITORING/REPORTING Task People assigned Run financial pull test on August data Mark Milhollen Modify process as necessary Sterling Ingram Prepare M/R instructions Sterling Ingram Prepare M/R training material Sterling Ingram Conduct M/R training Sterling Ingram Set up financial pull for October report Mark Milhollen Distribute M/R reports Sterling Ingram M/R reports returned Budget Managers M/R reports reviewed and corrected Sterling Ingram Prepare front section of 1st Qtr Rpt Sterling Ingram 1st Qtr report prepared Program leaders Distribute 1st qtr report Sterling Ingram Obtain feedback on training sessions Sterling Ingram 9PHASE 9: PROGRAM EVALUATION Task People assigned Review Deseg Plans for possible targets Sterling Ingrain Develop evaluation format Sterling Ingram Approval on evaluation format Estelle Matthis Publish evaluation format Sterling Ingram Identify It Fast-Track It eval targets Board Estelle Matthis Hank Williams Tasking on tl Fast-Track evaluation targets Estelle Matthis PHASE 10: INPUT/PARTICIPATION Task People assigned Define input reguirements at Board session Board 10PHASE 11: PROGRAM COORDINATION Task People assigned C Complete Requirements Definition Questionnaire Bill Mooney Revise Req Def listing Bill Mooney Approval for interviews Estelle Matthis Requirements Definition interviewing Bill Mooney Merge requirements into process design Bill Mooney Update Mooney proposal Bill Mooney Set up Cabinet work session Estelle Matthis Set up Board work session Estelle Matthis 11swtt! r ^5.A ^.^4 /wi-r F *1 I* ti -3 * 5 A .3 - AUG 2 7 1S?3 of Ltepitofing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION , filed *I8 2 6WJ CARL fl. brents. CLERK Oy
\' ''. 1 r LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Cli vs. No. LR-C-82866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL ORDER PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On July 7-8, 1993 and again on August 12-13, 1993, the Court held hearings on the Little Rock School District's ("LRSD") budget for the 1993-94 school year. This Court has previously expressed concern that it cannot meet its obligation to monitor desegregation plan compliance until the LRSD implements a budgeting process that yield a budget which reflects the district's careful planning for meeting its desegregation obligations over the full span of the settlement agreement. Having heard testimony over the course of the two hearings, the Court commends the LRSD for initiating, with the help of the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, budgeting and long- range planning processes. The Court acquiesces in the implementation of the budget for the following two reasons: (1) the LRSD budget for the technically balanced, and 1993-94 school year is (2) the LRSD considered its desegregation obligations in the budget, although there remain certain areas of concern. The Court continues to be concerned with the tremendously large budget deficits the LRSD projects for future years These deficits i -are brought about partly by recurring expenditures that are funded through non-recurring revenue sources, a practice that threatens to jeopardize the district's ability to fund its desegregation obligations in the future. The Court also notes that, although the LRSD succeeded in creating a balanced budget, the district was able to do so by using extraordinary one-time budget balancing strategies that do not represent lasting budget reductions. One example of such budgetary practices is the way in which the district drained its Risk Management Loss Program to create additional revenue for the 1993-94 fiscal year. This fund, which the LRSD established to pay deductibles associated with losses not covered by insurance premiums, had accumulated a reserve. The LRSD transferred $500,000 from this reserve into the revenue side of the budget to shore up the sagging bottom line. However, the district will not be able to implement this strategy on an annual basis. See Exhibit 1-B, June 28, 1993 Submission. Although the district has termed such maneuvers "Major Deficit Reduction Actions," most are actually one-time budget reduction tactics that do little or nothing to remedy the predicted out-year shortfalls. This type of financial manipulation only allows the district to delay making the difficult budget decisions that will alleviate the projected deficits. The Court is also particularly concerned about the following budget items that represent reductions in previous program or department funding levels and thereby create the potential for negatively affecting the desegregation plan
(1) Office of Communications: The Interdistrict plan states 2that [d]esegregation will succeed only so far as the community supports and participates in it," and "[a] community well-informed about its schools, and their desegregation, is more willing to place confidence in them and to participate in various aspects of desegregation-related initiatives and activities
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.