Management audit

received OCT 3 0 1998 Office of DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK FOR OUR PURUC SCHOOLS October 29, 1998 IMPORTANT INVITATION TO: Ann Brown FROM: Odies Wilson, HI / President of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools SUBJECT: Invitation To Attend Public Input Session Regarding Our Schools Wednesday, November 4,1998 Drop By Anytime Between 4 p.m. - 8 p.m. Martin Luther King Elementary School 907 Martin Luther King Blvd. As you know, the Alliance is working in partnership with the Little Rock School District with a consulting firm to study the management and financial practices of our school district. The firm, MGT of America, will have a team of professionals visiting Little Rock on the evening of November 4*. You should have already been contacted to arrange a one-on-one interview with a member of the MGT Team. We want you to also feel free to attend the public input session. MGTs goal is to talk to as many people as possible about our school district. By hearing from as many people as possible, they will better understand the positive strides that have been made in recent years and months, as well as the unique challenges facing our district. I especially want to invite you to participate in the open forum being held at Martin Luther King Elementary School from 4:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4*. It will not be necessary for you to attend the full, four-hour event. Time constraints will not allow the MGT team to visit with you extensively one-on-one at the open forum, but please plan to stay for as long as you like. The format for the forum will allow you to drop by.at any time during the four- hour event and contribute your thoughts and perspective to the team from MGT. Feel free to also invite any other guests who have comments they would like to share with MGT regarding the Little Rock School District. Thank you in advance for responding to this special invitation. We value your opinion and want you to be able to share them with the team from MGT. Please make every effort to drop by Martin Luther King School next Wednesday evening. Without your participation, the MGT team will not have the benefit of your insight as they work on a series of recommendations to help us plan for the bright future of our district and its students. I hope to see you next Wednesday evening. You will consider your attendance time well spent. 523 Louisiana Street Lafayette Building Suite 175 Little Rock Arkansas 72201 Phone (501) 370-9300 . Fax (501) 375-877403/25/1999 23:31 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 sevann@lrsdadm.lrsd.kl 2.ar.us For Immediate Release March 25,1999 For more information: Suellen Vann, 324-2020 Management Study Presented to LRSD A six-month management study of the Little Rock School District is complete, and results of the study were submitted to the LRSD Board of Education attonight s (Thursday) public meeting. The purpose of the study was to identify specific areas of the districts management structure and operations which could be improved and to provide a thorough review of the districts financial condition. The study was commissioned by a coalition of local entities, including the LRSD, the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, Fifty for the Future, and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. The coalition hired MGT of America to conduct the study and report its findings to the community. Dr. Linda Recio of MGT of America outlined for the LRSD Board the scope of its work and presented copies of its 500 page report. Recio encouraged the Board to read the report prior to her return visit with the Board in May. at which time she will respond to questions that Board members may have. Superintendent Les Gamine notes that many changes have been underway during the time that MGT consultants have been surveying staff and community leaders, gathering data, and developing its report Even as we embrace the management study results and recommendations," Gamine says, we recognize that our district has been in the process of significant program changes since the study began. We realize that these changes in our curriculum, campus leadership initiative and middle school transition, just to name a few, tt must be considered as we review the recommendations.' Some of the recommendations address the districts organizational structure and suggest numerous changes in personnel alignment. Gamine says ttiat organizational changes can be accomplished through attrition including retirements and normal mobility of staff. The report also concludes that the district needs additional financial support from the community in order to maintain adequate school facilities. Gamine suggests a period of two to three months for review of the recommendations and establishment of a timeline for implementation. MGT \ bfC- O f J C.0rnjile.4t, />ook lc.<i A MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT Final Report March 25,1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 } 1.1 1.2 Study Methodology......................................................... Current Environment in the Little Rock School District 1-3 1-5 2.0 BACKGROUND ON THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. .2-1 2.1 2.2 2.3 Historical Background and Future of Desegregation.... Current Environment of the Little Rock School District. Current Central Office Structure..................................... ...2-1 ...2-6 .2-14 3.0 COMPARISONS TO OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS 3-1 1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Community and Enrollment Characteristics Central Office Staffing................................... Central Office Organizational Structure..... District Income and Expenditures................ ...3-2 ...3-5 .3-10 .3-48 4.0 SURVEY RESULTS 4-1 5.0 6.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Central Office Administrator Survey Results............................ Principal Survey Results............................................................. Teacher Survey Results.............................................................. Comparison of Central Office Administrators, Principals, and Teachers Surveys........................................................................ Comparison of Little Rock School District (LRSD) Responses to Other School Systems............................................................ EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Superintendents Office................................................................ Division of School Services........................................................... Division of Instruction..................................................................... Operations Division........................................................................ Impediments to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION ...4-1 ...4-7 .4-12 .4-16 .4-29 .5-1 ...5-3 .5-10 .5-15 .5-30 .5-35 6-1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Financial Management and Organization.... Budget Processes and Financial Reporting Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data.... Assessment of Operating Costs................... Assessment of Fund Balance...................... ...6-1 ...6-8 6-28 6-69 6-94i TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 PAGE ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (Continued) 6.6 6.7 6.8 Assessment of Asset Management, Debt, Internal Controls, and Accounting Processes...................................................................... Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations............................................................................ Chapter Summary.............................................................................. FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Introduction..................................................................... Funding for New Construction...................................... Funding for Maintenance and Repair.......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations......................................................... ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 Technology Plan........................................................................ Technology Committee............................................................. Staffing....................................................................................... Infrastructure.............................................................................. Hardware.................................................................................... Staff Development.................................................................... Technical Support...................................................................... Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance................................................... NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 Honors and Enrichment...................................................................... Improving Mathematics Achievement................................................ Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year Old, Headstart, and HIPPY Reading/Language Arts..................................................................... English as a Second Language........................................................ Alternative Education: The New Accelerated Learning Center.... Computer Literacy................................................................................ Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation.......................... Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations............................................................................... APPENDICES Appendix A: Appendix B: Survey Instruments Survey Results 6-99 6-115 6-116 ,7-1 ...7-1 ...7-4 .7-21 .7-25 8-1 ...8-1 ...8-5 ...8-8 .8-10 .8-11 ,8-17 .8-23 8-27 8-30 9-1 ...9-4 ...9-9 ,9-14 ,9-17 .9-22 .9-26 .9-30 9-32 9-35 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 i I 1 J 1 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview In a positive spirit of cooperation, in Fall 1998 the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools assembled a Coalition including the Little Rock School District (LRSD), Fifty for the Future, Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce, and others. The Coalition was charged with moving the LRSD forward to improve the quality of education for all children served by the district, and, in an effort to do so, called for a management study and an evaluation of the school districts current financial position. The Coalition stated that results of the study would be used to demonstrate to the community the need for further and continuing support of public education in the Little Rock community, and build on the positive momentum gained as the result of being released from court supervision through implementation of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In October 1998, MGT of America, Inc., was awarded the contract to conduct the management study of the Little Rock School District (LRSD). The spirit of collaboration and mutual support between the Little Rock business community and the Little Rock School District was clearly evident throughout the duration of the study. Unlike other communities, where declining student enrollments and the need to provide greater fiscal resources to urban school districts, have caused Chambers of Commerce and business leaders to focus their support on suburban public or private local educational agencies, the Little Rock business community is placing its financial and human resources, and above all its confidence, in support of this urban school district. This esprit de corp and partnership are characteristics that the Little Rock community can be proud and ones which should be emulated in other urban communities throughout this country. It is within this environment that MGT was engaged to address the specific education issues identified by the Coalition. The Little Rock School District enrolls approximately 25,000 students in grades K-12, operates 50 school facilities, and employs about 3,800 people. The LRSDs budget is approximately $164 million. As a public school system, the LRSD is governed by an elected Board of Directors, and is administered by a Superintendent who directs an organizational stnjcture that consists of four major divisions: Instruction, Schools, Administrative Services, and Operations. Located in the heart of Arkansass largest city, the district is experiencing many of the same challenges and opportunities facing other urban school districts in the country including decaying facilities, shrinking resources, and increasing demands for varied approaches to teaching students to be productive members of society. Given these common difficulties and opportunities of urban school districts, as well as other challenges unique to the Little Rock School District, the MGT review team found a generally well run school district. However, there are significant opportunities to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, and financial stability. Many innovative and exemplary programs exist within the Little Rock School District. The consulting team found repeated examples of dedicated and hard-working MGT of America, Inc. Page IExecutive Summary employees who often must deal with diminishing resources and increasingly complex demands. Charge for the ManaQement Study I The current study was authorized and paid for by both the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools and the Little Rock School District, and both organizations participated in discussions to determine the scope of the study. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP), the purpose of the management study was to complete a comprehensive review in the following areas: the management structure of the Little Rock School District
the appropriateness of the number, type, and utilization of positions
the organization's effectiveness in attaining district goals
a comparison of the current management structure, staffing pattern, and utilization of personnel with other comparable urban school districts
the current financial position
I the adequacy of current and projected revenue to meet district initiatives in the areas of facilities, technology, and instmctional initiatives
and the factors which might impede achievement of district initiatives. The study was completed within a five-month time period with a final report submitted in March 1999. The calendar for the management study is shown in Exhibit 1. Methodology for the Management Study . MGT consultants began research for this project in October 1998. Several methods were used to gather and analyze new and existing data for the management study and these methods are summarized below. A major component of the study was the input provided by LRSD administrators, teachers, business leaders, parents, and students. The first step in the study included a review of an extensive set of previous reports, records, documents, and data. This information was used as a starting point for collecting data during the diagnostic review and on-site work. In recent years, the Little Rock School District has had several studies conducted of its operations. One of the most significant, the 1996 A Plan for Success prepared by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools, called for the LRSD to strive for a high quality, integrated education system with strong community support. Several recommendations were provided to the district by the Alliance to increase student enrollment, secure stability in its leadership, and improve facilities. A second report. Plain Talk, prepared by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1997 also presented recommendations to improve the Little Rock School District, MGT of America, Inc. Page IIExecutive Summary 1 1 ( including converting from junior high schools to middle schools, focusing on discipline, and implementing a systematic plan for school facilities improvements. Each of these reports, as well as those prepared by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring, provided valuable information to the consultant team as we addressed the issues which provided the framework for the current study. t Employee Surveys To secure input from central office administrators, principals, and teachers prior to beginning the on-site review by the entire team, the MGT team prepared and disseminated three different survey instruments. Through anonymous surveys, central office administrators, principals, and teachers were given the opportunity to express their views about the management and operations of the Little Rock School District. The survey instruments for each respondent group were similar in format and content to provide a baseline database for determining how the opinions and perceptions of central office administrators, principals, and teachers varied. Diagnostic Review 1 During the week of November 2-6, 1998, four MGT staff members conducted the diagnostic review. Interviews were completed in group settings with representatives of various organizations, and with individuals, including members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors and senior staff. Visits were also made to several campuses in the district. Formal On-Site Review 1 During the week of December 7-11, 1998, MGT conducted the formal on-site review with a team of six professionals. As part of our on-site study, we examined the following: Central Office Management and Structure Financial Management Funding for Facilities Use and Management Funding for Administrative and Instructional Technology Funding for Instructional Initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan Our systematic assessment of the Little Rock School District included the use of MGTs Guidelines for Conducting Management and Performance Audits of School Districts. Following our collection and analysis of existing data and new information, we tailored our guidelines to reflect local policies and administrative procedures, the unique conditions of the Little Rock School District and the input of Board and Alliance members, central office administrators, principals, staff, and teachers. Our on-site study included meetings with appropriate central office and school-level staff, and reviews of documentation provided by these individuals. 1 During the on-site phase of the study, we interviewed principals, teachers, counselors, and support staff in about one-fourth of the schools in the Little Rock School District. Over 100 campus-level employees were interviewed by members of the MGT team during our intensive on-site visits (November 2-6, 1998 and December 7-11, 1998). In addition, about 50 individuals in the Little Rock business community (including members MGT of America, Inc. Page III? I i s f j I 1 Executive Summary of the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce. Fifty tor the Future, and the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools) were interviewed as part of the study by one or more members of the MGT team. Major Findings and Recommendations by Area Some of the more significant changes recommended in the report are summarized below by study area. It is important to recognize that, as changes are implemented, the central focus should continue to remain on improvements for student learning in classrooms of the Little Rock School District. AREA I: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Reorganize the management structure of the Little Rock School District to improve internal communications and the operational focus of the district. One of the areas studied during the management review of the LRSD was the overall management structure of the district to determine if it was organized in a way that promoted the most effective and efficient use of district resources. At the onset of the study, it became clear that the current management structure was a result of district efforts to deal with budget cuts and the corresponding need to downsize, the need to reassign responsibilities because of downsizing and superintendent turnovers, and the continued struggle to minimize costs. Today, the district organization resembles a fragmented structure created by new initiatives, budget cuts, and the changes in administration. Although LRSD has many good programs, promoted innovative efforts, and received grants and recognition from a number of outside educational sources, the current organizational structure does not provide the focus necessary to maximize the district's resources and energy. The thrust of the proposed reorganization plan is to realign responsibilities to match resources. The reorganization plan would allow the district to concentrate on its goal to improve student performance by focusing its organizational resources in a more effective and efficient way. The new organizational structure should help the district refocus its resources to improve student performance while achieving operational efficiencies. The current central office management team consists of four divisions which cover a wide-range of instructional and operational duties. Under the proposed organizational structure, there would be three divisions and a more formal approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. In addition, a position of Chief Financial Officer would be created and report directly to the Superintendent. The creation of a Chief Financial Officer's position underscores the importance of sound and effective financial management within the Little Rock School District. Separating the financial functions from the other operational functions provides MGT of America, Inc. Page IvExecutive Summary a clearer focus for fiscal priorities. The position of Chief Financial Officer should be responsible for planning and implementing policy-level initiatives within financial services. This position should also be responsible for financial compliance issues relating to the revised desegregation plan. AREA II: ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION 1 Public confidence must be restored in the financial management of the Little Rock School District. To achieve this goal and strengthen the financial condition of the district, the LRSD should establish a realistic fund balance
identify potentially new or increased revenue sources
streamline operational practices and responsibilities
redistribute resources, including personnel
balance revenue and expenditures
examine bargaining contracts and district-level operational unit budgets for potential cost reductions or avoidance
eliminate outdated operational practices such as automatic step increases
implement more efficient and effective fiscal policies, procedures, and practices
enhance the utilization of collaborative partnerships
and implement an action plan for a voter-approved millage increase. The Request For Proposals (RFP) called for a management study and an evaluation of n the school districts current financial position.' The RFP asked the consultant to "1 analyze the current financial position of the school district and to also examine the adequacy of the districts current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives, expand and support instructional technology, provide for maintenance and repair of current facilities, and initiate new construction for the future. The LRSDs financial position is, at a minimum, severely strained. Several major activities compound the financial clarity and stability for both the short-term and longterm. The timely implementation of the 1998-2003 Strategic Plan by the school district is an important step towards establishing a foundation for the long-term financial stability. MGTs recommendations create an emphasis on processes and end results, and promote sound financial management by strengthening or creating policies, practices, procedures, and partnerships. Revenues and expenditures are constantly subjected to changes beyond local direct control. The state funding formula is revised as tax rolls change, the number of students in average daily membership fluctuates, and other factors are modified making the amount of state funding a moving target. In an attempt to achieve some level of fiscal structural balance, constant re-eValuation and monitoring, as well as high-level support, are needed on a continuous basis. These unstable and unpredictable conditions, supported by the impact of the desegregation funding issues, are compelling reasons for immediate action. The 1998-99 fiscal status of the district is of concern based on the extensive use of budget deferrals and the composition of these deferrals. The first quarter ADM projections for the current school year and additional state dollars added to the base MGT of America, Inc. Page v1 i Executive Summary J should allow the LRSD to adequately achieve its balanced budget objective for the year. Nonetheless, it is important that the tax revenue projections and step increase expenditure projections be reconfirmed to avoid any end of the year negative deficit. The LRSD is in a position to create its own fiscal destiny if it is prepared to seriously consider and effectively implement MGT recommendations. At the time of the release of this report, the LRSD found it had been successful in the state STRS lawsuit
however, the district had still not heard on the state loan forgiveness pursuit. With the addition of these revenues, the financial stability of the district is reasonably sound provided MGTs recommendations are implemented within the timelines outlined. Nonetheless, it is important that the district renegotiate a more fiscally sound commitment with the teachers union for expected settlement revenues. AREA III: FUNDING FOR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR Develop a long-range facility plan and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct facility deficiencies. In addition, increase the budget for maintenance operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. Through an overall review of the Facilities Planning and Maintenance Departments in the Little Rock School District, several issues were identified. The current condition of school facilities is a major concern of school staff, parents, and the community. A sample review of school facilities identified significant moisture problems, a lack of preventive maintenance, numerous mechanical system breakdowns, roof leaks at a number of facilities, and a lack of an adequate infrastnjcture to support educational technology. A preventive maintenance program has been initiated, but is not adequately funded in the district. The Little Rock School District is currently spending less than the regional averages on maintenance and operations even though the amount of square footage per custodian is relatively low. The recent decision to move ninth grade students from middle schools to high schools will require facility improvements that have not yet been fully identified. The change to a middle school program will cause overcrowding in some LRSD high schools. With the proposed change, the utilization rate at LRSD high schools will likely require school administrators to utilize teaching spaces during teachers preparation hours and the elimination of courses with low enrollments. A thorough examination is needed of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure to middle schools, and recommendations for change should be included in the long-range facility plan. MGT of America, Inc. Page vlExecutive Summary 1 The facilities study conducted by 3D\lntemational in 1995 (which recommended the closure of seven schools) was based on an assumption that student enrollment would continue to decline
this has not occurred. Nonetheless, the 1995 facilities study has not been updated. A review of selected schools is necessary in order to determine whether to upgrade and/or replace portions of the facilities, in some schools we observed, it may likely be more cost-efficient to replace rather than renovate. The review will need to be based on the condition of the facility as reported in the 1995 study, any changes that have occurred, and each schools ability to support its current or proposed educational programs. Detailed cost estimates will need to be included. k These data, along with the capacity needs as discussed above, will form the basis for the first phase of the long-range facilities plan and should lead to a millage referendum no later than Fall 2000. In addition, the long-range plan should identify the remaining facilities needs (and corresponding updated cost estimates) for a future Phase Two millage no later than Fall 2002. As the district focuses on these bond issues, it must recognize that community involvement in planning for facility needs in the Little Rock School District is minimal. A plan to promote public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical, and provides another opportunity for public involvement in the Little Rock public schools. { AREA IV: FUNDING FOR NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES I Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 and organize the budget to reflect the financial commitment to the district's new and ongoing instructional initiatives. All initiatives which are brought to, and approved by, the LRSD Board of Directors have attached budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. In January 1998, the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan for the Little Rock School District (LRSD) mandated that certain instructional initiatives take place to: J .....comply with the Constitution, to remedy the effects of past discrimination by LRSD against African-American students, to ensure that no person is discriminated against on the basis of race, color, or ethnicity in the operation of LRSD and to provide an equal educational opportunity for all students attending LRSD schools. 5 At the time of MGTs December on-site visit, the Little Rock School District had a draft strategic plan in place A Vision for the Future, Strategic Plan, 1998-2003. When adopted, this plan will replace the 1996-2001 Strategic Plan. The draft plan clearly calls for a systemic approach to all instructional, school governance, and district financial and organizational management initiatives. MGT of America, Inc. Page vllExecutive Summary I The first strategy area listed in the plan calls for a redesign of the educational system, its organizational structure and decision-making processes, to best achieve the mission and objectives of the Strategic Plan, as well as the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. 9 I The Division of Instruction has developed a 1998-99 Work Plan which combines the required programs and initiatives from the Revised Desegregation Plan with the systemic efforts called for in the LRSD Strategic Plan. There are approximately three dozen specific projects assigned to approximately 30 professionals and support staff members assigned to the Division of Instruction and individuals from outside the division. In addition to these professionals and support staff members, the Arkansas Department of Education is identified as sharing some responsibility for approximately seven of the task areas. The project list combines new and ongoing initiatives. The central question in the current study is about the adequacy of the district's current and projected budget to fund new instructional initiatives under the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. In order to answer this question, specific initiatives cited in the Strategic Plan and the Work Plan were analyzed and are extensively described in our report. These initiatives include: 1 Honors and Enrichment Math Achievement Computer Literacy Early Childhood Initiatives Reading/Language Arts English as a Second Language Alternative Education ] There is an enormous and well-coordinated effort being extended within the Division of Instmction to implement the instructional requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. The requirements of the Plan have been woven into the district's long-range Strategic Plan and into the LRSDs short-term Action Plans. Optimism and commitment characterized each interview held within the Division of Instruction. There is optimism that planning is going on, and the Board and Cabinet-level support for that planning support is focused in the same and the right direction. There is genuine commitment to each students success, and a high confidence in the leadership of both the Superintendent and the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. i In order to fully answer the question about adequate funding, it is necessary to understand very specifically, how many of the existing dollars in the LRSD budget will be dedicated to the new initiatives underway. Since the LRSD had not revised its budget since the development of the January 1998 Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, this was extremely difficult to determine. I The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book, in Section X, "Desegregation," The document should identify the revenues and financial sources for all LRSD work plan items, including, but not limited to, the requirements of the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, since these items have been embedded into the Strategies, Action Plans, and Work Plans. Each department should realign its resources around central categories of projects defined by the Cabinet. The fulfillment of this recommendation will MGT of America, Inc. Page vlllExecutive Summary 1 allow for stronger financial planning to support each initiative. When the new work plans are developed, there must be budget information provided to indicate the financial support and source for the initiative. In the future, the Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any request for an ongoing or new initiative. Budget information should be routinely included as part of any request to the LRSD Board of Directors. k. AREA V: FUNDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY 1 Create a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this group with the responsibility of monitoring and providing guidance for all technology operations in the Little Rock School District. A procedure for allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools should be implemented and a minimum level of technology established that each LRSD school must possess. I 1 1 1 In Spring 1997, the Superintendent formed a Technology Work Team and charged this group with the responsibility of developing a plan for technology use in the Little Rock School District. This team represented a cross-section of LRSD stakeholders, including a member of the Board of Directors
school personnel
district technology, procurement, research and evaluation staff
a corporate representative
a representative from higher education
and a representative from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. The team did extensive research on planning for technology, including gathering technology plans from other districts, consulting with colleagues around the country about planning for technology, and searching the Internet for information on planning. The Technology Work Teams effort was completed in August 1997 when the Technology Plan was finalized. Since the Technology Work Team no longer exists, there is no group of stakeholders to provide guidance and advice on the districts various technology initiatives. i 1 The LRSD has had great difficulty filling the vacant technology positions. Although the Director of Information Services had made several attempts to hire a new programmer, he has had no success. On three different occasions, the director has advertised the position in major newspapers
however, not one application has been generated by these advertisements. While there have been several local applicants, no one has been qualified. This experience, in addition to the fact that LRSD has lost a few technical specialists to local corporations, suggests that the salaries being offered for these technical positions are not competitive. In almost any school district, schools possess varying amounts of technology resources. Often this disparity in resources amounts to an equity problem. Given the large number of schools in LRSD, it is not surprising that a number of schools lag well behind the technology leaders. In fact, interviews with both district and school personnel confirmed MGT of America, Inc. Page lxExecutive Summary that several schools are behind their peers in terms of technology implementation and use. 1 The Revised Desegregation and Education Plan specifically addresses technological equity. Among the district's obligations cited in Section 2: Obligations, is Subsection 2.9 that reads as follows: LRSD shall Implement programs, policies and/or procedures designed to ensure equitable allocation and/or reallocation of financial, technological, and educational resources to LRSD schools. One strategy employed by some school districts to address this problem is to establish a baseline or minimum level of technology that every school should acquire. Although the Technology Plan describes a standard for a set of model technology schools, it does not specify a minimum level of technology that should be available in every school. However, establishing a minimum level of technology in schools alone will not achieve the equity that is called for in the Desegregation Plan. The district must proactively pursue this goal by placing technology as a high priority, particularly in terms of funding. A recommended strategy is to allocate funds directly to those schools who are at the T lower end of the technology scale, incorporating the following: i This strategy should be accomplished by establish a baseline standard for technology that every school should implement: 1 annually evaluate the schools to determine the extent to which they exceed, meet, or fall below the baseline standard
and provide funding to those who fall below the baseline standard by the greatest margin (e.g., the LRSD might choose to provide $30,000 directly to each of the five schools with the lowest rating, in comparison to the baseline). Establishing a baseline for technology is an excellent strategy for providing schools with an indication of the minimum level of technology needed to have a significant impact on learning. This baseline helps to assure equity in two ways: it sets levels of technology implementation for every school, thereby, ensuring that every student will attend a school that provides him/her with access to technology: and I it equalizes the budget process by giving a clear vision of the funding needed to reach the baseline for each school. One caution regarding establishing the baseline is that schools may conclude that, once they have achieved the baseline level, they will be satisfied and curtail efforts for further expansion. In fact, the baseline should be viewed as an acceptable level, but not the ideal level. Schools should be encouraged to go beyond the baseline. MGT of America, Inc. Page XExecutive Summary J 1 t The LRSD does not have an effective and efficient approach for replacing computer equipment. An equipment replacement policy is a critical component of a carefully planned and implemented technology program. Such a policy provides guidance to district and school personnel regarding when to replace existing hardware, how to conduct the acquisition process, and what should be done with the equipment being replaced. In January 1999, MGT submitted a letter with Year 2000 (Y2K) compliance recommendations to Superintendent Carnine. Because of the urgent nature of the Year 2000 compliance recommendations, MGT determined that it was necessary to forward these recommendation prior to submission of the final report. This letter is included in our report. Marketing of the Little Rock School District There is one area, which we were not directly required to address, but which the Alliance appropriately recommended in 1996 in A Plan for Success, and which the Little Rock business community has endorsed. This critical issue involves the aggressive marketing of the Little Rock School District. The marketing of a school district is a rather recent phenomenon in public education in America. School systems that have embraced the concept, through strong public relations departments, media support, and partnerships with the community, have augmented student enrollment. And, as the Alliance appropriately recognizes, increased student enrollment is directly linked to increased financial resources for the school district. 1 J Subsequent to the 1996 release of A Plan for Success, in May 1998 a proposed Communications and Marketing Plan for Little Rock School District was developed by a Little Rock public relations firm, Pittman/Portis Communications. j The proposed Communications and Marketing Plan has nine major objectives which, if accomplished, will provide the vehicle to implement the Alliances recommendation to market the Little Rock School District. J Included among the major initiatives are conducting ongoing market research to receive feedback from students and families, using the research results to improve the district, creating a new image for the LRSD that focuses on its strengths and offers those strengths to its students, establishing a more aggressive approach to marketing the district to prospective families, and actively scheduling the LRSD leadership to meet regularly with different segments of the Little Rock community in order to effectively communicate the activities of the Little Rock School District. I Unfortunately, at the time of MGTs study, over six months after the proposed Communications and Marketing Plan was developed, the Plans objectives had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD Board of Directors and the Superintendent. We strongly encourage the leadership of the Little Rock School District to embrace this plan and aggressively market the Little Rock School District. In so doing, the district will support the efforts of the Little Rock Alliance For Our Public Schools and the recommendations which follow in this management study. MGT of America, Inc. Page xl1 Executive Summary 1 The Importance of Implementation I The full report contains findings and recommendations resulting from an in-depth study of various district areas and practices as stated in the Request for Proposals. The implementation of report recommendations may require the Little Rock School District to carefully reconsider some long-held practices. MGT recommends that the Little Rock School District, in the same positive cooperative spirit that was the catalyst for the study, develop a plan to proceed with the implementation of the recommendations and establish a system to monitor subsequent progress. Implementation and ensuing results simply will not occur without the commitment of the LRSD Board of Directors, district administrators, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, teachers, administrators, and the community. Should the district choose not to implement an MGT recommendation, it is critical that the district seek an alternative solution to address the problem or inefficiency. This action will provide the public with the confidence that Little Rock School District intends to be accountable for a quality education for each student enrolled in the district. j As reflected in the executive summary and contained in the full report, significant opportunities are presented to improve management, instructional delivery, communication with internal and external stakeholders, financial stability, and ultimately to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Little Rock School District and its ability to educate all district students. MGT of America, Inc. Page xllExecutive Summary EXHIBIT 1 TIMELINE FOR MANAGEMENT STUDY OF THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ACTIVITY October 15, 1998 Met with school system and Alliance officials to revise work plan and timelines. November 1998 Collected and analyzed existing and comparative data available from the school system and state agencies. Produced profile tables. Designed tailor-made, written surveys for administrators, principals, and teachers. Conducted central office administrators, teachers, and principals surveys. Analyzed survey data and information collected. I J November 2-6, 1998 Visited the Little Rock School District to: 1 I 1 4 i I < J December 7-11,1998 December 1998 January 1999 February 12,1999 March 1.1999 March 1-24,1999 J March 25, 1999 MGT of America, Inc. conduct diagnostic review collect existing data from system interview Board members interview administrative and support staff conduct public hearing Conducted formal on-site review. Requested additional data from the school district. Prepared the draft report. Submitted preliminary findings and recommendations. Submitted draft work paper findings for technical review. Reviewed draft report, made revisions, and prepared final report. Issued final report and presented to the LRSD Board of Directors. Page xlilDate: To: From: Re: March 30, 1999 All isociates Viewing the LRSD Management Audit Attached are various parts of the recently released LRSD management audit. I regret to report that the superintendent wasnt very keen on sharing this document with us for reasons he did not express. At our next full staff meeting. Ill share what few comments he did give me on the audit. A complete copy of this hefty tome is in our library for anyone who wants to read the whole thing. Each of you has a copy of the Executive Summary and some other sections of the report, which Ive distributed more or less according to your particular area of interest or expertise. Heres how were going to eat this elephant: Read what youve been given, noting findings, comments, and recommendations that you think are (1) significant for the entire staff to be aware of and (2) which we also may want to somehow factor into our LRSD report thats currently underway. (A review of the entire Executive Summary isnt your individual responsibility, just the areas in it that relate to your other report sections.) I cant be more definitive on what you may uncover thats significant and might therefore be a candidate for factoring into our report or at least further investigation, because I havent read any of the audit and have only the vaguest idea whats in there. Just use your best judgment. The report subsections are pretty broad and cover a number of topics that apply to different staff members expertise. This appears to be especially true in section 9 of the audit. Within the separate sections youve been given, if you find a subtopic you know can be better analyzed by another associate by virtue of his or her experience, expertise, or interest, feel free to make trade-offs. (For example: Margie, youre responsible for Section 9, but youll want to give parts to your colleagues, such as ESL to Horace, ECE to Melissa, etc. Skip, the finance section is very lengthy, so youre free to rope in extra help if you want it.) Im not as concerned with who does what as I am about getting this document digested, so please be generous in helping each other out. Just let Polly know about any trading so she can keep a current listing of whos doing what. Underlining, highlighting, and writing in the margins of these documents is fine, as these are your copies to mark up. After youve completed your review, write up a brief, informal, in-house summary of the key points you noted, by section or subsection as appropriate. Include any observations you have about the relevance the section or subsection may have to our report and any recommendations you have about some sort of subsequent action we might need to take, such as additional research for our report or adding a topic to the report. Polly will compile the summaries, observations, and recommendations into one document to share with all of us. The deadline for getting your stuff to Polly is no later than Friday, April 9. Assignments are as follows: Section 1: Section 2: Section 3
Section 4
Section 5: Margie Melissa Gene Horace Gene Section 6: Section 7: Section 8: Section 9: Appendix: Skip Melissa Skip Margie Horace (a cursory review will suffice)04/06/1999 09:55 501-324-2023 LRSD COMMUNICATIONS PAGE 01/01 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: Fax: (501)324-2020 (501)324-2032 DATE: April 6,1999 TO: Central Arkansas Media Cynthia Howell, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette FROM: Suellen Vann, Director of Communications SUBJECT: Board Work Session/Spedal Board Meeting MESSAGE: The Little Rock School District (LRSD) Board of Directors will have a work session and a special board meeting this afternoon in conjunction with its regular agenda meeting (the agenda meeting this month was moved from Thursday until this evening. The work session will include discussions of facility needs, the MGT study. Board goals, the district mid-term report, and establishment of an educational foundation. The special board meeting will be an executive session on a personnel matter. The meetings will begin at 5
00 p.m. in the Board Room of the LRSD Administration Building, 810 West Markham. # Pages (including cover) 1 To Fax # An Individual Approach to a World of Knowledge i REVIEW OF THE LRSD MANAGEMENT AUDIT SECTION 1 - Introductlow Margie After reading the sections assigned to me, except for some budget data, I found no new information concerning my assigned sections. I have completed my editing of the Associates LRSD revised plan report, and find that the audit report reflects much of what has already been written by the Associates. This section contains the time line for the management study which was completed on schedule (March 25, 1999). MGT lists the sources used to make the report, such as: Board policies and minutes, compliance reports, ODM reports, school improvement plans, and the like. Two reports made by outside agencies: A Plan for Success, by the Little Rock Alliance For Our Schools, and Plain Talk, released by UALR, were also used as resources. According to the authors of this study, MGT interviewed over 100 campus-level employees, as well as members of the business community, and members of the central office staff. The report does not indicate how the interviewees were chosen or how many were interviewed on each level, such as elementary-level vs. secondary-level employees. The report reflects high praise for the spirit of cooperation between the LR business community and the school district. Additionally, the report cites several initiatives recommended in the LR Alliance report were already underway. The district had a new Board, a new superintendent, and a fairly good relationship between the superintendent and board members. The report indicates that one initiative recommended in A Plan For Success, the marketing of the LRSD, had not been adopted nor funded by the LRSD. The MGT report strongly recommends that the district embrace the marketing plan and aggressively market the LRSD. SECTION 2 - Background on the LRSD Melissa This section consists of the following subsections: 2.1 Historical Background and future of Desegregation
2.2 Current Environment of the LRSD
2.3 Current Central Office Structure. A brief summary of each section follows. 2.1 Historical Background and the Future of Desegregation This section begins with reference to the history of desegregation in the LRSD and speaks to the district having struggled vrith lawsuit after lawsuit. It mentions that an end may be at hand to the friction bom of integration... The MGT study seems to praise the lack of over-prescription found in the revised plan. Page 1This section contains an erroneous conclusion: This recognition should eventually lead to an end to all desegregation busing and allow students to attend the school of their choice , either a neighborhood school or one of the several different incentive, interdistrict, or magnet schools. The new assignment plan should end involuntary busing, but it will not enable students to attend the school of their choice. Choices are more limited under the new plan than the old. A large portion of the section consists of excerpts from the Revised Desegregation and Education plan. The section concludes with a brief description of ODM and the Joshua Intervenors. 2.2 Current Environment of the LRSD This section contains historic, demographic, and financial data regarding the LRSD. Much of their data is taken from the UALR Plain Talk. I found nothing especially new or noteworthy in this section. Page 2-12 contains some outdated or incorrect data where it mentions that some schools will become ninth grade only for a time. Page 2-14 also contains some confusing language regarding the Pay and Classification Study currently being conducted by the district. This section talks about creating a policy for over maximum and under maximum employees. I do not know what this means, nor does it make sense. 2.3 Current Central Office Structure This lengthy section is a collection of organizational charts for the central office and departments within the LRSD administration. Each group of charts is accompanied by a brief narrative that defines the responsibilities of the department and its director. Once again, I found some errors or omissions. The ombudsman position does not appear on the carts, but the narrative makes reference to the task of filling the position in the future. It appears that all information gathering by MGT stopped some time in late November or early December, and they made no real effort to update their findings to include changes made after that time. The section on the Reading/Language Arts Department includes one error and one mystery. The error involves the selection of textbooks. The report states that the director is responsible for selecting mathematics and science textbooks rather than reading and language arts (pg. 2-41). The mystery deals with the staff assigned to the reading department. The MGT chart on page 2-42 lists a reading troubleshooter position, which they say is shared with UALR. No such position exits. What the district docs have is an ESL specialist from UALR who conducts inservice training for the ESL tutors and visits the schools to assist teachers in tailoring instruction to meet the special needs of LEP students. In addition to the large collection of organizational charts, this subsection concludes with a chart that illustrates a total of the central office staff by division. The divisional chart does not include principals, school-based staff, food service workers, or the IRC building staff such as aides, security officer, and custodians. That chart is reproduced below. Page 2LRSD Central Office Staff Count by Division Position/Division Superintendent Special Assistant Special Assistant, Labor Relations Communications Technoloqy Administrative Services Division School Services Division Instructional Division Operations Division TOTAL Professional and Technical 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 20.0 26.0 7.0 92.0 61.0 212.0 Clerical and Labor 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 12.5 7.0 29.0 60.0 115.0 SECTION 3 - Comparisons to Other School Districts Gene Section 3 is a comparison of the LRSD with Caddo Parish School District (Shreveport, La.) Richmond City School District (Richmond, Va.) and the Savannah-Chatham County School District (Savannah, Ga.). School districts in Jackson, Mississippi and Columbia, South Carolina declined to be compared. MGT made no recommendations in this section. Salient Points of the Comparison with other Districts District enrollments vary from 24,000 (LRSD) to 48,000 (Caddo Parish) and average 34,000. African-American student percentages range from a low of 48% (Savannah) to a high of 77% (Richmond) and average 61%. The black percentage enrollment of each district is substantially higher than the black percentage population of the community served by each district. The LRSD has a lower percentage of students in poverty (21%) than any of the comparison districts and 8 percentage points lower than the average of 29%. LRSD has a lower student to building-level-administrator ratio than the comparison districts and lower than the national average ratio. The student to classroom teacher ratio ranked in the middle of the comparison districts but two students per teacher below the national average. Salaries of most employee classifications were lower in LRSD than in the comparison districts. LRSD has 12 positions with superintendent in the title, plus the superintendent. Caddo has three, Richmond has four, and Savannah has eight. With revenue of $5,417 per student, LRSD is in the middle of the comparison districts in revenue per student with Caddo being lowest at $4,021 and Richmond highest at $6,569. Expenditures per student reflected a comparison similar to the revenue comparison. Page 3SECTION 4- Survey Results Horace Background and Organization During October of 1998, MGT of America administered written surveys to LRSD central office administrators, building administrators and teachers. MGT surveyed all of the central administrators and principals, but only a random sample of teachers. The survey results are initially organized according to the three job categories surveyed. The consultants then compared the three group results and finally compared the LRSD results in each job category to a composite of 26 districts in which they have conducted surveys over the last six years. Summary of Key Points 4.1 Central Administration
25 of 29 surveys returned (86% rate) 100% of the administrators rated the superintendents work as an educational leader as good or excellent. While 84% of the administrators felt that principals cared about students needs, only 56% of them rated the principals work as educational leaders as good or excellent. Administrators had a low opinion of parental efforts related to helping their children do better in school
with 68% rating parental efforts as fair or poor. Most administrators (83%) felt that teacher and staff promotions and pay increases are not based on individual performance. The top five programs most administrators indicated needed major improvement were Instructional Technology, Plant Maintenance, Administrative Technology, Custodial Services, and Personnel Recruitment. Food Services, Law Enforcement, Purchasing, Strategic Planning, Financial Management, and Community Relations all received combined adequate or outstanding ratings from more than 75% of the administrators. 4.2 Principals: 101 surveys disseminated and 67 returned (66% return rate) Principals were concerned with facilities. Forty-six percent of principals indicated that they did not believe that there is sufficient space and facilities to support instructional programs. In reference to the superintendent, 82% rated him as good or excellent as an educational leader. Most principals (91%) felt that teacher promotions and pay increases are not based on individual performance. The top five programs most principals indicated needed major improvement were Plant Maintenance, Instructional Technology, Pupil Transportation, Custodial Services, and Facilities Planning. The principals rated Law Enforcement, Food Service, Strategic Planning, and Staff Development as adequate to outstanding. 4.3 Teachers: 488 surveys distributed and 212 returned (43% return rate) While 49% ofthe teachers rated the superintendents work as an educational leader as good or excellent, 44% rated is work in this area as fair or poor. Page 4Only 42% of the teachers felt that their schools were safe and secure from crime and 33% dont think that their schools are safe. Only 24% of teachers rated parents participation in school activities as good or excellent. Only 36% of teachers believe that workloads are equitably distributed among teachers and staff. Like the central administrators and principals, 84% of the teachers indicated that teachers are not promoted or paid more based on individual performance and 65% indicated that the same was true for staff. The top five programs that teachers indicated were in need of improvement were Budgeting, Plant Maintenance, Instructional Technology, Curriculum Planning, and Custodial Services. The program with the highest combined adequate to outstanding rating was Staff Development. 4.4 Administration, Principal, and Teacher Survey Results Compared Teachers were the least optimistic about conditions in LRSD and central office administrators were the most optimistic. Generally, central office administrators and principals held similar attitudes while teacher attitudes were less optimistic. Teachers were less supportive and evenly divided in their assessments of the superintendents performance. By a 3
1 ratio, all three groups indicated that schools are not kept in good condition. None of the groups had positive views of parent involvement in school activities and organization. All survey groups were dissatisfied with the manner in which teacher and staff promotion and pay increases are allotted. Teachers are not overly impressed with any of the districts programs or functions
with only staff development receiving a combined outstanding or excellent rating of over 50%. However, 64% of central office administrators indicated that staff development needed major improvement. 4.5 Comparison of LRSD to Other School Districts The LRSD central administrations attitudes were generally less optimistic than that of their counterparts in other MGT districts. However, their opinions about the board and superintendent were significantly higher than the composite of other districts. The central administration viewed the performance of their principals and teachers less positively than administrators in other districts. Overall, the LRSD responses are comparable to those of their counterpart districts. Observations The MGT survey results are not particularly enlightening. I dont feel that the district will discover anything that was not already known. As with the districts ovm climate surveys, the point is not how much information is collected, it is how that information is used to bring about changes. Page 5The return rate for the principals was pathetic. Only 66% of them returned the surveys. I just assumed that participation was mandatory since the district had commissioned the study. Another observation I have is that only 25% of the teachers who returned surveys were African-American in a district that has a considerably higher percentage of African-American teachers. While the survey did not reveal anything striking or new, I do feel that one of the most significant results had to do with promotion and pay. High percentages of all three surveyed groups felt that promotion and pay were not tied to performance. I would think that this finding might have some bearing on how the district develops more equitable promotion policies and practices. SECTION 5 - Effectiveness of the Management Structure and Organization Gene Section 5 is an analysis of the effectiveness of the management structure of LRSD including the superintendents office and the four divisions of district-wide services. Salient Points of Management Structure Section Reduce the number of divisions from 4 to 3 by eliminating the division of administrative sei-vices and assigning the functions to others. MGT may have made this recommendation without knowing the historical significance of the administrative services division regarding the desegregation case. Because MGT gives short shrift to the desegregation case in general, their recommendation here may be another signal of their general disdain for the relationship of LRSD to the continuing desegregation case. Either way, ODM should support continuation of the administrative services division as a primary proponent of desegregation of LRSD. Create a position of chieffinancial officer so that the functions offinancial services report to the superintendent. ODM doesnt have a dog in this hunt but 1 suspect this recommendation is a standard one for MGT. Given the personnel presently in place in LRSD, I prefer the existing structure where the chief financial officer reports to an associate superintendent. Move the internal auditor to report directly to the board. ODM should support this recommendation and promote increased vigilance on the part of the auditor. Realign the instructional division into four major sections: NSF, early childhood/elementary, middle school, and high school. Move staff development into human resources. This recommendation is apparently based on MGTs druthers. I am not aware of research or experience that recommends this alignment of duties for a curriculum department. Neither do know of any reason for ODM to oppose it. Page 6 Create another assistant superintendents position in the school semces division to relieve the associate superintendent of the seventeen schools the position now supervises directly. The existing structure in school services is awkward and unwieldy, so ODM should support this recommendation or one similar to it. MGT recommends in another section that the instructional division be subgrouped around elementary, middle, and high school curriculum. It may be that school services should be divided similarly. MGT makes a host of other recommendations related to administrative structure that range from movement of functions to downgrading positions. My thought is that many of these arrangements are based personal preferences or personnel quirks or strengths. MGT may have gone too far. SECTION 6 - Assessment of Financial Condition Skip In my opinion this section of the report has so many flaws and errors, any suggestions that the authors made that might have value will be lost due to the total lack of credibility. I dont intend to list all of the specifics but just enough to illustrate my concerns. Recommendation 6-1 Transfer the responsibility for fringe benefits and leave reporting from Financial Services Department to the Human Resources Department, (page 6-4j The report goes on to suggest the existing 1.5 FTE positions assigned to handling these tasks be transferred from Financial Services to Human Resources. Comment: The authors have apparently mixed the tasks of developing employee benefits with the tasks of paying for them. Recommendation 6-1 Recommends transferring the responsibility from Workers Compensation from Financial Services to the Director of Safety and Security who is responsible for Risk Management, (page 6-4) Also relating to Workers Compensation, on page 6-84 the LRSD is commended for its reduced level of workers compensation costs at a time such costs are rising in many organizations. Comment
Several years ago, the districts went to a state-wide averaging and the cost for each district is determined by the state-wide average. So if one district were to reduce their claims and another were to have a great increase in claims, each would only pay the state-wide average. Recommendation 6-8 Utilize the Association of School Business Officials Meritorious Budget Award as a goal to become the basis for achieving excellence in budget format, presentation, and improved fiscal accountability and budgetary communication with the community, (page 6-21) Page 7Comment: Previous consultants recommended another budget award program. This whole section appears to be straight boilerplate and I feel this approach is directed toward creating a pretty budget for award purposes rather than a functional and practical budget. The authors do state that: The time required to pursue this endeavor is considerable for the Financial Services staff. I just dont feel any efforts devoted to this recommendation has short or long term value. Recommendation 6-9 This recommendation is directed the magnet school budget and it appears the authors dont understand the relationship that the two other districts and ADE have with the overall magnet school budget and funding, (page 6-23) The authors devoted a sub section number 6.3 to the Assessment of Revenues and Tax Data. Comments: This section is filled with charts, tables, and graphs trying to explain the sources of revenue for LRSD. It is apparent to me through these pictures and narratives of explanation, the authors just dont have any idea of the complexity of school funding. The authors state the percentage of tax collected in an exhibit conflicts with the districts methodology. The authors state that this exhibit shows a five-year average of 95.3 percent in tax collections while the district indicates a collection rate of 92 percent. They seem confused by this difference. The answer lies in the fact that the amount of tax collected by the county on behalf of the LRSD is reduced by a known percentage the county charges as a collection fee. The amount LRSD receives is the amount of the total collected less the county collection fee and that is the amount shown as revenue by the LRSD. In Section 6.4 entitled Assessment of Operating Costs, the report refers to national profiles to compare LRSD with other districts. This section compares the current budgets for transportation, maintenance and operations, central and business services, classroom instruction, and other expenditures. The Cooper-Lybrand study several years ago and the methodology they use for evaluating expenditures appears to be the most realistic Ive studied. The Cooper-Lybrand method places past expenditures and budget items into a better defined and measurable set of groups such as school building administration versus central office administration, etc. The problem that 1 discovered after spending many hours and days developing an analysis of how LRSD expenditures within the Cooper-Lybrand system, only one other school district (Omaha, Nebraska) were using this system Although, more school districts were starting to use the system, no history was available to provide a comparison between districts of like-size. Based on my experiences, my feeling is that the comparisons made by MGT are not valid and should be taken with a grain of salt. Conclusions In my opinion, the MGT audit report on the Assessment of Financial Condition for LRSD is badly misleading and indicate to me the members of the audit team didnt spend enough time looking below the surface to investigate in-depth the information they gathered. Although there is, in my opinion, much that should have been said about the budgeting and control processes that now exist in LRSD, this report did not establish enough credibility to make any difference in the way LRSD does business. Page 8SECTION 7 - Facilities, Construction, Maintenance, and Repair Melissa This section consists of four subsections: 7.1 Introduction, which identifies some major issues: 7.2 Funding and New Construction: 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repair
7.4 Obstacles which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations. 7.1 Introduction After their review of the facihties services and maintenance departments of the LRSD, MGT identified the following six issues: The current condition of schools is a major concern for staff", parent, and the community. The movement of ninth graders to the high schools wUl require facUity improvement which have not yet been fully identified. Community involvement in planning for facihty needs is minimal. The district lacks a fully-funded preventive maintenance program The continued enrollment decline projected by 3D/Intemational has not come to pass. A plan for public approval of facilities improvement needs is critical. This section also includes the organizational chart for the faculties department and describes elements of the 1995 FacUities Study conducted by 3D/Intemational. 7.2 Funding for New Construction This subsection includes information on capacities and facility utilization. In a chart designed to show percentage of facihty utilization, MGT uses two types of capacity figures. The use the capacities taken from the 3D/Intemational study as well as some figures based on 100 square feet per elementary student. 125 feet per junior high student, and 150 feet per high school student. As far as I know, this is the first time this particular measure has been used. One of the conclusions that the report draws is that the secondary schools lack adequate support facilities (cafeteria, halls, restrooms, and the like). The report also indicates that the high schools wUl suffer significant overcrowding as a result of the ninth grade reorganization. This subsection includes the recommendations summarized below
Conduct a through study of overcrowding at the high school level and include recommendations for change in the long-range facilities plan. Include a review of the middle school design implications within the discussion of long-term facilities needs. Continue with the plan to build the two new elementary schools, but the district should not reuse Mitchell and Garland faculties. Update the 1995 faculties study for all operating schools that received very low scores regarding quality of their facilities. Complete a long-rang facility plan (after the facility update is finished) and millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than fall 2000. Create a Facilities Planning Department within the current Facilities Department. Page 9Each of the recommendations is followed by implementation strategies and timeline. While some of these recommendations are very commonsensical, others will be more problematic. Updating the facilities study and planning for facilities needs related to middle school conversion are essential. The recommendation not to re-use Garland or Mitchell is contrary to the plan and to promises already made to the community. Of course, it is possible the MGT only meant for the district not to re-use the building as elementary schools. Who knows? The subject of a millage campaign for facilities needs has obviously been under consideration for some time, but the district needs to do some serious analysis of whether such a campaign has any chance of success. I wonder about the creation of a Facilities Planning Department. The cost estimates that MGT included seem low and they show the same dollar cost for five years. I think it is highly unlikely that no cost increase would occur from year to year. If the district passed a millage and actually had the money to upgrade facilities, this department would probably help ensure well-executed projects. It is possible that some of the existing staff (such as the construction supervisors) could be used for one or more of these positions. 7.3 Funding for Maintenance and Repairs This section includes the organizational chart for the maintenance department
a comparison of maintenance expenditures with national and regional averages
and a comparison of custodial square footage to national and regional averages. LRSD custodians are responsible for fewer square feet than the regional or national average. Despite a larger than average custodial staff, the district spends less per square foot on maintenance than the national and regional average. MGT attributed this to a lower than average spending on suppUes and equipment. The study recommended: Increase the budget for maintenance and operations, and target additional funding for preventive maintenance. MGT gave a cost estimate of $150,000 per year to accomplish this recommendation. They recommended adding four preventive maintenance staff and gradually reducing the number of custodians to the regional average (a reduction of ten positions). 7.4 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations As the name of the subsection states, this final portion of the facilities chapter examines some of the opposition that could arise to impede implementation of the MGT recommendations. The most interesting part of the subsection is the step by step outline for gaining voter approval for school facility issues : Develop strong public relations program Pre-plan, study, and analyze Study district historical data Survey your community Develop election campaign strategy Conduct special voter registration Develop targeted election materials, tools, and techniques Page 10Identify the yes vote Plan election day strategy Debrief and evaluate I dont think that any of these recommendations are especially revolutionary or groundbreaking, but they should give the district a bit more focus as they pursue a millage, which they seem determined to do. SECTION 8 - Administrative and Instructional Technology Skip Most of this report repeated the information provided to them through the Technology Task Force report. It appears that much of the verbiage in this section was boiler-plate stating things like: all districts should etc... What the report did provide was Section 8.8 Obstacles to Implementation of Chapter Recommendations that did have value and should be considered very carefully prior to approaching the community for an increase in millage or bonds. The report states that the main obstacle to the successful implementation to the technology plan is money. This point is brought out in most of the nine recommendations in the report. Unfortunately they had no substantive suggestions to overcome this very major obstacle. SECTION 9 - New Instructional Initiatives Margie 9.1 Honors and Enrichment (Horace) Summary of Key Points In the LRSD, opportunities to do even basic coursework in the arts is very limited, outside of the magnet schools. The LRSD Strategic Plan, Revised Desegregation and Education Plan, and National Science Foundation Grant all place emphasis on removing racial barriers to participation in advanced courses. There is a K-12 Talent Development Committee in place and is chaired by the Associate Superintendent for Instruction. MGT identified direct relationships among the deseg plan, NSF, and the Strategic Plan. Starting in 1999-2000, the layer of honors/enriched courses between regular courses and students eligible for pre-AP and advanced placement coursework will no longer exist. The Board adopted new admission criteria for advanced work. Any student with a grade of at least C in a prior pre-AP or AP course can enroll in the next level without special permission. AVID is compatible with the LRSD vision and objectives and the outcomes mentioned in the desegregation plan. At the time of the study, the district had not allotted any money for AVID beyond the $7500 for planning in 1998-99. Page 11Observations MGT captured all aspects of the districts efforts to increase minority participation in advanced courses. The study findings mirror my findings for that segment of the ODM report. Although the MGT study did not raise it as serious concern, beyond the NSF grant, the district has very little funding to effectively accomplish its goals for minority participation. The study did not reflect whether the district had a contingency plan in lieu of an adequate level of support for a program such as AVID. 9.2 Improving Mathematics Achievement (Melissa) While this subsection presents the information regarding mathematics in a different format than that we used for our report. It does not include any new information. It features an elaborate chart showing the close relationship between the Revised Plan and the NSF Grant. We also pointed out this close correlation, as well as giving the history that makes the interrelatedness inevitable. 9.3 Early Childhood Initiatives: Four-Year-Oid, Headstart (sic), and HIPPY (Melissa) This section contains errors that seem emblematic of those made throughout the report. In reading the sections that I have been given, it seems that the people from MGT did a sloppy job. They seem to make many enors that result from accepting the first answer they stumbled upon. It seems only fitting that they would misspell Head Start, a well know federal program. This subsection of the report includes less than a page of narrative and two charts. The first exhibit shows the number of children served in the various programs. The second exhibit deals with funding for the programs. The second exhibit (9-13) indicates that the information it summarizes was furnished by the Division of Instruction. I spoke to Pat Price about the chart, and she said that she had not provided any financial information. Exhibit 9-13 indicates that both HIPPY and the four-year-old program receive substantial funds from desegregation funds. As you know the Settlement money ended with the 1996-97 school year. In that year, LRSD received its final payment of around $600,000. Contrary to these facts, MGT shows over 3 million of desegregation funds supporting early childhood programs. I called Pat Price and she had no idea what had prompted MGT to report desegregation funds. She also indicated that the amount of money they reported for the early childhood program was higher than any figures with which she was familiar. 9.4 Reading/Language Arts (Horace) Summary of Key Points MGT surfaced several on-going initiatives in the Reading/Language Arts area. Among the districts involvements were the states Smart Start Initiative, the development of criterion- referenced tests in reading, revision of the Reading/Language Arts curriculum, reorganization of Page 12 the Title I program and staff, and alignment of the early childhood program with the K-3 literacy program. Tangible evidence in the form of committee reports, plans, and curricular materials of a strong correlation between the districts Reading/Language Arts initiatives and the goals established by the desegregation plan. At the time of the MGT study, no specific funds had been earmarked for the initiatives. Observations The information provided by the MGT study reflects our findings regarding the districts Reading/Language Arts initiatives. The study did a good job of briefly outlining and complimenting the district on the tremendous amount of work that has been done in less than a year. However, the study did not examine whether the timelines the district had established for implementation of the initiatives was viable
particularly since they did point out that at the time of the study funding was still in question. 9.5 English as a Second Language (ESL) (Horace) Summary of Key Points The number of ESL students in the LRSD is 602
an increase of 59% since the 1993-94 school year. As of June 1998, students with limited English proficiency represented 49 different languages. Those involved with the Newcomer Center schools believe that there is no overall ESL program in the LRSD. Rather, there is a total immersion experience, where students are fully mainstreamed, with tutoring support twice a week. A clear need exists for additional support for the ESL students at Hall High School The study indicated that current and future funding for ESL to be inadequate to meet the needs of the students. Observations The MGT study did not surface information that the district didnt already have access to about its ESL population and its level of effectiveness in meeting their needs. The good news may be that the study in conjunction with the upcoming OCR investigation may finally wake the administration up the need to effectively serve ESL students. Some of the plans the district presently has to improve ESL services reflect some of the observations and recommendations made by the secondary schools work group I served on a couple of years ago. Much of the problem with the district doing an adequate job in meeting the needs of its limited-English speaking population has less to do with analysis and planning and more to do with will. Gene Parker is well aware of the student needs and has developed workable plans to begin to address them. However, up to this point the central administration has lacked the will and attentiveness to support and fund ESL programs. Also, the second tier of administrators who could help and support Gene in terms of policies and resources have been ignorant of the size and needs of the districts population of students for whom English is a second language. The district central administration has failed to comprehend the growth rate of this population and the districts legal obligations to them. Page 139.6 Alternative Education (Margie) This section simply describes the Accelerated Learning Center (ACC - yes, this is what its called), and the proposed Residential Alternative Elementary School, which I cover in my team report. The MGT report praises the LRSD for both initiatives as clear indications of the districts commitments to create a range of services and schooling options for students. The ACC was given a budget of $828,706. Funds were drawn from reserved funds, as this was not a budgeted item. The district has not identified any funds beyond 1998-99 to maintain or expand the ACC. The residential charter school received a $94,000 grant from the U. S. Dept. Of Education for each of two implementation years. The district estimates cost of $1.2 million annually to operate the school. Charter school costs 1999-2000 $1,200,000. $94,000 grant funds $1,106,000 estimated cost to the district first 2 years of implementation Since 1999-2000 budget had not been completed when this report was submitted, no funds had been assigned to this initiative. 9.7 Computer Literacy (Skip) The report focuses on the requirement of all 6" grade students to take basic keyboarding for one semester starting in 1999-2000. The authors state that there has not been any specific decision made about funding for the new initiative, yet they continue to state that funding for this initiative which begins in 1999-2000 is not adequate. The summary offers that during the time of the study, work had not begun on the actual planning for the 1999-2000 budget. The middle school proposed technology standards details expectations for three different strands of technology for the three middle school grades. It would appear that in order to implement the methods to achieve these standards in a timely fashion, more planning should have taken place than what the auditors were able to discover. 9.8 Summary, Commendation, and Recommendation (Margie) Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 which is organized to reflect the financial commitment to the districts new and ongoing instructional initiatives. Ensure that all initiative which are brought to and approved by the Board of Directors have detailed budge statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. The Superintendent and Cabinet need to update and supplement the summary document contained in the 1998-99 Budget Book. The Superintendent should require each department to prepare a detailed budget to accompany any requests for ongoing or new initiatives. This should be a routine procedure. Page 14If the school board enacts a requirement for all students taking honors and enrichment classes to take AP exams, then funding for this initiative should appear in the expenditure side of the budget, even though expenses may be offset by students scoring 3 or better. The LRSD should replace lost desegregation funds for the HIPPY Program. Both alternative learning centers need permanent funding. 9.9 Obstacles Which Impede Implementation of Chapter Recommendations (Margie) 1. The decision-making process and the authority of the Campus Leadership teams have not been carefully connected. 2. Funding for staff development in not centralized within the Instructional Division nor with the budget for the staff development department. Additionally, funding is not in the school budgets either, rather the funds are dispersed throughout various departments. 3. The PRE department needs a clear priority list of program initiatives to evaluate. 4. No clear relationship exists between the mandated time lines of the science curriculum, and reading and math criterion-referenced tests to the Revised Desegregation Plans requirement of thematic instruction for grades K-5, and the board-approved program component of thematic learning for grades 6-8. 5. At the K-4 level, classroom teachers have several obstacles: developing new skills in 4 content areas over the next 4 years
writing and re-writing lesson plans in all these areas
trying different teaching strategies, getting coaching help for each initiative
and, being successful with the students. 6. Each teacher in K-4 classrooms needs a very specific 4 to 5 year growth plan which will allow that teacher to be accountable for all he or she is responsible to do. 7. A great number of the initiative mentioned above depend on the districts guidance counselors. Counselors must have a long-range, ongoing plan of professional development and clear measurable expectations for their participation in each initiative. 8. Teachers are receiving mix messages when success is determined by a students achievement on a multiple choice test. 9. The contract between the LRSD and the LRCTA must evolve to reflect the language contained in the Revised Desegregation Plan. Page 15! j BESEGREGATIOHMONiroWHB RECm'ieO Jl 2 3 1939 UFHGE OF WORK PLAN FOR MGT RECOMMENDATIONS 1999-2000 INTRODUCTION 1999-2000 WORK PLAN FOR MGT RECOMMENDATIONS I. Management and Organization The first four recommendations essentially deal with administrative organizational structure of the school district. The superintendent recommends that we transition the structure of the organization based on the progress that the district makes in becoming Unitary. We have created in a very short time a series of strategies to ensure that the district will have obtained compliance with the Revised Desegregation and Education Plan. Based on that knowledge, and as you review a companion staffing recommendation, we will in a reasonable amount of time (1999-2002) succeed in obtaining similar efficiencies in both organization and cost abatement. And finally, we recommend that we advertise and hire a CFO, Internal Auditor and Coordinator for a Charter School. Note staffing recommendations. II. Assessment of Financial Condition Please note that we have already completed eight requirements of the fifty which MGT offered for the districts consideration. We have established a very aggressive timeline to adopt or adapt the other recommendations. We have, on several occasions, made the CFO and Internal Auditor central in the implementation of the recommendations. There are also several strategies which are dependent on the State of Arkansas changing the accounting system which is currently scheduled for the 2000-2001.Page 2 in. Facilities Construction, Maintenance and Repair As you review the eight MGT recommendations, please be reminded that the study concluded that the District should plan and proceed with a millage campaign. There are significant planning recommendations that we are capable of performing once the Board acts to confirm the 1999-2000 Critical Performance Priorities, including the call for a Millage and Bond Issue during the 1999-2000 school year. We would expect the Board to include as part of their decision making the plans which would satisfy the recommendations ofthe MGT Study. IV. Administrative and Instructional Technology The nine recommendations of the MGT study are exceptionally timely, as we see technology as an integral part of the instructional and operational future of the school district. Much of the discussion and debate will be completed through the work of an expanded technology advisory committee, whose recommendations will play an important part in the deliberations of the school board as they plan for the future of the school district. V. New Instructional Initiatives The one recommendation in this area will be part of the new state accounting system and the program budgeting system which we have previously discussed with the Board. We also expect by the time we will implement this recommendation an upgrade in compiler software will be operational. This will give campuses and divisional personnel enhanced capabilities for more efficient and effective decision making.1999-2000 WORK PLAN FOR MGT RECOMMENDATIONS EFFECTIVENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE AND ORGANIZATION Major Tasks/Activities\^xivyJ or' -h"* i. > Timelin^/, Completion Date if- Responsibility Evidence of Success 1. Reduce the number of divisions in the central office from four to three. Eliminate the Division of Administrative Services, including the Associate Superintendent for Administrative Services and the respective Administrative Assistant, and realign the central office administrative positions to create a more focused approach to managing educational and non- instructional support services. 2. Greate a second Assistant Superintendent for Elementary Schools and realign the Division of School Services to incorporate the departments transferred from the Division of Administrative Services. 3. Realign the organizational structure of the Division of Instruction to provide a comprehensive approach that focuses on curriculum and instruction. 4. Reorganize the Departments of Elementary, Middle and High School Gurriculum Programs. 5. Greate a position of Ghief Financial OfTicer to report directly to the Superintendent and move the Internal Auditor under the Board of Directors. 1999-2002 August 1999 2002 August 1999 Leslie V. Gamine Bonnie Lesley (Leslie V. Gamine) Bonnie Lesley (Leslie V. Gamine) Leslie V. Gamine A phased organizational plan will be presented that will restructure the administration of tlie district over a three-year period. Board confirmation Transition beginning by___organization chart change 2002 Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 2 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION /Activities Tjmelin^ * ) Completion* S, 'Date',
?' Responsibility Evidence of Success 7^ A 1. Transfer the responsibility for fringe benefits and leave reporting from the Financial Services Department to the Human Resources Department. July 1999 Richard Hurley (Mark Milhollen) Completed 2. Transfer responsibility for Workers Compensation from the Financial Services Department to the Director of Safety and Security who is responsible for risk management. July 1999 Bobby Jones (Mark Milhollen) Completed 3. Transfer the responsibility for submission of the Superintendents Quarterly Average Daily Membership Report to the Arkansas Department of Education from Financial Services to the Department of Planning, Research and Evaluation. 1999-2000 (Jan. 2000) Junious Babbs Mark Milhollen John Ruffins Kathy Lease Leslie V. Camine This area is currently under study and a recommendation will be made in January 2000 4. Transfer responsibility for fixed assets and accounts payable from the Procurement Department to the Financial Services Department. NO The system is currently operational and there does not appear to be any savings or efficiency accomplished by the recommended transfer. 5. Establish formal performance standards and key benchmark indicators for monitoring, and develop a procedures manual for the Financial Services Department. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen Jean Ring CFO lA Manual completion 6. Revise and strengthen existing Board policy and administrative procedures for budgeting, and incorporate in the overall fiscal management policy and procedures. 1999-2000 (October 99) Linda Young Austin Mark Milhollen CFO lA Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 3 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Ni 4? - Mai i Major Tasks/Activities Tiiuelin^ Completion, Date Responsibility, Evidence of Success at- 7. Review current budget practices, in concert with development of a fiscal management policy and procedures, to develop the necessary background data to make changes that improve operational efficiency and effectiveness to restore credibility and the confidence of the community. 1999-2000 CFO Leslie V. Camine Suellen Vann Report to community and Board 8. Utilize the Association of School Business Officials Meritorious Budget Award as a goal to become the basis for achieving excellence in budget format, presentation, and improved fiscal accountability and budgetary communication with the community. 2000-2001 ADE Mark Milhollen Jean Ring CFO lA Report to community and award granted. State will change accounting system in 2000-2001. 9. Revise method of displaying the Magnet School Budget within the approved budget document from an overall line item object only format to incorporate operational unit bre^downs by site, and an overall executive summary of highlights which should include the use of charts and graphs for better understanding of the budget by the community and the Board of Directors. May 1999 Mark Milhollen Jean Ring Completed 10. Coordinate districtwide budget and fiscal management staff development needs to include the Board of Directors, operational unit administrators, key accounting and bookkeeping staff, bargaining group representatives. Budget Committee members, when established, and other key stakeholders. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen CFO Plan developed and operational with named groups. Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 4 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) SSptjf, yw K. .a Major Tasks/Activities Timeline/* Completion" Responsibility Evidence of Success 11. Revise the budget projection criteria and standardize the use of five-year projections. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen CFO Board confirmation 12. Incorporate the use of a districtwide Budget Committee to assist in the development of the 1999-2000 budget. 1999-2000 CFO Committee convened 13. Revise the districts internal budget handbook for operational units to be more comprehensive and self- explanatory. 1999-2000 (January) ADE Mark Milhollen CFO lA Completed handbook 14. Implement a comprehensive district-level operational unit budgetary review by the Budget Committee in a series of workshops with the LRSD Board of Directors. 1999-2000 CFO Budget committee Plan approved by Board 15. Realign available dollars within existing revenue sources to match expenditure obligations. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen Leslie Carnine Board Board confirmation 16. Allocate the SIRS lawsuit settlement dollars to satisfy previously negotiated bargaining agreement commitments and place the balance of the funds into an unreserved fund balance to establish a first step towards a realistic fund balance. 1999 (May) Mark Milhollen Leslie V. Carnine Completed through 1997-98 budget year. 17. Reconsider estimated revenue from the local tax revenue projection. NO Changes in tax collection, etc., make the issue moot. Not consistent with state law. Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 5 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Major Tasks/Activities Jimeline/ Completion Date TT Responsibility Evidence of Success 18. Utilize any increase in revenue, due to the state base per student adjustment or district growth in ADM for the first quarter, to restore the enrollment adjustment defenal of $347,125 at school sites and place the balance into unreserved fund balance. 19. Form partnerships with each of the top ten taxpayers. 20. Reconcile tax collection calculation methodology and develop a strategy for communication with the public. 21. Research other state Medicaid programs and consider utilizing the services of a national consultant to evaluate the possibility of pursuing state law changes that would enhance the opportunity for the LRSD to receive more Medicaid revenue. 22. Update the current rental charges for facilities by adjusting for a CPI increase as reflected in Exhibit 6- 26. 23. Generate advertising revenue from educational-related advertising on the LRSD owned bus fleet and vehicles. February 1999 Mark Milhollen Completed Board confirmation 1999-2000 (January) 1999-2000 (February 00) 1998-99 1999-2000 1999-2000 Debbie Milam Suellen Vann CFO Leslie V. Camine Suellen Vann Mark Milhollen CFO lA Patty Kohler Mark Milhollen Vic Anderson Vic Anderson Suellen Vann CFO Recognition plan operational Communication strategy implemented Completed - contracted through ADE Board confirmation Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 6 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION .(continued) ' Major Tasks/Activities 'Jj Timeline/^ Coupletiqnt Date Responsibility ' . W
. ' Evidence of Success 24. Annually review the current practice of outsourcing the transportation function utilizing a cost benefit analysis approach in an effort to contain or reduce costs, and justify the continuation of this outsourcing practice. 25. Establish a national and local comparative benchmark series of school districts and organizations. 26. Establish a task force to review cost accounting software options for purchase and implementation within the next two years. 27. Initiate bargaining strategies to discontinue the practice of automatic step increases and remain in compliance with existing state salary schedule and funding formula requirements. 28. Initiate a thorough review and analysis of existing bargaining contract language and practices. 29. Update and recalculate the five-year revenue and expenditures projections provided to the Board of Directors. 30. Incorporate an analysis of selected expense objects as part of the formal budget document. 1999-2000 (October 99) Vic Anderson Darral Paradis Mike Martello Board confirmation 1999-2000 (November 99) 2000-2001 1998-99 1999-2000 (January 00) 1999-2000 (February 00) 2000-2001 Mark Milhollen CFO Jean Ring lA CFO Mark Milhollen Brady Gadberry Brady Gadberry Richard Hurley Mark Milhollen Jean Ring CFO lA Mark Milhollen CFO lA Presented to Board and community Report presented to Board Current Bargaining issue Plan developed to renew contract and presented to Board for their consideration. Board confirmation Board confirmation (Note ADE changes) Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 7 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Major Tasks/Activities j-StS'.SS 31. Establish a positive and negative threshold for expenditure control purposes. 32. Implement a light duty loss control program to continue to reduce workers compensation costs. 33. Explore the cost benefit possibility of handling legal services in-house with a staff attorney. 34. Analyze all professional technical expenditures (e.g., physical therapists, speech pathologists, training consultants) for potential savings through consolidation or elimination of limited use services. 35. Establish a method to account for al! staff development costs regardless of operational unit or object for the expense. 36. Implement specific and strict guidelines to all operational units for overtime accountability authorization and documentation in compliance with Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) requirements. .Timeline/ Completion 'Date 1999-2000 1999-2000 2001-2002 1999-2000 1999-2000 1999-2000 Responsibility Mark Milhollen CFO lA Bobby Jones Dick Hurley Leslie V. Gamine Board of Education CFO Patty Kohler Bonnie Lesley Mark Milhollen Dick Hurley Bonnie Lesley Marion Woods Kathy Lease lA CFO Vic Anderson Brady Gadberry Mark Milhollen Dick Hurley lA Evidence of Success iS Board confirmation Board confirmation Develop standards for word attendance and punctuality. Board review based on unitary status achievement Report presented to Board for consideration 1999-2000 budget 1999-2000 budget Revise regulations on overtime usage. Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 8 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Major Tasks/Activities a-' A Timeline/ Completion Date Responsibility Evidence of Success \ 37. Reduce stipends for car allowances by 35 percent and review all stipend practices for other potential cost savings. 1999-2000 Dick Hurley Brady Gadberry CFO 38. Revise the current formal budget format to include a separate section on incentive school budget analysis. 1999-2000 budget Mark Milhollen CFO lA Board confirmation 39. Incorporate language within the revised fiscal policy to establish a benchmark minimum of five percent of expenditures for an emergency unreserved fund balance. 1999-2000 (October 99) CFO Mark Milhollen Leslie V. Carnine Board confirmation 40. Establish an immediate minimum of one percent fund balance base from any new available revenue not currently budgeted in the approved 1998-99 budget. 1999-2000 Mark Milhollen 1999-2000 budget Board confirmation 41. Distribute combined personnel and payroll cutoff paperwork timelines as well as formal payroll dates throughout the LRSD. 1999-2000 Suellen Vann Mark Milhollen Publication of calendars completed. 42. Develop a priority list of technology enhancements for the areas of Financial Services, Human Resources, Risk Management, Procurement and other operational areas to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of existing manual or outdated computer applications. 1999-2000 Darrel Paradis Vic Anderson Mark Milhollen CFO Richard Hurley Bobby Jones John Ruffins Plan confirmed by Board Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 9 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) Jis' Major Tasks/Activities Timeline/ * Completion pate*- * Responsibility Evidence of Success 43. Develop an action plan for implementation of a voter- approved millage increase for both operational needs and capital outlay needs. 1999-2000 Leslie V. Camine Board of Education Millage election 44. Revise current policy and practice related to sick and annual leave to provide the leave at the end of each month and eliminate the practice of advancing excess sick leave. 45. Enter into an exclusive vending contract for all vending services in the LRSD. 46. Develop an investment policy. 47. Negotiate sweep bank account services with a local financial institution. 48. Implement the use of a PC-supported formal cash flow forecasting process. 49. Require inventory and property control accountability to become part of every operational unit managers performance evaluation. NO 1999-2000 1999-2000 (October 99) 1999-2000 1999-2000 1999-2000 Contrary to Attorney Generals Opinion CFO Vic Anderson Darral Paradis Mark Milhollen Mark Milhollen CFO Mark Milhollen CFO Mark Milhollen Associate Superintendents Report received by Board Board confirmation Board confirmation Board confirmation Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 10 ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (continued) J Major Tasks/Activities 50. Revise signature control requirements for the Cafeteria and Activity fund accounts. Timeline/ Completion Date 1999-2000 (October 99) Responsibility Mark Milhollen Evidence of Success Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 11 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR t Maj or. Tasks/Act ivities 1 Timeline/.^^ " f 7?^ Completion^ Date^ 3* Responsibility Evidence of Success 1. Conduct a thorough examination of the overcrowding that will occur at high schools due to the change in grade level structure and include recommendations for changes in the long-range facility plan. 1998-99 Vic Anderson Junious Babbs Completed Long range facilities plan to be part of bond issue. 2. Include a review of the middle school design implications within the discussion of long-term facility needs. 1999-2000 (November 99) Marian Lacey Sadie Mitchell Bonnie Lesley Junious Babbs Vic Anderson Linda Young Austin Board confirmation and bond election. 3. Continue with plans to construct two new elementary schools, one to replace Garland and Mitchell and the other in the West Little Rock area. 1998-99 Stephens 1999-01 West LR Vic Anderson Leslie V. Camine Stephens School has been bid and will be constructed. Plans for the new school will be included in the millage campaign.____________________ 4. Establish a policy on the use of temporary facilities that will provide the criteria for need and establish limits on the total amount of temporary space at a particular facility. 1999-2000 (November) Vic Anderson Junious Babbs Doug Eaton Board confirmation 5. Update the 1995 facilities evaluation study for all operating schools that fall in the lowest two categories. 1999-2000 (November) Vic Anderson Leslie V. Camine Doug Eaton Board confirmation 6. Complete a long-range facility plan (upon completion of the facility update study) and a millage campaign, and submit it to the voters no later than Fall 2000 to correct the deficiencies. 1999-2000 (February/ March 2000) Leslie V. Camine Board Board confirmaiton Bond election Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 12 FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR (continued) Major Tasks/Activities Timeline/ Completion 1 I Datef
^''^ <-j! t f . Responsibility j'' Evidence of Success 7. Create a facilities planning department within the current facilities department. 1999-2000 (January 00) Vic Anderson Doug Eaton Board confirmation 8. Increase the budget for maintenance and operations, and target the additional funding for preventive maintenance. 2000-2001 Vic Anderson Mark Milhollen CFO Leslie V. Carnine Millage campaign Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 13 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY Major Tasks/Activities 1. Establish a Technology Advisory Committee and empower this committee with monitoring and providing guidance on all technology operations in the LRSD. 2. Conduct a study of the salaries offered by LRSD for programmer positions to determine the degree to which they are competitive with the salaries offered by other employers in Little Rock and surrounding areas. 3. Establish a minimum level of technology that each LRSD school should possess. 4. Implement a procedure of allocating funds that will achieve technological equity among schools. 5. Develop an equipment replacement policy. 6. Provide annual funding for the replacement of equipment. 7. Review various strategies for delivering staff development and devise new creative approaches to address the significant need for enhanced training for teachers. Timeline/ Completion Date . 1999-2000 (October) 1999-2000 (December) 1999-2000 (January 00) 1999-2000 (February 00) Responsibility John Ruffins Lucy Neal Leslie V. Gamine Richard Hurley John Ruffins Technology Advisory Committee John Ruffins Lucy Neal J. Babbs CFO M. Milhollen Technology Advisory Committee Bonnie Lesley Kathy Lease Marion Woods John Ruffins Lucy Neal Evidence of Success Board confinnation Board confinnation Confinnation by Technology Advisory Committee and Board consistent with the equitable allocation of resources plan. Board confirmation Draft July 19991999-2000 Work Plan for MGT Recommendations Page 14 ADMINISTRATIVE AND INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY (continued) Major Tasks/Activities Timelin^ Completion Date Responsibility Evidence of Success 8. Place technology education specialists In every school in the district as specified in the districts Technology Plan. 1999-2000 (May) Technology Advisory Committee Plan for technology specialist assistance for every school and technical support. Board confinnation 9. Analyze, select, and implement some combination of strategies that, when fully operational, will provide an adequate level of technical support to LRSD schools and administrative offices. 1999-2000 (May) Technology Advisory Committee CFO Lucy Neal John Ruffins Board confirmation NEW INSTRUCTIONAL INITIATIVES 3' i Major-Taslcs/Activities uw ji It 1 . Timeline/, tpiripleilibn * Date Responsibility ' Evidence of Success' 1. Prepare a budget document for 1999-2000 which is organized to reflect the financial commitment to the districts new and ongoing instructional initiatives. Ensure that all initiatives that are brought to and approved by the Board of Directors have detailed budget statements, with projected district and external revenues specified. 2000-2001 CFO Bonnie Lesley Mark Milhollen Leon Adams Board approval of 2000-01 budget. Draft July 1999Arkansas Democrat "^(fjazeltc FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1998 Florida consultant to put LR schools to test In unanimous vote, School Board agrees to split $144,000 cost of study with businessmen BY CYNTl IIA I lOWISLL ARKANSAS OLMtX l<Al-( iAZI. I 11
The Little Rock School Board voted unanimously Thursday to join city business leaders in financing a $144,00(1 management and financial study of the school district as a way to strengthen public confidence in district operations. . The district will pay $72,000 to MGT of America Inc., an educational management consultant company based in Tallahassee, Fla. Fifty for the Future, a group of senior central Arkansas business leaders, is contributing the other $72,000 to the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools for the study. In June, alliance members suggested the management and financial audit to the School Board and pledged to raise half the cost if the board would agree to the proposal. The district and the alliance are partners in the resulting contract with MGT. This is an exciting project that will really chart the course for our district, Odies Wilson, alliance president, told the School Board, lie said the study will give educators, parents and community members a common starting point in their efforts to identify and meet student needs. MGT is to complete its study by mid-March, when it will present recommendations for improvement based on its local findings and its knowledge of operations in other school systems similar to Little Rock in size and resources. Linda Recio, an MGT senior partner, will coordinate the study. The company has already scheduled an open house from 4-8 p.m. Wednesday at Martin Luther King Magnet Flemcntaiy School, 907 Martin Luther King Blvd., to collect commendations, recommendations and concerns about the districts management structure. A suiwcy will be distributed to teachers and administrators to solicit the same type of information. Company officials also arc planning to meet with School Board members and others over the next few weeks. The company will examine whether the district's organizational design and individual administrators duties arc conducive to meeting district goals. It also will look at the number and types of positions in the district. in addition, it will review the districts finances and budget to sec if they support the instructional program, the recently revised desegregation plan, building maintenance, expanded technology and construction of new schools. Also Thursday, the School Board approved program standards for the middle schools for grades six through eight that will replace the city's eight junior highs beginning next August. The standards establish the academic subjects to be taught, including visual and performing arts, foreign languages, health and physical education. They call for organizing staffs al the schools into teams that will be assigned common groups of students. The school will also, feature flexible school-day schedules, integrated lessons, school-based decision- inaking and teachers trained specifically for middle- school work. School district administrators gave board members progress re- i ports on efforts to redraw school i attendance zones for next year to create more neighborhood schools and on plans to open a new Stephens Elementary School and adjacent city community center by August 2000. The board is expected to meet again in early November to get a more complete report on the costs and design for the new school at 18th and Valentine streets, which will house more than 640 students. The proposed school attendance zones are still being scrutinized, Superintendent Les Car- nine said. Should further changes be necessary, affected parents will be notified, he said. Parents of students who now attend school outside tlieir proposed attendance zone will be surveyed in early November about whether they want their children to attend their current school, their neighborhood school or otli- er schools next fall.
FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 'XX schools get favorable rating in finance study ' BY CYNTHIA HOWELL AllKANSAS UI.MIK HAl.liAZIJ ir ' ', A' Florida-based consulting firin' liircd last year to do a man- '. agemcnt and financial study of tlic Little Rock School District pre- . sented its completed report, in- eluding 72 recoinmendations for , iniprovemeiiL to the School Board .. on Thursday. Dr. Linda Rocio, senior partner . in MGT of America, Inc., of Talla- hassee, told the board that the vo- . luminous audit found that the ur- ban school district is generally well run. '
.' -Ilowever, there are significant ' "'opportunities to improve manage- inent, instructional delivciy, com- munication with internal and external stakeholders and financial ^laljility, she said. 'About two-thirds of the recom- inepdations in tire report wliich '.coiitains nine chapters and is sev-
ei
al hundred pages in length deal with the financial inanage- inent of the system. . 'i Recommendations include a \ .call for property tax increases, no '. ^atec than September 2000, to fi- .hpngc as much as $05 million in renovations and expansions to district buildings. . Still other recommendations call for an updated study on dis- trict facilities in light of teclmolo- gy needs as well as the planned sliift to middle schools and high school
three. 'it!'- four grades instead of "iRecio also rcconnnended ap- r pointinent of a chief financial officer and an internal auditor to re- port-dircctly to the school hoard, '. 'aild a review of district contract .' 'negotiating practices that would : eliminate outdated" practices 'outdated' such as automatic annual pay increases to employees for their ad- ditidnal year of experience. '. LThe report calls for slreamlin- \ing"the districts top adininistra- live,'
staff. Tlie reorganization 'should reduce the districts four .ijmiii divisions to three, by elimi- ^^Tpg the existing administrative '.Scfiiccs division and assigning du- ztlefi in that section to other divi- Sijbns. The administrative division ^dj^ntly includes school assign- "Dnjjht, desegregation, and persou- l^iJieCduties. " *'Tiic report suggests alternative revenue sources and recommends that'the district become more ag- .^essive in marketing itself to the public.' ftccio will return in May after boili'd members have had an opportunity to review the report and ,.iti [ecommendations. -iTlie $144,000 study was jointly commissioned last October by the School Board and the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, with' support from tire Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce :^nd Fifty for the Future. AI ArlcinsasDciuoGrdt T^OjiazeUv ) SUNDAY, APRIL 25. 1999 LR School District seeing finances sag, firms audit says Study suggests seeking tax increase, reconsideiing benefits to bolster funds BY CYNTHIA HOWELL ARKANSAS OEMOCRAT-OAZE'n E Financial conditions in the Little Rock School District are strained at best, according to a study of the districts financial and management operations. MGT of America, Inc., a Tallahassee. Fla., company, attributed tlie districts financial peril to the depletion of state desegregation funds and expenditures that exceed revenues. The MGT audit made 49 recommendations on how the states largest school district might bolster its financial health. Those proposals include asking voters for a tax increase, realigning expenditures to match revenues, building reserve funds, strengthening financial policies and reconsidering some longstanding employee benefits. MGT was hired last fall by a coalition of Little Rock organizations including the district, the Little Rock Alliance for Our Public Schools, Fifty For the Future and the Greater Little Rock Chamber of Commerce to do Uie six-month, $144,000 audit The district paid half the fee. Besides a comprehensive review of district financial practices, the audit team headed by Dr. Linda Recio also evaluated and made recommendations about facilities, instructional programs, community relations, the administrative organization and technology systems, including preparation for the 2000 conversion of computer systems. Superintendent Les Gamine and his staff arc reviewing Uie study. Tlipy will give In llip Srhnol Hinnl probably in July, a detailed plan and. time line for responding to most rec- . . - --------------- ommendations. However, a few of phasing in a reserve fund equal the proposed changes might be put to at least 5 percent of expenditures into place sooner. Gamine said last fw coping with emergencies. " ........................... Still otlier recommendations call week. Others might be phased in. and still otlieis modified or rejected. Im very open to doing some things, Gamine said. I think tlie staff is, too. It's just a matter of work--------.--------.------------------------- vancing sick and aimual leave to em- ing tlirough tliem over a period of ployees, and reconsidering the longtime. The report is pretty solid." standing practice of giving automatic Gamine said tlie auditore assessment of tlie districts financial condition was no surprise but a confirmation of what district officials have said. District officials are in die very earliest stages of plamiing a campaign for a voter-approved tax increase to support tlie schools, paitic- ularly some construction and renovation needs. The MGT auditors noted that the district got the last of its total ^3 million in state desegregation payments in 1996-97 and, Uiis year, drew | the final $3 million available from a j employee groups. $20 million low-interest loan from The existing teaching contract the state. Tlie district will not have to repay the loan if it can show that standanlized test scores of black students are witliin 90 percent of tlie scores of white students. District officials say they believe the district ha.s met that goal, but Ilie state has not yet confinned it There is currently no revenue source in siglit tliat will begin to compensate for tlie loss of these fund sources. the auditors said. To offset tlie loss of desegregation money, the district has taken 'UiPir p 1 Audit Continued from Page 1B money from its reseivcs to meet its expenses, they said. One scenario described by the auditors puts the district into a $1.1 million deficit by the end of the 1999-2000 school year and an $11 million hole by 2003. Those project- --------------------: , ' , . . ed deficits should be eased some- ^Quent superintendent changes in what by tlie recent $12 niillion state veal's resulted in insta- Feimbursement to the district for shortfalls in teacher retirement and health insurance payments. The re- imbui-scmcnl was not included in tlie initial calculations. Regardless of the [state reim- bursementj it is crucial tliat fiscal, bargaining and budgetary practices do not continue in a 'business as usual posture, die study said. Kecomniendations call for balancing revenues and expenditures for strengUieiiing board policies on budgeting, seeking a tax increase by late 2000, revising Uic practices of ad- pay increases for employee longevity. Tlie concept of automatic step increases is no longer as popular given todays environment of customer- based decision-making with accountability for results," the auditors said. Tliis practice clearly presents a liigli fiscal risk to tlie district." Auditois recommended an overall review of tlie districts contracts with its employees, pointing out tliat the district is not required by law to continue collective bargaining witli permits teachers to resign and take up to three years to be re-employed at the same salary and retain sick leave. The auditors suggested tliat provision be reconsidered. They also suggested Uiat the district curb overtime costs tliat increased 314 percent to $287,000 in 1998. Car allowances to employees should be reduced by 35 percent and payments of stipends belter controlled, auditor's said. Other suggestions in the study call for fonning partnerships with citys lop 10 taxpayers, updating current rental charges for district properties. and generating revenue from educational related advertising on district-owned buses and vehicles. The MGT study suggested extensive changes in tlie districts administrative structure, needed because bilily in the oiganizalional stiucLurc, 1 This poipetual change has ere- I ated a dysfunctional infrastructure with inefficiencies, duplication of , services, duplicative positions with overlapping responsibilities and a fragmented functional structure," auditore said. The {iroposed changes call for reducing divisions within the district from four to tliree. That can be accomplished by dismantling the existing administrative services division, currently headed by Associate Superintendent Junious Babbs. The sections witliin tlie administrative seivices division dese
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.